What Is The "Truth"?

[Mudcat]

In all of the discussions we (not just you and I) have seen here, I cannot think of a single point where anyone could reach that conclusion (except for things written by anti-Mormons).

We know that God will always be our God and our Father. That alone would make Him praiseworthy through all eternities. But there is more, too: He will always be greater than any of us because His power will be greater. He will have greater dominions, a larger kingdom, and we will depend on Him for our positions.

The implication in this question demonstrates that you do not understand LDS doctrine on the subject of "theosis", or what we prefer to call "the plan of eternal progression".

Sorry Lehi, for the miscommunication. I do actually think I have a fair grasp of the concept.

When I asked mfbukowski, "Do LDS believe that they will attain a point in which the praiseworthiness of God will be dismissed as irrelevant?" It was more of a passive/aggressive point I was trying to make to Bukowski. I was fairly certain of what his reply would be, in advance.

It was a response to this statement in specific that he made. "God is seen as unchanging - the word "perfect" indeed means unchanging. We are created creatures not even ontologically close to God. We cannot experience him directly. Our destiny is to praise him as inferiors forever."

This seemed to be a critical charge leveled at the EV view, more than an a casual observation. I thought it best to address the notion of "praiseworthiness" and get it off the table, so to speak, by letting Bukowski state there is certainly nothing wrong with praising God. Rather than stir up some sort of ruckus about the whole thing.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Sorry Lehi, for the miscommunication. I do actually think I have a fair grasp of the concept.

When I asked mfbukowski, "Do LDS believe that they will attain a point in which the praiseworthiness of God will be dismissed as irrelevant?" It was more of a passive/aggressive point I was trying to make to Bukowski. I was fairly certain of what his reply would be, in advance.

That seems to be a pretty accurate assessment of the mood of the thing. I am afraid I definitely provoked it.

It was a response to this statement in specific that he made. "God is seen as unchanging - the word "perfect" indeed means unchanging. We are created creatures not even ontologically close to God. We cannot experience him directly. Our destiny is to praise him as inferiors forever."

Just to clarify, that quote was a grumpy reductio ad absurdum, intentional over-simplification of the EV position- that quote does not reflect my belief as a member of the church, or our church's doctrine.

This seemed to be a critical charge leveled at the EV view, more than an a casual observation. I thought it best to address the notion of "praiseworthiness" and get it off the table, so to speak, by letting Bukowski state there is certainly nothing wrong with praising God. Rather than stir up some sort of ruckus about the whole thing.

Yep- you pegged it correctly and your strategy worked- sorry I was out-of-sorts! I need a vacation from the boards- I have been threatening for a while but I really think I am about there. I just don't care anymore- it's just too hard to have a good discussion.

Thanks for not responding with the same jerkiness I responded to you. What are you - some kind of Christian or something??

Edited August 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

I suppose that means you and I are hungry at the same time and love the same woman.

I think you are not thinking about this too clearly.

If we love the same woman, then the truth is the we love the same woman; and if we love different women, then the truth is that we love different women.

If we are hungry at that same time, then the truth is that we are hungry at the same time; and if we are not, then the truth is that we are not.

I think that you are being rather silly.

Edited August 21, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

It was a response to this statement in specific that he made. "God is seen as unchanging - the word "perfect" indeed means unchanging. We are created creatures not even ontologically close to God. We cannot experience him directly. Our destiny is to praise him as inferiors forever.

In Mormonism, God is indeed unchanging. He is also knowable, seeable, and comprehensible.

[mfbukowski]

If we love the same woman, then the truth is the we love the same woman; and if we love different women, then the truth is that we love different women.

If we are hungry at that same time, then the truth is that we are hungry at the same time; and if we not, then the truth is that we are not.

I think that you are being rather silly.

Those of course were not the assertions.

Any subjective truth - that is any statement which is made subjectively, which is true, and therefore begins with the word "I", may be true for one person and not another.

Let me give you an example:

"I am irritated with Zerinus".

That is a true statement for me which I doubt is true for you. It could be, but let's assume it isn't. Of course you can change the statement so that is not true, but then it isn't the same statement is it?

Another one is "I believe that the correspondence theory of truth is inadequate to explain all that we mean by the word "truth".

That is definitely another one which is true for me, and apparently false for you. Another is "I think that God changes". That is a true statement of my beliefs, but not of yours.

Understand now? It's not that tough.

I think this is quite clear, and if anyone is being silly, it certainly isn't me, at least not this time.

Edited August 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

Those of course were not the assertions.

Any subjective truth - that is any statement which is made subjectively, which is true, and therefore begins with the word "I", may be true for one person and not another.

Let me give you an example:

"I am irritated with Zerinus".

That is a true statement for me which I doubt is true for you. It could be, but let's assume it isn't. Of course you can change the statement so that is not true, but then it isn't the same statement is it?

If that is a true statement for you, then it is a true statement me, and for everyone else. "I" is a personal pronoun. It stands for the speaker at any one time. If you said, "I am irritated with zerinus," and if I said, "I am irritated with zerinus," those are two different statements, because they are said by two different people. "I" in each case stands for a different person, therefore they are two different statements. If we replaced the personal pronoun "I" in each case with the persons' real names, then it becomes clear that we have two different statements. You are embarking on an obvious and rather crude and disingenuous logical fallacy.

Another one is "I believe that the correspondence theory of truth is inadequate to explain all that we mean by the word "truth".

That is definitely another one which is true for me, and apparently false for you. Another is "I think that God changes". That is a true statement of my beliefs, but not of yours.

Understand now? It's not that tough.

No. The same logical fallacy is applied here.

I think this is quite clear, and if anyone is being silly, it certainly isn't me, at least not this time.

I think you are being very silly indeed.

Edited August 21, 2011 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

If that is a true statement for you, then it is a true statement me, and for everyone else. "I" is a personal pronoun. It stands for the speaker at any one time. If you said, "I am irritated with zerinus," and if I said, "I am irritated with zerinus," those two different statements, because they are said by two different people. "I" in each case stands for a different person, therefore they are two different statements. If we replaced the personal pronoun "I" in each case with the persons' real names, then it becomes clear that we have two different statements. You are embarking on an obvious and rather crude and disingenuous logical fallacy.

No. The same logical fallacy is applied here.

I think you are being very silly indeed.

Write it up and publish it in a philosophical journal.

Good luck on that.

[zerinus]

Write it up and publish it in a philosophical journal.

Good luck on that.

Why should I, and who cares about "philosophical journals"?

I am debating with you at the moment. If I am wrong, explain why. If I am right, admit it, and give up the silly game.

[mfbukowski]

Why should I, and who cares about "philosophical journals"?

I am debating with you at the moment. If I am wrong, explain why. If I am right, admit it, and give up the silly game.

I care. If you want to remain ...... uninformed, be my guest. That's like saying "Who cares about education- I'd rather remain stupid"

I am tired of repeating the same thing and you not understanding. I cannot help that you don't get it. It's a waste of time.

Read this - I linked to it already- and I have said it several times my own way. I really don't care if you understand it or not. If you want to keep a sectarian Platonic philosophy and try to harmonize it with spiritual experience, be my guest.

One last shot on correspondence- this is what I was trying to say more simply:

http://plato.stanfor...espondence/#9.2

There is a longer quote in that post.

Edited August 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

I care. If you want to remain ...... uninformed, be my guest. That's like saying "Who cares about education- I'd rather remain stupid"

I am tired of repeating the same thing and you not understanding. I cannot help that you don't get it. It's a waste of time.

Read this - I linked to it already- and I have said it several times my own way. I really don't care if you understand it or not. If you want to keep a sectarian Platonic philosophy and try to harmonize it with spiritual experience, be my guest.

There is a longer quote in that post.

I like the Book of Mormon better: "When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not." (2 Nephi 9:28.)

Or if you prefer English poetry:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again.

—

Alexander Pope

[Calm]

I like the Book of Mormon better: "When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not." (2 Nephi 9:28.)

Or if you prefer English poetry:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again.

—

Alexander Pope

Well, if this is Truth, then according to you it must be as true for you as it is for mf. Edited August 22, 2011 by calmoriah

[Mudcat]

Thanks for not responding with the same jerkiness I responded to you. What are you - some kind of Christian or something??

No worries.. don't trip Bukowski. You weren't a jerk.

You were just tripping.. that is all. I know what you mean about taking a break.. been there myself.

There is an adage, "If you love what you do, you will never work a day in your life."

The day posting here seems like work rather than love.. it's worth taking a step back to reevaluate stuff.

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

oops

Edited August 22, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Well, is this is Truth, then according to you it must be as true for you as it is for mf.

Yeah- I don't what he means by liking the BoM "better" when I am totally committed to the BOM

Perhaps he would be happier if I had stayed an atheist. It was the philosophy which allowed me to understand that it was OK to have a "testimony" of angels and golden plates- stuff that would NEVER have made any sense before I understood those vile "philosophies of men".

It must be threatening for him or something that there could be more than one way to see this all.

[mfbukowski]

No worries.. don't trip Bukowski. You weren't a jerk.

You were just tripping.. that is all. I know what you mean about taking a break.. been there myself.

There is an adage, "If you love what you do, you will never work a day in your life."

The day posting here seems like work rather than love.. it's worth taking a step back to reevaluate stuff.

Mudcat

Yep, I think I agree with you.

It's not even work anymore- it is just an onerous task repeating the same stuff over. Time to go to a real blog methinks- so that anyone who wants to read it can- but no arguing, but discussions from qualified posters- I love opposition if it is to the point- but this is just knocking your head against the wall.

[zerinus]

Well, is this is Truth, then according to you it must be as true for you as it is for mf.

Ditto what I said here.

[Calm]

Ditto what I said here.

If you are unable to understand the point of my "one liners" at this point in the discussion, there is no reason for you to take any more time in considering them. Feel free to put me on ignore even.

[Brade]

I like the Book of Mormon better: "When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not." (2 Nephi 9:28.)

Or if you prefer English poetry:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again.

—

Alexander Pope

This seems a poor response to mfbukowski on the nature of truth since this post doesn't attempt to tell us anything about the nature truth, and it doesn't look like anything more than a snarky way of saying "I don't want to play this game anymore".

[zerinus]

If you are unable to understand the point of my "one liners" at this point in the discussion, there is no reason for you to take any more time in considering them. Feel free to put me on ignore even.

I never put anybody “on ignore”—with the possible exception of certain types of “anti-Mormons” whom I have met elsewhere.

[Ahab]

But Ahab, I think you don't understand philosophy, which I am sure is ok with you.

What you think in that regard doesn't respond to reality as I know it, mski, and it's not my problem if my testimony to you on that point doesn't interfere with your own perception of reality.

[Ahab]

Ahab you need a humble pill again. You're getting just a tad arrogant again.

According to you, I am not humble, and according to you, I am getting just a tad arrogant.

I can live with the fact that you and I don't perceive reality the same way, mski, and I know how to find out what is true.

[Ahab]

I suppose that means you and I are hungry at the same time and love the same woman.

I think you are not thinking about this too clearly.

Another way of thinking about how truth is "relative" is to think in terms of what that truth "corresponds" to.

I can indeed be hungry while you are not, and vice versa, and the truth in those instance corresponds to those who are experiencing reality from their own perspectives.

It could be that someone only "thinks" they're hungry when in reality they're only thirsty... and it could also be that some people have different ideas about what it really means to be "hungry".

[mfbukowski]

If you are unable to understand the point of my "one liners" at this point in the discussion, there is no reason for you to take any more time in considering them. Feel free to put me on ignore even.

The difference is that you actually understand the issues here- I love your one-liners! Z just doesn't get it, and the longer his posts the more that becomes clear.

[mfbukowski]

According to you, I am not humble, and according to you, I am getting just a tad arrogant.

I can live with the fact that you and I don't perceive reality the same way, mski, and I know how to find out what is true.

Good for you!

[mfbukowski]

This seems a poor response to mfbukowski on the nature of truth since this post doesn't attempt to tell us anything about the nature truth, and it doesn't look like anything more than a snarky way of saying "I don't want to play this game anymore".

Howdy Brade!

I was about to give up on this thread, but if you want to defend correspondence I will stay around for a bit.

Is it worth discussing?

You are definitely "qualified" - I know that much.

If cksalmon is around I wouldn't mind hearing from him too- I am here to learn- not be preached against as a heretic!

I feel like I am back in Salem Mass around 1692!

Edited August 22, 2011 by mfbukowski