Are We Obsessed With Mormonism?

[Calm]

 It's one of the best feelings.

Still is after 50+ years.    It is one of those feelings that can keep growing in fact.

[Jazzdreamer]

Still is after 50+ years. It is one of those feelings that can keep growing in fact.

I hope it keeps going! I'm still new and everyone says I have that "convert glow" about me which makes me wonder if at some point, the gospel won't be as beautiful to me as it is now...it saddens me to think of that as being possible. I can't wait to make my covenants in the temple, I can't wait to get married in the temple, I just love everything about my religion! ^.*

[Calm]

There are ups and downs, but the downs make the ups all that sweeter.  If you can hold on to that sense of Heavenly Father loving you, I think that can get you past almost anything.

[Jazzdreamer]

Well, I've had my moments of frustration and not being able to understand some things but I've learned that through prayer and talking with the wonderful missionaries, things begin to make sense.

[ERayR]

I searched my alter-ego screen name here and found a link to something I had written about the suspension of the Relief Society in the months preceding the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. One person suggested I was wrapped around the axle of Mormonism and needed to let go. I've thought about that a lot for a long time, but here I am. I suppose it would be easier if I weren't still heavily involved in the church through family and attendance. I stopped going for a while but returned when my wife would come home in tears because people at church kept telling her how sorry they were that her husband was--take your pick--not honoring his priesthood/not valiant/an apostate/lazy. And, in all honesty, I find the church discussed here, with all its personalities and highs and lows, to be far more interesting than what we discuss in high priests group meeting. Still I'm told I should just walk away and shut up because talking about it is bad for me.

 

But coming back here I see some of the same names I have seen since I first joined this board back in 2002 or 2003 (I forget which). Are you guys as obsessed as I am? Why? What brings you back here all the time?

 

For me, besides being fascinated by Mormonism, I come to places like this to sow the seeds of doubt in as many people as I can, thus bringing them down to the same level of misery I am experiencing.

How about you?

 

 

Yup I am obsessed with Mormonism.  I have been since I received a witness that it was true and things I hadn't understood started making sense. 

[Stargazer]

I searched my alter-ego screen name here and found a link to something I had written about the suspension of the Relief Society in the months preceding the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. One person suggested I was wrapped around the axle of Mormonism and needed to let go. I've thought about that a lot for a long time, but here I am. I suppose it would be easier if I weren't still heavily involved in the church through family and attendance. I stopped going for a while but returned when my wife would come home in tears because people at church kept telling her how sorry they were that her husband was--take your pick--not honoring his priesthood/not valiant/an apostate/lazy. And, in all honesty, I find the church discussed here, with all its personalities and highs and lows, to be far more interesting than what we discuss in high priests group meeting. Still I'm told I should just walk away and shut up because talking about it is bad for me.

 

NO, it is NOT bad for you.  You just miss your daily recommended allowance of it.

 

But coming back here I see some of the same names I have seen since I first joined this board back in 2002 or 2003 (I forget which). Are you guys as obsessed as I am? Why? What brings you back here all the time?

 

I love discussing the gospel, and all aspects of it.  I can't get enough of it on Sunday, so here I am.

 

Another point of personal information is my testimony of Jesus Christ.  The longer I am alive the greater my understanding of who He was, and who He is has become, and even more important, the greater my understanding of how much I owe to Him.  How could I not want to discuss His sacrifice for me and for all of my brothers and sisters, and for His love for us all, and to make this very personal, His love for ME.  That's why I keep coming back here.

 

Besides everyone here are all so kooky that and fun to be around!    Especially YOU.

 

For me, besides being fascinated by Mormonism, I come to places like this to sow the seeds of doubt in as many people as I can, thus bringing them down to the same level of misery I am experiencing.

 

Good luck with that, John!  It isn't working.  The more I have interacted with you and read your polemics the greater has been my appreciation for the Church and all the blessings I have through it.  You've really annoyed me on several occasions, but I don't hold that against you, nor do I really remember what it was specially that annoyed me, so it's all good.  I like getting riled up occasionally.  Helps clear the arteries, or something.  

 

How about you?

 

 

You should invite your wife to come on here and have fun with you!  You shouldn't try to hog it all yourself! 

[Stargazer]

I can relate to that. Like I said, the Mormonism discussed here is much more interesting, IMO, than what we discuss in church. My high priests group usually ends up discussing politics anyway, no matter the subject we're supposed to be talking about.

 

Gosh, that's horrible.  You don't think you could complain to the group leader, do you?  I am highly political and have definite opinions on which bodily orifices particular political approaches need to be firmly lodged, but if my HP group started dwelling on politics like you describe I would standing up in the middle of lessons and telling them all without hesitation to shut up and get back on topic.  Even if I agreed with the politics on display.  GRRRR.

[Stargazer]

I appreciate that. I still find myself on occasion thinking that someone I meet would be happier if they were LDS, but not often. These days I'm just glad I moved away from Utah, as I can go to work without having everyone else talking about church. No one cares about my religious beliefs here, which is great. Back there, my boss was my bishop years ago when I was elders quorum president, so sometimes one-on-one meetings with him felt like PPIs.

 

Gosh, I actually agree with part of that.  Utah to me is a nice place to visit, but don't even suggest I move there.  For one thing, there are too many Mormons and not enough Latter-day Saints.

 

For another, I think I can get a lot more missionary ops here than there.

[Jazzdreamer]

I heard Utah is rough... I'm out in New York, everyone is calm and laid back and kind and very not judgemental...

[Jazzdreamer]

I heard Utah is rough... I'm out in New York, everyone is calm and laid back and kind and very not judgemental...

[Stargazer]

My primary disagreement with you is simple: you believe that humans can apprehend things (God, truth, whatever you want to call it) without language and without interpretation. I do not. Everything we experience is interpreted and always will be, so when we choose "what works for us" we are choosing an interpretation by which to live our lives. You have, to my understanding, posited a God and a religion that teach certain moral absolutes, but I can only come up with one moral absolute in Mormonism. Hence, it's not a very attractive religion to me, especially when I consider that the moral absolute can only come through this "pre-linguistic" perception that I do not accept.

 

Yeah, I tried following that discussion you and he were having in that other thread, but eventually I just wondered to myself when the bloody heck they were going to stop talking past each other.  I did not go back to see what if anything had happened to the thread.

 

But in that other thread, I actually thought you had the best points, John, but suddenly today something occurred to me when reading the above that collapsed the state vector, so to speak, and put me on the other side of it.  I believe you are wrong, and I don't intend to derail the thread, but I have had a few things happen to me recently where I realized that I understood a fact at least one or two seconds before I could even find the words to express it to myself in words.  Maybe it is just me.  But I am certain that I understand some things that I cannot put words to, and that those things are pure truth.  Maybe I will find out I was wrong one of these days.  But I doubt it.

 

Anyway, after this brief intermission, back to the OP.

[mfbukowski]

When did I say I was kidding?

We could get into a huge discussion about truth, but for what purpose? My primary disagreement with you is simple: you believe that humans can apprehend things (God, truth, whatever you want to call it) without language and without interpretation. I do not. Everything we experience is interpreted and always will be, so when we choose "what works for us" we are choosing an interpretation by which to live our lives. You have, to my understanding, posited a God and a religion that teach certain moral absolutes, but I can only come up with one moral absolute in Mormonism. Hence, it's not a very attractive religion to me, especially when I consider that the moral absolute can only come through this "pre-linguistic" perception that I do not accept.

Within human perception we must understand that everything is contingent, but we must also understand that our shared "vocabulary," if you will, allows--maybe even requires--us to reach judgments and conclusions, however tentative they are

 

"I come here to help people find their sense of humor. But it's not personal. :lol:"

 

Well I guess we are just plain far apart on this one

 

There is a brilliant brilliant new Wittgenstein scholar named Chantal Bax who is just starting to publish and her dissertation has much to say about this exact subject.

 

Until we get some theology which fits better with Mormonism than this, I think this is my working hypothesis.  But if you want to take on Wittgenstein and show me how he is wrong, I will be glad to go on discussing it.

 

The bottom line, is that according to one's perspective one can see the self as contingent scientifically speaking, or as the will, phenomenologically speaking.  One can will one's perspective, or saying it another way, one can choose one's attitude.  Without choice, ethics and morality has no meaning- we become amoral, contingent, programmed robots. But if we see this apparent dichotomy as representing two different points of view, both valid, just seen from different perspectives, the problem goes away.

"Subjectivity after Wittgenstein" Chantal Bax

Page 113-116

According to Wittgenstein, the individual subject turns out to be

just a fact among others when one looks at it from a logical point of view, but

there is also a different perspective one can take. Indeed, one can conceive of the

entire world as a specific constellation of facts, but it is also possible to conceive of

it as something in which, despite or beyond its factuality, the absolutely valuable

manifests itself.37 From this perspective, the individual subject appears in a wholly

different light, and it is subjectivity in this particular guise that Wittgenstein

appoints the bearer of ethico-religious worth. In order to bring out the difference

with the individual taken as a bundle of thoughts and feelings, Wittgenstein

reserves a different label for it and it and dubs it the willing subject: “I will call

“will” first and foremost the bearer of good and evil.”38

In so far as Wittgenstein’s remark about the intentions of a murderer is at odds

with the way we might ordinarily come to accuse someone of murder – instead of

of manslaughter, say – his concept of the will is in line with what we normally

judge to be good or evil in so far as he takes the will to be intrinsically connected

to an individual’s behaviour. It is, after all, first and foremost human conduct to

which our moral concepts apply. However, and in spite of the fact that

Wittgenstein uses a seemingly everyday term for the source of ethico-religious

value, this is also where the correspondence to ordinary morality breaks down

again. To the extent that our doings and sayings are concrete worldly events,

Wittgenstein cannot hold them to be good or evil without further ado. Moreover,

for the same reason that he is forced to deny a person’s intentions any moral

import and cannot locate such import in the consequences of someone’s actions

either, Wittgenstein is prevented from taking the ethical will to relate to behaviour

as the phenomenon we normally call by that name.

....In an attempt to prevent ethics from turning out to be an arbitrary affair, Wittgenstein

defines the ethical will by means of its contrast to the everyday wish and

distinguishes the former from the latter in both respects just mentioned. He claims:

“The act of the will is not the cause of the action but is the action itself. One

cannot will without acting,” and declares: “If the will has to have an object in the

world, the object can be the intended action itself.”41 Wittgenstein thus suggests

that the ethico-religious will concurs or coincides with our actions, both in the

sense of not preceding them and in the sense of not being directed at anything else.

This move may not seem to be of much avail in preventing ethics from

becoming an arbitrary affair, for if willing wholly coincides with acting, it should

ultimately be said to be as much a contingent fact as our doings and sayings and

everything else we encounter in the world. As Wittgenstein however also

proclaims: “The will is an attitude of the subject to the world.”42 By means of this

statement, it can be made clear how the ethico-religious will is neither itself of a

factual nature, nor directed at any purely factual things.

At this point, another distinction needs to be introduced first. Similar to his

distinguishing between an individual and a metaphysical subject when it comes to

the basic ontology of subjectivity, Wittgenstein maintains that there is both an

individual and a metaphysical will.43 For according to Wittgenstein, as stated, one

can perceive, not just of the individual subject, but of the entire world as

something in which the absolutely valuable manifests itself. That is to say, it is

possible to look at the world as a specific constellation of facts – this is the

perspective we take in both everyday and scientific discourse - but one can also

look beyond the temporal appearance of the world as it happens to be and

conceive of it “sub specie aeternitatis.”44 This is the perspective we take when we contemplate the very meaning of life and the world, for instance in aesthetic or

religious contexts.

Now when one takes this perspective, Wittgenstein continues, one can see

“that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter”45 - indeed, one can see

that what matters is not how the world happens to be but that it exists in the first

place: “the miracle is that the world exists.”46 Put differently, according to the early

Wittgenstein, that there is a world - not just this world but any world at all - is of

unconditional and absolute value. Given that the existence of the world does not

constitute a specific fact but forms a precondition for any fact to occur, it can after

all be said to be of more than just relative worth. Quite traditionally, furthermore,

Wittgenstein associate the existence of the world with the existence of God: “How

things stand is God. God is, how things stand.”47 The metaphysical will can thus

be said to concern the world in its entirety, conceived of as a manifestation of

God’s will.

 

http://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Dissertations/DS-2009-06.text.pdf

[Hamba Tuhan]

It is one of those feelings that can keep growing in fact.

 

Yes. I find myself all the time thinking, 'It just can't get any better than this', and then it does. Again and again and again. I remember telling my bishop a couple of years ago that I would be grateful to enjoy what I then had for all eternity, but of course the Lord has just kept adding and adding since then, and I suspect Paul was not exaggerating when he wrote, 'Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him'. I've started to realise that I used to have such a small understanding of what the Gospel is and does. I had no idea what kinds of experiences would be coming my way. And I'm guessing I still don't, even from the vantage point of what already has.

 

I'm Facebook friends with a man who was my housemate for three years and who served as my second counsellor in the elders quorum presidency when I was studying in America. Over the past two years or so, it's become obvious from his increasingly cynical and snarky posts that he's walked away from 'Mormonism', and I can't help thinking what I would have missed out on just in the last two years if I'd for some reason joined him.

 

What a joyful, wonderful, unending miracle this all is!

Edited October 15, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Libs]

Over the past two years or so, it's become obvious from his increasingly cynical and snarky posts that he's walked away from 'Mormonism', and I can't help thinking what I would have missed out on just in the last two years if I'd for some reason joined him.

 

 

What has been right for you may have been a disaster for him.  I don't believe there is only one correct path for all.

 

It has been good for me to be out of the church these past five years, and rather than feeling I have lost blessings, I believe I have gained.  I live in CA and if I had been in the church during the whole Prop 8 fiasco, that would have done me in, spiritually.  It was hard enough watching it from the outside.

 

I've also had some spiritual experiences that I don't believe would have been possible (for me) inside the church.

 

So, although, I think it's wonderful that you and many others are so happy within the church, it really is not the best place for everyone...IMHO.

[Alvino]

I searched my alter-ego screen name here and found a link to something I had written about the suspension of the Relief Society in the months preceding the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. One person suggested I was wrapped around the axle of Mormonism and needed to let go. I've thought about that a lot for a long time, but here I am. I suppose it would be easier if I weren't still heavily involved in the church through family and attendance. I stopped going for a while but returned when my wife would come home in tears because people at church kept telling her how sorry they were that her husband was--take your pick--not honoring his priesthood/not valiant/an apostate/lazy. And, in all honesty, I find the church discussed here, with all its personalities and highs and lows, to be far more interesting than what we discuss in high priests group meeting. Still I'm told I should just walk away and shut up because talking about it is bad for me.

 

But coming back here I see some of the same names I have seen since I first joined this board back in 2002 or 2003 (I forget which). Are you guys as obsessed as I am? Why? What brings you back here all the time?

 

For me, besides being fascinated by Mormonism, I come to places like this to sow the seeds of doubt in as many people as I can, thus bringing them down to the same level of misery I am experiencing.

How about you?

 

 

Honestly, LDS ideas had a lot of influence in me while growing up and my mind tends to go to the frame of mind I had while growing up LDS when I think about religious issues. I don't think the LDS faith is particularly interesting but I'm somewhat more comfortable with people who are LDS and talk about LDS stuff than those of other religions and often even more comfortable than I feel among other atheists/agnostics.

I don't know how serious you are about coming here to help folks doubt but that isn't the case with me at all. I suspect it just has to do more with my kind of personality than with any belief I have but I can't think of one time I convinced someone and I felt good about it. Even when I was LDS I sort of felt bad when people got convinced of what I said; can't shake the feeling off that I've mislead people one way or the other.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Alvino

[jkwilliams]

Yeah, I tried following that discussion you and he were having in that other thread, but eventually I just wondered to myself when the bloody heck they were going to stop talking past each other.  I did not go back to see what if anything had happened to the thread.

 

But in that other thread, I actually thought you had the best points, John, but suddenly today something occurred to me when reading the above that collapsed the state vector, so to speak, and put me on the other side of it.  I believe you are wrong, and I don't intend to derail the thread, but I have had a few things happen to me recently where I realized that I understood a fact at least one or two seconds before I could even find the words to express it to myself in words.  Maybe it is just me.  But I am certain that I understand some things that I cannot put words to, and that those things are pure truth.  Maybe I will find out I was wrong one of these days.  But I doubt it.

 

Anyway, after this brief intermission, back to the OP.

 

Again, I think your definition of "language" is narrower than mine, as you equate it with words, so if you understand something before you have words to express it, that to you is pre-linguistic, to borrow Brother Bukowski's term. And that makes sense given your definition of language.

 

For me, language is the structure by which we interpret everything we experience, even if we don't use words. For example, when I touch the keys on my computer keyboard, I know I'm touching something because I can feel it. But if I didn't know that the pressure I feel in the nerves of my fingers means I'm touching something, I wouldn't be able to interpret those sensations as "touch" or "feeling something." Thus, everything we experience must go through that process of interpretation, whether it involves words or not. If I understand Brother Bukowski correctly, he's saying that there's something (spirit, I assume) that we understand without interpreting it. That makes no sense to me.

[Stargazer]

As to the reason for coming here over and over, where else can I discuss my nitwit ideas?  Or even my brilliant ideas -- since it's bound to happen eventually?

Edited October 15, 2013 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Again, I think your definition of "language" is narrower than mine, as you equate it with words, so if you understand something before you have words to express it, that to you is pre-linguistic, to borrow Brother Bukowski's term. And that makes sense given your definition of language.

 

I don't know, John.  I think you're straining at a gnat, and I mean that in a friendly way.  I have examined my state from the moment that I realized the "something" until the word popped out, and I cannot come up with any other term for that state than "alinguistic".  It was not "pre-linguistic".  It seemed to exist in my consciousness in and of itself, as itself, not as any kind of pre-verbality. 

 

Hmmm.  This is probably going to have to be one of those things that one gets, and I can't expect you to understand it until you get it, too.  Unless it is possible to come up with a cogent restatement that somehow cannot be gainsaid.  I'll let you know if anything comes up.  :-)

 

For me, language is the structure by which we interpret everything we experience, even if we don't use words.

 

Yes, I see what you're saying and it makes a certain amount of sense, but the language is only the interpretation, it isn't the experience.  The experience exists independent of language, and in order to explain it to ourselves, we resort to language.  And language, being inherently an approximation, is necessarily far more limited and limiting than the experience itself. 

 

Thank you for that, by the way, I seem to have suddenly stumbled upon something I have never before realized.  And all thanks to you guys and your little conversation.

 

For example, when I touch the keys on my computer keyboard, I know I'm touching something because I can feel it. But if I didn't know that the pressure I feel in the nerves of my fingers means I'm touching something, I wouldn't be able to interpret those sensations as "touch" or "feeling something." Thus, everything we experience must go through that process of interpretation, whether it involves words or not. If I understand Brother Bukowski correctly, he's saying that there's something (spirit, I assume) that we understand without interpreting it. That makes no sense to me.

 

OK, I gotta go to work.  No more philosophy until the afternoon!  :-)

[jkwilliams]

I don't know, John.  I think you're straining at a gnat, and I mean that in a friendly way.  I have examined my state from the moment that I realized the "something" until the word popped out, and I cannot come up with any other term for that state than "alinguistic".  It was not "pre-linguistic".  It seemed to exist in my consciousness in and of itself, as itself, not as any kind of pre-verbality.

If it makes you feel better, that's what I was trying to say. Perhaps a definition of the way I'm using the word "language" would help: "the suggestion by objects, actions, or conditions of associated ideas or feelings." We speak of "the language of love," but usually we mean by that not a formal system of words and sounds and letters, but rather the ways we express love. If I give my wife a hug, that expresses love without any words, and she doesn't need to think or say the words "he loves me." She knows because she interprets my hug that way. Language, then, is the system of interpreting signs (object, actions, conditions, words, and so on).

But the same actions, conditions, etc., can have radically different interpretations. If, for example, you were a soldier and you knew that the platoon leader always gives a man a hug before sending him on a suicide mission, you'd probably interpret a hug differently. I know someone who wore briefs all his life until he got married. To him they represented comfort and habit, nothing more. His wife hated them and insisted that he get rid of all of them and wear something else, so he did, as it didn't mean much to him and he figured it was just some quirk of hers. It wasn't until later that he learned that she associated briefs with the man who abused her when she was a child. Again, no words were necessary.

 

Hmmm.  This is probably going to have to be one of those things that one gets, and I can't expect you to understand it until you get it, too.  Unless it is possible to come up with a cogent restatement that somehow cannot be gainsaid.  I'll let you know if anything comes up.  :-)

If I ever say anything cogent or sensible, please let me know, as it might be a first.  

 

Yes, I see what you're saying and it makes a certain amount of sense, but the language is only the interpretation, it isn't the experience.  The experience exists independent of language, and in order to explain it to ourselves, we resort to language.  And language, being inherently an approximation, is necessarily far more limited and limiting than the experience itself.

I think this is the central issue: for me, experience doesn't exist independent of interpretation, and interpretation isn't necessarily conscious. If I cut myself, I don't consciously think, "That hurts!" I instantly understand that it hurts because the interpretation is pretty much instant (and nonverbal, unless you count "Ow!" as verbal).

And yes, our interpretation, conscious or not, is always an approximation, meaning that whenever we think we have our feet on solid ground in establishing that something is "real" and "true," we are only getting to an approximation of it. We are constrained by our biases, our history, our relationships, and our language (in every sense of that word). Melville gives a pretty good example of what I mean in Moby ****. Ahab isn't so much obsessed with the whale as he is with breaking through the surface of our interpreted experience (the pasteboard mask) and capturing the "real" behind it, in this case some unknown thing that wills the events of our lives.

 

All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event – in the living act, the undoubted deed – there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there’s naught beyond. But ’tis enough. He tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it. That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the white whale agent, or be the white whale principal, I will wreak that hate upon him. Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me.

From what I understand, Brother B. believes that we can get behind the pasteboard and apprehend truth or God (or whatever you want to call it) without interpretation. I guess you could call this true communication, or as Joseph Smith put it, "pure strokes of intelligence." I just don't see that as possible.

 

Thank you for that, by the way, I seem to have suddenly stumbled upon something I have never before realized.  And all thanks to you guys and your little conversation.

I'm not sure if I've helped, but you're welcome to whatever small amount of thought I communicate.

 

[mfbukowski]

Again, I think your definition of "language" is narrower than mine, as you equate it with words, so if you understand something before you have words to express it, that to you is pre-linguistic, to borrow Brother Bukowski's term. And that makes sense given your definition of language.

 

For me, language is the structure by which we interpret everything we experience, even if we don't use words. For example, when I touch the keys on my computer keyboard, I know I'm touching something because I can feel it. But if I didn't know that the pressure I feel in the nerves of my fingers means I'm touching something, I wouldn't be able to interpret those sensations as "touch" or "feeling something." Thus, everything we experience must go through that process of interpretation, whether it involves words or not. If I understand Brother Bukowski correctly, he's saying that there's something (spirit, I assume) that we understand without interpreting it. That makes no sense to me.

Nope.  It's all interpretation.  In fact, there are no facts.    The point is that it is a question of attitude- and how you want to see it.  Interpretation is willful- we can see it either way, and that involves choice.

 

The bottom line really is the choice of interpretations, at least that is what Wittgenstein thinks.  In some cases there are no choices- if you are falling off a cliff and you decide to interpret that as something other than falling off the cliff you are definitely in trouble.  But we are not talking about that- we are talking about the choice between religious interpretations and scientific interpretations.

 

And Rorty also agrees with that- I posted a thread a few months ago about how Rorty, an atheist, finds that religious belief has nothing to do with science and that it is perfectly "rational" to be religious, although he was not.  In fact he had a "religion" based on the solidarity of mankind, and actually stated that he could believe in a god who was a "friend" to mankind.

 

Too bad he never studied Mormonism in depth.

 

But I think I will stick with guys who are much smarter than me- Rorty and Wittgenstein, two of the most important philosophers of the last hundred years.

 

If THEY understand religious belief, I think there is unquestionably a good philosophical groundwork for a new Mormon theology available to us, if we just go in that direction.

[mfbukowski]

As to the reason for coming here over and over, where else can I discuss my nitwit ideas?  Or even my brilliant ideas -- since it's bound to happen eventually?

Well at least we are nitwits together- I really enjoy your posts!

[mfbukowski]

OK, I gotta go to work.  No more philosophy until the afternoon!  :-)

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!

[mfbukowski]

From what I understand, Brother B. believes that we can get behind the pasteboard and apprehend truth or God (or whatever you want to call it) without interpretation. I guess you could call this true communication, or as Joseph Smith put it, "pure strokes of intelligence." I just don't see that as possible.

 

No there is always interpretation but we have a choice there.

I was out riding my bike 30 miles from home and I KNEW I had to call a particular elderly lady in the ward.

 

I could not get through.  I called the relief society president to go to her house NOW.  She went, and the elderly sister had fallen.  That particular feeling has not happened before or since, yet I have had many instances of pure intelligence flowing into my mind.

 

I know it was not coincidence- you may think so, but that interpretation is your choice.  You can also decide to interpret that as hurtful, that you are deficient in some way.  I am not saying that at all.  I think it is a matter of faith and taking action on the choice to believe.

 

I could have chosen to interpret it as random coincidence, but I did not.

Edited October 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

Nope.  It's all interpretation.  In fact, there are no facts.    The point is that it is a question of attitude- and how you want to see it.  Interpretation is willful- we can see it either way, and that involves choice.

That's where we differ: I don't believe interpretation is necessarily willful. I've been sick for a good month now, and I can't will myself to interpret the pain as anything other than it is: pain. I can't choose to interpret it as a sign that my body is functioning properly.

 

The bottom line really is the choice of interpretations, at least that is what Wittgenstein thinks.  In some cases there are no choices- if you are falling off a cliff and you decide to interpret that as something other than falling off the cliff you are definitely in trouble.  But we are not talking about that- we are talking about the choice between religious interpretations and scientific interpretations.

What he said.

But I think maybe we're coming closer to understanding each other. Previously you had said that the spiritual is pre-linguistic and thus exists outside of interpretation. Or am I mistaken? If we are talking about choices in interpreting religious/spiritual experiences, I'm all on board with that. Believing that religious and spiritual experiences testify of truth is a choice of interpretation. We also choose to accept scientific evidence. Back to my rug analogy: a spiritual experience is almost always a personal experience, which you might compare to a single piece of thread on the rug; scientific evidence has a broader context and is apprehended and interpreted by more than just us personally, so we might compare it to all the weavings in a section of the rug. Either way, however, the spot or the section of rug do not exist in a vacuum but as part of a larger system.

 

And Rorty also agrees with that- I posted a thread a few months ago about how Rorty, an atheist, finds that religious belief has nothing to do with science and that it is perfectly "rational" to be religious, although he was not.  In fact he had a "religion" based on the solidarity of mankind, and actually stated that he could believe in a god who was a "friend" to mankind.

Believe it or not, I think it's perfectly rational to be religious. People do not believe in something without some reason or evidence behind it, and plenty of people who are much smarter than I am are religious believers. You will not find me mocking the religious for being irrational or, heaven forbid, stupid. I've made different choices based on what I see as the evidence, my conscience, and what makes me happy. For me, the scientific evidence points overwhelmingly against the specific claims of Mormonism (Nephites, gold plates, seerstones, Book of Abraham, etc.); my conscience won't allow me to excuse certain parts of Mormon history, culture, and doctrine; and I was very unhappy as an active member of the church, though I could not admit it to myself or anyone else.

 

Too bad he never studied Mormonism in depth.

He might have appreciated it, or he might have felt the same way I do about it. Who knows?

 

But I think I will stick with guys who are much smarter than me- Rorty and Wittgenstein, two of the most important philosophers of the last hundred years.

 

If THEY understand religious belief, I think there is unquestionably a good philosophical groundwork for a new Mormon theology available to us, if we just go in that direction.

I don't pretend to understand religious belief, but I don't need to stick with any other person than myself to decide what I believe, what I think is right, and what makes me happy.

Sometimes I wish the church were what you describe, but I don't see it.

[jkwilliams]

No there is always interpretation but we have a choice there.

I was out riding my bike 30 miles from home and I KNEW I had to call a particular elderly lady in the ward.

 

I could not get through.  I called the relief society president to go to her house NOW.  She went, and the elderly sister had fallen.  That particular feeling has not happened before or since, yet I have had many instances of pure intelligence flowing into my mind.

 

I know it was not coincidence- you may think so, but that interpretation is your choice.  You can also decide to interpret that as hurtful, that you are deficient in some way.  I am not saying that at all.  I think it is a matter of faith and taking action on the choice to believe.

 

I could have chosen to interpret it as random coincidence, but I did not.

I've had experiences like that too, before and after I left the church, and I don't question your interpretation, as I generally interpret them the same way. I have no reason (or right) to dismiss your personal experiences, and I'm not sure why you think I would. I'll just quote from my book, if that's OK:

About that time we met a young couple, Lucio and Consuela, with three daughters who were pretty excited about the church. They lived in a small room about six feet by ten feet with a carefully swept dirt floor. The parents slept on a plywood bedstead with no mattress, while one daughter slept sideways along the foot of the bed and another slept between them. The youngest girl, who was three, slept in a dresser drawer on the floor. We met with them once, and they seemed very excited about the gospel.

When we returned for a follow-up appointment, the house was padlocked, and we thought maybe they were just like so many others before, who simply did not want us to bother them again. But for some reason, we stayed there, sitting on the wall outside the yard, for a good long while, hoping that they would return. Just when we had given up and had started to walk home, the oldest daughter of the family caught up with us and told us to wait. The family was coming down the road behind us, waving and calling to us excitedly. We taught them another of the lessons, and they seemed really interested in the gospel.

The next time we met with the family, Lewis and I had decided to ask them to commit to be baptized. On the way to their house, we planned how we would do it. I would give half of the discussion and then hand the visual-aid “flip charts” to Lewis, who would give the second half and then ask them to be baptized.

Everything went as planned, and my half of the lesson went well. As I handed the flip charts to Lewis, I had the strong feeling that we should not be committing them to baptism. I knew it was the wrong thing to do, and I had a powerful impression that if we asked them to commit that night, they would not be baptized, but if we waited, they would be baptized the next week.

While Lewis taught, I sat wondering how I would stop him from issuing the “baptismal challenge,” but when he finished, he simply folded up the flip charts and asked the father to close the lesson with a prayer.

As we walked home, I asked him, “Why didn’t you ask them to commit to baptism?”

“I just had the feeling it was the wrong thing to do.” He looked at me as if he wanted some reassurance that he wasn’t crazy.

“Yeah, so did I,” I said.

“But it’s OK. They’re going to be baptized next week.”

“I know,” I said.

They did get baptized the following week. I thought then as I do know that Heavenly Father wanted them to join the church, so He told us what we should do.