Navidad

I would fill in your blank with "being." Can we conform our minds to things that are true? I am not sure what you mean by "things." Ideas, thoughts, beliefs, facts? You probably should tell me more about "things." I think we have "faith" in connection with personal and revealed truth. The light of reason would be included in rational truth. However, I would suggest the light of reason does not reveal absolute truth, especially in the sense that reasonable (in your meaning, I think) people could conclude different truths from the information that is being reasoned. I think that engages the mind. I am fascinated by the concept of the "mind" which I believe to be a construct from the soul. I tend to see having truth as exclusivistic. "I have it; you may (if you agree with me) or may not (if you disagree with me). That is the great danger of "having" the truth as a possession. Being the truth is revealing what is inside the self; taking off the cover; that is truth as a verb or gerund - truthing. That is a human struggle. I am also interested in understanding truth in terms of certainty. When you take away "correct" and "incorrect" as attributes of truth, it changes the whole discussion. I think it makes the discussion more meaningful and interesting and deeply human. It seems that truth as correct and incorrect was a mid-to-late 19th century innovation.

Hi my friend: This is a tough question to discuss in the space we have here. Basically I note five forms of truth, each that I believe is valid (if only for the truther). My research indicates (to me) that one of them aligns with an ancient concept of truth across languages and cultures. I think we need to understand truth in terms of the linguistic analysis of what the word meant at a given place, culture, and time. I admit to a bit of a bias against how it is used in todays' culture, place, and time, especially in Western culture. The truth forms I think are valuable are ontological truth, revealed truth, personal truth, rational truth, and truth as being. Except for ontological truth, each has its limitations in generalizability. I do not include absolute truth in the list because I believe to some degree it is unknowable to the human mind, with its limitations. I prefer truth as being as a goal for me in my life. It is closest to the ancient concept of the five across linguistic and cultural analysis. It is a journey, not a possession. Sure there were OT revelations. Sure there probably are revealed truths in visions - I say probably because I have never had one. Sure, there are truths that remain to be revealed. Personal truths are in some way the trickiest, because we tend to generalize them for everyone when they really are personal, probably connect to life experiences. Truth as being tends to turn truth from a noun to a verb. Hope that helps. I tried PMing you, but the system won't let me.

A world where truth is being; not having. Ha! Perhaps my shortest post ever!

Well, I'll ask another question: What is a Covenant Christian in your use of that term? I spoke once at Covenant College. I have been to several churches with Covenant in their name. I consider myself a covenantal Christian. So I am uncertain as to what exactly you are referring. Thanks, Navidad

I have nothing but the highest regard for you. I don't really know how to respond to this last message, so I haven't. I am not requiring you to deny part of the core of your own faith. That would be silly and very innapropriate of me. I am trying to figure out if you deny part of the core of your own faith. Sometimes it seems that you do, but of course, if so, you want to do that on your own terms. Sometimes it seems as if you don't, while sometimes you do support the traditional core tenets of LDS belief. I say that as an observer, nothing more. Dechristianing is something that my LDS friends feel forcefully from certain non-LDS Christians. I don't blame them. At the same time, there appears to be a real blind spot about how the LDS do that to all other non-LDS Christian faiths and individuals. There appears to be no cognitive awareness of the reciprocity of the feelings at the act of de-Christianization at the hands of the Saints. Your missionary work has been explained to me a dozen times as for the purpose of giving me more, not taking anything away from me. But indeed, it does take away the core of my faith. I would rather not burden you with my experience or with my personal soul wounds at the hands of the Saints or at my own hands. Religious conflict is often reciprocal; of course, my blindspots are your arena. Your blindspots are my arena. So we talk past each other. I would rather not do that with you. As a member of this forum, I read the posts where this or that Saint is really mad at the Evangelical (I give up) or Fundamentalist who stands on the corner of Temple Square. I don't blame them. I do fault them for not understanding the reciprocity in the relationship when an LDS Christian informs me of the inadequacy of what is the core and extent of my entire Christian life. To join your faith, in fact, I am required to deny part of the core of my own faith. I heartily believe your doctrine has morphed out of your history and shared culture. Of course I believe the same for the Mennonites. However, when I joined them, they did not suggest that Christ did not approve of my former Baptist faith. That is what is especially toxic for me in listening to my LDS friends/ evangelists. Some have fussed recently on this forum about what is deemed "toxic empathy." I think that toxic empathy is a real thing as practiced by many Christian groups including yours and mine. It reminds of family therapy systems theory where one of the challenges in toxic families, is what is deemed the "go away closer" challenge that abused children face. Best wishes. And once again I celebrate you as a whole and intact Christian, complete with all the gifts, rights, and privileges of eternal life that come with Christ's approval at the judgment seat.

I think you and I may have different standards about first century historical standards! Doesn't mean either of us is wrong or that either of us has a better grasp on the truth. I am more interested in historical standards, whether of a religious nature or not. My perspective in that regard is that of a historian, not a person of faith. I often have to keep the two separate in my work.

I agree with you as long as you accept oral tradition as historically valuable to the researcher. All history is spun through a degree of belief and desire. That doesn't mean we reject it. If it did, we would have no history, not even of yesterday!

Hmmmm. I would suggest it is from a historical and linguistic studies perspective (view), correlating the Hebrew concept of truth with that of the Greek. There is eyewitness testimony (primary source material) to the exclamation of Jesus that he claimed to be "the way the truth and the life." One can believe that in so doing he spoke the truth or not; his was a revealed truth that he in turn revealed to others. It was, not in the the modern concept of truth that he was correct or incorrect. His claim is knowledge by the rules of what we accept as first century history. Whether it is truth by modern standards is obviously debatable. But that is applying presentism to the event, not the historiography of first century history which does not require belief to be accurate in the context.

I might suggest that Christ was the consummate Christian in that he was the "truth," the revelator or one who first revealed the plan of the Father for humanity on earth. He took the lid or cover off the Father's plan for us. He revealed what had been hidden, which is the very core of truth in a New Testament sense. The concept of truth as correct or incorrect was foreign in both OT and NT times. In that sense, Christ was the first Christian with the true truth.

I agree with the silliness of gatekeeping. I would simply suggest that dechristianizing is indeed cruel, causes soul wounds, and as in the case of many members of the LDS Church has created epigenetic wounds, down through generations. It has created an identity for them as a persecuted people, as it has for the Mennonites. I am unsure what you mean by "it" in your last sentence, but if the "it" you refer to in your last phrase is physical violence, I agree with you. The challenge with the violence perpetrated today is that while it is less physically violent, that does not mean "it" is less violent in other ways. The anger in some in this forum over having had Fundamentalists - or Evangelicals, if you must, strip LDS folks of the validity and genuineness of their faith is indeed palpable. I have great empathy (to tie it into this thread) in me, as I know what it is like to be dechristianized by the LDS, however subtly and smilingly delivered. Today the language is much more subtle than in decades past, but it is equally as palpable for the recipient (whether LDS or non-LDS), regardless of the source. The Hopi remind us that the wounds also apply to the perpetrator as well as the recipient, especially over time. Speaking of the Cathars or Albigenses, there are those, rightly or wrongly, who identify them as precursors to both the primitive and magesterial reformations. That could certainly be debated; however the Albigense regions of Europe, especially in France were the same regions where centuries later the reformers flourished. The correlation may not suggest causation, but it is interesting that you mention them. Best wishes.

Well, it took me three attempts at replying to your message to get my temper settled down. So we are in a similar situation in that regard. Where we are in a different situation is your second paragraph. You have not had negative experiences with your leaders because of your beliefs or lack thereof. And you speak of your relatives. I have had negative experiences with local LDS leaders. And . . . the only close relative I have in the world is my wife. I have no children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, nor spouses of the same for me to love, buy gifts for, or who love me. She is dying and there is not a thing I can do about it, more than pray for a miracle. So no, I don't know what you are talking about, except I guess you are defining me as a little one who must wait until I am a bit older . . . . or older enough (or mature enough to accept the gifts that God through the LDS church has to offer me— most likely after death) and thus, ultimately receive God's good and perfect gifts. I am so tired of offering to share love, fellowship, worship, and ministry with my local LDS community and having that offer rejected, while calling me "brother" and smiling at me in the grocery store and asking about my wife. It feels like a charade and it angers me. I don't dare share that anger with them because their blind spots and justification of their position would cause them to be aghast at my response to their "love and kindness". Hogwash! or Hogwarts! — once Dolores Umbridge was headmaster! She (Dolores) even constantly referred to the "handbook" to impose her will on staff and students. Sounds familiar to me, a lived experience, even if it hasn't been so for you. So yes, I had to revise and cut down my response to you as you may have had to do to me. It is only the highest of high regard that I have for you that caused me to edit and edit and edit. It is good I did. Anger doesn't solve many things. One last thing for now . . . . this week our new bishop and one of his counselors came by to visit us. It was a kind visit. We were invited "back" to the ward to participate as we feel led. He is a genuine and kind leader, whose father I have known for years. That was a significant and kind offer, something our stake president and my friends in church leadership assured me might happen with a bishopric change. To be honest, it did feel as if, to use Tacenda's parable a few posts above, they were being Samuel. Sympathetic, but not willing or able to get involved. It came time on Saturday to decide about attending on Sunday. My wife indicated she didn't think she could. I assured her I would help her to get in and out of the church. That wasn't her concern. Her concern was that she has lost so much weight that she only has slacks she can wear out in public and the ladies in the ward would all be in dresses. Seeing her cry about what to wear to worship broke my heart again. She lacks the defiance that I might have in freely wearing a blue dress shirt to the ward. Now, I am often told that "colony Mormons" are conservative; but there is a big difference between conservative and judgemental. Ha! It is the difference between being Evangelical and Fundamentalist! You knew I couldn't resist that. I would rather not refuse the gift (to use your terminology) that the bishop and his counselor offered us. I just need to get to Walmart in the states tomorrow and buy some skirts or dresses in a smaller size. I can't expect the ladies in the ward to lower their expectations for a dying friend, but that makes me angry and in my mind separates the Fundamentalists from the Evangelicals which is why I respond sometimes (ok, most of the time) when folks here continue to conflate and confuse Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, who are indeed two different species of Christian. OK. I have responded enough . . . . yeh, too much. I think the world of you, your unique wisdom, and your kindness. It is an easy and quick task for me to get over being angry with you. Blessings, Navidad.

You are a wonderful person; a true believer in Christ. You just can't and therefore don't believe He believes in me as the same, just as I am with no help needed from the LDS church, its authority, its covenants, or its ordinances. Blessings, Navidad

Wow! I will say a hearty Amen to that. Maybe we are saying the same thing. This is how I am putting it:

I am not looking for a response, but I am wondering if our (LDS and non-LDS Christian) missionary efforts are not at times guilty of "deChristianizing the desire target." I wonder if there is a significant difference between dehumanizing and deChristianizing our targets, especially if we think of it in terms of doing symbolic violence to the other. Both non-LDS Christians and the LDS-Christians deChristianize all others who are not them. This starts out culturally and soon is integrated into doctrine. Then into dogma. Then it may become moral disengagement (I am trying to use that new term), even when it is meant to "advance the kingdom." What could be more justifiable than that? In college, I was president of the Student Missionary Fellowship. As an adult, I served on the International Council of one of the largest Evangelical (uh-oh!) mission organizations in the world. Now as a 77 year old, I look back on all of that and reflect! I don't say any of this to diminish anyone but myself. It is wonderful to be old and to look back and "ponder" on all I have thought, believed, and done. Just my own personal reflection.

There's a certainty word again - "definitely." I would suggest that if we are looking at conservative as a broad-based adjective examined in its entirety, that in my experience in US and Mexican-based Christianity, Black Protestant Christians and Hispanic Christians may be (notice the uncertainty?) more conservative (overall) than are White Evangelical or non-Evangelical Protestants. The word "Conservative" can be used doctrinally and/or culturally, especially as it relates to the family and revealed truth. In that broad sense, I disagree that Whites out-conservative Blacks and Hispanics. I think that showed up in the last voting cycle and surprised many. My whole life, I have claimed to be conservative in my biblical interpretations (hermeneutics) and liberal in my social values. Being conservative in one does not guarantee being conservative in the other. I think one of the challenges is that we often think we know the "other" better than the "other" knows themselves. That is true from all points of view. Our apriori biases cloud our conclusions, and we would rather not let them go! They are part of our identity, and identity often gives us our purpose.

Can you tell us more about the "moral disengagement hypothesis?" I have never heard that term. I think I like it, but want ot know more.

So NPR generalizes from one conversation to a whole class of people. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Love the certainty. What you are claiming is like saying there are cat dogs for sure, but not every cat is a dog. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are two entirely different species of Christians, who have spent more time at each other's throats (metaphorically speaking) than they ever have at other brands or species of Christianity, including the LDS. Evangelicals migrated out of Fundamentalism in the 1940s and have never looked back. Fundamentalists have demeaned Evangelicals for their migration and have never even tried to mend the fence, or bridge the gap between them. You talk like you think cats and dogs are two points on the same continuum. Perhaps they are both four legged carnivorous mammals. That is as close as you can get. The closest metaphor I can think of is that you are saying that there are FLDS LDS Christians for sure, but not every LDS Christian is FLDS. I don't think that would make sense to either an FLDS or an LDS Christian. Yet, it is said out of a lack of knowledge of the true distinctions between them. Now, if you were to say there are conservative Evangelicals for sure, but not every Evangelical is a conservative, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. If you said there are liberal Evangelicals for sure, but not every Evangelical is a liberal, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. Words matter. I would be much less welcome to give a talk in a Fundamentalist church than I would be to give a talk in an LDS sacrament service. I might not be welcome in either depending on the LDS bishop, but at least in the LDS church that would be a local decision. Fundamentalists are pretty united, in my experience and knowledge, in their opposition to the reprobate Evangelical.

"We all know certain extremists have come out against empathy in recent years" Who are these certain extremists? It would be helpful to know of whom you speak? Evangelicals stand against extremism in all its forms. That is why they formed in the early 1940s and why they still exist today. I would not describe either Latter-Day Saints or "Evangelicals (white or otherwise) as the two most conservative religious populations. That is a bridge way too far. Perhaps Fundamentalist Mormons and Fundamentalist non-Mormon Christians are among the most conservative religious populations who are Christian. There certainly are more conservative religous groups like Salafist Islam that out-conservative conservative Christian groups. Of course, now we have to define Conservative, don't we? Russian Mennonites here in Chihuahua are certainly extremely conservative in many ways. They are neither Mormon, and in many cases are Fundamentalists rather than Evangelicals. Some in certain places here certainly are Evangelicals. There are many doctrinally conservative Presbyterians who are an interesting combination of Mainstream, Evangelical, and Fundamentalists, depending on how you are using the terms. Many of them are more conservative than the LDS, depending on how you use the term. There also is great variance in Conservativeness (is that a word) among Catholics. All of that is why I think we always need to define our terms prior to engaging in discussing the "other." I often find labels unhelpful, especially those that are meant to rank, normalize, generalize, dehumanize, other, and only. I am a White Evangelical (capital E). How am I lost? Somehow I don't think you are complimenting me; at least it doesn't feel that way.

Your original post is more than a little deceiving. Answering both statements in what you consider to be the negative is not determinative of "not valuing empathy." Furthermore, nowhere does it define what they mean by Evangelical. As an Evangelical, I value empathy, but perhaps also not highly enough to respond positively to both statements, especially number 2. I am very uncertain as to what it means by "a society guided by God's truth." You would have to tell me a lot more before I would affirm that statement. What does the author of the statement deem to be God's truth? Do you believe that everyone in society should be guided by "God's truth" as determined by Fundamentalists? By the doctrine of the LDS Church? By non-Christian concepts of God's truth? All society? Everyone?

What I don't understand is that I think each of you in this discussion accepts revealed truth as valid as indicated in the famous Moroni challenge In Moroni 10. If that is correct, then why is there all the emphasis on this thread from all sides participating on trying to create rational truth to demonstrate the historicity (or "truth") of the Book of Mormon? If folks don't believe, they probably won't accept your rational belief anyway. If they do believe, there is no need for rational belief. What am I missing? Might it have something to do with Cardinal Newman's concept of illative truth?

One doesn't need evidence to faith or truth something. Faith is probably best thought of when, indeed, it persists in the absence of evidence. There are also multiple forms of truth that are valid in the eyes of the one truthing. Therefore, I am not a fan of a constant search for evidence to somehow negatively impact or overcome another's faith or truth. If that is in the form of apologetics, then I think even less of it. I see this not only in sacred history but in other forms of historical inquiry as well. For example, there is one single rather questionable source for the “evidence,” better said as “belief,” that Francisco Ibarra came to Casas Grandes in his 1560s expedition. We actually don't know where he went, which is why a lot of “reputable” scholars leave his route off the maps of Spanish exploration routes. However, here in Casas Grandes where I live, the “fact” that he came here and heard of Paquime as the ruins of Casas Grandes has become gospel. We have Paquime pizza, hotels, tourist endeavors, plumbing, and on and on. Here, it is a crecimiento (belief), not a conocimiento (evidence-based knowledge). That distinction, however, has no bearing on its truth to the believer in the same. Any contrary evidence, like that of Fray Beaumont's classic six-volume history of Michoacan placing Paquime in Hopi or Zuni country, is cast aside in the "need" to believe. Where one “needs” to believe, evidence is of little value in dissuading. When one believes one holds thee truth; there is even less likely that evidence to the contrary will have any impact. In fact, that evidence may indeed reinforce belief. This is even more likely in a culture built at least in part on persecution identity, like that of the Mennonites. As far as truth, I think there are five valid forms: 1. Ontological truth, which in no way depends on human affirmation or interaction. It just exists - gravity for example. 2. Personal truth, which stems from one's personal and individual experiences. This is a particularly powerful form of truth that leads to conflict if you don't agree that my experienced truth is normative or generalizable. Why don't you see the world as I do? How can you be so wrong? 3. Rational truth that is indeed evidence-based. It is the result of study, research, etc., leading the researcher to the conclusion that this truth is factually based. Therefore, it is superior to other forms of truth. Who has superior facts wins. However, in reality, we pick our facts out of our owned fact barrels. This truth is the realm of the Knowite. Powerful truth. 4. Revealed truth that is the result of visions, supernatural communications, theophanies, scriptures, etc. It is a favorite Greek form of truth, especially when that which was hidden has been revealed as in John 14:6, where Christ is the revelator of the consummate revealed truth for the Christian. There are many who would like to make their revealed truth to be rational truth. This doesn't work in the eyes of the secular rational truth theorist. Rational and revealed truth stem from very different forms of truth. 5. “Truth as being” form of truth. This is an ancient form of truth that focuses on truth as a verb, adverb, or gerund. It does not define truth as correct and all others as incorrect. It is a way to live the truth—to truth in your relationships and in your self-awareness. You may notice I left out “absolute truth.” I think absolute truth is beyond our human capacity to absorb and comprehend. It might also be a mixture of all five other forms. I don't believe we were formed with the capacity to adequately comprehend absolute truth. We may try and try. Each form of truth is equally truthful for its adherent, especially if you don't prioritize the modern “correct or incorrect,” “true or false” binary definitions of truth. Many of my LDS friends are very binary. Either Joseph Smith was an OT prophet or a fraud. Either the BOM is what it claims to be or it is a fraud. This forces folks into an accept or reject mode and insists on a member- or an outsider-kind of relationship. So no, I am not a fan of singling out rational truth as the best form of truth. Another way of saying that might be to say that “evidence-based” belief is more likely to be accepted than revealed truth. I might even suggest just the opposite. Thanks for reading my epistle. I am trying to become more and more a truth as being-kind-of-Christian in my old age. Truth is a journey down a path, not a possession I own. Best to all.

I am sorry. I am trying to take care of my wife and edit 809 footnotes on a book on 1930s Chihuahua. So I am not real focused. We have to go up to the cardiologist tomorrow in El Paso. That is quite a hike there and back the same day. I don't always do nuances well on the forum. There are broad categories that are accepted by most for forms of truth. Certainly there are nuances between them. None of them are seen as absolute except absolute truth which, by most gurus of the science of truth seem to be unknowable by the human mind anyway. I do think we interpret the Scriptures in ways that they never intended. Even Christ used metaphors and allegories and parables which represented different forms of truth. The very word truth in Greek meant something quite different from what we read into it today. People of faith, however, tend to react strongly to discussions about truth, especially in the words of Christ. They jump to a lot of conclusions. Take care.

In a Johari Window construct, a blind spot is something that others see in you, but you don't see in yourself. That is my personal preferred definition. I am unaware that Bourdieu uses the term blind spot. My use of the word does not imply that a blindspot is negative. I have a hard time seeing myself as intelligent. Many folks seem to think I am, most of all my wife! Having said that, one of the goals of therapy using the Johari Window Model is the shrinking of blind spots and the hidden areas (I don't see them and other people don't see them). They are two of the four quadrants in the Johari Window. The theory is that an oversized blind spot quadrant and an oversized hidden quadrant should be rightsized in therapy.

I don't think Bourdieu uses the concept of doxa to either reinforce or minimize the truthfulness of the doxa. My impression of him and his teaching is that he was a professional secular sociologist; not an ethicist. He reported on what he observed. He did mention religion, but not as a focus of his theories. I did a lot of researching for my little book on truth, but I don't remember anything in his writings about truth. I may be wrong. I think his idea was more that doxas become so common place that they are like air; rarely discussed-their presence a given in the culture. Just as perhaps a silly example. When I travel to speak to LDS groups outside of Mexico, especially in the Great Basin, there is a concept that "Colony Mormons" are somehow different from other Mormons. I have even been told there is a "colony Mormon accent" so that a Mormon from Utah can tell a colony Mormon by their English. I have even had people tell me I don't have the colony accent! My guess is that is a doxa. I have no idea if it is true or not. However, my being introduced as being from the "colonies" almost inevitably after the meeting, lunch, or whatever brings up the subject of colony Mormons. I have discussed that with my LDS friends here. They are familiar with the construct. They basically are not fans of it. They seem to think it is some what derogatory.