Truth Vs Faith Which Are We Bound To Uphold When In Conflict

[CV75]

I think so. You seem to be saying that the effect of the belief is what matters most. If my neighbour believes things that I consider erroneous but that leads him to be closer to God, lead by the Spirit and to ultimately run as fast as he has strength and do good continually then I should pause for thought before destroying or changing the belief that leads him to do that.

I would say what matters most is following the Spirit in discerning how to invite people to believe in the saving principles of the Gospel.

 

In your example of a neighbor that is living by the light that he has, for working purposes, I believe that any good that he does is based in truth and not in error since all good things tie back to the Lord’s influence. I say that because unless the Spirit warns me otherwise for some reason (we all know the mechanics of deception), I’m not in a position to judge his motives or question his good faith.

 

In the same example, the Spirit would help me share the light that I have with him in the most appropriate way. That way, in line with the typical kind of relationship I enjoy with most people, and he can correct himself as he sees my example or learns about what I believe. If he has a question or makes a comment or remark that is based in an erroneous belief about the light I possess, I can clarify and even correct him if necessary and he can do what he wants with that light.

 

This is why I view agency as a key component to belief. I wouldn't even think about "destroying" or "changing" his beliefs--the kind of correction I'm talking about is very diffrent from that--that is something for him to do voluntarily and when he is ready. I'm more into "inviting."

[canard78]

Absolutely!

Bill, please do this. I would love to listen to an hour of Mfb on Rorty. Especially in its applicability to Mormonism.

As for me, I wrote a few replies in the original "47 minutes..." thread. One as general summary of what he says (that might be a useful starting point for you to read the notes). They're very much a layman's reaction.

This is what I said in response to the idea of decisions that have to be taken despite their being insufficient evidence to make a decision in certainty:

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/why-people-only-change-when-they-have-to.html?m=1

(I also wrote it in the original thread, but felt it was meaningful enough to me to capture it for my own future reference)

[mfbukowski]

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/why-people-only-change-when-they-have-to.html?m=1

(I also wrote it in the original thread, but felt it was meaningful enough to me to capture it for my own future reference)

Good stuff!

I believe that both we and God are involved in crafting the personalised curriculum that leads to these different circumstances, options and conclusions. This is also why I'm very comfortable with the notion of individualised vehicles for travelling the path to godliness.

[Stone holm]

I agree with you that none of what DBMormon lists can be justified as official church doctrine. But it is representative of attitudes some people hold.

I agree.

[Avatar4321]

I've never found a dispute between the two. When I do, Ill let you know.

[jkwilliams]

Mr. John

 

Yes we are close on many points.  You have mentioned not having a theory of truth, and I think that is the difference.  I have a very definite theory of truth, and it derives from Rorty and the Pragmatists.

 

Maybe you will never again find that Mormonism "works" for you, but at least if we are going to continue discussions it would be helpful if you really really understood that theory of truth insofar as it applies to "evidence" (science- objective statements about 'reality') and religion.

 

I know for a fact that this has increased the understanding of a couple of people on this very board, and as Canard recently posted a link to my earlier thread about "47 minutes which could change your life"

 

I know you think you know about Rorty, but if I could kidnap you I would shackle you in a room and make you watch this video with your eyelids propped open. 

(Hey, it's Halloween - I get a seasonal pass for bizarre metaphors!)

 

Please really do watch it, ok?  You can only watch the first portion, until the sound goes out for a minute or two which is about 45 minutes into it.  But I really think yoiu should watch the whole thing including the questions and answers.  The last question at the end of the tape is really good too.

 

Once you truly grok this, it can change everything- again, not that Mormonism will ever work for you again.  But at least you will understand my positions better on this question of "Truth vs Faith"

 

And DBMormon, this goes straight to the root of the OP imnsho.

 

Remember Rorty is himself an atheist, but he understands this distinction perfectly.  The guy has no axe to grind about religion- he just has a perfectly elegant theory.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

 

My thoughts:

 

1. This is pretty close to what I've always believed. His example of "Professor Ryan" sounds a lot like my approach to religion.

2. I've never believed in a "correspondence" theory of truth, which I believe you already knew (he summarizes the poststructuralists in agreeing with this, "more or less"). I quite like the idea that we have no obligation to Truth but rather to each other as humans. Service to each other is paramount, not theology or doctrine.

3. The God of love supplants the God of power, so God is our friend. Privileging the God of power is to place limits on love, and thus restricts religious pragmatism/utilitarianism.

 

I suppose, then, my biggest problem with Mormonism is reflected in #3: obedience is valued above everything else. Yes, we pay lip service to God wanting us to be happy, but happiness is a product of obedience. We talk about following the spirit, but only insofar as it doesn't conflict with doctrine or obedience to authority. Love, service, inspiration, conscience--these are all secondary to obedience, IMO.

 

I go back to the time when my mother was pregnant with me. My family was in dire financial straits, my parents had three small children, and my mother's doctor told her to stay in bed for the last few months of the pregnancy. Then, after I was born, I was in the hospital for 6 weeks and then had to spend the night in the hospital at least once a week for the next 6 years. All that time no one from the ward offered any help: no babysitting, no meals brought in, nothing. Why? Because the bishop had told the ward council not to help us because my father wasn't a full tithe-payer. I know, this bishop was the exception to the rule, but my point is that no one on that ward council thought, "This isn't right. We shouldn't be doing this." No, they did what they were told, as they were expected to do. Ironically, the only person from the ward who helped at all was an inactive couple my parents had befriended. I'll probably get a lot of crap for this "atrocity story," but I'm just trying to illustrate my point: obedience is what matters, not love, not service, not kindness.

 

Don't get me wrong. Mormons are some of the most loving and giving people I know, but when love and service run up against direction from the hierarchy, it's no contest. If you have a spiritual experience that conflicts with priesthood authority or church doctrine, you don't go with your spiritual experience. And if a priesthood leader tells you to do something wrong, and you know it's wrong, you're supposed to swallow your conscience and do it anyway.

 

Another illustrative event was when the Salt Lake County Republican convention voted overwhelmingly to oppose HB 116 (an "amnesty" bill for immigrants) and then wanted a "do-over" when they learned the church was in favor of the bill. The bill wasn't any different, the delegates' political beliefs hadn't changed, but the church had weighed in, so they wanted to get in line and "face the right way."

 

And, yes, people do tell their leaders "no" all the time, but that attitude is not exactly celebrated in the church.

[rodheadlee]

Truth and Faith should go hand in hand. God, Heavenly Father is not afraid of Truth, He is Truth.

[Stone holm]

My thoughts:

 

1. This is pretty close to what I've always believed. His example of "Professor Ryan" sounds a lot like my approach to religion.

2. I've never believed in a "correspondence" theory of truth, which I believe you already knew (he summarizes the poststructuralists in agreeing with this, "more or less"). I quite like the idea that we have no obligation to Truth but rather to each other as humans. Service to each other is paramount, not theology or doctrine.

3. The God of love supplants the God of power, so God is our friend. Privileging the God of power is to place limits on love, and thus restricts religious pragmatism/utilitarianism.

 

I suppose, then, my biggest problem with Mormonism is reflected in #3: obedience is valued above everything else. Yes, we pay lip service to God wanting us to be happy, but happiness is a product of obedience. We talk about following the spirit, but only insofar as it doesn't conflict with doctrine or obedience to authority. Love, service, inspiration, conscience--these are all secondary to obedience, IMO.

 

I go back to the time when my mother was pregnant with me. My family was in dire financial straits, my parents had three small children, and my mother's doctor told her to stay in bed for the last few months of the pregnancy. Then, after I was born, I was in the hospital for 6 weeks and then had to spend the night in the hospital at least once a week for the next 6 years. All that time no one from the ward offered any help: no babysitting, no meals brought in, nothing. Why? Because the bishop had told the ward council not to help us because my father wasn't a full tithe-payer. I know, this bishop was the exception to the rule, but my point is that no one on that ward council thought, "This isn't right. We shouldn't be doing this." No, they did what they were told, as they were expected to do. Ironically, the only person from the ward who helped at all was an inactive couple my parents had befriended. I'll probably get a lot of crap for this "atrocity story," but I'm just trying to illustrate my point: obedience is what matters, not love, not service, not kindness.

 

Don't get me wrong. Mormons are some of the most loving and giving people I know, but when love and service run up against direction from the hierarchy, it's no contest. If you have a spiritual experience that conflicts with priesthood authority or church doctrine, you don't go with your spiritual experience. And if a priesthood leader tells you to do something wrong, and you know it's wrong, you're supposed to swallow your conscience and do it anyway.

 

Another illustrative event was when the Salt Lake County Republican convention voted overwhelmingly to oppose HB 116 (an "amnesty" bill for immigrants) and then wanted a "do-over" when they learned the church was in favor of the bill. The bill wasn't any different, the delegates' political beliefs hadn't changed, but the church had weighed in, so they wanted to get in line and "face the right way."

 

And, yes, people do tell their leaders "no" all the time, but that attitude is not exactly celebrated in the church.

 

Well the Bishop was a dork, and am surprised the Ward listened...did you live in dorkland at the time?

[jkwilliams]

Well the Bishop was a dork, and am surprised the Ward listened...did you live in dorkland at the time?

 

That doesn't get to my broader question: is obedience valued over kindness, service, inspiration? I think it is, generally speaking.

[CV75]

happiness is a product of obedience.

And obedience is supposed to be a product of love (John 14:15).

 

If you have a spiritual experience that conflicts with priesthood authority or church doctrine, you don't go with your spiritual experience.

Not all spiritual experiences or directives are based on love.

 

This is why we each have the Gift of the Holy Ghost: to recognize and obey the right things out of love.

[CV75]

That doesn't get to my broader question: is obedience valued over kindness, service, inspiration? I think it is, generally speaking.

You can find people who say yes, and those who say no. This is why we each have the Gift of the Holy Ghost: to recognize and obey the right things out of love.

[Tacenda]

I don't like being obedient because I'm told to. I go by my God given moral compass, overused word I know, and if a holy ghost or angel, prophet or bishop told me to do something that goes against it. I would listen to it rather than the other, because these means might be false, wrong, or of a demonic entity posing as an angel

Edited November 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I don't like being obedient because I'm told to. I go by my God given moral compass, overused word I know, and if a holy ghost or angel, prophet or bishop told me to do something that goes against it. I would listen to it rather than the other, because these means might be false, wrong, or of a denomic entity posing as an angel

 

Sounds like you have an issue with authority. 

[jkwilliams]

You can find people who say yes, and those who say no. This is why we each have the Gift of the Holy Ghost: to recognize and obey the right things out of love.

 

What if the Holy Ghost tells you that something the prophet has asked you to obey is wrong?

[mfbukowski]

What if the Holy Ghost tells you that something the prophet has asked you to obey is wrong?

You go with the Holy Ghost of course.

 

The entire premise that one can know the truth of all things - including the "truth" of the BOM rests on it.

 

I am sorry you have had bad experiences from people who do not know/follow doctrine, but that does not reflect the spiritual/philosophical system that Mormonism is.

 

But that of course has nothing to do with truth VS faith, does it?

 

It has to do with the fact that ignorant people are always among us.

[jkwilliams]

You go with the Holy Ghost of course.

 

The entire premise that one can know the truth of all things - including the "truth" of the BOM rests on it.

 

I am sorry you have had bad experiences from people who do not know/follow doctrine, but that does not reflect the spiritual/philosophical system that Mormonism is.

 

But that of course has nothing to do with truth VS faith, does it?

 

It has to do with the fact that ignorant people are always among us.

 

It's just been my long experience--and that's backed up by doctrine--that people who disobey because the spirit tells them to disobey are always considered apostates or proud. I wish the church was the way you describe, but in my experience, it isn't.

[mfbukowski]

That doesn't get to my broader question: is obedience valued over kindness, service, inspiration? I think it is, generally speaking.

This has never happened in my experience.  Whoever those people were, they wer enot "Latter-day Saints"

[mfbukowski]

It's just been my long experience--and that's backed up by doctrine--that people who disobey because the spirit tells them to disobey are always considered apostates or proud. I wish the church was the way you describe, but in my experience, it isn't.

Then they are totally inconsistent.

 

As I said, ignorance is everywhere.  Mormonism cannot even be "true" by it's own standards if people throw Moroni 10:4 out the window.

 

Ignore stupid people, or teach them- those are the options.  Being hurt by stupidity is another one but not very productive.

Edited November 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

This has never happened in my experience.  Whoever those people were, they wer enot "Latter-day Saints"

 

These were just otherwise decent, kind members of the church. When we moved out of that ward, the RS president tearfully asked my mother's forgiveness for having done what they did, and my mother forgave them, as did my father. I forgive them, too, because what they did was a mistake and, in a weird way, a misguided effort to "help" my father.

 

I can also forgive because I know that, on a few occasions in my life, instead of choosing to do right, I chose to obey, and thus I'm in need in forgiveness.

[jkwilliams]

Then they are totally inconsistent.

 

As I said, ignorance is everywhere.  Mormonism cannot even be "true" by it's own standards if people throw Moroni 10:4 out the window.

 

Ignore stupid people, or teach them- those are the options.  Being hurt by stupidity is another one but not very productive.

 

I'm not bringing this up because I feel "hurt." I admit I was deeply hurt when my father told me that story about 5 years ago, but I've forgiven those people. I brought it up because, IMO, it exemplifies perfectly the problem with valuing obedience over everything else.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not bringing this up because I feel "hurt." I admit I was deeply hurt when my father told me that story about 5 years ago, but I've forgiven those people. I brought it up because, IMO, it exemplifies perfectly the problem with valuing obedience over everything else.

And as I have told you multiple times, I don't see that the church does that.

 

For at least the third time in as many posts, I have said that the church must uphold Moroni 10: 4-5 and Alma 32 above all or it is inconsistent.

 

I have not experienced what you are talking about at all.  I suppose we could go on repeating the same point over and over, but I don't feel it is a productive use of my time.

 

I am interested in a consistent way of seeing the world which incorporates the view of a personal God who cares about his children.  I see Mormonism as the best possible expression of that.  If you don't, or think that people don't live the principles they espouse, even if you are right, it is not a theological point.  I am interested in theology, not what imperfect people do in the real world.

 

And again, all the Mormons I have met in my 30+ years in the church have been exemplary people.  If you find that not to be the case, I don't know what to say.

[jkwilliams]

And as I have told you multiple times, I don't see that the church does that.

 

For at least the third time in as many posts, I have said that the church must uphold Moroni 10: 4-5 and Alma 32 above all or it is inconsistent.

 

I have not experienced what you are talking about at all.  I suppose we could go on repeating the same point over and over, but I don't feel it is a productive use of my time.

It's OK to disagree.

 

I am interested in a consistent way of seeing the world which incorporates the view of a personal God who cares about his children.  I see Mormonism as the best possible expression of that.  If you don't, or think that people don't live the principles they espouse, even if you are right, it is not a theological point.  I am interested in theology, not what imperfect people do in the real world.

The theological point is that, IMO, LDS theology values obedience over being "true" to one's conscience or following the spirit or serving or loving. I'd love to see where the scriptures or general authorities tell me that disobedience can ever be a good thing. Here's Dallin Oaks, expressing the idea that, if the spirit contradicts what your leaders tell you, you are out of harmony with the spirit:

Similarly, we cannot communicate reliably through the direct, personal line if we are disobedient to or out of harmony with the priesthood line. The Lord has declared that “the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness” (D&C 121:36). Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

 

And again, all the Mormons I have met in my 30+ years in the church have been exemplary people.  If you find that not to be the case, I don't know what to say.

 

Most Mormons I've known are exemplary people in terms of being kind, generous, loving people. I don't disagree with you, though I wouldn't say all. I've met a few people in the church who aren't good Mormons, let alone decent human beings. But thankfully, they are the exception. I'm just saying that, doctrinally speaking, if you are ever faced with choosing to do right or to obey (the prophet, your priesthood leaders, etc.), the doctrine comes down on the side of obedience. "Follow the Prophet" trumps "Let the Holy Spirit Guide."

Edited November 4, 2013 by jkwilliams

[Stone holm]

It's OK to disagree. The theological point is that, IMO, LDS theology values obedience over being "true" to one's conscience or following the spirit or serving or loving. I'd love to see where the scriptures or general authorities tell me that disobedience can ever be a good thing. Here's Dallin Oaks, expressing the idea that, if the spirit contradicts what your leaders tell you, you are out of harmony with the spirit:https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng  Most Mormons I've known are exemplary people in terms of being kind, generous, loving people. I don't disagree with you, though I wouldn't say all. I've met a few people in the church who aren't good Mormons, let alone decent human beings. But thankfully, they are the exception. I'm just saying that, doctrinally speaking, if you are ever faced with choosing to do right or to obey (the prophet, your priesthood leaders, etc.), the doctrine comes down on the side of obedience. "Follow the Prophet" trumps "Let the Holy Spirit Guide."

We put a heavy emphasis on obedience, the way I have always rationalized it is if you are obedient you are justified even if you are wrong, whereas if you are disobedient you are only justified if you turn out to be right. So those who are risk adverse abdicate in favor of obedience.

[jkwilliams]

We put a heavy emphasis on obedience, the way I have always rationalized it is if you are obedient you are justified even if you are wrong, whereas if you are disobedient you are only justified if you turn out to be right. So those who are risk adverse abdicate in favor of obedience.

 

We talk of following the spirit, but there are limits and boundaries to that. mfb says that's it's inconsistent to place limits on Moroni 10:4 and Alma 32, but that is the reality: if your personal revelation conflicts with the leadership's counsel, your personal revelation is from the wrong source.

[mfbukowski]

Here's Dallin Oaks, expressing the idea that, if the spirit contradicts what your leaders tell you, you are out of harmony with the spirit:

Similarly, we cannot communicate reliably through the direct, personal line if we are disobedient to or out of harmony with the priesthood line. The Lord has declared that “the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness” (D&C 121:36). Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.

IF that is what it says, and I don't think it is- then Oaks is wrong.  Period.  He is contradicting Moroni 10:4-5.  When one is joining the church in the first place, one has no "priesthood line" to follow.  One need not obey a "priesthood line" which one does not have yet, nor has committed to following.  Obviously the testimony of the validity of the priesthood line must be prior to following it in the first place

 

One could not even KNOW that there WAS a valid "priesthood line" to follow if one did not have a testimony of it.

 

That makes 4 times now I have said the same thing.  What I think he means is that if you are out of tune, because you are already NOT following the commandments, you need to follow priesthood counsel.  Of course that is true.  People seek out their bishops for a reason.  AND OF COURSE if you think your conscience is telling you to break commandments- you have already broken yourself out of the entire system which defines the commandments.

 

You have already taken yourself out of your Mormon social context, for other reasons, and are denying that it is a valid path as defined.

 

That's up to you.  No one has you in chains- you get to vote with your feet anytime.  Obey or leave- it's your choice, but don't cry about making it.  You absolutely MUST follow your conscience and that is what Moroni 10 says as I see it.

I think this whole line of argument is a strawman.  

Most Mormons I've known are exemplary people in terms of being kind, generous, loving people. I don't disagree with you, though I wouldn't say all. I've met a few people in the church who aren't good Mormons, let alone decent human beings.

The theological point is that, IMO, LDS theology values obedience over being "true" to one's conscience or following the spirit or serving or loving.

Clearly, these two statements are contradictory.  If LDS theology values being obedient over being "loving", THEN "good Mormons" would be NOT loving at all, but obedient regardless of being loving.  You can't have it both ways.

But thankfully, they are the exception. I'm just saying that, doctrinally speaking, if you are ever faced with choosing to do right or to obey (the prophet, your priesthood leaders, etc.), the doctrine comes down on the side of obedience. "Follow the Prophet" trumps "Let the Holy Spirit Guide."

Nope. 5th and last time.  You couldn't know the guy in charge was a "prophet" without following the spirit in the first place.  That comes first and always must.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2013 by mfbukowski