Craig Paxton Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Here's an interesting statement published by the Prophet Harold B. Lee in the Ensign:So I guess before we discuss the issue we need to ask ourselves if we are "fully grounded in the faith"?Well obviously president lee was uninformed and speaking as a man
Ron Beron Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Well obviously president lee was uninformed and speaking as a manIt depends on how you see the book of Genesis. Is a book that is historically accurate or one in which God teaches in an inspirational manner the ways of God with man? I, for one, accept the possibility of an Adam, but not necessarily a physical one. Rather, I see him as a representation of man as he starts to perceive God as a singular entity as opposed to some animistic ghost.
mfbukowski Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 It does get a bad rap, doesn't it. I have many friends who are Persian and they are surprised that people do not they are Caucasian and not Arab or Semitic. My personal belief they are the focus of the beginning of all civilization... Eden, if you will.I too am fascinated with Zoroastrianism, but as a religious practice it has almost been eradicated in Iran.Yes, that so sad. Of course the Parsis are carrying on most of the traditions.But I think that if more people, especially LDS people, were aware of the similarities there would be much more interest in their religion.I have seen what is arguably a "winged sun disc" even in our temples, and I wonder if the architects were making those parallels deliberately or not. (commonly found above doors).And of course the son of Ahura Mazda (the sun god) was Mithras, at least in the Roman versions of the religion, and there were many reasons that the cult of Mithras was an early competitor, and some scholars say the source, of Christianity.
mfbukowski Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Here's an interesting statement published by the Prophet Harold B. Lee in the Ensign:Dr. Eyring has written: “I have often met this question: ‘Dr. Eyring, as a scientist, how can you accept revealed religion?’ The answer is simple. The Gospel commits us only to the truth. The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion. Try it. Does it work?Pure William James. Unfortunately President Lee did not apply these principles to the science of evolutionary theory in this passage. If he had carried it forward consistently, he would have seen that what is quoted above is indeed true for both science AND religion.William James's version of the pragmatic theory is often summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving."[2] By this, James meant that truth is a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic"). James's pragmatic theory is a synthesis of correspondence theory of truth and coherence theory of truth, with an added dimension. Truth is verifiable to the extent that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things, as well as "hangs together," or coheres, fits as pieces of a puzzle might fit together, and these are in turn verified by the observed results of the application of an idea to actual practice.[2][3][4][5][6] James said that "all true processes must lead to the face of directly verifying sensible experiences somewhere."[7] He also extended his pragmatic theory well beyond the scope of scientific verifiability, and even into the realm of the mystical: "On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is 'true.' "[3]http://en.wikipedia...._of_truth#James Edited June 20, 2012 by mfbukowski
Cobalt-70 Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 If ever there were a pure Adamic language it would have to be the Indo-European languages which we all share and use. For example, the word for mother and father is almost universal as well as the negative response of "no" or n sounds. Interestingly, Indo-European probably developed around the Caspian Sea region which is reputed to where Eden would have been.Proto-Indo-European was a very ancient language that is the ancestor of many modern languages. But it is not the ancestor of all languages, or even most languages. Hebrew, for example, is not even remotely Indo-European, nor are all African, all Native American and Oceanic, and most Asian languages.
Cobalt-70 Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 There are even some Indo-European words in Chinese, how they got there is another question.They got there because Europeans and Chinese traded, going back to ancient times. The Chinese borrowed Western or Indian words, just as Europeans borrowed Chinese words. For example, the English word "silk" descended from an ancient Greek word borrowed from Chinese as a result of ancient trade routes.
Cobalt-70 Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) I'm afraid Adamic is a mythological language. In modern linguistics, the idea that every language descended from a common source during the last few thousand years is considered a crackpot idea. Most linguists do not see any evidence of a common ancestor to all languages. If the idea of such a language is entertained, linguists would date it on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of years old. Existing languages are far too different, and we know too much about the rules whereby languages drift over time.Moreover, the tower of Babel myth upon which Adamic was based does not correspond with history. We have records of multiple languages that pre-date the time when the tower of Babel was supposed to have been built, and there is no linguistic discontinuity in Mesopotamia during that era.But the myth of Adamic is a beautiful idea, and I can see why Smith was so fascinated by it, and why he wanted to try to reconstruct it. It's the idea of world unity. A world in which we can all speak and have a perfect understanding of each other. I think it is good to preserve the myth. Just don't confuse mythology with linguistics. Edited June 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Log Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Yes, I think you've said before, and abundantly, that Joseph made it all up, and that the academic and scientific communities are, in the end, the final arbiters of truth - and, at each point where the doctrines and teachings of the Church conflict with those communities, the Church is universally the loser. I am left wondering why one would claim to be a part of a church whose truth claims one utterly rejects. Edited June 20, 2012 by Log
Cobalt-70 Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Yes, I think you've said before, and abundantly, that Joseph made it all up, and that the academic and scientific communities are, in the end, the final arbiters of truth - and, at each point where the doctrines and teachings of the Church conflict with those communities, the Church is universally the loser. I am left wondering why one would claim to be a part of a church whose truth claims one utterly rejects.I never said that, and don't believe it. What I believe is that scientists are the arbiters of scientific truth, linguists are the arbiters of linguistic truth, historians are the arbiters of historical truth, the Pope is the arbiter of Catholic truth, Joseph Smith was the arbiter of early Mormon truth, and and the current LDS hierarchy is the arbiter of current LDS truth. If there is ever a conflict, it is usually because one party tries to exercise authority in areas in which it has no authority.
Log Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Which community is the arbiter of the truths of reality? Which community is the arbiter of the truths of the historical events that happened in the real past?Your posts have left no question as to what realms the Church has authority over, in your eyes - the realms of myth, fable, and parable - the stuff that's not even false; the stuff that has the same purchase on reality as lies.In that context, "If there is ever a conflict (between the claims of the Church and science/archaeology/scholarship/history/any other worldly study), it is usually because one party tries to exercise authority in areas in which it has no authority" means only that where the Church conflicts with any academic or scientific claim, the Church is the loser in your eyes.Not that you're the only one who apparently believes that. You're simply one of the more consistent posters in that respect, compared to some others who claim to be LDS. However, the truly consistent posters in that respect are those who are outside of the Church. After all, if the Church is falsified at each point it comes into contact with science / psychology / biology / history / archaeology / linguistics / &c. (reality, in other words), then what could possibly motivate one to wish to associate with it? Edited June 20, 2012 by Log
Cobalt-70 Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Which community is the arbiter of the truths of reality? Which community is the arbiter of the truths of the historical events that happened in the real past?It depends on which reality. If it is linguistic or historical reality, listen to linguists or historians. If it is spiritual, moral, theological, eschatological, soteriological, mythological, or cosmythological reality and you are LDS, listen to your LDS leaders and read your scriptures.
mfbukowski Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 I have trouble understanding a "reality" which no one has ever experienced. If no one has experienced it, how would anyone know it is "real"?But for the reality we DO experience, all we have is our experience of it. When you think about it, all we can know is the common pool of human experience all written down, or spoken, in language, PLUS what we have experienced for ourselves.How do you know if Antarctica or Quantum Physics or viruses or Betelgeuse or the hagfish are real? Because many people have written articles about them. And those people are typically specialized into their own "communities" of expertise.I don't argue with astronomers about Betelgeuse or with marine biologists about hagfish. They might know all there is to know about these subjects, about all the truth that exists about these things in that little "world of hagfish", because suppose, they have read every article available in those limited subjects- in that "community" or "world" or "reality".But they don't know one thing about my life, what gives it meaning, or about the experiences I personally have had.
Ron Beron Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Proto-Indo-European was a very ancient language that is the ancestor of many modern languages. But it is not the ancestor of all languages, or even most languages. Hebrew, for example, is not even remotely Indo-European, nor are all African, all Native American and Oceanic, and most Asian languages.You are right, of course. Hebrew being Afro-Asiatic and Chinese being exclusively Asian, but Japanese is more akin to proto-Indo-European than Chinese...Other proposals, further back in time (and proportionately less accepted), link Indo-European and Uralic with Altaic and the other language families of northern Eurasia, namely Yukaghir, Korean, Japanese, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, Ainu, and Eskimo–Aleut, but excluding Yeniseian (the most comprehensive such proposal is Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic), or link Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic to Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian (the traditional form of the Nostratic hypothesis), and ultimately to a single Proto-Human family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_languageWhile Hebrew is not IE the culture, primarily Levantine shows IE influences and contributions. Some (Ghil'ad Zuckermann) has argued that modern Hebrew is, in fact, a form of IE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghil%27ad_Zuckermann#Historical_linguistics_-_characterization_of_Israeli_Hebrew
Ron Beron Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 They got there because Europeans and Chinese traded, going back to ancient times. The Chinese borrowed Western or Indian words, just as Europeans borrowed Chinese words. For example, the English word "silk" descended from an ancient Greek word borrowed from Chinese as a result of ancient trade routes.I believe that it goes further back than that, but as a result of trade and immigration, e.g., Tarim and to a lesser degree Jewish immigration.
Cobalt-70 Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 I have trouble understanding a "reality" which no one has ever experienced. If no one has experienced it, how would anyone know it is "real"?Nobody ever directly "experiences reality." Your experience of what you think is reality is filtered through the transmission of light and sound, through your senses and all the noisy biological processes in your nervous system and brain, mixed with your biases and expectations, and then filtered through your unreliable memory. And even then, who is the "you" that does the experiencing? The "you" one minute ago of whom your only interaction is only via short-term memory? The "you" one year ago with whom your only interaction is via long-term memory? The left hemisphere of your brain? the right? Your temporal lobes? Your spirit body? Your "intelligence"?
Ron Beron Posted June 20, 2012 Posted June 20, 2012 Nobody ever directly "experiences reality." Your experience of what you think is reality is filtered through the transmission of light and sound, through your senses and all the noisy biological processes in your nervous system and brain, mixed with your biases and expectations, and then filtered through your unreliable memory. And even then, who is the "you" that does the experiencing? The "you" one minute ago of whom your only interaction is only via short-term memory? The "you" one year ago with whom your only interaction is via long-term memory? The left hemisphere of your brain? the right? Your temporal lobes? Your spirit body? Your "intelligence"?Sounds a little Buddhist here? Nothing truly exists because it is all transitory therefore, nothing is real.
Aliwe Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 How do you know if Antarctica or Quantum Physics or viruses or Betelgeuse or the hagfish are real? Because many people have written articles about them. And those people are typically specialized into their own "communities" of expertise.Not only have they written articles about them, but these articles are phrased in such a way that a third party can come in and attempt to disqualify them. Betelgeuse, for instance, was the first star after the sun to have it's apparent diameter measured, it subtends about 0.047 arcseconds. Anyone can get a telescope and try to poke a hole in that observation, maybe say it's still a point source with no visible disk. This differs from other things like, oh, the golden plates, so we can say the reality of Betelgeuse is not a matter of faith.
Cobalt-70 Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Sounds a little Buddhist here? Nothing truly exists because it is all transitory therefore, nothing is real.I did not say, and do not believe, that nothing is real. I said that nobody directly experiences reality. Reality is always mediated, translated, and distorted through a chain of difference and deferrals. The reality is there, but is never directly apprehended, and even if it were, there is not an indivisible "subject" that does all the apprehending.
thesometimesaint Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 No one alive today has ever seen Plato. All we really have is what someone else has said about him. Does that mean that he didn't exist?
thesometimesaint Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Cobalt70:True, but we do know when someone is so far out of that agreed to reality that it become a mental illness. Also bear in mind that if someone could go back in time to the 17th Century and tried to explain television. They'd burn him/her at the stake for witchcraft.
Aliwe Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 I did not say, and do not believe, that nothing is real. I said that nobody directly experiences reality. Reality is always mediated, translated, and distorted through a chain of difference and deferrals. The reality is there, but is never directly apprehended, and even if it were, there is not an indivisible "subject" that does all the apprehending.This allegedly "distorted" reality that we are said to apprehend as through a glass darkly implies a non-distorted underlying reality that we can never reach. As such, it remains a purely unfalsifiable assertion that such an ideal world exists. By defining reality as something that can never be truly experienced, reality itself becomes an article of faith. 1
Ron Beron Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 I did not say, and do not believe, that nothing is real. I said that nobody directly experiences reality. Reality is always mediated, translated, and distorted through a chain of difference and deferrals. The reality is there, but is never directly apprehended, and even if it were, there is not an indivisible "subject" that does all the apprehending.Fair enough. Buddhism states that nothing is real because of the transient nature of reality, i.e.. reality isn't real because it changes so readily. Aside from semantics we seem to agree.
Cobalt-70 Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 No one alive today has ever seen Plato. All we really have is what someone else has said about him. Does that mean that he didn't exist?No, but his reality has been reduced to his writings, and the writings about him. He now exists in the form of symbols stored in books and in computers. He is an ink- and energy-based lifeform. If somebody were to find where his bones were buried, he would be a skeleton, too, but the skeleton aspect of him would be a far less real representation of the myth we call "Plato" than the text he left behind.
Log Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Just like God, eh? No existence but in tracks of ink across pages?
Recommended Posts