Religion and the Domains of Truth

[wenglund]

I look forward to the day in the (hopefully) not too distant future when a group like mfbukowski, SilverKnight, sethpayne, Kevin Christensen, you and me could ALL go do a temple session together as a group.

Hey, how about saving a seat on the back row for me?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I can just picture all the LDS, Hindus, Catholics, Muslims etc. reading this thread sagely nodding their heads and thinking to themselves it's a good thing I am not like those other poor suckers who have incorrectly interpreted the positive fruits they experience by living their religion. My positive fruits of course mean my church is the one whose doctrines accurately reflect universal truths while all those other guys are just confused and misunderstood what God was trying to tell them. Good thing that's all cleared up now time to go to mass, sacrament meeting, call to prayer etc.

From what I gather from the faithful LDS and Catholic posting on this thread, such cynical and exclusionary and prideful thinking never crossed our minds--I know it didn't cross mine. To us, it isn't about religious chauvanism, but about mutual respect and appreciation for other points of view and drawing value from whereever it may be found, and rejoicing in people's goodness and progression, though still deeming our own faith as best for our intended objectives.

But, I can understand how others may think differently. And, were I to think in the way you suggest (which may be a projection of how you think or thought?), I would likely be as uncertain about religion as you.

I would like to think so as well. But frankly if you truly believe Mormonism accurately describes universal truths then by progression you mean all other churches give up their beliefs that contradict Mormonism and accept the Mormon view. In other words I would not describe it as progression but as conversion to the one true way. Sure they can bring along any harmless cultural artifacts but any belief contradictory to the universal truth correctly described by Mormonism must be discarded. This is an unavoidable conclusion if you accept Mormonism accurately describes universal truths. "Progression of religion" is defined as all other churches coming to accept the correct LDS viewpoint.

This conclusion is only unavoidable if one assumes that there is only one possible and acceptable end to progression. Since I don't assume this, then your proposed conclusion is avoidable. As I understand things, not everyone desires to become fully like Christ and God. In fact, for some, the very thought of deification is repelling, though their angelic vision of heaven is something they strive for and may well progress fully towards, and this by way of the faith tradition to which they now adhere. Others may be discontent with anything more than the lind of life they now live and enjoy, and they will in nowise lose that reward, and may continue to enjoy it for eternity by abiding the beliefs and practices that have gotten them to where they are at on earth. To each their own.

Well I certainly view beliefs that are a consensus or near consensus among religions as more likely true than isolated ones.

Yes, in a way, there is safety in numbers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncertain]

From what I gather from the faithful LDS and Catholic posting on this thread, such cynical and exclusionary and prideful thinking never crossed our minds--I know it didn't cross mine. To us, it isn't about religious chauvanism, but about mutual respect and appreciation for other points of view and drawing value from whereever it may be found, and rejoicing in people's goodness and progression, though still deeming our own faith as best for our intended objectives.

But, I can understand how others may think differently. And, were I to think in the way you suggest (which may be a projection of how you think or thought?), I would likely be as uncertain about religion as you.

Hi Wenglund,

I am not sure how this is a counterargument to what I am saying. If I understand him correctly Don provided two possible reasons to explain the very serious problem of religious ways of finding universal truth not producing reproducible results.

I have to acknowledge that there are areas where unanimity and even near-unanimity in religion substantially breaks down, making it clear that either the fine supernatural details to which you refer can be are outside the purview of what those experiences can generally teach us or that the experiences are extremely difficult to accurately interpret.

(bold added by me)

Reason one: Which I prefer these ways of knowing do not do a good job on the "details" aspects of religion like identifying which religion(s) correctly describe the afterlife.

Reason two: The experiences we base our religious decisions on things like moral, experiential and spiritual fruits are very difficult to interpret properly. Hence this is why you get so many contradictory and mutually exclusive conclusions from people who follow the exact same methodology. I was pointing out why I don't view reason two as any different than reason one. If you as a LDS explain all those other guys who follow your method of getting truth and yet arrive at contradictory conclusions as simply "misinterpreting" the moral, experiential and spiritual fruits of their religion they in turn can say exactly the same thing about you. An argument that equally applies to all sides is not an argument at all. I am not saying you or anyone in this post are trying to do this I am pointing out the logical problems with using reason two as an explanation for the problem I outlined in my first post hence the reason I don't view reason two as any different than reason one.

I understand the value of mutual toleration and accepting other points of view. But at the end of the day if you believe Mormonism has got it right than every contradictory religious claim must be wrong. There is nothing necessarily exclusionary in being right when someone else is wrong.

This conclusion is only unavoidable if one assumes that there is only one possible and acceptable end to progression. Since I don't assume this, then your proposed conclusion is avoidable. As I understand things, not everyone desires to become fully like Christ and God. In fact, for some, the very thought of deification is repelling, though their angelic vision of heaven is something they strive for and may well progress fully towards, and this by way of the faith tradition to which they now adhere. Others may be discontent with anything more than the lind of life they now live and enjoy, and they will in nowise lose that reward, and may continue to enjoy it for eternity by abiding the beliefs and practices that have gotten them to where they are at on earth. To each their own.

To some extent I agree with you it depends on how you define progress. If you define progress as arriving at those beliefs that accurately reflect universal truths then yes my conclusion is unavoidable if you take as a premise that LDS doctrine accurately represents universal truths.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[DonBradley]

Hi Uncertain,

I agree that a method is only useful to the extent its results can be accurately interpreted. So, if our common methods for acquiring truth in the spiritual domain produce results on certain questions that people interpret in every which way, this might suggest that the methods are not useful for those questions.

It's possible, however--and seems to me virtually certain--that there are better and worse methods or modes of interpretation of the experiences or results. It may be the case that some individuals, cultures, or groups are able to better interpret this experiential data, just as some individuals, cultures, and groups possess better strategies for interpreting medical symptoms, the data of nature, sacred texts, and the behavior of other people. Again, it would be surprising if this weren't the case for things religious and spiritual, since it would appear to be the case for just about everything else, and since we all recognize gradations in the spiritual capacities of persons and sometimes observe individuals apparently making mistaken interpretations of their religious experiences. Note that I'm not claiming that Latter-day Saints in particular have a monopoly on the correct interpretation of religious experience. I don't believe that to be the case. But I would like to put out the idea that there can be better and worse means of interpreting such experience.

I would also posit that it is possible here, as elsewhere, to progress. I doubt that any Latter-day Saint thinks our understanding of the process of personal revelation is as good as it's every going to get--that it won't be any better during, say, the Millennium. And it seems clear to me on a grander scale that we, as a species, probably have a great deal to learn about the interpretation of religious experience, especially when you consider the plethora of opposing interpretations that are given to the very same kinds of experience. Progress in this area can almost certainly occur. Indeed, even knowing the limitations of such experiences would constitute progress in correctly interpreting them.

Cheers,

Don

[Uncertain]

Hi Uncertain,

I agree that a method is only useful to the extent its results can be accurately interpreted. So, if our common methods for acquiring truth in the spiritual domain produce results on certain questions that people interpret in every which way, this might suggest that the methods are not useful for those questions.

It's possible, however--and seems to me virtually certain--that there are better and worse methods or modes of interpretation of the experiences or results. It may be the case that some individuals, cultures, or groups are able to better interpret this experiential data, just as some individuals, cultures, and groups possess better strategies for interpreting medical symptoms, the data of nature, sacred texts, and the behavior of other people. Again, it would be surprising if this weren't the case for things religious and spiritual, since it would appear to be the case for just about everything else, and since we all recognize gradations in the spiritual capacities of persons and sometimes observe individuals apparently making mistaken interpretations of their religious experiences. Note that I'm not claiming that Latter-day Saints in particular have a monopoly on the correct interpretation of religious experience. I don't believe that to be the case. But I would like to put out the idea that there can be better and worse means of interpreting such experience.

I would also posit that it is possible here, as elsewhere, to progress. I doubt that any Latter-day Saint thinks our understanding of the process of personal revelation is as good as it's every going to get--that it won't be any better during, say, the Millennium. And it seems clear to me on a grander scale that we, as a species, probably have a great deal to learn about the interpretation of religious experience, especially when you consider the plethora of opposing interpretations that are given to the very same kinds of experience. Progress in this area can almost certainly occur. Indeed, even knowing the limitations of such experiences would constitute progress in correctly interpreting them.

Cheers,

Don

Hi Don,

I agree with pretty much everything here especially this: "I agree that a method is only useful to the extent its results can be accurately interpreted" . I fully accept that in a given diverse population there will be groups and people better at interpreting spiritual events than others. But unless we have some reliable and objective means to identify which interpretation is right selecting one particular interpretation as the TRUTH to the exclusion of the others seems misguided to me (hence I am uncertain ). I feel something like Joseph Smith in which everyone is crying lo here and lo there based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. Instead we have people crying lo here and lo there on the basis of personal idiosyncratic interpretation of similar experiential data. Can you see how this looks to an outsider? Frankly its a mess. And it becomes even more of a mess if a religion states that finding and accepting the "correct" religion is necessary to gain eternal heavenly rewards.

Look don't get me wrong I am not trying to talk you out of rejoining Mormonism as I said I applaud your decision. Believe me it would make my life far easier if I could regain my own faith. I am trying to articulate what in the final analysis was for me the steel I beam that broke the camels back. If I had to select the number one issue in my own loss of faith in exclusive LDS truth claims it would be this one. It is not that I became convinced Mormonism is wrong. It is that I became convinced by what to me are compelling arguments that religious ways of determining universal truth were fatally flawed. They just don't seem to work for most people that use them as is evidenced by the many different and contradictory conclusions that are drawn. And I failed to see why I should be the magical exception. They may work perfectly fine with regards to personal truth identifying that religious path that will best work with your personality. I wish you nothing but the best in your return to Mormonism may your days be fruitful and your life a happy one.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[DonBradley]

I would like to think so as well. But frankly if you truly believe Mormonism accurately describes universal truths then by progression you mean all other churches give up their beliefs that contradict Mormonism and accept the Mormon view. In other words I would not describe it as progression but as conversion to the one true way. Sure they can bring along any harmless cultural artifacts but any belief contradictory to the universal truth correctly described by Mormonism must be discarded. This is an unavoidable conclusion if you accept Mormonism accurately describes universal truths. "Progression of religion" is defined as all other churches coming to accept the correct LDS viewpoint.

Hi Uncertain,

I don't think what you describe above well captures my own view, and thus don't think the implications that you posit follow.

Joseph Smith said, "It is one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism to receive truth, let it come from whence it may" and "We should gather up every good and pure principle in the world or we shall not come out pure Mormons" and also that "if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, we seek after these things." The Book of Mormon, in a similar vein, states that God speaks "to all men, both in the east and in the west and in the north and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them" and that in the latter-days "my word also shall be gathered in one" (2 Nephi 29:11, 14). Note also that "the sealed portion" of the plates is described as containing a history of God's dealings with humankind from the beginning, implying that it contains his dealings with all nations, and not just Israel.

Why? Why would we need to "receive truth" from anywhere but the LDS scriptures and the prophet if it's all here? And why would we need to go around and "gather up" good and pure principles? Why would the Lord bother to "gather up" His words to all nations in the latter days, or eventually reveal His dealings with all nations in the sealed portion, if there was nothing to be gained from them--nothing we don't already have?

Teryl Givens well expressed my own view at the 2007 FAIR conference:

Today I want to show how my own appreciation for and understanding of the pre-existence has been enriched' date=' and broadened, by a comparative study of the idea and its myriad appearances in the history of philosophy, theology, and literature. What I have come to appreciate is this cardinal insight: If the restoration is not yet complete, then other traditions have much to teach us. Not by way of confirming, corroborating, or verifying the truths we already have. But by way of actually adding to the body of revealed doctrine we call precious and true. The Restoration is neither full nor complete. Brigham once said, in reference to the keys of resurrection, "This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more."1 "It will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned" all the principles of the gospel, said Joseph.2 What if, instead of scrambling frantically to find explanations when Joseph appears to have borrowed from the masons, or Ethan Smith, or Tom ****, we instead see another marvelous possibility of his actually practicing what he preached: As Brigham characterized his position, "If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it."3 [/quote']

In Mormonism as I, and obviously not I alone, understand it, we don't have a monopoly on religious truth--and God has told us so. We have a great deal of truth to receive, "let it come from whence it may," a myriad of good and pure principles to "gather up" in order to live our own basic principles and come out "pure Mormons." And how exactly is God going to "gather in one" His word spoken to all nations if not through us, Latter-day Saints and others? What, He's going to come down and stock a library for us? No, He will gather them through us.

So, yes, I believe--not in spite of LDS principles but as much as anything because of them--that faiths can draw closer, and realize, in Joseph Smith's words, that "we do not differ so far in our religious views" in the first place, but can "all drink into one principle of love." (The phrasing, by the way, of 'all drinking into one' comes from Paul's expression of his metaphor of the body of Christ. In alluding to this when talking about all denominations, Joseph was implying that, ultimately, we are part of the same body, animated by one spirit--the spirit or principle of love.) And I believe, for the same reasons, that this involves gathering up the good that has been given to others, and well as sharing what we have.

Progress in religion isn't solely about proselytizing the world to our message. It's also about gathering up the truths that are out there, gaining more through new revelation, and, who knows what else lies ahead ...?

Don

[Uncertain]

Hi Uncertain,

I don't think what you describe above well captures my own view, and thus don't think the implications that you posit follow.

Joseph Smith said, "It is one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism to receive truth, let it come from whence it may" and "We should gather up every good and pure principle in the world or we shall not come out pure Mormons" and also that "if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, we seek after these things." The Book of Mormon, in a similar vein, states that God speaks "to all men, both in the east and in the west and in the north and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them" and that in the latter-days "my word also shall be gathered in one" (2 Nephi 29:11, 14). Note also that "the sealed portion" of the plates is described as containing a history of God's dealings with humankind from the beginning, implying that it contains his dealings with all nations, and not just Israel.

Why? Why would we need to "receive truth" from anywhere but the LDS scriptures and the prophet if it's all here? And why would we need to go around and "gather up" good and pure principles? Why would the Lord bother to "gather up" His words to all nations in the latter days, or eventually reveal His dealings with all nations in the sealed portion, if there was nothing to be gained from them--nothing we don't already have?

Teryl Givenswell expressed my own view at the 2007 FAIR conference:

In Mormonism as I, and obviously not I alone, understand it, we don't have a monopoly on religious truth--and God has told us so. We have a great deal of truth to receive, "let it come from whence it may," a myriad of good and pure principles to "gather up" in order to live our own basic principles and come out "pure Mormons." And how exactly is God going to "gather in one" His word spoken to all nations if not through us, Latter-day Saints and others? What, He's going to come down and stock a library for us? No, He will gather them through us.

So, yes, I believe--not in spite of LDS principles but as much as anything because of them--that faiths can draw closer, and realize, in Joseph Smith's words, that "we do not differ so far in our religious views" in the first place, but can "all drink into one principle of love." (The phrasing, by the way, of 'all drinking into one' comes from Paul's expression of his metaphor of the body of Christ. In alluding to this when talking about all denominations, Joseph was implying that, ultimately, we are part of the same body, animated by one spirit.) And I believe, for the same reasons, that this involves gathering up the good that has been given to others, and well as sharing what we have.

Progress in religion isn't solely about proselytizing the world to our message. It's also about gathering up the truths that are out there, gaining more through new revelation, and, who knows what else lies ahead ...?

Don

Hi Don,

This is a great way of looking at things and to some extent I agree. I suppose my disagreement would be this process can only advance to a certain point. Certainly there may very well be truths in other religions that Mormonism doesn't yet have. But those truths cannot contradict Mormonism if Mormonism does indeed teach universal truths. So sure add in other parts from other religions but there is a line that cannot be crossed. Can Mormonism give up it's claim to exclusive authority? Can Mormonism reject its current view of the afterlife and accept say the Buddhist version? If one accepts Mormonism is currently teaching universal truths than progression can consist of plenty of take accepting truths not contradictory to current doctrines but no give rejecting current core beliefs to accept some other religions version.

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

MFB,

Excellent thoughts. Do by chance know or know of Lincoln Cannon? He's a friend with a strong pragmatist bent who has influenced me in that direction. He's a very systematic and insightful thinker. I think some of his writings can be found on the website of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, of which he is president.

As I said, thanks for pointing this out to me. After I looked at it, I remembered I had seen it before. Some very interesting ideas indeed and I think I am close to them but not quite secular enough to join with them. The "reproductive rights" section of the declaration was something I think I have a problem with, not quite understanding how far they mean to take what is literally stated. But nevertheless, thanks for pointing it out to me- some very interesting reading!

I also discovered a link to the Extropy Institute and Max More (is that his real name?? He could not have a better one for what he is about!) but I think that his statement of the "Principles" can also be seen as a summary of the "Two Ways" in the Didache I referred to earlier. I found it very fascinating that his position, for all its secular and "modern" trappings is essentially identical to a 2,000 year old document.

I think that in itself is evidence for the "truth" of religious principles- that a totally secular humanist would "invent" those same principles, broadly speaking just proves that truth is truth. When one affirms life and its improvement as a central principle, there are only so many possible ways one can take that logically.

The more things change, the more things remain the same. Heraclitus' river is indeed constantly changing and yet always the same!

This indeed shows that two opposed epistemological methodologies can up with the same results.

I'd also like to encourage any LDS who think that humanism is not compatible with Mormonism to click that link and see for themselves.

[mfbukowski]

I thought I would post these after all, just to show how much secular humanism, as a "truth system" is not far at all from Mormonism in its value structure:

http://extropy.org/principles.htm

The Principles of Extropy in Brief

Perpetual Progress

Extropy means seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an open-ended lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to continuing development. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities as individuals, as organizations, and as a species. Growing in healthy directions without bound.

Self-Transformation

Extropy means affirming continual ethical, intellectual, and physical self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, perpetual learning, personal responsibility, proactivity, and experimentation. Using technology

[DonBradley]

This is a great way of looking at things and to some extent I agree. I suppose my disagreement would be this process can only advance to a certain point. Certainly there may very well be truths in other religions that Mormonism doesn't yet have. But those truths cannot contradict Mormonism if Mormonism does indeed teach universal truths. So sure add in other parts from other religions but there is a line that cannot be crossed. Can Mormonism give up it's claim to exclusive authority? Can Mormonism reject its current view of the afterlife and accept say the Buddhist version? If one accepts Mormonism is currently teaching universal truths than progression can consist of plenty of take accepting truths not contradictory to current doctrines but no give rejecting current core beliefs to accept some other religions version.

Hi Uncertain,

I think I've lost track of what this is objecting to. While I agree that it's problematic to imagine Mormonism giving up core beliefs to accept truths from other faiths, our current understandings are admittedly only partial--we see through a glass darkly--and so we should expect further revelation to change some of them dramatically--and we don't know which or how! This is, I think, obvious if we compare LDS understandings of, say, 1829-1832 to those of 1844. What a difference! For instance, the earliest saints, reading the newly translated Book of Mormon, would have pictured an afterlife not very different from that pictured by Methodists and Baptists, with two final destinations--one of them very hot, family relationships concluding at death, etc. By 1844 many of those understandings had been turned upside down. It would be unrealistic of us to believe we may not be in for surprises as big or bigger over the long, long, long run of the Church here on earth (if we're around that long--and if not we're still in for big surprises!).

While nothing in the LDS past suggests that the Church can or will deep six its own doctrine in favor of that of other faiths, it gives every support to the notion that God may yet reveal many great and important things that will not only supplement but also greatly revise what we think now.

I see greater potential malleability than you do in the Church's future precisely because I also see it in the Church's past.

Also, I anticipate that other faiths' understandings will evolve, and in some ways move closer to those of Latter-day Saints. The expansion of "process," "openness," and "finitist" theologies in other faiths is a present example.

Cheers,

Don

[wenglund]

Hi Wenglund,

I am not sure how this is a counterargument to what I am saying.

It wasn't intended as a counterargument. Rather, I was pointing out a demonstrable error in your sweeping assertion about LDS and Catholics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If people are struggling to grasp the remarkable insights in Don's last post, may I suggest that they scale back the importance they place on being "right" and "true", and give primacy instead to finding what works and works best in enabling them to live good and decent lives and progress towards Christ--i.e. understand that "truth" and "doctrine" are means to an end (i.e. the iron rod and path that leads to the tree of life), and that the end takes primacy over the means.

By so doing, or in other words by losing our need to be right and "true", and giving ourselves over to God, we will find what is right and "true" and find confidence therein.

Regarding what Don said, I think it comparable to the imagery of the tree of life, which suggest to the mind a living and growing entity that, while remaining the same in its basic elements (its DNA or core precepts) and maintaining its same general shape (its doctinal asthetics), can through healthy nutritional "truths" obtain from the world around it, change drastically in detail as it grows and adds new branches of understanding that will ultimately bear the same fruit of love.

I believe this is as it should be. As such, if we, individually and collectively, are not continuing to progress in faith, understranding, love, joy, and character, then this a good indicator (as per Alma 32) that one's chosen path, or the way that one has chosen to travel on a given path, isn't working, and it is in their interest to find a way that works.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Facsimile 3]

Hey, how about saving a seat on the back row for me?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You got it dude. Just tell me what kind of sub you want and it's yours.

[Facsimile 3]

I don't know what 'percepta' means, but is Science *able* to work with the "percepta themselves"? From my understanding of the previous sentences, I would think not.

Help me out, you philosophic types!

HiJolly

HiJolly, I believe I directly answered a question like this before and you never gave me any feedback on that answer. I'll do my best to explain.

The Neglected Response

OK so to answer your question lets step back for a second. Science deals with things that can be viewed as objects. Science has a very important role, but it does not have the final role. If a Scientist says that a rose is really just a collection of atoms, he has only a limited view on what is reality. A collection of atoms does not account for a rose's beauty or its fragrance; the Scientist's explanation means nothing in the context of what rose gets the blue ribbon in a rose beauty contest.

Religion is another aspect of things to be taken into consideration. It concerns its self with the formation of the experiencing subject.

"The subject originates from, and amid, given conditions; science conciliates thought with this primary matter of fact; and religion conciliates the thought involved in the process with the sensitive reaction involved in that same process."

Simply put, Religion is about a profound personal experience happening to you now and making sense of it. Science may study peoples' accounts of such experiences and even view whatever they manifest on the outside, but its realm does not enter into the subjective private thoughts and feelings of others.

Whitehead is saying that it is the work of Philosophy to unite religion, science, the arts, ect., into a coherent system seeking to understand the nature of reality.

[Facsimile 3]

I thought I would post these after all, just to show how much secular humanism, as a "truth system" is not far at all from Mormonism in its value structure:

http://extropy.org/principles.htm

The values expressed here I think are very compatible with our pov- even the last one, which might give some pause, when you think about it is really encouraging what we would call "getting our own testimony rather than relying on others" as well of course as the principles of Alma 32

Wow! This More guy is lock step with John Dewey. What an effective missionary companionship those two could have been!

[Uncertain]

It wasn't intended as a counterargument. Rather, I was pointing out a demonstrable error in your sweeping assertion about LDS and Catholics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

Well its a good thing I was not making sweeping assertions about how LDS, Catholics, Hindus or Muslims would behave. What I was doing was creating a purely fictional set of hypothetical persons to illustrate what I saw as a weakness in a potential explanation. Personally I still think my little parable clearly portrays my point and I would not hesitate to use it again. No I do not think most members of the mentioned religions would behave in the way I outlined but if they did I have my handy little parable to point out how their thinking is flawed.

Best,

Uncertain

[mfbukowski]

Wow! This More guy is lock step with John Dewey. What an effective missionary companionship those two could have been!

I know- isn't his name great? It has to be fake! "More everything to the Max!"

Yes, and I think this is where Pragmatism actually crosses over into something like "absolute truth" because there are principles that always "work". As long as there are human beings the affirmation of life and values like freedom will always be seen as important, because they have cultural survival value. Since we are culture, you cannot have healthy humans without a healthy culture, and that in itself implies a life-affirming value structure, simply for survival value if nothing else.

But this can also be where things get blurry. Is the right to choose abortion life-affirming? Is homosexual marriage life-affirming? Can a society which affirms those things survive if everyone did them? Those are rhetorical questions to point out conflicts between the traditional liberal perspective and what I think of as "true" humanism- a theological humanism- but I am not asking those really here because it would be a major derail.

But I do believe that one can postulate there is something like a Pragmatic value system which "always" works in any life-affirming culture. That may not be "absolute truth" but it certainly "works" as a proxy for that idea in a theology imo. Again I think of Heraclitus- the changelessness of eternal change. Duh. I guess that's why they call it "process"!

[Uncertain]

Hi Uncertain,

I think I've lost track of what this is objecting to. While I agree that it's problematic to imagine Mormonism giving up core beliefs to accept truths from other faiths, our current understandings are admittedly only partial--we see through a glass darkly--and so we should expect further revelation to change some of them dramatically--and we don't know which or how! This is, I think, obvious if we compare LDS understandings of, say, 1829-1832 to those of 1844. What a difference! For instance, the earliest saints, reading the newly translated Book of Mormon, would have pictured an afterlife not very different from that pictured by Methodists and Baptists, with two final destinations--one of them very hot, family relationships concluding at death, etc. By 1844 many of those understandings had been turned upside down. It would be unrealistic of us to believe we may not be in for surprises as big or bigger over the long, long, long run of the Church here on earth (if we're around that long--and if not we're still in for big surprises!).

While nothing in the LDS past suggests that the Church can or will deep six its own doctrine in favor of that of other faiths, it gives every support to the notion that God may yet reveal many great and important things that will not only supplement but also greatly revise what we think now.

I see greater potential malleability than you do in the Church's future precisely because I also see it in the Church's past.

Also, I anticipate that other faiths' understandings will evolve, and in some ways move closer to those of Latter-day Saints. The expansion of "process," "openness," and "finitist" theologies in other faiths is a present example.

Cheers,

Don

Hi Don,

Well perhaps we don't disagree after all. What I was trying to point out in a clumsy and flawed fashion was that if I already am convinced I know eternal and universal truths there is only so much "progression" possible. After all I already know more or less what the afterlife consists of I already know those things God expects of us to inherit certain eternal rewards i.e.(accept Christ, accept LDS ordinances etc.). And in so much that progression on these fronts is possible it is other religions coming to accept what I already know to be eternal and universal truth. Sure there might be peripheral truths in which my religion can grow to accept and follow but for very many core issues this is not the case. At least if I am convinced on those core issues my church already teaches eternal unbending and universal truth. And if any progression is possible on these issues it is not my religion that must change their doctrines it is all the other religions. And of course core issues for the LDS church will in very many cases be core issues for other churches as well. Can the Catholic church discard it's view of the afterlife and accept the LDS version? If so can we still call them Catholic? To me the idea held in many churches that they already know what the fundamental eternal truths are puts a limit on how much convergence to a common set of religious ideas is possible.

I think your example of the many fundamental changes in church theology made between 1829 to 1844 is a great example. Do you believe changes of that magnitude are possible in the future? Can the church for example totally discard it's view of the afterlife and do away with the three degrees of glory model? Similar to how the church totally revamped their view of the afterlife from 1829 to 1844? If so then yes I think you can reasonably see the church as part of many other churches converging to some final truth. If not then to me this puts some fundamental limits on how much progression toward a common ideology is possible.

Now I do see a progression not necessarily on doctrine but on tolerance of other beliefs and an acceptance that what works for you may not work for someone else. I applaud this approach and whole heartily embrace it.

Best,

Uncertain

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

Well its a good thing I was not making sweeping assertions about how LDS, Catholics, Hindus or Muslims would behave. What I was doing was creating a purely fictional set of hypothetical persons to illustrate what I saw as a weakness in a potential explanation. Personally I still think my little parable clearly portrays my point and I would not hesitate to use it again. No I do not think most members of the mentioned religions would behave in the way I outlined but if they did I have my handy little parable to point out how their thinking is flawed.

Best, Uncertain

I appreciate the clarification. As for your "little parable", in terms of its likely usefulness in the real world, I would suggest keeping it as handy as a soft rubber crutch.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncertain]

I appreciate the clarification. As for your "little parable", in terms of its likely usefulness in the real world, I would suggest keeping it as handy as a soft rubber crutch.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well I certainly don't expect I will have to have to use it all that much. After all the kind of thinking it was designed to address is fatally flawed.

Best,

Uncertain

[wenglund]

Hi Don,

Well perhaps we don't disagree after all. What I was trying to point out in a clumsy and flawed fashion was that if I already am convinced I know eternal and universal truths there is only so much "progression" possible.

Actually, from what I have experienced, even in an epistemic sense, knowledge of eternal and universal truths is only the beginning of progression. Consider Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning, particularly the Cognitive Domain. Knowledge is the first degree of difficulty or learning progression, and is followed by comprehension, then application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

In a pragmatic sense, where real progress takes place isn't so much in knowing, but in becoming or realizing what is known (going from book knowledge to applied learning). It is one thing to know that there is a top to the highest mountain and know of the trail that leads to the top. It is yet another thing to actually climb to the top and there see the world from that highest perspective. And, knowing of the top of the highest mountain and the path that leads to the top, doesn't mean that one cannot learn certain beneficial climbing techniques or ways to appreciate the flora and fauna and vistas from climbers taking other paths to other mountain tops.

It is one thing to know that there is a God and what that God is like and what that God is all about. It is yet another thing to become like God. The point of the restored gospel is less about knowing, and more in become like God, and this because it is only through becoming like God that one may fully know and comprehend him and therein have eternal life.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zeezrom]

Actually, from what I have experienced, even in an epistemic sense, knowledge of eternal and universal truths is only the beginning of progression. Consider Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning, particularly the Cognitive Domain. Knowledge is the first degree of difficulty or learning progression, and is followed by comprehension, then application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

In a pragmatic sense, where real progress takes place isn't so much in knowing, but in becoming or realizing what is known (going from book knowledge to applied learning). It is one thing to know that there is a top to the highest mountain and know of the trail that leads to the top. It is yet another thing to actually climb to the top and there see the world from that highest perspective. And, knowing of the top of the highest mountain and the path that leads to the top, doesn't mean that one cannot learn certain beneficial climbing techniques or ways to appreciate the flora and fauna and vistas from climbers taking other paths to other mountain tops.

It is one thing to know that there is a God and what that God is like and what that God is all about. It is yet another thing to become like God. The point of the restored gospel is less about knowing, and more in become like God, and this because it is only through becoming like God that one may fully know and comprehend him and therein have eternal life.

It sounds as if you are saying knowing God is not as important as becoming like God, would you agree?

But you said earlier that knowledge is the beginning of progression. So would knowledge be just as important since knowledge is the way to become like God?

Why all the fuss about becoming like God? I'm not understanding why this should be a concern of ours. Gaining knowledge sounds like a great idea.

[Facsimile 3]

I know- isn't his name great? It has to be fake! "More everything to the Max!"

Yes, and I think this is where Pragmatism actually crosses over into something like "absolute truth" because there are principles that always "work". As long as there are human beings the affirmation of life and values like freedom will always be seen as important, because they have cultural survival value. Since we are culture, you cannot have healthy humans without a healthy culture, and that in itself implies a life-affirming value structure, simply for survival value if nothing else.

But this can also be where things get blurry. Is the right to choose abortion life-affirming? Is homosexual marriage life-affirming? Can a society which affirms those things survive if everyone did them? Those are rhetorical questions to point out conflicts between the traditional liberal perspective and what I think of as "true" humanism- a theological humanism- but I am not asking those really here because it would be a major derail.

But I do believe that one can postulate there is something like a Pragmatic value system which "always" works in any life-affirming culture. That may not be "absolute truth" but it certainly "works" as a proxy for that idea in a theology imo. Again I think of Heraclitus- the changelessness of eternal change. Duh. I guess that's why they call it "process"!

Now superimpose the changlessness of eternal change over the Process Philosophy notion of evolution and see what happens:

Thomas E. Hosinski Stubborn Fact and Creative Advance

...the whole evolutionary history of life seems to indicate that value and the aim at value is present in all living things. Evolutionary theory seems to testify that there is an urge, an aim at greater intensities of experience and higher modes of subjective satisfaction. This would be denied by many as an "unscientific" understanding of evolutionary biology. But Whitehead is arguing that this biological theory raises a philosophical question. Biologists often speak as if mere survival were the only value at stake in the history of life. Whitehead points out, however, that a real problem for thought is set by evolutionary theory and by life itself: if survival is the only value in the natural world, how is it that life appeared in it at all.

Whitehead explains how rocks are better at survival than all living organisms, or that trees live much longer than humans.

Moreover, when one surveys the history of life as disclosed in evolutionary theory, one finds the emergence of increasingly complex organisms which, in the higher ranges, are actively engaged in modifying or adapting the environment to suit them, rather than adapting themselves to suit the existing environment. These curious facts about life seem to indicate that there is present in the experiment of life an urge toward novelty of form so as to lead to more satisfying types of experience. Can anyone deny that the experience of a bird or a dog or a human being is much more satisfying than whatever experience a rock may have? Whitehead states the interpretation based on these observations in the following thesis: "in fact the art of life is first to be alive, secondly to be alive in a satisfactory way, and thirdly to acquire an increase in satisfaction."

The same eternal values a tree is moving toward unconsciously, or a bear is moving towards consciously are found in a higher level in the human scene by implication of Process Philosophy. It's all about increasing our long term satisfaction of our experience and then passing that beyond ourselves into the life of our posterity or even into the lives of other human beings or living organisms; This notion of helping other people / things increase in their satisfaction and intensity of their experience is life affirming and it seems to reflect a Godlike nature in all things of this earth, but manifested the most in Human beings (thus we are accountable to God unlike other things). It's all about eternal progression and felicity of everything on this earth. And the means of delivery and discovery are always Pragmatic.

This is why service to others makes us happy.

Sins of commotion would be using our free will to ultimately betray this process or as I think you said once MFB, "swimming against the river."

Wickedness never was happiness could be argued strongly from a secular view with Process Philosophy and Pragmatism because you are ultimately letting down the species by "swimming against the river."

And this is such a great secular philosophy because everything is pre-plumbed to install God!

[Facsimile 3]

It sounds as if you are saying knowing God is not as important as becoming like God, would you agree?

But you said earlier that knowledge is the beginning of progression. So would knowledge be just as important since knowledge is the way to become like God?

Why all the fuss about becoming like God? I'm not understanding why this should be a concern of ours. Gaining knowledge sounds like a great idea.

Zeezrom, please read my post above and let me know if that helps to answer your question.

[wenglund]

It sounds as if you are saying knowing God is not as important as becoming like God, would you agree?

Yes.

But you said earlier that knowledge is the beginning of progression. So would knowledge be just as important since knowledge is the way to become like God?

No. To me, logically the end has primacy over the means. Besides, as previously explained, knowledge is but a part of the means to the end of becoming like God.

Why all the fuss about becoming like God? I'm not understanding why this should be a concern of ours. Gaining knowledge sounds like a great idea.

Great question.

To me, gaining knowledge is only a great idea if something useful and advantageous can be yielded therefrom. Otherwise, what is the point? (See below)

And, the best way I have found to derive maximum value from gaining knowledge is to have a valued objective to work towards and a viable plan for achieving the objective (including tailoring the gaining of knowledge to fit achieving the valued objective).

In terms of my own religious faith, I know of no more valued objective than becoming like God, and no more viable plan for achieving that objective than the restored gospel of Christ.

Where this principle came home to me was when I left academia, after graduation, and tried to eek out a comfortable existence. During the several decades I was in school, knowledge took primacy. My educational success was dependant upon knowing the right answers on tests, coming to know the right answers for homework, and knowing the right things to say during class and on submitted papers. However, when I started my career after college, I soon discovered that even though getting jobs may have been dependant upon what I knew and who I knew and what I knew in response to interview questions, my success going forward was more dependant upon what I was able to DO for my company and my clients and myself. I learned that my knowledge was only as good as it enabled me, in concert with other personal attributes, to produce and make things WORK towards mutually desirable ends.

This principle also came home to me in my interpersonal relationships with family, friends, religious and civic acquantences, and various other aspects of my life. I have known of nerds who could dazzle people with their scholastic acumen, but who couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag without instructions, and who were seemingly incapable of getting dates, let alone carry on deep and lasting relationships.

I found out, even in the secular areas of my life, that while knowledge was important and useful, what is most meaningful and significant is the relationships I have with others and the joy and love shared between us, and the kind of people, characterwise, each of us have become. If I could be omniscient, I would still be a man most miserable were I to be alone in my omniscience and devoid of character.

This precipitated a maturing transition in me from being knowledge and "truth" oriented, to being oriented pragmatically towards what matters and what works.

But, as always, I can respect that others may choose to orient their lives differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-