Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scott Lloyd

Temple recommend interview questions

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There are no facts only interpretations. :)

I see you saying that and I wonder if you would interpret what you mean as a matter of fact.

I think the phrase may be fun to say but I do not believe that statement is factually correct.  I would rather say facts are interpreted without dismissing the idea that there are actually things which we call facts.

Anyway just thought I would throw that out there since we've been off topic for quite a while now in this thread.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I see you saying that and I wonder if you would interpret what you mean as a matter of fact.

I think the phrase may be fun to say but I do not believe that statement is factually correct.  I would rather say facts are interpreted without dismissing the idea that there are actually things which we call facts.

Anyway just thought I would throw that out there since we've been off topic for quite a while now in this thread.  

Ahab! I agree with you. Let’s mark this momentous occasion in our calendars and celebrate it every year 😁

The Achilles heel of relativism is that it states its claims as absolutes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you say so. 
 

I do tend to stick to normative definitions of words, as I’ve shown here. 

And who defines "normative" and what proves the definers to be correct?  

The amorphous "THEY"? ;)

They should know, after all,  that's what they say, so it must be right

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And who defines "normative" and what proves the definers to be correct?  

The amorphous "THEY"? ;)

They should know, after all,  that's what they say, so it must be right

 

In this case, it was the dictionary I consulted (don’t recall the name). 

I trust standard dictionaries; normative is their stock-in-trade. 
 

We have to have normative definitions, else we are not well served by the language. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this case, it was the dictionary I consulted (don’t recall the name). 

I trust standard dictionaries; normative is their stock-in-trade. 
 

We have to have normative definitions, else we are not well served by the language. 

From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. 

I recently had a conversation with someone about what it means to be Christian and he thought I was bonkers, or something like that, by suggesting that a Hindu can be Christian, too.  He thought a Hindu was by definition non-Christian, as if a Hindu cannot be led by Christ in some sense or to some degree and thus be Christian to the degree the Hindu person, so labeled, can then be referrerd to as Christian.  And while still being Hindu, in some degree, too.

It may not be normal to think in these terms but with a little common sense I think most people can follow the logic and reasonably understand how anyone can be Christian by simply following Christ in some way, even if they're not as Christian as some other Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Ahab said:

I see you saying that and I wonder if you would interpret what you mean as a matter of fact.

I think the phrase may be fun to say but I do not believe that statement is factually correct.  I would rather say facts are interpreted without dismissing the idea that there are actually things which we call facts.

Anyway just thought I would throw that out there since we've been off topic for quite a while now in this thread.  

What kinds of "things" did you have in mind?   How much do they weigh?  I must say I have never heard of a "fact" being a "thing", I always thought they were true propositions.

Do you really think that the thousands of philosophers who take that position have never thought of that??  

If truth is relative did it occur to you that those who defend that position KNOW that even that proposition is only "relatively true"?  

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/#HisDef

Quote

The deflationary theory has been one of the most popular approaches to truth in the twentieth century, having received explicit defense by Frege, Ramsey, Ayer, and Quine, as well as sympathetic treatment from many others. (According to Dummett 1959, the view originates with Frege.) The following passages all contain recognizable versions of the doctrine, though they differ on points of detail.

These mentioned figures are only the superstars of philosophy who take this position- and then there are all the non-superstar average college professors and then the armchair guys like me who are far down the ladder of fame, if even on the first step.

What folks who have not studied it do not understand  is that many people take it as a given that the only thing that can prove a statement as "true" is scientific , "factual evidence" which can be observed by anyone objectively.

That would mean that for God to exist, He would have to be available to be SEEN by every person on earth in a factually true, scientific way.

That is not possible, therefore according to that view- that truth is based only on "facts" , then God does not exist.    

There are no objectively verifiable "facts" which justify belief in God. 

So either you believe in God in a way BEYOND VERIFIABLE FACTS to justify your belief or you must rationally be an atheist.

We call that way "beyond beyond verifiable facts"  "The spirit".

What the spirit tells us are not objectively verifiable facts.  If you are confused about what makes a "fact" think in terms of what a court of law would accept as "evidence"

You tell the judge that you believe in God.  The lawyer asks you for evidence. You say "I feel it in my heart, because the spirit told me".

Would they accept that as evidence?

This is in fact the basis for all the arguments of all the misled "new atheists" out there who take it for granted that belief in God requires some kind of mental deficiency- or delusion- that people are brain-washed into believing.  If you have ever read or heard arguments from atheists you will find these ridiculous and ignorant statements everywhere!

To NOT understand that "truth is relative"- ie: that there are many different ways beyond objective facts to justify true propositions-  is to NEVER be able to show that the belief in God is rational in any fashion.  Let me say that again in a different way.  If you do not believe in some sort of relative truth you cannot rationally justify belief in God. 

This is the position I take here and have now for years in discussing the nature of truth and showing how one CANNOT rationally accept that God exists while holding the position that there are other ways of showing "truth" than scientific truth.

I uphold General Authorities and prophets who understand that truth operates in "spheres" as it says in section 93.

If truth exists in spheres- one mode for example for religious truth and another for scientific truth -- in other words a "relativistic" view of truth-  IT IS PERFECTLY rational to believe in God!

If one does NOT believe that a relativistic way of seeing truth ie: one sort of truth for religion and another sort of truth for science- is the ONLY way to justify belief in God then one does not understand the arguments about what constitutes "truth".

There could be other rational ways of believing in God but as long as most people think that scientific evidence is necessary for theism, theism has no hope.

What you do not understand is that I am DEFENDING belief in God in the only way it works to do so.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ahab! I agree with you. Let’s mark this momentous occasion in our calendars and celebrate it every year 😁

The Achilles heel of relativism is that it states its claims as absolutes. 

Sorry to use the term, but that is not true.  ;)

I guess I have no choice but to hit the old Rorty video.   Notice what he says about truth.

I find it continually amusing to believe the idea that most of 20th century philosophers missed that their central point was obviously an error so clear that any amateur would instantly see the problem and refute it so easily.

Listen carefully though, because typically people do not understand what Rorty says here.

I will be glad to take it on word by word if we have to.  :)

It's probably been a year or two.   This is one minute and 42 seconds that could change your life.   

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a tad more on postmodern theology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_theology

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry to use the term, but that is not true.  ;)

I guess I have no choice but to hit the old Rorty video.   Notice what he says about truth.

I find it continually amusing to believe the idea that most of 20th century philosophers missed that their central point was obviously an error so clear that any amateur would instantly see the problem and refute it so easily.

Listen carefully though, because typically people do not understand what Rorty says here.

I will be glad to take it on word by word if we have to.  :)

It's probably been a year or two.   This is one minute and 42 seconds that could change your life.   

 

 

 

 

You need to dumb Rorty waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down.  He could probably take a page from "Preach My Gospel" about simplifying the message so that a child can understand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You need to dumb Rorty waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down.  He could probably take a page from "Preach My Gospel" about simplifying the message so that a child can understand.

 

Yeah, the deal is, I need a transcript that I can take apart word by word and I have never put together the time to do it.

I was hoping some software would help- I tried the dictation stuff that is supposedly speech to text and it was still too fast.

Someday I suppose I will have the time to do it  ;)

So it's a lot of work just to get the quote down and then a lot of work to write it up and even then I suppose it would be doubtful that folks who have not been exposed to it for years would still not get it.

If anyone knows how to get the transcript done with minimal brain damage, I would love to hear about that.

Share this post


Link to post

Here try this one- this is the best but its long

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3enH7ntOAM

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/11/2019 at 7:35 AM, Amulek said:

Maybe he's just not a fan of being compared to a loyalist in the evil, totalitarian regime described in her fiction. 

I'm sure you were just trying to be clever / funny, but I thought the remark was a little off-putting. YMMV.

 

Thanks. 
 

I didn’t know who Margaret Atwood was, nor did I know (until I looked her up) of her connection with “A Handmaid’s Tale,” of which I am only vaguely aware. 
 

I just knew that tribe’s drive-by one-liner was, more than likely and true-to-form, deeply insulting. 
 

When the signal-to-noise ratio approaches zero, that’s when I know the commenter is a candidate for the ignore list. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/11/2019 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

What kinds of "things" did you have in mind?   How much do they weigh?  I must say I have never heard of a "fact" being a "thing", I always thought they were true propositions.

Everything is some form of a thing.  You can further classify a thing by the type of thing it is, such as an idea or a word that refers to an idea or one of the many things that words and ideas refer to, but even if a fact was only a true proposition that would still be some kind of thing rather than no thing at all.

 

On 10/11/2019 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

Do you really think that the thousands of philosophers who take that position have never thought of that??  

Do you not see cycles in the process of education?  Someone usually starts out not knowing any thing about a thing and then they gradually learn more about it, whatever kind of a thing they are learning about.  And sometimes some people have some false ideas about some things which sometimes they learn to replace with correct information about it, and sometimes they don't and still stay stuck on some false idea about something even if people try to help to educate them further about that thing.  And all people eventually go through that cycle from the time they are a baby until the day they die a mortal death, with other people learning this and learning that in their own life regardless of what stage other people are in their education process.  Have you never thought about that?

On 10/11/2019 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

If truth is relative did it occur to you that those who defend that position KNOW that even that proposition is only "relatively true"?  

Only relatively true?  That's good for me to know.  I'm glad they are aware that what they know is only relatively true is not true in an absolute sense.

On 10/11/2019 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

What folks who have not studied it do not understand  is that many people take it as a given that the only thing that can prove a statement as "true" is scientific , "factual evidence" which can be observed by anyone objectively.

That would mean that for God to exist, He would have to be available to be SEEN by every person on earth in a factually true, scientific way.

That is not possible, therefore according to that view- that truth is based only on "facts" , then God does not exist.    

What do you mean, that is not possible?  Where did you come up with that false idea?  God is available to be seen by every person on earth in a factually true, scientific way.  He would have to come to a person who is not able on his own power to go to him, but he is available to be seen by anyone who is actually in his presence.  It's not as if there is absolutely no way to see him, or that he doesn't exist in any real, physical sense.  I thought you knew better than to believe God is not available to be seen. People just  shouldn't expect him to show up at their whim just because they want to see him, with him having to do all of the work of showing up in front of them.   God does not always come at our bidding, physically, and even if he did most mortals would shrivel up and die right there in his presence because they would not be able to endure looking at him in his natural state..

On 10/11/2019 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

There are no objectively verifiable "facts" which justify belief in God. 

Now you are just being silly. Do you not consider it to be an objectively verifiable fact that Joseph Smith actually saw him?  Aren't you aware of any objectively verifiable facts to back that up?  An objectively verifiable fact is not limited to only what can be seen with mortal eyes, but even if it was we can still gain that type of evidence and anyone who does has it even if other people have not got it, yet, even if they never will or not until their day of final judgment.

On 10/11/2019 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

So either you believe in God in a way BEYOND VERIFIABLE FACTS to justify your belief or you must rationally be an atheist.

Not correct.  Even a rational atheist should be able to realize that IF there is any way for God to be seen in a rational, scientific way THEN that would constitute rational, scientific evidence that God must exist.

On 10/11/2019 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

We call that way "beyond beyond verifiable facts"  "The spirit".

Our spirit is just us within our mortal bodies, and it's not our mortal bodies that are causing the disconnect in the level of education we need to realize what is actually true, or what constitutes rational, scientific evidence.

On 10/11/2019 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

What the spirit tells us are not objectively verifiable facts.  If you are confused about what makes a "fact" think in terms of what a court of law would accept as "evidence"

You tell the judge that you believe in God.  The lawyer asks you for evidence. You say "I feel it in my heart, because the spirit told me".

Would they accept that as evidence?

The truth is not determined by whether or not people accept it or admit it. Someone could see God standing right in front of them and deny that he is God. Think of how some people who saw Jesus didn't realize who and what he was.

On 10/11/2019 at 8:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

This is in fact the basis for all the arguments of all the misled "new atheists" out there who take it for granted that belief in God requires some kind of mental deficiency- or delusion- that people are brain-washed into believing.  If you have ever read or heard arguments from atheists you will find these ridiculous and ignorant statements everywhere!

To NOT understand that "truth is relative"- ie: that there are many different ways beyond objective facts to justify true propositions-  is to NEVER be able to show that the belief in God is rational in any fashion.  Let me say that again in a different way.  If you do not believe in some sort of relative truth you cannot rationally justify belief in God. 

This is the position I take here and have now for years in discussing the nature of truth and showing how one CANNOT rationally accept that God exists while holding the position that there are other ways of showing "truth" than scientific truth.

I uphold General Authorities and prophets who understand that truth operates in "spheres" as it says in section 93.

If truth exists in spheres- one mode for example for religious truth and another for scientific truth -- in other words a "relativistic" view of truth-  IT IS PERFECTLY rational to believe in God!

If one does NOT believe that a relativistic way of seeing truth ie: one sort of truth for religion and another sort of truth for science- is the ONLY way to justify belief in God then one does not understand the arguments about what constitutes "truth".

There could be other rational ways of believing in God but as long as most people think that scientific evidence is necessary for theism, theism has no hope.

What you do not understand is that I am DEFENDING belief in God in the only way it works to do so.

I think I understand what you are doing and why you say some of the things you say.  I'm not in favor of that approach though because I think it muddies the waters, and I would just rather state what is true with faith that the Holy Spirit will help someone realize the truth when they want to see it and it is put right there for them to see.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What do you mean, that is not possible?  Where did you come up with that false idea?  God is available to be seen by every person on earth in a factually true, scientific way.  He would have to come to a person who is not able on his own power to go to him, but he is available to be seen by anyone who is actually in his presence.  It's not as if there is absolutely no way to see him, or that he doesn't exist in any real, physical sense.  I thought you knew better than to believe God is not available to be seen. People just  shouldn't expect him to show up at their whim just because they want to see him, with him having to do all of the work of showing up in front of them.   God does not always come at our bidding, physically, and even if he did most mortals would shrivel up and die right there in his presence because they would not be able to endure looking at him in his natural state..

This is the criterion for scientific evidence. ANYONE without the qualifications you describe can replicate. Yes J. Smith saw God, he was qualified, we all CAN be, but are not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would just rather state what is true with faith that the Holy Spirit will help someone realize the truth when they want to see it and it is put right there for them to see.

There is much disagreement about that or this board and all others like it would not exist.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the criterion for scientific evidence. ANYONE without the qualifications you describe can replicate. Yes J. Smith saw God, he was qualified, we all CAN be, but are not.

The scientific criterion is only that it must be possible to see God in a scientific, rational, physical sense.  Not that everyone else must believe someone who says they have seen God.  We're not obligated to take someone else's word for it, but we should consider it to be at least possible to see him IF there is any way for ANYONE to actually see him.  And the scientific criterion applies to hearing as well as seeing him.  Any form of communication will do, so that IF it is possible to receive communication from God in a scientific. rational way THEN it should at least be possible for ANYONE to receive communication from God.  It shouldn't be limited to only some people with everyone else expected to believe them.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is much disagreement about that or this board and all others like it would not exist.  

There will ALWAYS be disagreements.  Get used to that fact, if you're not used to it already.  And I would just rather state what is true while being willing to explain it further if and when necessary,.than to try to say something that somehow everyone will be able to agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ahab said:

There will ALWAYS be disagreements.  Get used to that fact, if you're not used to it already.  And I would just rather state what is true while being willing to explain it further if and when necessary,.than to try to say something that somehow everyone will be able to agree with.

I'm afraid we aren't communicating.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm afraid we aren't communicating.

No I would say we are just disagreeing with each other on some particular issues.  I think it's nice that we do agree on at least some of the things we believe and can at least try to communicate with each other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...