Engaging Mormon Apologetics

[_MrStakhanovite]

Well you are right- and that is the problem you are going to have pushing any kind of "ontology" in the 21st century.

Certainly I think it would not be impressive to Mormons, considering we have no ontology whatsoever.

I don't even understand how that is possible.

[_Darth J]

Certainly I think it would not be impressive to Mormons, considering we have no ontology whatsoever.

So much for fast and testimony meeting, then. Or maybe it could be modified:

"I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. But, of course, how can we really know anything?"

"I know that the Book of Mormon is true. That depends on your point of view, though, and what you mean by 'true.'"

I guess we can now disregard the Doctrine and Covenants as well.

And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

D&C 93:24

EDIT: I am aware that my remarks about F&T meeting overlap ontology and epistemology. But do you really know whether they overlap?

[_mfbukowski]

I don't even understand how that is possible.

Ok then, please explain to me the Mormon theory of "Being" and how it relates to morality.

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

I missed it somewhere I think.

[_mfbukowski]

Certainly I think it would not be impressive to Mormons, considering we have no ontology whatsoever.

So much for fast and testimony meeting, then. Or maybe it could be modified:

"I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. But, of course, how can we really know anything?"

"I know that the Book of Mormon is true. That depends on your point of view, though, and what you mean by 'true.'"

I guess we can now disregard the Doctrine and Covenants as well.

And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

D&C 93:24

EDIT: I am aware that my remarks about F&T meeting overlap ontology and epistemology. But do you really know whether they overlap?

Please point out which point to ontology. I guess I don't know what I am talking about.

What IS the nature of existence?

[_Darth J]

Please point out which point to ontology. I guess I don't know what I am talking about.

What IS the nature of existence?

That would be the existence of an absolute truth like in D&C 93 (ontology) which we are able to know through "the Spirit" (epistemology).

The LDS Church does have an ontology. That discussion about this ontology is not well-developed is a different question.

[_Gadianton]

No Darth J, it's important that the Church has no ontology because mfb is a committed pragmatist. Because it's vague, as you say, one can smuggle any theory about reality into the gospel. The reason why its vague isn't because God is so deep, but because the founders of the Church were a bunch of rubes who came up empty. Because they came up empty, the blanks can be filled in retrospect. It's amazing how weaknesses turn into strengths.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Ok then, please explain to me the Mormon theory of "Being" and how it relates to morality.

An Ontology is generally a discussion of what things can or cannot exist. If I said that brute moral facts exist and you said, "no they didn't" we would have different Ontologies.

[_Darth J]

No Darth J, it's important that the Church has no ontology because mfb is a committed pragmatist. Because it's vague, as you say, one can smuggle any theory about reality into the gospel. The reason why its vague isn't because God is so deep, but because the founders of the Church were a bunch of rubes who came up empty. Because they came up empty, the blanks can be filled in retrospect. It's amazing how weaknesses turn into strengths.

Gadianton, I appreciate how you can see prophecy being fulfilled.

And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

Ether 12:27

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'm pretty sure mfbukowski and I were thinking of different things. It's a simple misunderstanding.

[_mfbukowski]

Ok then, please explain to me the Mormon theory of "Being" and how it relates to morality.

An Ontology is generally a discussion of what things can or cannot exist. If I said that brute moral facts exist and you said, "no they didn't" we would have different Ontologies.

Well I think it is a genuine disagreement by this definition, but that's ok. I can't recall any discussions of what "can or cannot exist" in Mormon thought. I myself would not engage in such a discussion- I think such discussions ultimately hinge on what we can KNOW about what "exists" so for me, I suppose, in that definition, my epistemology encompasses what you term "ontology".

I usually think of ontology in terms of Platonic forms or Heidegger's "Being and Nothingness" or even Whitehead for that matter- (I would love to see him more generally accepted by Mormons)

Having been raised Catholic, I suppose I am prone to a strict definition of "ontology".

OK well anyway, how then does morality relate to "what can or cannot exist" in LDS theology?

I still don't have a clue what you are getting at. You don't have to hurry- I just hate going back and forth without getting to the point. Take all the time you want- just let's get to it, ok?

Oh- and someone spoke about "Truth" capital T like it was a "Thing" which exists- for me truth is a property of propositions nothing more or less- for me truth has nothing to do with ontology.

We have been over that ad infinitum on other threads here, so I am not going to start that whole thing over again.