Looking for Truth, a sure way out of Mormonism?

[_Runtu]

Hmmm- disagree. I use the words as everyone else does- in my opinion, I just think they have not thought it through like I have rather obsessively and un-envyingly have. I don't think the correlation committee cares one iota about whether or not Mormons have a correspondence theory of truth or a coherence theory or a pragmatic theory- and from what I have seen at MADB and with Ostler and McMurrin and Paulsen- all of them are closer to what I think than to either a Platonic or Aristotelian view. And I think DCP is also in that camp somewhere. Honestly I think that the average guy just doesn't think about it much. I am just specialized in that area and have defined it more than the average guy- but I think that is what gets the average guy into trouble- most people get confused by it all.

I don't think the average guy cares at all. Some people would have a cow at this notion of nonrepresentational, pragmatic truth. Joseph Fielding Smith would have had you drawn and quartered. And Sterling McMurrin isn't exactly a good example of someone who managed to merge philosophy with Mormonism.

I don't recall anyone ever discussing philosophy from the pulpit or even in a classroom. Of course I don't live in Utah. Honestly, it would be like discussing astrophysics or something. It doesn't have much to do with the gospel really. Just plain different context. Who talks about the nature of language in church?

People talk about the nature of reality all the time in church. As I said, you've managed to make it work, and I respect that. I just find it interesting that you don't recognize the parts of the institution that would find your take on reality threatening and apostate.

[_Euthyphro]

Hmmm- disagree. I use the words as everyone else does- in my opinion, I just think they have not thought it through like I have rather obsessively and un-envyingly have.

Lol. No, you don't.

You say things like "There is no "Truth"- truth is a property of a given sentence and context- it is linguistic[...]" Float that idea in a priesthood meeting and see how far it goes.

So, in the context of a discussion of historical facts and how they are represented by the church you said: "Anyone who thinks that truth is unchanging doesn't understand what truth is." People who read Joseph's original post supposed that you mean the literal facts of history are completely malleable by its re-telling. In the case of LDS church history I think it would be pretty hard to deny that the official account of many unflattering events omits quite a bit, and those of us who would like to know all we can, or who trust the church to be forthcoming about history feel betrayed by this rather cynical tactic.

mfb, you are only paying lip service to the linkage between the truth of a statement and its relationship to "Truth" or if you prefer, actuality, or whatever it is you call reality as far as we are able to observe it. When we press you to explain these little handgrenades you tossed over our wall what we finally got out of you still doesn't really jive with what you originally said in context.

[_Tarski]

Anyone who thinks that truth is unchanging doesn't understand what truth is.

There is no "Truth"- truth is a property of a given sentence and context- it is linguistic-

I have found for the most part that ex Mormons tend to be fundamentalists who are disappointed when they find out that the parables they were taught as children are not literally "true".

They never understood them from the beginning!

I am going to suggest that Mr. Mfbukowski suspend his faith in anglo-postmodern wisdom long enough to read the short little book entitled
"Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism" by Paul A. Boghossian.

I am a partially recovered relativist myself but one should understand the counter-arguments (and they are substantial).

The reader of the book will be invited to discover how assertions of relativism are either obviously, boringly and uncontroversially true or --if taken with a more radial and interesting reading--just self defeating and false.

I beg you--READ IT


The fact that there are an infinite number of prime numbers or the fact that green plants like trees employ photosynthesis are just truths ---and truths in roughly the sense that most educated people think.

There is a simple well known and intuitive sense in which the church is either true as it claims or not and we all know what we are talking about when we say this despite the word games and despite the philosophical posturing.
In this sense, the church is not true. Face it!

[_Scottie]

You say things like "There is no "Truth"- truth is a property of a given sentence and context- it is linguistic[...]" Float that idea in a priesthood meeting and see how far it goes.

I agree. If there is no "Truth", then it stands to reason that there can be no "Mistakes" or "Errors".

Ask any Mormon why the restoration was necessary. The answer: "Because plain and precious TRUTHS had been lost." (although the truths are anything but plain and precious. No, they are overly complex and needlessly arbitrary... but that is a different thread)

By MF's definition, I still can't see why a restoration was needed. Truth is all subjective anyways.

[_Markk]

I am about out of here for today but - a good question.

In short I think you have to believe in exaltation to get there.

Another way of saying it is that the church has the only keys to the right ordinances to allow you to achieve the Celestial Kingdom.

Two ways of saying the same thing.

But say you left the church because you honestly believed it was right to leave?

Your opinion might change in the afterlife, when (say) "the baggage" is gone and you see things clearer- and then you can get there anyway.

But you MUST be honest with yourself. No liars allowed. You can't fool God.

MFB

Then the ONLY path is by the teachings of Joseph Smith and by ordinances that one can only get from the Mormon church and the authority of it’s members?

Even in the after life according to LDS teaching one must accept “Mormon Doctrine” which will be taught in the spirit world.

I’m not sure how this equates to another path?

Is this a fair observation of your way to the presence of God ( no particular order):

Christ’s atonement, belief in Christ, accepting LDS doctrine, belief in exaltation, required ordinances, merit and duty, Joseph Smith approval=Exaltation

MG

[_mfbukowski]

MFB, according to your theories of reality, how do you react to my statement, "My reality is not the Mormon "reality." or, "Nothing is real because everyone perceives it differently." or, "Reality is in the mind of the beholder." or "Is there Ultimate Truth?" or "There is no reality, because everyone perceives things differently." or "MFB has reconstructed the LDS faith and his perception of reality so that he is comfortable with his belief system." or "MFB is proselytizing a heresy within the LDS church."

and statements of similar meaning?

Please bring the discourse down to the basics, so ordinary people can understand what you are talking about.

Well I am sorry- this is about as basic as I can make it. I have been thinking this way now for about 40 years so it is second nature - no, not even that- first nature to speak this way.

But at least it is time tested....!

I guess in a sense there are different realities, but the great unifier is language. If you start talking about your reality it really won't matter much because language gives us the common reality.

But of course there are different types of propositions, aren't there? There are "first person" grammatical propositions like "I am hungry"... tired, thirsty etc- what most people would call "subjective statements". Only I can know if those are true or false.

Then there are "third person statements" like "His name is Ron", or The distance to the moon is___ miles" or practically everything else.

Those statements are statements that all of us agree on in perception- they include all the statements of history, science, - just about everything. They are "objective" to one degree or another.

So in a sense there are separate realities- we live in our own- but when we speak, we are magically automatically in "communal reality".

This is where I differ from Runtu. He feels we cannot escape language even within ourselves, if I got that right. He likes Saussure, I like Wittgenstein. There is a little difference there.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

[_mfbukowski]

Yes that's about it. But you are looking at EARLY Wittgenstein- and he later repudiated most of the Tractatus- I like Philosophical Investigations much more. But it's a little tricky- he teaches there by examples- don't expect to read "what he believes"- he teaches you how to see language by giving you examples- drills as it were. It is written more like you are learning a language- (which you really are) than like a "philosophy book".

.....

Close- you are matching a context with another context sort of. It's not like it is two different things to be matched- it's more like sorting mail. You put the letter in the right box. But you could get it wrong and put it in the wrong box.

That is called a "category error". An example would be: "Is virtue blue or red"?- you put the letter in the wrong box-- virtue is neither blue nor red. You put virtue in the "color" box.

Another example is: "Truth is a property of things". Wrong box. Truth is a property of propositions.

Google "category errors" for a million other examples.

Gotcha. Is there a reality beyond human thought and the contexts that we use to categorize it?

How would we know about it if there was? The short answer is "no".

[_mfbukowski]

By MF's definition, I still can't see why a restoration was needed. Truth is all subjective anyways.

Tell that to a scientist. I would never say anything like "truth is subjective".

There are statements which are subjective which may be true or false- like "I am hungry"- you can't know if it's true or not- only I can- but truth is not "subjective".

Were that the case, there would be no science and nothing would work.

[_Joseph]

"But would it matter to you if the church tomorrow rejected all of its historical claims? Would it still be true?"

No, not if you believe what LDS Presidents and Apostles have taught from Joseph Smith down to our time. If the historical "Truth" of the Book of Mormon were abandoned or admitted to be false by LDS leadership then nothing based on this 'revealed scripture' would hold water. A nice basic quasi-moral code, but one can get that from Holy Rollers, Baptists, Hutterites, Amish or Catholics.

The Historical Truth of the Book of Mormon is 'the cornerstone' of LDS teachings. In some ways it is a shame nothing at all has been found to show even part of it as truth.

[_mfbukowski]

You say things like "There is no "Truth"- truth is a property of a given sentence and context- it is linguistic[...]" Float that idea in a priesthood meeting and see how far it goes.....


mfb, you are only paying lip service to the linkage between the truth of a statement and its relationship to "Truth" or if you prefer, actuality, or whatever it is you call reality as far as we are able to observe it. When we press you to explain these little handgrenades you tossed over our wall what we finally got out of you still doesn't really jive with what you originally said in context.

I would say anything I say here in a priesthood meeting and all I would get is snores. They all know I am crazy anyway. They also know I have a testimony and that is all that matters.

And please tell me what you mean by an "actuality" that no one can see feel or talk about. Anything we can see and observe and we all see it and feel it (leaving out pink elephants that only I see) we can talk about and agree if the whatso-meter registers "10" or "87".

That is "objective"- it is what the whatso-meter registers. What that means however, is a context we have invented- in fact, we even invented the whatso-meter itself to register the waves or whatever we want it to measure.

Everett/DeWitt's interpretation posits a single universal wavefunction, but with the added proviso that "reality" from the point of view of any single observer, "you", is defined as a single path in time through the superpositions. That is, "you" have a history that is made of the outcomes of measurements you made in the past, but there are many other "yous" with slight variations in history. Under this system our reality is one of many similar ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

Come on you guys, I thought you were all supposed to be all scientific and all

This stuff should be familiar to you.