Looking for Truth, a sure way out of Mormonism?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hi Euthyphro,

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.

I think mfbukowski would agree with that. Again, I don't think he is stating that truth is subjective or that truth is some evolving thing. Look a bit closer at what he said here:

... Truth is a property of propositions...

This is an important part of what he's saying here. Let's apply this to the Pluto example:

P1: Pluto is a planet.

P2: Pluto is a dwarf planet.

If I understand mfbukowski correctly, the structure of language and rational argument can be understood only if we make a distinction between the sense of our words, and their reference. 'Pluto the planet' has a different sense from 'Pluto the dwarf planet', but it refers to the same thing. The sense of a phrase is what we understand when we understand it. The reference is the object or concept picked out (Pluto) is the chunk of rock and ice that is the ninth celestial body from our sun. The distinction between sense and reference runs through all language. Names and descriptions, predicates and relational terms, prepositions and connectives all have both a sense and a reference.

There is a deep relation here between language and truth and if we assign P1 or P2 a 'truth value' like true or false, from a logical point of view, the truth value stands to the sentence as the object stands to it's name.

[_Euthyphro]

MrStakhanovite,

Hopefully, what mfb meant when he said truth changes or "There is no 'Truth'" was that humans cannot absolutely capture Truth with language. Language is rather a crude tool for exchanging ideas, but it's all we have until someone perfects the Vulcan mind meld. This was Wittgenstein's biggest thesis, and you know, it ain't much. I kinda gathered that without needing to read a book on the subject. In fact, probably for most investigators of philosophy this becomes obvious when they hit one of Kant's wall-o'-text paragraphs.

But I think mfb went further than that when he said "[...]there is no abstract Platonic form for 'Truth' which exists floating 'out there' somewhere." Rubbish! Yes, there is. It is false (and ironic) to propose that Truth is bounded by our imperfect means to express it.

[_mfbukowski]

One just has to choose words carefully, then one can state truths. Can't one?

Of course!

But the more abstract the terms the harder it is to come up with definitions which are precise enough.

In a court of law, it takes 12 people to vote on what is legally decided to be a "fact". And if the vote doesn't go right, the fact is not one at all.

And what precisely would a "reasonable man" do? There is quite a lot of variation in that

[_mfbukowski]

Look here, mfb, there can be no response like "it depends" to a question like: "Was there really a Lehi and his family, who left Jerusalem before it was sacked by Babylon, or did some 19th century man or men just make that story up?"

One thing or the other happened or some third thing, but in any case one can construct a statement that closely matches Truth suitable enough for human purposes. If you claim that since we cannot know which of these it was and therefore Truth does not exist and this is what Wittgenstein taught you then I am afraid I am quite disappointed.

No one is disputing that SOMETHING HAPPENED in the past.

It is just awfully hard to figure out what happened. Did Moses write Genesis? Yes or no?

Who was Zoroaster and when did he live? Did he actually live or was he a legend. You would say "one has to be true" and I suppose that is correct- the only problem is we cannot know what is true (always with precision) in the past. That something happened is not the issue- what happened might be.

I think there was a Lehi. Your opinion may vary. No one can prove it conclusively either way, and at a certain point it is totally irrelevant.

Just as the story of Adam and Eve has value on its own, so do other scriptural stories have value pragmatically on their own. Whether or not they "happened" and precisely what that would mean is irrelevant AND UNKNOWABLE.

That is what "faith" is for. We all exercise it, like it or not.

[_bcspace]

In visiting with a friend who is faithful LDS we got on the topic of 'TRUTH' and The Church. There were a few of us there who have known each other since before High School, all now in our 60's. Highest Church calling on the regional Rep level with many Temple,Stake, Ward, Mission and Branch callings from teaching to leadership/administration.

The basic agreement was that faith is needed because TRUTH seems to be changing with the times and historical Truth, even as written by past LDS Church officials is ignored, swept under the carpet or outright changed. Past teachings in manuals is now hidden in too many instances.

Those still faithful said Faith is the reason, they have Faith that 'something is there' even as the Truth in The Church is changing, being denied and ignored. Gordon B. Hinckleys 'I don't know that we believe that' and Polygamy is Doctrinal hit a few very hard. One a former BYU and Seminary teacher said that one hit his trust in Leadership hard and has him questioning anything that comes out of Church Headquarters. Add in the Mall, various business ventures and corporate thinking rather than serving the members in too many ways and those still active and participating find themselves backed into FAITH because reason and TRUTH does not support what they have been taught and in too many instances what Church publications plainly show from the past

I've heard a lot of these claims, uninnoculated as it were, hearing them for the first time in hostile situations, and yet I don't disbelieve. I've investigated every one of these criticisms and found them to be, well, unfounded.

[_mfbukowski]

The sense of a phrase is what we understand when we understand it.

Yep, that's a good part of it. But the context is also what is important.

If I said to you the word "Brick" and looked at you expectantly, like I wanted you to do something, that word would make no sense whatsoever.

Suppose then you said "no" and I got angry.

You would stare at me like I was crazy. It would make no sense- it would be like two insane people just speaking jibberish.

But if we were laying bricks and making a brick wall together, and I said the same thing in the same way, you would understand in that context that what I was saying was "Please hand me a brick".

And if you said "no" and I got angry- it would make sense. I might be an irritable jerk, but the exchange would make sense and be intelligible

The meaning is in the context as much as it is in the words. In one context, Pluto is a planet and in another it is not.

I find it fascinating that scientists "discover" "new" species of fish in fish markets in the orient. Happens all the time.

People have been catching these fish for years, know how to prepare them, which parts are good and which are bad, where to catch them using what kind of bait-- but science has not classified them as a "species"- so when some scientist comes along, the species is suddenly "discovered" just as America was by Columbus.

The context is changed- and "truth" is changed with it. Suddenly a new species or a new continent- a "new world" blinks into existence.

[_mfbukowski]

MrStakhanovite,

Hopefully, what mfb meant when he said truth changes or "There is no 'Truth'" was that humans cannot absolutely capture Truth with language. Language is rather a crude tool for exchanging ideas, but it's all we have until someone perfects the Vulcan mind meld. This was Wittgenstein's biggest thesis, and you know, it ain't much. I kinda gathered that without needing to read a book on the subject. In fact, probably for most investigators of philosophy this becomes obvious when they hit one of Kant's wall-o'-text paragraphs.

But I think mfb went further than that when he said "[...]there is no abstract Platonic form for 'Truth' which exists floating 'out there' somewhere." Rubbish! Yes, there is. It is false (and ironic) to propose that Truth is bounded by our imperfect means to express it.

I didn't know you were religious.

Yet you believe in things you cannot see or prove exist. Interesting. Truth exists independent of language. Yep, you are definitely a Neoplatonist. Do you like transubstantiation too?

After all , that relies on an underlying "substance" which no one can see or measure also, which exists independently of anything else.

[_Dr. Shades]

Hey mfbukowski, if truth is relative and is nothing more than a linguistic artifact anyway, what's the point of being a Mormon?

[_Sethbag]

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 would agree with you, MFB. I learned that the Parable of the First Vision wasn't literally true. I also learned the Parable of the Book of Mormon, also not literally true. And the Parable of the Book of Abraham, not literally true. I totally agree with you that it was hard to maintain my faith after learning that these weren't literally true.

I also learned that Joseph Smith was having sex with several dozen other women behind Emma's back, in ways that I cannot imagine any just and loving Creator of the Universe would wish it to happen. Unfortunately this wasn't a parable. It turned out this was literally true.

[_Joseph]

Bukowski wrote: "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."

Can you show me ONE piece of solid evidence? I have looked and can't find any that actually point to Nephite/Lamanite/any-ite types in The New World.

Add in the LDS Member from Salina, Utah who asked B. H. Roberts the following:
1. Linguistics: Riter asked-if the American Indians were all descendants of Lehi-why there was such diversity in the languages of the American Indians and why there was no indication of Hebrew in any of the Indian languages?

2. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi found horses when he arrived in America. The horse described in the Book of Mormon (as well as many other domestic animals) did not exist in the New World before the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors.

3. Nephi is stated to have had a "bow of steel." Jews did not know steel at that time. And there was no iron smelted on this continent until after the Spaniard conquest.

4. The Book of Mormon frequently mentions "swords and scimiters (scimitars)." Scimitars are unknown until the rise of the Moslem faith (after 600 A.D.).

5. The Book of Mormon says the Nephites possessed silk. Silk did not exist in America in pre-Columbian times.

---------------------

The Book of Mormon is a fairy tale and belongs in the Religious Fiction section of the Library.