Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,411 Excellent

About clarkgoble

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Recent Profile Visitors

1,683 profile views
  1. Hard to know for sure what was going on. Without going into details there was a MP in the 80's in the midwest telling sister missionaries to stop wearing garments and dress sexy to get into doors. Don't know if anything else was going on but someone I know in the mission called his Stake President over it. Unfortunately the person the Church sent to investigate was a friend of the MP and (according to the person in the mission) wasn't exactly doing a good job in the investigation. He wasn't released but did tone things down a bit, but was still seen as extremely creepy. In my own mission there wasn't that sort of problem, but a MP who had more or less abrogated doing his job and let the APs run wild. Unfortunately the APs really were wild and started up what they called a secret combination. To enter the combination you had to break all mission rules. (Yes including the big F) Nearly everyone in two zones were excommunicated when the Church found out about it. So bad things happen and the usual way the Church finds out about it is via Stake Presidents - either local or from home wards of missionaries. And let's not forget the infamous French mission in the 50's where a mission president started up polygamy with many of the sister missionaries. That probably lurks in the background of all this.
  2. clarkgoble

    The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

    I've never heard of a Mormon who thinks they can be perfect in this life. I've met a few who go a bit overboard into comparing themselves to others and getting caught up in what some call checklist Mormonism. However it's rather easy to show that's not Mormonism. Heaven knows there's plenty of GA talks warning against this. There's two things we have to recognize. First off that we can be better than we are. Second that it is by grace we are saved. We'll always fall short of God.
  3. clarkgoble

    The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

    I reject the model that makes a break between mind and world. In that Mark and I are in agreement. This position is usually called externalism. I'm also quite distrustful of theories that equate mind to consciousness, brain or nervous system. I just don't think that works. It seems an arbitrary boundary. So your confusion is because you're trying to fit my criticisms into a more traditional view of mind. But it's precisely that Cartesian inspired view that I'm opposing. Yes. I've never claimed we know things in their totality. Merely that the objects are given to us in experience. In the phenomena they are given to us in what we might say is errancy. So I'm most definitely not saying there's infallibility. I've been arguing quite the opposite. Just that there's not a divide between the mind and objects. First I'd say I reject Rorty's tendency to reduce things to talk. (I'm sure how universal this is to his thought) I'd be more than happy to reduce things to signs but not talk. Linguistics is just too limited here. So my rejoinder would be to say that objects are themselves signs. So it's signs all the way down which I think avoids Rorty's objection which hinges on a gap between "things" and language. If it's all signs then that objection disappears and avoids the human-centric analysis which I think causes Rorty problems.
  4. Just like Judas - clearly Christ didn't have the gift of discernment.
  5. clarkgoble

    The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

    But again internal to the body not necessarily the mind. That's more or less what I'm getting at. Internal/external are somewhat problematic terms when put in physicalist terms. To the first part all I'm saying is that the perspective on the objects we encounter shouldn't be separated from the object. To draw an analogy suppose you fall asleep driving and hit a tree. Now we can't talk about your perspective on the tree at all. But we don't want to say you haven't hit the tree. Now you may object and say it's the perspective of the person making that claim, which is fine. But that's not an objection to talking about reference and relation. Ultimately all I'm saying is that we can talk about relations between objects that seem logically prior to talking about perspectives. The counterpoint (that I assume Mark would make although I don't want to guess his position since I've got it wrong before) would be that to talk about the object we have a perspective with first requires a perspective. So there's a chicken/egg problem. My rejoinder would be we can abstract from our encounters with objects the general idea of objects and relations. Once you have that inductively arrived at the rest follows logically.
  6. clarkgoble

    The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

    To make a claim about what is or isn't internal you need to be able to define exactly the boundary. Are you sure you want to do that via the skin or nerves? Also for a Mormon the mind isn't necessarily equivalent to the biological nervous system. More to the point, nerves leading up to the brain, while part of the nervous system, seem just as much intermediaries for my experience of objects as other mediaries are such as photons or phonons in the air.
  7. What I meant was that there is a continuum between completely and totally reliable and unreliable. You certainly seem to be saying what's not totally reliable is the not worth it. Maybe that's not what you mean. Now I'm confused what exactly your position is. My position is that totally reliable is unobtainable if God respects free will and the probation of his servants. Thus we'll have a degree of unreliableness but overall it's reasonably reliable. I don't expect much more than that. Clearly you do but it's not clear why that's a problem or why God should invalidate free will to achieve it.
  8. clarkgoble

    The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

    I'm saying in knowing there's a relationship - both are present. To make a gap is to return to Cartesianism. IMO. This is the basic issue in externalism vs. internalism. Certainly as we experience thing we experience only traces of them rather them in their wholeness. But they're still there.
  9. Umm, isn't the idea it's accessible to all pretty core Christian doctrine? Certainly the gift of the Holy Ghost as a permanent accompanment is more significant. But the idea God answers prayers and inspires people who bother to listen is foundational. How on earth would anyone be baptized without that? Tying that to the specialness of the Church seems incorrect. What makes the Church special are the authorized ordinances. So nothing matters unless we can get rid of free will? You really believe that?
  10. clarkgoble

    The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

    Pretty sure when people talk about heart they're being metaphoric. Of course just having had heart surgery maybe I'm a bit sensitive about feeling things in my heart. But I think the reference is more to Romans 10:10. "for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." That and of course the famous Luke 24:32. But it's not the metaphor I'd use to describe the holy ghost's witness. But some like that metaphor. I think the metaphoric idea --- let's be clear we're not being literal here -- is that belief happens in the heart (not necessarily a choice) and we recognize it by looking to the heart. But what does the heart do (in this metaphoric sense)? It feels whereas the mind thinks. Again, not what's really happening but once you see how the metaphor progresses it makes sense.
  11. clarkgoble

    The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

    I suspect we're all equivocating over perspective. Certainly experience is essentially perspectival in nature. To suggest that somehow we're not "down to the thing" in experience doesn't seem to follow though. Put an other way if experience is us and a relation to the thing and that relation is perspective in nature, then that means the thing is part of that by definition.
  12. It's definitely speaking to the church, but I'm not sure I find your argument convincing. If it said, "every man in the Church..." I'd agree with you. But I don't think it makes sense to limit "every man" to "every man in the Church" without good reason. If it intended that then that's an odd way to put it (IMO). But it's somewhat beside the point since you seem to admit later that it's Church doctrine that non-Mormons can have spiritual gifts. In which case I'll not debate the exegesis of 46 (and I'll fully admit yours is a valid reading) since the whole issue was whether Mormons think non-Mormons can have gifts. I think we have to distinguish between the Church in aggregate and with respect to every particular. Put an other way, you are saying that if the Church is special those gifts are had by all and are always attended to. But of course that makes little sense if there is free will. The gifts tend to not function if you are not exercising faith and are not in tune with the spirit. So if leaders have free will, then they are able to not always be full of faith or in tune with the spirit. I'm sure if you talked to anyone in a leadership position they'd admit mistakes and not always listening to the spirit. At least every leader I've talked with has said that. The few minor leadership positions I held were certainly like that. The spirit isn't going to supersede the person. Put an other way, I think you're trying to make "special" something it's not.
  13. clarkgoble

    church-owned businesses pay tithing?

    Yes and the way he is fulfilling his promise is by telling them to invest. It's not like the Church isn't also spending a lot on members.
  14. clarkgoble

    The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

    The thing is the thing I'm experiencing not just a perspective. That's putting experience only in my head. But experience is not just me but with the objects I'm encountering. Certainly I can be wrong about the objects but to say I'm wrong about an object in my experience is to logically presuppose the object in question. So I'm rejecting a Cartesian view where there's a divide between the knower and the thing known. There's just experience. This isn't to say our knowledge isn't limited. It is. But that's also not to make an absolute divide between the knower and thing known. Rather than address the other comments I'll just note they all depend upon that gap along with the particular type of holism you espouse. That's fine. Once we see we share very different foundational beliefs then the rest follows. No sense just going through things that are just applications of those differences. I just think holism of that sort wrong.
  15. Depends upon how you interpret "every man" (which was in that era often seen as including women such as in "mankind.") To assume this is just referring to Mormons seems an uncommon interpretation. (Although I have encountered it a few times among Mormon writers) The reading that it's just to Mormons usually looks to verse 10 "I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your aminds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church." However it doesn't say they are only given to the Church. But certainly as needed spiritual gifts come in handy and often are tied to particular stewardships. The traditional reading is the broader one though since there's a strong tradition that God works among all people and inspires them even if they don't have the fulness. Indeed there were Church pamphlets saying that many of events in the reformation as well as the founding of America were tied to spiritual gifts. If the founders and key figures of the reformation were inspired in what they did, then that's a spiritual gift. I've never seen a statement saying that only Mormons have spiritual gifts. Certainly there's a tradition that gifts were often rejected. That's not the same thing of course. The closest I could find was this talk by Elder Oaks where he says the spiritual gifts require first the gift of the Holy Ghost. However note that he says this after giving examples of people having gifts prior to their conversion. So his actual position is more complex than the language might appear. Also note that he gives examples of women in the Old Testament without the gift of the Holy Ghost exercising gifts.