Looking for Truth, a sure way out of Mormonism?

[Guest]

Let's start with the definition of the truth. Here are some definitions of the word "truth" from Merriam-Webster:

(1) : the state of being the case : fact
(2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions

Uh, I don't get my definitions of truth from Webster. I don't know of a single epistemologist who does.

Well, rather than discussing it as an epistemologist how about just as a person? I mean how are we to discuss the concept of truth if we can't agree on what it is? How about this: since epistemologists don't like dictionaries, you give me your definition of truth and we'll go from there.

Edit:

It seems like what you said in another post is enough for me to work with.

No, seriously I was saying there is not an abstract entity called "Truth". Truth is a property of propositions-

"The earth is round" is true
"The earth is flat" is false.
.... at least in a modern-day context and understanding.

But there is no abstract Platonic form for "Truth" which exists floating "out there" somewhere.

You seem to be saying two contradictory things:

No such thing as tee-Truth, BUT:
"The earth is round" is true while "The earth is flat" is false.

How can one evaluate either of those statements as true without accepting that there is Truth?

Look at it this way: human language statements about Truth are like an asymptote of a line. In case some of our readers didn't like or can't remember high school math, an asymptote is sort of like taking a step that is half your present distance to a wall. You will never reach the wall, but you will forever get closer to it in ever tinier increments. Just because you cannot reach the wall doesn't mean there is no wall. It's one thing to comprehend that humans can never fully know Truth, but quite another to insist that Truth isn't real.

[_mfbukowski]

It seems like faith comes to mean nothing more than believing in something that one knows is false! ;-)

MF denies the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon, while saying that it does contain some spiritual truths. And I agree with that.

Now, as for his theology, I think it is wacko, but so long as he is a decent human being, there is no sense arguing about it with him.

Actually I don't deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

You might say I deny the historicity of historicity. It's often one guys story versus another guy's story. But that's ok- practically everything is like that.

I think there is a lot of evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon, at least as much as there is for major portions of the Bible.

As far as my theology being wacko, I know that's a technical term but no one is perfect.

[_cinepro]

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".

CFR that any ex-Mormon has complained that the parables they were taught as children are not literally "true".

[_mfbukowski]

Is this some kind of semantic theory of truth? If so, what kind?

Some kind of mix of John Dewey, William James and late Wittgenstein.

No Webster in there though!

[_Some Schmo]

You've got to love it when someone jumps into a thread, makes a declaration which is patently false, and then when called on it, moves the goal posts.

Oooohhhh... there's no philosophical truth! I get it! *rolls eyes* It would have been nice if you'd said that in the first place.

As it was, your comment was made in the context of Mormon truth claims, and most (a.k.a. chapel) Mormons certainly do not draw a distinction between philosophical truth and literal truth.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Is this some kind of semantic theory of truth? If so, what kind?

Some kind of mix of John Dewey, William James and late Wittgenstein.

No Webster in there though!

Interesting. I'll leave it at that, because there is line around the block for your attention and I don't like to dogpile on folk.

[_mfbukowski]

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".

CFR that any ex-Mormon has complained that the parables they were taught as children are not literally "true".

You're right.

The problem is that they tend not to recognize them as parables and so lose their faith over things like (dare I say this to Cinepro?) a global flood.

And yes, I know many GA's have taught a global flood too; and all the other stuff which will not be brought up- I regard those as statements of opinion which are not doctrinal.

Since this board does not have numbered posts and there is no way to refer to a single post, I guess I will have to notice the time stamp- so I can refer to this post often because I know it will come up again and again.

As you know Mormon "doctrine" is a rather nebulous area which is more about practice than dogma- I agree with Ostler on that one.

I suppose I should have not made my initial inflammatory post without sticking around to defend it, but I really don't feel like going over and over points I have made elsewhere- like at MADB.

But I will try to answer every question at least with a link to "where I get this stuff"

Edit: the time post says 9:48 am- assuming I have to refer to this post again. I hope that that is at least consistent

[_mfbukowski]

You've got to love it when someone jumps into a thread, makes a declaration which is patently false, and then when called on it, moves the goal posts.

Oooohhhh... there's no philosophical truth! I get it! *rolls eyes* It would have been nice if you'd said that in the first place.

As it was, your comment was made in the context of Mormon truth claims, and most (a.k.a. chapel) Mormons certainly do not draw a distinction between philosophical truth and literal truth.

I can't help the fact that you are not a careful reader.

Notice that I capitalized and put quotes around the word "Truth"- just as I did now.

Also please not that that is the terminology used in the OP. THAT was what I was responding to.

[_Some Schmo]

I can't help the fact that you are not a careful reader.

Um, don't blame me for your lack of clarity.

Notice that I capitalized and put quotes around the word "Truth"- just as I did now.

Yes, once, compared to the two or three times you apparently were using it interchangably with truth.

[_Chap]

[

Actually I don't deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

You might say I deny the historicity of historicity.

Like I said - cleverer than me. Like Bill Clinton is cleverer than me, perhaps.

But sometimes, when people try to get all clever about "what is truth" as MFB has ('I'm disagreeing with Plato - don't interrupt a conversation that is above your head"), I do sometimes consider alternative views. One of them is sheer bad faith, perhaps inadvertent:

Auditor: "Mr. MFB, your partner has transferred a large part of the business's fund to an offshore account by covert means."

MFB (picks up phone and dials partner) "The auditor says you have ripped me off. Have you? I want the truth now!"

Partner "Don't be so Platonic, MFB"

MFB: "Sorry, I see what you mean. Forget about it."

But perhaps in real life MFB does have a perfectly usable if philosophically vague concept of hard objective truth that serves him as well as it does the rest of us. If that is the case, what are we to make of all this oh-so-subtle word-juggling about truth when it comes to a religion that people solemnly and plainly proclaim they know to be true on F&T Sunday?