Denying The Truth

[Ahab]

To deny the truth a person must first understand the truth, at which point that person would then essentially be saying or thinking somthing like this:

I understand what [someone else] is claiming to be true, and in understanding what [someone else] is claiming to be true I am now placed in the position of either accepting or rejecting that claim, no longer being ignorant or unaware of that claim.

What [someone else], you might ask?

Anyone else who also knows what is claimed to be true, no longer being ignorant or unaware of that claim.

Thus, to deny truth, a person must first understand the truth, and then from there if that person denies the truth that person would then be saying they don’t accept that claim as the truth, having thus chosen to accept something contrary to that claim as the truth while rejecting the actual truth.

At this point, someone might come along and say something like this, in essence:

Hold on, there! Wait just a minute!

That may be true for some people, but I thought about that “truth” for only an instant, suddenly, long enough to only form a question in my own mind about whether or not that claim might really be true, at which point I then formed my own conclusion that such a claim really wasn’t true, after all. It’s not as if I spent any great length of time in my life living with a belief in that claim. I certainly didn’t make that claim a part of myself, or my own claims, and I didn’t claim that God told me that claim was true, either. I simply thought about that claim long enough to form a question in my mind while considering what such a claim would entail if I later did accept that claim as the truth, for myself. I didn’t deny it. I never believed in that claim to be true in the first place. I simply considered the possibility that such a claim was true, and then denied that claim, or whatever it was I was thinking about at that moment. But I didn’t deny what was true.

Do you really expect me to agree that I have denied the truth? How preposterous! I simply denied what was claimed to be true!

To which I would likely respond by saying something like this:

You are not required to agree with me. You can think anything you want to think. In truth, however, if you understood what I was saying, and if what I was saying was true, then you have denied the truth even though you don’t accept that claim as the truth, which is essentially what it means to deny the truth.

Anyone care for a discussion about this while maybe offering some more truth to consider?

[Maidservant]

I don't take truth to be what is objective or binary (one choice is untruth, one choice is truth).

Truth as I understand it IS all of what we all experience . . . and we can only know truth by seeing through each other's eyes (=experience). As well, knowing the truth about God is a neverending process of revelation, where we constantly discard what we thought we knew, and pass through successive veils to greater and greater light (seeing through God's eyes/experience).

Thus to reject a binary choice does not exclude a person from truth, because likely a person who rejects, say, Book of Mormon still goes home and loves his wife and honors her and so on and so forth, so he is living truth (and celestial law) by his life and to the degree that he is mistaken on the Book of Mormon, then he will be missing something he could have had. Missing out on the Book of Mormon (for example) is its own condemnation, there would not need to be any additional heaped on that.

Life is truth and truth is life. Truth is not "flat" information upon which we must become convinced or not. Conviction is available to us, and we all carry our convictions, otherwise we couldn't mentally function. But we are ALL convinced upon things we don't have the full truth on . . . just what we are given now. So I can't blame others for the same, from where they are at.

A sincere rejection of the truth of the gospel IS sincere, and God will still lead that person. I am more concerned with the deceit and dishonesty that accompanies some blindness to reality and truth in the gospel (including in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). These are neither rejecting nor accepting . . . they are willing to lie. So that's hard to respect and they also have consequences of that in their soul. But even this can be forgiven if they can ever get touched by truth enough.

[CV75]

Anyone care for a discussion about this while maybe offering some more truth to consider?

I would say "denying the truth" entails knowing that some spiritual principle or work of God or His servants is true (whether by the Light of Christ or by the power of the Holy Ghost), and deciding that the will of the flesh (including the ego) is more preferable.

Because of this, one can deny greater truths by rendering himself ineligible to know them by first denying lesser truths.

Edited September 29, 2011 by CV75

[Ahab]

I would say "denying the truth" entails knowing that some spiritual principle or work of God or His servants is true (whether by the Light of Christ or by the power of the Holy Ghost), and deciding that the will of the flesh (including the ego) is more preferable.

I think that idea is common among a lot of people, but think about what you're saying a little bit more.

When you know something is true, you are accepting that as the truth and thus are not denying it. You don't have to live by the truth to know something is true. You can accept it as truth even though you choose not to live by that truth.

[Ahab]

I don't take truth to be what is objective or binary (one choice is untruth, one choice is truth).

It is, though, even though you don't "take it" that way.

Something, in particular, is either true or not true. The same thing can't be both at the same time, and it can only be one or the other.

Truth as I understand it IS all of what we all experience

Some people experience things that aren't true by thinking things are true when they're not true. Or vice versa.

How do you make sense out of that?

. . . and we can only know truth by seeing through each other's eyes (=experience).

What if someone else's eyes aren't seeing things as they really are?

How do you choose whose eyes to rely on in that instance?

As well, knowing the truth about God is a neverending process of revelation, where we constantly discard what we thought we knew, and pass through successive veils to greater and greater light (seeing through God's eyes/experience).

Any truth you know now you won't ever have to discard as you keep learning additional things that are true.

Sometimes people just accept their own ideas as revelations from God before they learn how to know the truth on an issue.

Thus to reject a binary choice does not exclude a person from truth, because likely a person who rejects, say, Book of Mormon still goes home and loves his wife and honors her and so on and so forth, so he is living truth (and celestial law) by his life and to the degree that he is mistaken on the Book of Mormon, then he will be missing something he could have had. Missing out on the Book of Mormon (for example) is its own condemnation, there would not need to be any additional heaped on that.

A person who rejects the truth that the Book of Mormon is true is denying that it is true and thus missing something he could have had by accepting it as the truth. It is true, whether a person accepts it or denies it as truth, and it's not the fact that someone accepts it as truth which makes it the truth. It's true even if someone denies it.

Life is truth and truth is life.

... and some lives involve denying a lot of things that are true.

Truth is not "flat" information upon which we must become convinced or not.

True, you don't have to be convinced of the truth before something is true, as if you "must" accept what is true.

Anyone can easily choose to deny it.

Conviction is available to us, and we all carry our convictions, otherwise we couldn't mentally function. But we are ALL convinced upon things we don't have the full truth on . . . just what we are given now. So I can't blame others for the same, from where they are at.

You don't have to have the whole truth to be able to know something is true, but I think you should try to avoid denying the truth, either in part or in whole.

A sincere rejection of the truth of the gospel IS sincere, and God will still lead that person.

It's still a rejection, though, and if all someone does is deny the truth when God leads them to it, then what good is that going to do for them? You have to accept the truth to be able to grow in the knowledge of truth, and if you deny it then you are denying it.

I am more concerned with the deceit and dishonesty that accompanies some blindness to reality and truth in the gospel (including in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). These are neither rejecting nor accepting . . . they are willing to lie.

To say or think the truth isn't true is a lie in itself, whoever it comes from. You don't have to be tricked into denying the truth to be harmed by your choice to deny it. You could simply choose to deny it because you don't like that idea.

So that's hard to respect and they also have consequences of that in their soul. But even this can be forgiven if they can ever get touched by truth enough.

However much they're touched by the truth, if all they do is deny the truth then all they'll get credit for is denying it.

To be able to benefit by something that is true you have to accept that it is true and then try to live based on your knowledge.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Ahab

[CV75]

When you know something is true, you are accepting that as the truth and thus are not denying it. You don't have to live by the truth to know something is true. You can accept it as truth even though you choose not to live by that truth.

That’s one way to look at it; but then the disposition on truth becomes a matter double-mindedness, dishonor or hypocrisy, which isn’t “true.” So truth has still been rejected on the deeper level. Such a person continues in error until he becomes enslaved by the devil.

Conversely, when one denies his gnawing carnal/sensual/devilish nature to strive to live by a correct principle, he is in a similar (but in my opinion a more hopeful) state until the Lord acknowledges his efforts and cleanses his inner vessel by the Holy Ghost.

[Ahab]

That’s one way to look at it; but then the disposition on truth becomes a matter double-mindedness, dishonor or hypocrisy, which isn’t “true.”

Truth is things as they are, or were, or will be, and yes the truth is that someone is being double-minded, dishonorable, and a hypocrite to their knowledge of truth. That doesn't mean that how they are and what they know as the truth isn't true, though. It just means they're not living according to their knowledge of truth, which then really doesn't do them any good.

So truth has still been rejected on the deeper level.

Truth has been accepted, even though that person has chosen not to live according to his knowledge of truth.

You can't truthfully call it a rejection of truth when someone has accepted the truth.

Such a person continues in error until he becomes enslaved by the devil.

Such a person continues in sin even though he knows the truth that will set him free, and that's what makes him enslaved by the devil. A willing slave.

Conversely, when one denies his gnawing carnal/sensual/devilish nature to strive to live by a correct principle, he is in a similar (but in my opinion a more hopeful) state until the Lord acknowledges his efforts and cleanses his inner vessel by the Holy Ghost.

Hmm. I'll think about that a little bit more.

[The Nehor]

This whole argument seems to be based on the idea that people are wholly rational.

[Ahab]

This whole argument seems to be based on the idea that people are wholly rational.

Nope. People who deny truth aren't wholly rational at all, or at least not when they're denying the truth.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Ahab

[LeSellers]

This whole argument seems to be based on the idea that people are wholly rational.

Nope. People who deny truth aren't rational at all, or at least not when they're denying the truth.

Yes, people are wholly rational and we are so all the time.

"Rational" means we choose that act/thing/whatever that will make us the best off of all possible options at the time.

The question is, not whether someone will be "rational", but what he considers "best off". It's an issue of values and trade offs.

Praxeology, the study/science of human action, (given a complete—and hence nonexistent—set of current values) can predict what anyone will do in any case. The problem as the parentheis indicates, there is no complete list of any person's values. A further complication is that a person's values change almost constantly. The less important the issue in question is, the less lilely it is that the ordinal (which all values must have) value will remain static. It also would be the thing likely to be confronted at any point.

Even the insane are rational. We might quesiton their values, but we have no business questioning their rationality. That would get us directly into the Christ Smith/mfbukowski debate in the other topic.

Lehi

[CV75]

You can't truthfully call it a rejection of truth when someone has accepted the truth.

Why not? Truth is practical and must be applied as a condition of acceptance. When hearing, understanding and acknowledging the truth is superficial and has only semantic acceptance, it is not acted upon. Not living it or becoming it is its practical rejection.

Truth is knowledge of things as they as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come. The followers of Christ know in the sense He desires by doing (hence they are called disciples—John 8:31-32); disciples become as the Master (John 15:14-15). The pattern of accepting the truth is hearing, applying and becoming, as opposed to hearing, not applying, and not becoming (parable of the sower), which is the pattern of rejecting.

Such a person continues in sin even though he knows the truth that will set him free, and that's what makes him enslaved by the devil. A willing slave.

This really depends on how actively they seek Satan as their master (Moses 5:31 vs. 2 Nephi 26:22). The truth can be rejected actively or passively; by commission of sin or omission of righteousness; etc.

[Maidservant]

It is, though, even though you don't "take it" that way.

Something, in particular, is either true or not true. The same thing can't be both at the same time, and it can only be one or the other.

This is simply not the case. Does the sun come up and go down in a 24 hour cycle? Is that true? Or does day last for six months and night for six months? Is that true or untrue? It depends on where you are standing. Of course, the deeper truth is that the sun is a plasma body around which the earth orbits. If you imagine standing near the sun, nothing goes up and down. Point of view is an integral part of truth, not something to be disregarded in understanding and knowledge of truth.

Some people experience things that aren't true by thinking things are true when they're not true. Or vice versa.

How do you make sense out of that?

You are right. It's like this. You don't plant a pea seed and expect to get a carrot. That's not based on truth. But your question was on "rejection". Maybe I don't understand where you are coming from or going to with the "rejection" element.

On the other hand, in a garden there are peas AND carrots AND watermelon. And they are all truth, and no one tells a watermelon they aren't the truth because they aren't a pea.

What if someone else's eyes aren't seeing things as they really are?

How do you choose whose eyes to rely on in that instance?

Thankfully, the only person we are accountable for on that is ourselves (and perhaps some people we have stewardship over). And my point is not that we "rely" on others' eyes. The JST version of Mark 9:38-50 teaches that we are responsible for what we believe and what we choose. My point is that truth is not binary.

But my point is that the whole truth . . . . things as they were, are and will be . . . is us, as children of God, and we need to understand the journeys we each are taking. The reality of those journeys is the truth that eventually we will all know. Also we will eventually know God, and that is the truth.

1 Corinthian 13:12

Any truth you know now you won't ever have to discard as you keep learning additional things that are true.

I think you said this better than I did, and I change my mind a little. On the other hand . . . we did have to discard the idea of slavery completely in order to arrive at the truth . . . even though the concepts that undergirded slavery were held as "truth" for a very. long. time.

Sometimes people just accept their own ideas as revelations from God before they learn how to know the truth on an issue.

Sure. But again, we are accountable for ourselves not others. And we are all working out the truth, and God will lead the sincere. Of course we have to believe our own mind sometimes . . . we only have our own. I, personally, am VERY grateful for living prophets and scriptures, etc. and don't know how other people get along without them. But I don't characterize a person's rejection of a claim as an automatic rejection of the truth. Again, I guess I don't know what you are really asking about the "rejection" part of your OP.

A person who rejects the truth that the Book of Mormon is true is denying that it is true and thus missing something he could have had by accepting it as the truth. It is true, whether a person accepts it or denies it as truth, and it's not the fact that someone accepts it as truth which makes it the truth. It's true even if someone denies it.

You are right. A person's perception (already is) doesn't cause something external to them to be what it already is or to stop being what it already is. However, does their lack of perception cause them to be in a condition of rejecting the truth? I'm not sure it does. They have as much truth as they have and are willing to have. Yes, they are denying more. But I guess my point is . . . is there a reason to give up hope on them? But maybe you aren't saying that.

... and some lives involve denying a lot of things that are true.

Yea. But that's not much of a life, as you might agree. John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

But these same people who are living lives denying a lot of things that are true, are also living lives accepting a lot of truth. Who can judge? For myself, I know I am in denial, numerically speaking, of a lot of truth, since I still have so far to go until I am godly.

I agree with you that when a person is given an opportunity to know the truth, and they don't take it . . . that is most unfortunate and it will take them down a path that they might not so easily recover from . . . until the next opportunity. No one wants to waste that time if we could already just be certain. But until a person is willing to know the truth that they are not willing for yet, then they cannot enter in to the fruits of living that truth. And that is a kind of condemnation, yes . . . some unfortunate choices more than others.

Truth is lived. Truth is not just thought (although thinking is part of living).

You don't have to have the whole truth to be able to know something is true, but I think you should try to avoid denying the truth, either in part or in whole.

It's still a rejection, though, and if all someone does is deny the truth when God leads them to it, then what good is that going to do for them? You have to accept the truth to be able to grow in the knowledge of truth, and if you deny it then you are denying it.

I agree, but everyone is doing their best. Unless they have a spirit of lying with them, and even then they can repent if they will.

However much they're touched by the truth, if all they do is deny the truth then all they'll get credit for is denying it.

I agree, although I would not speak in terms of "credit", but in terms of becoming. If you want to become a watermelon, that's the seed you have to plant.

To be able to benefit by something that is true you have to accept that it is true and then try to live based on your knowledge.

Absolutely. Great way to put it.

[wenglund]

This whole argument seems to be based on the idea that people are wholly rational.

It also seems to be based on the presupposition that what someone thinks is true, is "true" per se, rather than simple "true" in someone's mind. As I see it, to deny what someone else thinks is true, is not necessarily to deny the truth. If one thinks otherwise, then let me say that I am stating the truth, and were you to deny this, it would, by one's own reasoning, be to deny the truth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Yes, people are wholly rational and we are so all the time.

"Rational" means we choose that act/thing/whatever that will make us the best off of all possible options at the time.

Someone who chooses to sin is not choosing what will make him (or her) the "the best off". He or she may like that sin, for some reason, but just because he (or she) likes it and has a reason to like it doesn't mean he is doing what will make him (or her) the "best off" and it also doesn't mean he (or she) is being "wholly" rational, although he is using some rationale and some reasoning to arrive at his choice.

The question is, not whether someone will be "rational", but what he considers "best off". It's an issue of values and trade offs.

What he considers to be "best off" may not be what is actually going to make him best off, in truth, though, so it's not what he (or she) "considers" to be what is for him (or her) the best off, but what is actually (in truth) the best off for him (or her).

Praxeology, the study/science of human action, (given a complete—and hence nonexistent—set of current values) can predict what anyone will do in any case. The problem as the parentheis indicates, there is no complete list of any person's values. A further complication is that a person's values change almost constantly. The less important the issue in question is, the less lilely it is that the ordinal (which all values must have) value will remain static. It also would be the thing likely to be confronted at any point.

If only someone could figure out a way to add-in God's will for all of us to some kind of praxeology computer to arrive at what is always best for us in every situation. Hmm. I wonder if anyone will be able to use their mind to figure out something like that.

Even the insane are rational.

Fruitcake here. Anyone care for some fruitcake?

We might quesiton their values, but we have no business questioning their rationality. That would get us directly into the Christ Smith/mfbukowski debate in the other topic.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to go there, would we.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Why not?

Because it's an acceptance of truth, instead of a rejection of truth.

For example, most of us know that we shouldn't sin, and yet some of us sin anyway, perhaps unintentionally or in the heat of a moment when we're not operating on all cylinders. Would you then tell soemone who knows and admits that he (or she) shouldn't sin that he (or she) is rejecting the idea that he (or she) shouldn't sin, just because he (or she) has committed some sin?

I think it would be better to say he (or she) accepts the truth that he (or she) shouldn't sin even though he (or she) has committed a sin, anyway, perhaps also telling him (or her) that I hope he (or she) gets better at doing what he (or she) knows he should do.

Truth is practical and must be applied as a condition of acceptance.

It can be applied in our mind without being applied in all of our actions.

Do you know you shouldn't sin? Do you sometimes choose to sin anyway?

If so, I hope you get better at being perfect all of the time.

When hearing, understanding and acknowledging the truth is superficial and has only semantic acceptance, it is not acted upon. Not living it or becoming it is its practical rejection.

Our actions usually start in our mind and then hopefully carry over into our (other) actions, other than merely thinking, as well.

At least someone who accepts the idea that something is true has that going for him (or her), rather than thinking it isn't true.

Now if only they can carry it through in all of their actions, all of the time, everything they think and do would be true.

Truth is knowledge of things as they as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come. The followers of Christ know in the sense He desires by doing (hence they are called disciples—John 8:31-32); disciples become as the Master (John 15:14-15). The pattern of accepting the truth is hearing, applying and becoming, as opposed to hearing, not applying, and not becoming (parable of the sower), which is the pattern of rejecting.

I give credit where credit is due, so if a person accepts the idea that somethign is true I give them credit for that, rather than say they reject the idea. True, they should then carry it from an idea into other of their actions, as well, in addition to their thinking, but at least they got something right even if they don't do everything right.

This really depends on how actively they seek Satan as their master (Moses 5:31 vs. 2 Nephi 26:22). The truth can be rejected actively or passively; by commission of sin or omission of righteousness; etc.

True.

And btw, during this thread, take notice of how much and what some people accept and reject while realizing what people accept and reject actually makes some kind of difference in their overall outcome.

[Ahab]

It also seems to be based on the presupposition that what someone thinks is true, is "true" per se, rather than simple "true" in someone's mind. As I see it, to deny what someone else thinks is true, is not necessarily to deny the truth. If one thinks otherwise, then let me say that I am stating the truth, and were you to deny this, it would, by one's own reasoning, be to deny the truth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's a good thing you added that smiley, otherwise I could be reasonably considered to be reasonable in thinking you were being serious.

[LeSellers]

Someone who choose to sin is not choosing what will make him (or her) the "the best off". He or she may like that sin, or some reason, but just because he (or she) likes it and has a reason to like it doesn't mean he is doing what will make him (or her) the "best off" and it also doesn't mean he (or she) is being "wholly" rational, although he is using some rationale and some reasoning to arrive at his choice.

When I said "best off", I meant it as seen from the person's point of view, not from yours, mine, or even God's. Please check the post you replied to for clarification.

"Rational" means we choose that act/thing/whatever that will make us the best off of all possible options at the time.

The question is, not whether someone will be "rational", but what he considers "best off". It's an issue of values and trade offs.

We agree that sin is a poor choice, but the person does not. The only way to assure that people will always choose what is best for them, and by this I now mean best from God's point of view (which may be yours, but I don't trust you as an arbiter), God would have to deny us agency. That option is fraught with pitfalls.

What he considers to be "best off" may not be what is actually going to make him best off, in truth, though, so it's not what he (or she) "considers" to be what is for him (or her) the best off, but what is actually (in truth) the best off for him (or her).

Of course everyone is going to choose poorly at times, maybe at all times. But that does not refute the fact that t he person made a choice, and, in doing so, by the very definition of "rational", has demonstrated rationality. It comes from the word "ratio", which means comparison. To make a choice, a person must compare options, even if only by dismissing them.

If only someone could figure out a way to add-in God's will for all of us to some kind of praxeology computer to arrive at what is always best for us in every situation. Hmm. I wonder if anyone will be able to use their mind to figure out something like that.

You have completely gone beyond what "rational" means. It is the weighing (however fleetingly) the options.

If you can show me a case where options are available, and a person chooses, from his own vantage point, a choice that will make him worse off (accounting for emotional benefits as well as tangible ones), then I'd agree that person is not rational. But in all the years I've observed people, I have never found a single instance.

Remember, we're discussing "rational" here, not "omniscient".

Even the insane are rational. We might question their values, but we have no business questioning their rationality.

Fruitcake here. Anyone care for some fruitcake?

Show me, as I asked above, a case where even an insane person chooses something that will, from his perspective, make him worse off.

You are injecting your values into the discussion. Values are not the subject. The question is "rationality". The whole point is that values are what make a choice look, to an outsider (like you or me), irrational. From the chooser's perspective, the choice must make him batter off; if not, he would make a different choice. The fact of the choice requires that the person act rationally. You may disagree with that choice, but that's because you value different things than the person who is actually choosing.

You might also recall that the stipulation was that he choose from among available options, not necessarily all options. There may be choices he does not know about or recognize. These “hidden” alternatives are not really available to him. There might also be knowledge he does not possess, but that you do. You cannot deny his rationality based on your superior information.

Lehi

Edited September 29, 2011 by LeSellers

[wenglund]

Even the insane are rational.

As I see it, the difference between the so-called insane and sane, isn't so much their capacity to reason, but the premises and presuppositions upon which their reasoning is based. On average, we don't view the government or other people are out to kill us. But, if we did, it would make sense to take the necessary steps to protect ourselves.

It is this retention of the capacity to reason that makes psychological treatments, like Cognitive Behavior Therapy, viable and in many cases effectual, even with such serious cases as paranoid schizophrenics.

Where it tends not to work is in cases, like with narcissists, where their reasoning is such that they either don't know or don't believe they have mental or emotional problems, or who aren't motivated to properly apply the treatment, or who believe they, themselves, are best equipped to address the matters.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

This is simply not the case. Does the sun come up and go down in a 24 hour cycle? Is that true? Or does day last for six months and night for six months? Is that true or untrue? It depends on where you are standing. Of course, the deeper truth is that the sun is a plasma body around which the earth orbits. If you imagine standing near the sun, nothing goes up and down. Point of view is an integral part of truth, not something to be disregarded in understanding and knowledge of truth.

Sometimes it's a matter of understanding what someone means when they say something. True, the sun doesn't truly come up and go down, like it usually appears to, but it's become something of a colloqualiism to say it does and most everybody understands what it means when somebody says it does, although to be technically correct, it's really not true. Thus, there really is a truth that corresponds to all of reality, and something is either true or not true.

You are right. It's like this. You don't plant a pea seed and expect to get a carrot. That's not based on truth. But your question was on "rejection". Maybe I don't understand where you are coming from or going to with the rejection element.

It's just a thought I find interesting which I felt like sharing with others, like here on this board.

If something is true, all someone has to do is say it's not true to be rejecting the truth. They don't have to first admit that it's true, and then say it's not true, as some people seem to believe. All they have to do is say it's not true to be rejecting the truth, on that issue.

I think it also kinda goes along with the idea that those who hear the gospel in this life and reject it have already had their opportunity to hear the gospel, and it's not as if they have to first admit that it's true before they are held accountable for having heard the gospel. It puts a whole other dimension on what I thought previously about that.

My point is that truth is not binary.

What do you mean when you say that? Maybe I don't correctly understand what you mean.

But my point is that the whole truth . . . . things as they were, are and will be . . . is "us", as children of God, and we need to understand the journeys we each are taking. The reality of those journeys is the truth that eventually we will all know. Also we will eventually know God, and that is the truth.

Yes, but not all of us will be in equal standign before God because some of us will have accepted the truth, and lived it to the best of our ability and knowledge, while others accept it and don't live by their knowledge, while some won't even accept the truth as the truth.

They have as much truth as they have and are willing to have. Yes, they are denying more. But I guess my point is . . . is there a reason to give up hope on them? But maybe you aren't saying that.

No, I'm not saying we should give up hope on those who deny the truth.

I hope they will accept it, someday, before it's too late for them to accept it, like on the day of their judgement after they have already been judged, and not only do I want them to accept the fact that it's true but I want them to live their lives according to it.

But these same people who are living lives denying a lot of things that are true, are also living lives accepting a lot of truth. Who can judge?

Who can judge? Anyone who can see the truth they are denying. We who know the truth can see that they're denying the truth.

For myself, I know I am in denial, numerically speaking, of a lot of truth, since I still have so far to go until I am godly.

That's what I would call being ignorant, instead of rejection, if I understand what you mean.

You're not denying truth until it's presented to you and you say or think it isn't true, at which point you wouldn't even want to alter your life accordingly, so first you have to acknowledge the truth and then put it into practice.

I agree, but everyone is doing their best. Unless they have a spirit of lying with them, and even then they can repent if they will.

What makes you think everyone is doing their best?

Some people are, yes, but not everyone, and some don't even want to. Many accept mediocrity.

I agree, although I would not speak in terms of "credit", but in terms of becoming. If you want to become a watermelon, that's the seed you have to plant.

I can't be a watermelon, and I don't even want to be. I'd rather be a perfect Man like our Father in heaven.

... or at least I think I do.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Ahab

[frankenstein]

To deny the truth a person must first understand the truth, ....

Is that the truth? I can understand the reasoning of many people. So for a person to tell an LDS person "I understand your reasoning, that is you have articulated your thought process, I do not agree with you on the subject."

Sadly, though, I think this exercise is more about being able to pronounce ones own self appointed state from a rameumpton.

The Book of Mormon teaches that those who do not know (insert what they do not know) God will not hold them accountable too. Also, Christ taught, and I believe the LDS believe, that the Holy Ghost testifies of truth. Given these too important aspects to truth, there is a disconnect here. A person to whom the Holy Ghost has not born witness of "truth" most certainly does not "know" "truth", and given that they do not know truth they will not be held accountable to it; thus it really isn't the place of any mortal to label another person as "denying truth". Like I said I think this is exercise is more about shouting down from a rameumpton.

Edited September 29, 2011 by frankenstein

[Ahab]

Of course everyone is going to choose poorly at times, maybe at all times. But that does not refute the fact that t he person made a choice, and, in doing so, by the very definition of "rational", has demonstrated rationality. It comes from the word "ratio", which means comparison. To make a choice, a person must compare options, even if only by dismissing them. You have completely gone beyond what "rational" means. It is the weighing (however fleetingly) the options.

Okay, how about you tell me if this is me being rational.

When I'm not sure about the meaning of a word I use the thesaurus function in Microsoft Word to find other words which I take to mean pretty much the same thing as the word I am looking up, and then I try to remember and utilize what I observe. In this case the word "rational" turns up words like "lucid, balanced, sane, normal, cogent, coherent, based on reason, sensible, reasonable, logical, realistic, sound, wise, and judicious, with antonymns being irrational and illogical. In this case I noticed that you said even the insane are rational, which I take to mean they are all of those other words I found in Microsoft Word, which I thought was silly, and untrue.

Does that sound rational to you?

If you can show me a case where options are available, and a person chooses, from his own vantage point, a choice that will make him worse off (accounting for emotional benefits as well as tangible ones), then I'd agree that person is not rational.

I'm sure even a crazy man thinks his irrational choices make sense, but do they really just because he thinks they do?

I don't define rational by what someone thinks is rational, when it's really not ratinoal. I define rational by what rational really is.

But in all the years I've observed people, I have never found a single instance. Remember, we're discussing "rational" here, not "omniscient". Show me, as I asked above, a case where even an insane person chooses something that will, from his perspective, make him worse off.

Jeepers. Are you going to continue with this line or reasoning or are you going to see the truth sometime in the near future?

You are injecting your values into the discussion.

Uh huh, and not only that, but I'm injecting my own knowledge of truth into this discussion, too.

[The Nehor]

Yes, people are wholly rational and we are so all the time.

"Rational" means we choose that act/thing/whatever that will make us the best off of all possible options at the time.

The question is, not whether someone will be "rational", but what he considers "best off". It's an issue of values and trade offs.

Praxeology, the study/science of human action, (given a complete—and hence nonexistent—set of current values) can predict what anyone will do in any case. The problem as the parentheis indicates, there is no complete list of any person's values. A further complication is that a person's values change almost constantly. The less important the issue in question is, the less lilely it is that the ordinal (which all values must have) value will remain static. It also would be the thing likely to be confronted at any point.

Even the insane are rational. We might quesiton their values, but we have no business questioning their rationality. That would get us directly into the Christ Smith/mfbukowski debate in the other topic.

Lehi

I completely disagree. People do things even knowing they would be "better off" doing something else.

[Ahab]

Is that the truth?

Yes. In other words, if someone is saying something which is true, and you understand what he (or she) is saying while stating what is true, you can still deny that he (or she) is telling the truth just because you don't agree with him (or her), even though what he (or she) is saying is true.

And why would that be? Because the premise is stating the he is telling the truth... even though you deny that he is.

I can understand the reasoning of many people.

Okay. Now understand that if someone is telling the truth, and you understand what he (or she) is saying, you could still deny that he (or she) is telling the truth while he is telling the truth without even realizing that what he (or she) is saying is true.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Ahab

[CV75]

It can be applied in our mind without being applied in all of our actions.

Do you know you shouldn't sin? Do you sometimes choose to sin anyway?

If so, I hope you get better at being perfect all of the time.

This is the crux of our mortal probation and the basis of my comments on this matter, so I won’t rehash them. ["applied in our mind"? isn't that what we once did, and what Satan does, without a body? Isn't that the whole idea behind "progress"?]

As the scriptures (for example) deal in a mutually exclusive way about good and evil, right and wrong, perfection and damnation, truth and error, etc., using the terms “accepting” or “rejecting” the truth well define our relationship with the things God. Introduce to this black-and-white type of assessment the principle of degrees and we get this sort of exchange: “Do you accept God?” / “Yes.” / “Always, in every way, shape and form?” / “Well, no, I could do better.” / OR / “Do you reject God?” / “No.” / “Never, in any way, shape or form?” / “Well, yes, I could do better.”). It’s almost like asking someone, “Are you saved?”

The Gospel extends the hope of finding the truth (which is full and complete justification and sanctification through the merits of Jesus Christ, i.e. exaltation) as we take two steps forward (acting on, or accepting the truth) and one step back (not acting on, or rejecting the truth).

For this reason, giving people credit for what they know doesn’t really address whether they are in fact accepting or rejecting the truth. Truth is knowledge, but it is knowledge that acts independently for itself unto “existence”, like God does (See D&C 93:24, 28, 30)—oops, I rehashed just a little.

And btw, during this thread, take notice of how much and what some people accept and reject while realizing what people accept and reject actually makes some kind of difference in their overall outcome.

I don't understand the point you are making here; you'll have to spell it out for me (thanks in advance).

Edited September 30, 2011 by CV75

[Ahab]

This is the crux of our mortal probation and the basis of my comments on this matter, so I won’t rehash them. ["applied in our mind"? isn't that what we once did, and what Satan does, without a body? Isn't that the whole idea behind "progress"?]

As the scriptures (for example) deal in a mutually exclusive way about good and evil, right and wrong, perfection and damnation, truth and error, etc., using the terms “accepting” or “rejecting” the truth well define our relationship with the things God. Introduce to this black-and-white type of assessment the principle of degrees and we get this sort of exchange: “Do you accept God?” / “Yes.” / “Always, in every way, shape and form?” / “Well, no, I could do better.” / OR / “Do you reject God?” / “No.” / “Never, in any way, shape or form?” / “Well, yes, I could do better.”). It’s almost like asking someone, “Are you saved?”

Right. You're referring to the different degrees to which someone accepts or rejects something. It's not all full throttle or not at all, or at least not only those two extremes, because there are an infinite number of degrees in the middle, as well.