How Tolerant of Ambiguity is Mormonism?

[Tsuzuki]

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

Ambiguity tolerance

is the ability to perceive ambiguity in information and behavior in a neutral and open way.

Ambiguity tolerance is an important issue in personality development and education. In psychology and in management, levels of tolerance of ambiguity are correlated with creativity, risk aversion, psychological resilience, lifestyle, orientation towards diversity (cross-cultural communication, intercultural competence), and leadership style.

Wilkinson's Modes of Leadership is largely based on ambiguity tolerance. Mode one leaders have the least tolerance to ambiguity with mode four leaders enjoying and preferring to work in ambiguous situations. In part this is due to what Wilkinson calls 'emotional resilience'.

The converse, ambiguity intolerance, which was introduced in The Authoritarian Personality in 1950, was defined in 1975 as a "tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat."

[BCSpace]

According to your stated definition, I think LDS who can incorporate all the gospel teachings are definitely not amibiguity intolerant. However, I do not believe such a complete LDS person could be classified as amibiguity tolerant because even ambiguity in information cannot be perceived in a neutral way. It's going to be intepreted according to gospel principles. I would call it tolerant, but your given definition would not. I think your given definition speaks to the fact that many people are actually intolerant of whole and complete people, those who are settled and comfortable with their outlook on life and who have found some answers for themselves.

[Brenda]

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

Ambiguity tolerance

is the ability to perceive ambiguity in information and behavior in a neutral and open way.

Ambiguity tolerance is an important issue in personality development and education. In psychology and in management, levels of tolerance of ambiguity are correlated with creativity, risk aversion, psychological resilience, lifestyle, orientation towards diversity (cross-cultural communication, intercultural competence), and leadership style.

Wilkinson's Modes of Leadership is largely based on ambiguity tolerance. Mode one leaders have the least tolerance to ambiguity with mode four leaders enjoying and preferring to work in ambiguous situations. In part this is due to what Wilkinson calls 'emotional resilience'.

The converse, ambiguity intolerance, which was introduced in The Authoritarian Personality in 1950, was defined in 1975 as a "tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat."

Please help me to understand your question. Are you asking if Mormonism is tolerant to uncertainty or confusion of meaning, and if so how tolerant? Do you mean meaning of scripture?

If so, I would honestly say that we are encouraged to be very tolerant in our effort to love all people, regardless of how they may interpret God's word. This is what I've seen. As we've been taught repeatedly by our prophets, we are expected to be kind, tolerant, patient and helpful to our neighbors, associates, and in fact, to all people. We are continually asked for donations to help the needy, both in time and resources. Our aid goes out to all people, regardless of their religion. We are also taught not to judge, but to share our beliefs. We can easily see how Bible verses can be interpreted differently; hence, the existance of many Christian religions.

However, we do not tolerate evil. We do not tolerate evil behavior. God has set a standard in the scriptures, and we do our best to live up to them, and encourage all people to do likewise. We also speak out to defend righteousness. This is our responsibility as disciples of Christ.

[Tsuzuki]

Are you asking if Mormonism is tolerant to uncertainty or confusion of meaning, and if so how tolerant?

That and how functional is Mormonism is areas of ambiguity or uncertainty? Can a Mormon live in Maybe Land... or rather, use maybe logic?

[notHagoth7]

That and how functional is Mormonism is areas of ambiguity or uncertainty? Can a Mormon live in Maybe Land... or rather, use maybe logic?

It depends on the person. In the Meyers-Briggs spectrum, the further one's temperament moves into the Perceiving realm, the less urgency one has to rush to judgment, and the greater need one has instead to patiently gather the relevant bits an pieces (study it out) and explore what it might mean. Whereas a person on the far side of the Judging side of that spectrum might prefer to put the matter to rest and draw a conclusion from the first few bits of information.

The following statement by Joseph can be interpreted more than one way: "I've never heard of a man being damned for believing too much. Men are damned for unbelief." In the context of related statements, I take it to mean there is value in being able to keep disbelief at bay. To hope and seek for things that just might be true. That if we say, 'here we will drive in our stakes', and "we will go no further", we've limited, stopped, or damned our ability to comprehend/receive more on that matter.

Does that correspond to what you're asking?

[Tsuzuki]

It depends on the person. In the Meyers-Briggs spectrum, the further one's temperament moves into the Perceiving realm, the less urgency one has to rush to judgment, and the greater need one has instead to patiently gather the relevant bits an pieces (study it out) and explore what it might mean. Whereas a person on the far side of the Judging side of that spectrum might prefer to put the matter to rest and draw a conclusion from the first few bits of information.

The following statement by Joseph can be interpreted more than one way: "I've never heard of a man being damned for believing too much. Men are damned for unbelief." In the context of related statements, I take it to mean there is value in being able to keep disbelief at bay. To hope and seek for things that just might be true. That if we say, 'here we will drive in our stakes', and "we will go no further", we've limited, stopped, or damned our ability to comprehend/receive more on that matter.

Does that correspond to what you're asking?

Almost, but not quite. This quote might help.

"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."

- Robert Anton Wilson

How tolerant of this mode of thinking is Mormonism?

[notHagoth7]

Almost, but not quite. This quote might help.

"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."

- Robert Anton Wilson

How tolerant of this mode of thinking is Mormonism?

Depends on the person.

We have the premise of creeds being a very bad thing - an idea that gets plenty of lip service.

Yet like most groups, Mormon culture has the tendency to want to etch things into stone.

Is that closer to what you're asking?

[Tsuzuki]

Depends on the person.

We have the premise of creeds being a very bad thing - an idea that gets plenty of lip service.

Yet like most groups, Mormon culture has the tendency to want to etch things into stone.

Is that closer to what you're asking?

Pretty much.

[thesometimesaint]

Tsuzuki:

We all see through that glass darkly, but it think there are certain givens we as a Church have established. Like, but not limited to The Articles of Faith, Temple Recommend Questions.

[SlackTime]

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

Ambiguity tolerance

is the ability to perceive ambiguity in information and behavior in a neutral and open way.

Ambiguity tolerance is an important issue in personality development and education. In psychology and in management, levels of tolerance of ambiguity are correlated with creativity, risk aversion, psychological resilience, lifestyle, orientation towards diversity (cross-cultural communication, intercultural competence), and leadership style.

Wilkinson's Modes of Leadership is largely based on ambiguity tolerance. Mode one leaders have the least tolerance to ambiguity with mode four leaders enjoying and preferring to work in ambiguous situations. In part this is due to what Wilkinson calls 'emotional resilience'.

The converse, ambiguity intolerance, which was introduced in The Authoritarian Personality in 1950, was defined in 1975 as a "tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat."

It may be relatively tolerant or intolerant depending upon the specific area of concern and your ability to appreciate what must be certain and what must not be certain. Okay?

[Lightbearer]

When I hear someone speak of tolerance and ambiguity somehow I get the feeling that the words rationalizations and justification come next. But in order to answer your question a few scriptures do come to mind:

(Jacob 4:13-14) "Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old. But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble."

While the Church does not subscribe to the creeds of men, they do believe in the doctrines of God. They are not constantly shifting or changing, however our understanding may not be complete and thus we must learn them "line upon line, precept upon precept." That is the only way that we with our finite minds can understand the things of God. We also must be taught them by the Holy Ghost not through mans logic or reason.

(1 Nephi 10:19) "For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round."

In connection with this I think this may show how the Lord feels about ambiguity and tolerance of sin and error:

(2 Nephi 28:18-31) "But behold, that great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, must tumble to the earth, and great must be the fall thereof. For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish; For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well

[notHagoth7]

When I hear someone speak of tolerance and ambiguity somehow I get the feeling that the words rationalizations and justification come next.

To refer to the OP, the first quote he cited is talking about being tolerant with ambiguity. (Not about being tolerant with the other things you've asserted.)

In other words, patient with chaos/uncertainty.

For confirmation, check the second citation.

Connect those two dots, and he appears to be asking about wrestling w/cognitive dissonance, patiently exploring the unknown, slowly bringing order to chaos. More specifically, he's asking how functional Mormonism is in such a domain, and asking how tolerant Mormonism is with such a process.

You seem to say the two are oil and water.

If I've understood him correctly, I disagree.

When it comes to being patient with ambiguity, and working through chaos, the basic principles Joseph taught serve as a very effective flashlight.

But we as a people/culture are often not patient/tolerant of that process/reality.

[notHagoth7]

I'm going to qualify the bolded portion of my previous statement:

When it comes to being patient with ambiguity, and working through chaos, the basic principles Joseph taught serve as a very effective flashlight.

But we as a people/culture are often not patient/tolerant of that process/reality.

That may be a flawed generalization, because it's based on input from a very vocal faction.

So I shouldn't pretend to know how widespread such a perspective is in general.

It could instead be representative of a very vocal minority.

[Brenda]

That and how functional is Mormonism is areas of ambiguity or uncertainty? Can a Mormon live in Maybe Land... or rather, use maybe logic?

Are you saying we don't function well with logic? Just trying to understand.

[Tsuzuki]

Are you saying we don't function well with logic? Just trying to understand.

A certain kind of logic. The term "maybe logic" was coined by Robert Anton Wilson to describe a kind of thinking that thrives on uncertainty. Think Alma 32, but without the expectation of sure knowledge at the end. Sure knowledge in maybe logic is destructive, while uncertainty is creative.

[CV75]

Ambiguity tolerance

is the ability to perceive ambiguity in information and behavior in a neutral and open way.

Sorry if this is overly-picky, but "Mormonism" is not a human being and cannot possess or exercise human attributes, but human beings can possess and exercise ambiguity tolerance. A bridge might be the application of Mormonism by a human being, but even that is controlled by the person and not the religion. As a person applies the religion as inspired by the Holy Ghost that is given to him by those with the keys to bring forth the various aspects of the religion, faith is developed, and tolerance for ambiguity and certainty are both enhanced.

[notHagoth7]

Sure knowledge in maybe logic is destructive, while uncertainty is creative.

I don't quite follow the terminology. What do you mean by "sure knowledge in maybe logic"?

Would that be something along the lines of what's called a a false positive? Like being sure of something that simply ain't so?

[Brenda]

A certain kind of logic. The term "maybe logic" was coined by Robert Anton Wilson to describe a kind of thinking that thrives on uncertainty. Think Alma 32, but without the expectation of sure knowledge at the end. Sure knowledge in maybe logic is destructive, while uncertainty is creative.

Alma 32 talks about faith. Is this what you mean by "maybe logic"? Regarding faith, there IS an expectation of sure knowledge eventually. However, that may not happen in this life.

It's understandable that the Godless would be frustrated by our use of faith. They want evidence and proof, and we don't have the kind of evidence and proof that satisfies them.

Are we talking about the same thing? Are you saying that depending too much on faith, is destructive?

[Tsuzuki]

I don't quite follow the terminology. What do you mean by "sure knowledge in maybe logic"?

Would that be something along the lines of what's called a a false positive? Like being sure of something that simply ain't so?

Yes, but in maybe logic, every positive is treated as if it were a false positive.

Are we talking about the same thing? Are you saying that depending too much on faith, is destructive?

Quite the opposite. Depending too much on a sense of certainty, rather than on faith, is what is destructive. Faith is comfortable with uncertainty.

[notHagoth7]

Yes, but in maybe logic, every positive is treated as if it were a false positive.

Oh. So would that be like casting doubt on obvious truths? A sort of nihilism? Argument just for the sake of argument?

Kind of how some kids like to dissect living things just for the fun of it?

[Tsuzuki]

Oh. So would that be like casting doubt on obvious truths? A sort of nihilism? Kind of how some kids like to dissect living things just for the fun of it? (I've never understood that sentiment. As in: GO ET! Set those frogs free!)

Nihilism is itself a form of false certainty. In this case, a false negative. Maybe logic sees reality in terms of probability. The closest one can get to truth in maybe logic would be 99.99999999999999999999999...%. You can get very close, but if you think you're at 100%, you're fooling yourself.

[notHagoth7]

Nihilism is itself a form of false certainty. In this case, a false negative. Maybe logic sees reality in terms of probability. The closest one can get to truth in maybe logic would be 99.99999999999999999999999...%. You can get very close, but if you think you're at 100%, you're fooling yourself.

OK. Then back to your OP.

Are you saying that the fraction of a percent difference makes "maybe logic" incompatible with Mormonism?

Or that it doesn't?

Or...?

[Tsuzuki]

OK. Then back to your OP.

Are you saying that the fraction of a percent difference makes "maybe logic" incompatible with Mormonism?

Or that it doesn't?

Or...?

What do you think?

[notHagoth7]

Ah. (If I read more carefully, things make more sense.)

Yes, but in maybe logic, every positive is treated as if it were a false positive.

Are you saying that some things can be "proven" through logic. But can still actually be false, or only partially true?

[Tsuzuki]

Ah. (If I read more carefully, things make more sense.)

Are you saying that some things can be "proven" through logic. But can still actually be false, or only partially true?

In any system of logic, if you put garbage in, you'll get garbage out. The senses, spiritual senses included, are very good at providing you with accurate information you can act on, but they suck when it comes to absolute truth. Maybe logic takes this margin of error into account.