Apostasy

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer, I acknowledge that there are many ways we can approach the question of "is the church true?" In the most trivial sense, the church is true in that it does exist, and is a church, is therefore a true church. If you wish to define a church's truth status as "does it point people toward Christ?" then knock yourself out, though under that definition so are hundreds or thousands of other Christian churches.

You made a claim: "It's obvious that the church isn't true". I disagree with that claim. It's neither obvious, nor is it a useful statement, in my impression. My objection is the imprecise use of language.

W

hen I say it, however, I am assuming a usage that most faithful Mormons would identify with. To definite it more closely, but hopefully succinctly enough, let's say it goes like this: the church is "true" if, and only if, there is an exalted homo sapiens named Elohim, who lives in a place that really exists, called the Celestial Kingdom, who is married to a number greater than or equal to one of exalted homo sapiens females, and who desires there to be an organization in existence on Earth to represent his interests, and to act as a conduit for him to get out the ideas and concepts which he believes it is necessary for us to know. This exalted homo sapiens appeared, in the flesh (and bone, but not blood) to Joseph Smith back in the early 1800s, and instructed Joseph Smith that he was to be his (Elohim's) viceroy, and tell the rest of us what he (Elohim) wants us to do, and that Joseph Smith was to set up and organize the organization that Elohim wants to have in existence, and be its leader. And that, finally, that organization exists today in the form of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City.

An impressive display of widely held beliefs. Is it 'obvious' that such beliefs are 'not true'? are any of the beliefs falsifiable in a meaningful way that one can say that they are true or not true? I'm not saying that the claims are valid or not -- i simply don't know, nor do I find any of those claims relevant to faith. To say that 'the church is true if an only if' these claims are true is to constrain the meaning of 'true' to something it is not meant to be. when Mormons say "the church is true", they mean something...and that something is clearly subjective, although they may be hesitant to admit that to be the case. do we measure the objective truth of the church with the subjective claims of its members? Can you even measure 'subjective truth'?

There's a lot more to it, but that's too much of a mouthful as it is. I assume that in most conversations with Mormons I just have to ask whether the church is true or not, and they pretty much know what I meant by it. It isn't supposed to be a trick question.

So...their unsupported claim that the "church is true" is presumably less valid than your unsupported claim that "it's obvious the church is not true"?

[rodheadlee]

Wayfarer, I acknowledge that there are many ways we can approach the question of "is the church true?" In the most trivial sense, the church is true in that it does exist, and is a church, is therefore a true church. If you wish to define a church's truth status as "does it point people toward Christ?" then knock yourself out, though under that definition so are hundreds or thousands of other Christian churches.

To me it is a simple question. Is the Church true means: Is it truly Jesus Christ's Church? Did he restart His Church through Joseph Smith, Is Jesus Christ in command of this church?

[mfbukowski]

I fully appreciate that you think so, and that you might even be right, and in fact our differing viewpoints on the matter just demonstrate the complexity of the subject, ie: what it means when people are certain of their position.

For example, put a hard core JW, a die-hard muslim, a partisan Catholic, a believing Southern Baptist, and you into a room. It's pretty clear that the five of you will experience the sensation of 100% surety and confidence in the correctness of your religious beliefs, and that at least four of you, and quite possibly all five, are in fact wrong.

Why is it so apparently easy to become convinced of the correctness of one's beliefs despite their actual wrongness? What does it mean? And what introspection should the realization of this phenomenon trigger in each individual?

I think this is a big deal, actually. The biggest, really.

The problem is that you, it appears, have not examined the whole concept of what truth is and is not. It seems you readily admit that you don't know, yet you are certain that that you DO know.

Unfortunately that is a contradiction.

[mfbukowski]

For example, put a hard core JW, a die-hard muslim, a partisan Catholic, a believing Southern Baptist, and you into a room. It's pretty clear that the five of you will experience the sensation of 100% surety and confidence in the correctness of your religious beliefs, and that at least four of you, and quite possibly all five, are in fact wrong.

Why do any of them have to be "wrong" and what criteria would you use to decide who was wrong? And most importantly how would you show any of these to be "wrong in fact" when their claims are non-falsifiable?

[mfbukowski]

Ah, I see wayfarer is on the same tack I am. Not surprising!

[wayfarer]

Ah, I see wayfarer is on the same tack I am. Not surprising!

There are those who take comfort in unfounded certainty, either direction.

I wrote my latest blogpiece on this topic..."Is the Church true?"

Edited February 18, 2013 by wayfarer

[mfbukowski]

There are those who take comfort in unfounded certainty, either direction.

I wrote my latest blogpiece on this topic..."Is the Church true?"

Well I think I do see it in a different way than you do, but you see the glass as half empty and I see it as half full, at least when I am pushed into the corner about how I know the church is true. When not pushed into an intellectual corner over the question, I see the glass as fully full if that makes sense.

I see it more as an epistemological question. The way I see it, there is no way to justify any of these alleged "claims" in a scientific way, but they are not meant to be justified that way. ( I don't actually see them as "truth claims" because I am not quite sure what that phrase even means since there is no theory of "truth" backing them, just good old common sense and Mormon pragmatism) Those who call them "truth claims" typically are not espousing any coherent theory of truth either so the phrase doesn't even make sense as far as I am concerned.

I think what the church teaches are justified and therefore true beliefs, upon which one can reach a level of as much certainty as it is possible to achieve even in scientific propositions, though their process of justification is based on different criteria.

So that's the philosopher in me dealing with the epistemological questions from an epistemological point of view

But I actually believe that these things "really happened", and that miracles do indeed happen. Silly me, I even think the Book of Mormon is in fact historical, in fact I know it is.

I have been kicking around this planet long enough to know that the most logical explanation often has nothing to do with the way the world actually works, and I have seen miracles with my own eyes including things like metastasized cancer disappearing from x-rays literally overnight. Gone. Not there any more.

So do I believe in angels and gold plates? Heck yeah. I honestly see no reason not to.

Can it be proven scientifically? Of course not! It's not meant to be. Anyone who thinks it is meant to be just doesn't get it.

[mfbukowski]

Omni, why wouldn't you expect to find a city with a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" in some language, or the contemporary and cultural equivelant? If Zarahemla really existed, then it existed somewhere, and there's a pretty good chance that, wherever that somewhere is, there's still some evidence of its past hosting of such a city.

I mean, this isn't anything unusual. There are ruins and archeological sites containing remnants and fragments and whatnot from ancient civilizations and cities, all over the world. What is so unusual about Zarahemla that should make it so that we'd assume its remains were forever undiscoverable?

In fact of course some think that it might have been found under other names, but that is not a black and white interpretation so it won't work for you. You will just see that as an excuse. Oh well.

[omni]

Omni, why wouldn't you expect to find a city with a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" in some language, or the contemporary and cultural equivelant? If Zarahemla really existed, then it existed somewhere, and there's a pretty good chance that, wherever that somewhere is, there's still some evidence of its past hosting of such a city.

I mean, this isn't anything unusual. There are ruins and archeological sites containing remnants and fragments and whatnot from ancient civilizations and cities, all over the world. What is so unusual about Zarahemla that should make it so that we'd assume its remains were forever undiscoverable?

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly. I don't expect ironclad archelogical proof of the BoM, I accept there's a need for a degree of faith. But scientific evidence shouldn't continually be contradicting the historicity of the BoM and OT. I don't expect archeologists to find the title of liberty, but we shouldn't also be finding so many anachronisms in the BoM. I don't expect the OT describe in detail the process of evolution, but I also don't expect scriptures and church leaders to suggest there was no death before seven thousand years ago.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly. I don't expect ironclad archelogical proof of the BoM, I accept there's a need for a degree of faith. But scientific evidence shouldn't continually be contradicting the historicity of the BoM and OT. I don't expect archeologists to find the title of liberty, but we shouldn't also be finding so many anachronisms in the BoM. I don't expect the OT describe in detail the process of evolution, but I also don't expect scriptures and church leaders to suggest there was no death before seven thousand years ago.

I won't bother going into it, but if you accept a linguistic constructivist position, there was no "death" before language existed to describe it any more than animals eating each other would call it "murder".

But that is for threads that have already been done, and I am sure will be repeated in the future.

http://www.mortylefk...s-our-reality/#

Werner Heisenberg:

What we are observing is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning. And how do we question? All of our methods of interrogating nature depend on language—and it is the very nature of language to refer to things. We therefore think in terms of things. How can we possibly think of nonthings, nothings, nothing? In our very forms of thought we instinctively divide the world into subjects and objects, thinkers and things, mind and matter. This division seems so natural that it has been presumed a basic maxim of objective science.

Edited February 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

Can it be proven scientifically? Of course not! It's not meant to be. Anyone who thinks it is meant to be just doesn't get it.

I quite agree. I'm interested in your justification for the underlined portion. I have my views but like hearing others too.

[Deborah]

I quite agree. I'm interested in your justification for the underlined portion. I have my views but like hearing others too.

I will give my answer. If could be proven scientifically then we have no need for faith. Faith I believe is more powerful than knowledge, because "knowledge" is based on interpretation of the evidence but faith is directly in the mind and heart. Furthermore we have seen throughout the history of God's people on earth that even when people receive great manifestations of God they don't necessarily remain true and faithful to those things.

[mfbukowski]

I quite agree. I'm interested in your justification for the underlined portion. I have my views but like hearing others too.

Well as I see things there are basically two types of justification for religious truths- one based on the philosophy of William James and the other based more on John Dewey. But it must be noted that Dewey derives most of what he writes from James anyway- though Dewey develops and modifies it to a large extent.

As I see it, there is no problem calling religious belief "justified" based on religious experience alone. That means "I have a testimony" is a perfectly good reason to believe non-scientific facts. We accept truths about morals without any more justification than "common sense" all the time- one cannot prove scientifically that murder is wrong, for example.

All the evidence in the world cannot show that any moral judgements are true or false. Yet of course atheists are moral people even though they might protest that one should only believe what can be logically proven, they don't go around torturing people for fun, even though the prohibition against it cannot be proven logically.

So atheists have this problem of justifying morality - if they take a simplistic approach to the idea that "one should only believe what can be proven through evidence". There is NO evidence for right and wrong, logically speaking.

So for religious and moral issues, conscience and testimony and "just knowing" what is right and wrong require no further justification. These truths have nothing to do with scientific truths- no amount of data can show murder to be "wrong". "Wrong" is a value judgement and science does not deal with values, it deals with what is important in one's life. Moral values enrich one's life and give it meaning; so does belief in God. People find great solace in belief in God, and those beliefs are justified by testimony experiences which are subjective apprehensions of the divine. These beliefs are justified by the value and meaning they give to our lives.

But there is another issue- and that is how they can be justified philosophically if they cannot be justified scientifically. Is there any logic to them at all?

Yes there is, and Dewey and James have demonstrated how this can be done. Notice that this view intentionally leaves God out of the equation- and though justification is based on empirical data, the data requires extensive evaluation and judgement to do so.

But look at this as if it were a scientist describing Alma 32 without wanting to mention God: (my underlining)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-moral/

Dewey's ethics replaces the goal of identifying an ultimate end or supreme principle that can serve as a criterion of ethical evaluation with the goal of identifying a method for improving our value judgments. Dewey argued that ethical inquiry is of a piece with empirical inquiry more generally. It is the use of reflective intelligence to revise one's judgments in light of the consequences of acting on them. Value judgments are tools for enabling the satisfactory redirection of conduct when habit no longer suffices to direct it. As tools, they can be evaluated instrumentally, in terms of their success in guiding conduct. We test our value judgments by putting them into practice and seeing whether the results are satisfactory — whether they solve the problems they were designed to solve, whether we find their consequences acceptable, whether they enable successful responses to novel problems, whether living in accordance with alternative value judgments yields more satisfactory results. We achieve moral progress and maturity to the extent that we adopt habits of reflectively revising our value judgments in response to the widest consequences for everyone of living them out. This pragmatic approach requires that we locate the conditions of warrant for our value judgments in human conduct itself, not in any a priori fixed reference point outside of conduct, such as in God's commands, Platonic Forms, pure reason, or “nature,” considered as giving humans a fixed telos. To do so requires that we understand different types of value judgments in functional terms, as forms of conduct that play distinctive roles in the life of reflective, social beings. Dewey thereby offers a naturalistic metaethic of value judgments, grounded in developmental and social psychology.

Alma 32:

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

I think the parallel here is obvious. Both say essentially "try it and see if it works".

But applying this to belief in God, we have to acknowledge that at least on this side of the veil, belief in God will appear not to work for everyone. We have to acknowledge that there is an element of faith- of course! In LDS parlance, it wouldn't be a test if the answer was perfectly clear for every one.

Yet on the other hand, the LDS value says that eventually "every knee shall bend" because eventually all will see that indeed this course of belief is to the philosopher, "satisfactory" and to the believer "gives a sweet spirit".

But none of this has anything to do with whether or not there was a global flood, or if God decided to use evolution to organize humanity, or the location of Zarahemla. Those scientific questions just have nothing to do with whether or not God has blessed you with a testimony or the teachings of the church are "sweet" to your spirit.

They are two different realms of inquiry entirely as different as criminal law and quantum physics. One has to do with right and wrong and the other has to do with what we can verify scientifically. What we know inside of us is what creates our values- what is external is the realm of science

The most profound metaphysics of all is found in verses 35-37 above. IF THIS WAS THE ONLY THING IN THE BOOK OF MORMON, THAT IN ITSELF WOULD MAKE ME A BELIEVER BECAUSE JOSEPH COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THIS PHILOSOPHICALLY

What is "reality"? It is right there- it is human experience.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good;

Reality is what is discernible- our experience of it. It is "light" - it is knowledge and intelligence. That which is real must be organized by our intelligence just as light enters your eye and your brain organizes it into an experience known by your intelligence.

and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

And we must try that data, by our intelligence again and again to prove it to ourselves- subjectively and if proper, objectively as well. This is what is "real"- intelligence, light and truth.

Edited February 18, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I will give my answer. If could be proven scientifically then we have no need for faith. Faith I believe is more powerful than knowledge, because "knowledge" is based on interpretation of the evidence but faith is directly in the mind and heart. Furthermore we have seen throughout the history of God's people on earth that even when people receive great manifestations of God they don't necessarily remain true and faithful to those things.

Uh, that's what I said but you said it in a lot fewer words.

How did you do that?

[cdowis]

Omni, why wouldn't you expect to find a city with a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" in some language, or the contemporary and cultural equivelant? If Zarahemla really existed, then it existed somewhere, and there's a pretty good chance that, wherever that somewhere is, there's still some evidence of its past hosting of such a city.

I mean, this isn't anything unusual. There are ruins and archeological sites containing remnants and fragments and whatnot from ancient civilizations and cities, all over the world. What is so unusual about Zarahemla that should make it so that we'd assume its remains were forever undiscoverable?

How unfortunate that you speak in ignorance. With very few exceptions, the names of ancient cities in mesoamerica are completely unknown. They have been given modern names.

One interesting exception is Lamonai, which fits the general location of the Lamanites, and the name of a Lamanite king. The BOM tells us that towns were named after individual names. Anyway, the name designates "submerged crocodile", surely a suitable name for a fearsome warrior king.

But, of course, that is only a coincidence.

[Deborah]

Uh, that's what I said but you said it in a lot fewer words.

How did you do that?

I just don't like to type a lot.

[Nofear]

Thanks, Deborah and mfbukowski. For my part, I take a similar perspective emphasizing behavior. One of our primary goals in mortality is for us to change -- to adopt God's perspective about what is good, moral, and right. We subjegate our will to his. This change is paramount, being born again and all that.

It appears to be human nature that internal change in character is much more easily realized when characterized by trust (which is the root attribute of faith). However the Atonement works... the core of our being, our intelligence, must have that faith/trust for it to truly change us. When we have a perfect knowledge of things it seems we might accept the correct choice of behavior (i.e. God's choice) but not necessarily believe that is the right course. We acquiesce according to knowledge but not really have our heart in it. This does not realize the fundamental and true change that we need.

In short: Knowledge may lead us to behave correctly but not necessarily for the right reasons. Faith (in the right thing) leads us to behave correctly and do so for the right reasons.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, Deborah and mfbukowski. For my part, I take a similar perspective emphasizing behavior. One of our primary goals in mortality is for us to change -- to adopt God's perspective about what is good, moral, and right. We subjegate our will to his. This change is paramount, being born again and all that.

Absolutely!

It is about our motivation- what we hold in our hearts as motivation. We can see moral action as pragmatically useful- which it is- we can see it as having evolved as the best course for mankind- which is arguable, of course but nevertheless the way many see it.

Or as religious people, we can see it in a wholly different way, as overcoming our "natural man" and indeed subjugating our will to the Father's will as indeed the savior himself did.

And in fact this becomes a perfect model for the difference between the scientific study of morality and the religious impulse we feel in our hearts. Our external behaviors may be the same- the assiduously moral atheist may behave identically to the religious person, but their motivations- their subjective reasons for acting as they do- will be totally different. What they feel in their hearts will be different, and their patterns of thinking about these things will be vastly different.

And this is why science and religion are different realms. The same observable phenomenon- in this case the outward behavior of the individual- will be totally different for the religious person than for the atheist.

THAT indeed is the difference between science and religion. One is concerned with what is externally observable and the other is concerned with motivation and what is happening internally.

They each describe the same phenomena in radically different languages and contexts. There is no "conflict"- they are speaking about completely different things!

[mfbukowski]

It appears to be human nature that internal change in character is much more easily realized when characterized by trust (which is the root attribute of faith). However the Atonement works... the core of our being, our intelligence, must have that faith/trust for it to truly change us. When we have a perfect knowledge of things it seems we might accept the correct choice of behavior (i.e. God's choice) but not necessarily believe that is the right course. We acquiesce according to knowledge but not really have our heart in it. This does not realize the fundamental and true change that we need.

Oddly I was thinking about this just today while doing my taxes!

One has an intimacy with one's trusted advisors- people who have seen you "naked" as it were- your cpa perhaps and your doctor and spouse- of course all to different degrees. One must expose vulnerabilities and stand humble before others, needing them in order to survive in some cases even.

This vulnerability produces trust and a sense of intimacy with those whom we trust.

How much more do we stand vulnerable before He who knows our every thought?

[Nofear]

And in fact this becomes a perfect model for the difference between the scientific study of morality and the religious impulse we feel in our hearts. Our external behaviors may be the same- the assiduously moral atheist may behave identically to the religious person, but their motivations- their subjective reasons for acting as they do- will be totally different. What they feel in their hearts will be different, and their patterns of thinking about these things will be vastly different.

Nice point (among the other nice points you made). It's not enough to do good, we must be good. Ironically our Protestant and Catholic friends basically agree with that sound bite (though they or may not differ from us in whether or not the being good is actualized or simply accommodated by the atonement).