Reservoir Of Truth

[stemelbow]

Years ago a friend of mine suggest the means of determining truth as outlined as the LDS way is not foolproof. I very much agree. We can easily mix up Spirit confirmations with emotional/subjective feelings, biases, and conclusions. So what are we left with? We're left with uncertainty. Many times I have drawn my conclusion thinking in my head I actually "know" the answer. But as it turns out later I have to revisit. I have to break down the walls of my closed mind and accept that I was wrong when I thought I knew. As the saying goes, the more you learn the more you realize you simply don't know.

Recently my bishop told me to just stop. To stop questioning. To not let myself think the way I've thought. To just accept simple notions like, you can't be led astray if you follow the scriptures and the words of our church leaders. He told me I'm confusing things, and that I'm the problem. I walked away only more confused. What are the scriptures but words written down by people of the past as they were moved upon, at least in some cases, by the Holy Ghost. But such writings were not the Holy Ghost, per se. They were writings of humans, humans making assessments and determinations, mixed with feelings, influenced by culture and thoughts of their day; voila, we have scripture. The scriptures contradict themselves if taken as a whole. They by no means can be perfect, the Title Page of the Book of Mormon makes that clear when it excuses faults in the text as the mistakes of men.

We also know the leaders of the Church have contradicted themselves. They are not and/or have not been completely united. We say things like, "prophets are prophets only when acting as such" and "They were wrong, working with limited understanding" etc. And as I've observed everyone, in my sphere, takes what they want from modern leaders and just kind ignores the stuff they don't want. Sometimes what is said is taken as good advice subject to many an exception, extending it seems, to nearly everyone, and sometimes what is said is taken as perfect knowledge straight from God. With that, we're each supposed to draw our own lines, make up our own criteria as we speak with God and seek His caring confirmations.

I'm not trying to criticize anything. I'm suggesting this is where we are. We have, at least it seems to me, very little added to our reservoir of eternal meaningful revelation over the past many decades. Most take that to mean we don't need any. Some take that to mean we aren't ready for more.

I think we're in a bit of a pickle. Youth are growing up and seeing in practice the virtues and pluses of secular life, and to counteract it they see a whole lot of social and political stances by their parents which seem naysaying, counter-productive, backwards even. This is fairly new. I was a youth not long ago and the culture was way different then. We were told black or white. Right or wrong. As we grew we began to learn that doesn't work so well. Many left. Many of us now just accept that they, of the past, were wrong with this rigid seemingly pharisaic approach. But many are holding strong to the rigidity of their youthful days--sometimes hiding behind the shoulders of their old leaders calling all others apostates and wolves in sheep's clothing.

I teach our youth in SS (previous to that was in the YMs presidency for about 7 years). each week my bishop sits in class skeptical I might promote loving our neighbor over and above fighting against SSM or something. I don't know, really, what he thinks but that seems to be the sum of it. All I want is the best for the youth. The ability and confidence to search out the Spirit and make their own determinations of right and wrong. I want to leave out the question of whether SSM is evil or not, among many other things. I'll probably get released soon because of that. Fine by me. I told my bishop so. He can do what he wants. I'm happy participating in almost any capacity. But I have a feel for the youth. Some leave in their youth, never to return. Many feel pushed out. Some stay, and to them we tell them, "you are choice. Chosen for this day" Trying to build up their confidence, while their friends and associates move on, living with love in their hearts. They're going to see that and question, drop the big question, "is what I'm doing helping me any more than what Jim is doing? Is this all about building me or is it about helping others? I honestly can't tell."

Are we dividing and setting up clear distinct groups or are we disappearing as some may suggest?

Beats me. In sum, we're mixed up a little. We don't have all knowledge, we aren't the whole reservoir of truth, we don't have an exclusive right to or even method to truth. We're one group among many loved, supported, and sometimes chastised by God. We have a long ways to go.

[mfbukowski]

Your question is one many are facing and assumes that there is somewhere a perfect world of "TRUTH" floating around to be discovered, and seeing whether or not what we believe somehow corresponds to that theoretically observable but yet obviously totally invisible world.

 

That view, which I find erroneous, springs ultimately from Plato, who actually believed there existed such a world, and that that world was more "real" than ours, a world of decisions and best solutions rather than a world in which absolute "truth" exists.

 

The usual question raised by most Christians when I bring this up is one of resistance, because Platonic philosophy was adopted into Christian philosophy early, very early.   I think this has had disastrous consequences for Christianity.

 

In the last 150 years, most philosophers have viewed the idea of "truth" differently.  They now view it as a property of sentences- meaning it is a linguistic idea, not an idea about some ultimate world beyond our ability to see.

 

So the truth of a scientific proposition is shown by it's ability to work in the real world- water always boils at 212 degrees, so saying so is "true".   On a different scale, it boils at 100 degrees, so both the statements "Water boils at 100 degrees" and "Water boils at 212 degrees" are true, based on the context in which we view them.

 

There is no absolutely true statement about even such a simple thing as the temperature of boiling water- the statement all depends on the context, and how well that context works in the real world of experience.

 

The purpose of religious propositions is to give us an understanding of our place in the world- not to reflect some ideal world beyond our linguistic abilities.

 

I personally think we CAN EXPERIENCE such an ideal world- but we cannot SAY anything "true" about such a world, because such experiences are beyond our ability to speak them in language.

 

So I have found that, using language, we are stuck with fumbling around and getting good linguistic descriptions that kind of work within a given context, and not worry too much about what cannot be said clearly.

 

Remember, everything anybody has ever SAID about ANYTHING is limited by our ability to put the "TRUTH" into words- and that is a major problem.  First we have to perceive the "truth" correctly- it has to go into a human brain and somehow magically come out again represented perfectly in language.

 

Ain't gonna happen.

 

If you can't say it clearly, don't say it at all.  Go with your gut in determining what is right and wrong, what your purpose in life should be, and what is important to you personally.

 

In Mormon Language we would translate the above statement into "Follow the spirit- it's all we have"

 

My advice would be to follow Alma 32, and learn what beliefs are "sweet" to you, and don't worry about the rest.

 

Lots of times words do nothing but get in the way.

 

To paraphrase St Francis, "Follow the truth always- if necessary try to use words"

 

To that I would add "Use words, but know the minute you open your mouth you are going to get it wrong anyway, and don't worry about it".

 

Try to describe the color blue to a blind man and you will instantly know what I mean.  Then describe the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person.

 

Good luck with that. 

[mfbukowski]

In a way, your bishop was right, but again the words got in the way.

 

I think what he meant was about what I said above- "follow your common sense, and don't worry about coming up with semantically confusing questions"

 

It's not that we should not question- it's just that we need that every question comes with a whole context and reason for asking the question in the first place.

 

When you ask a question you need to know what you expect to get for an answer, why you expect to get that answer, and whether or not an answer is even possible.

[mfbukowski]

One more thought

 

Years ago a friend of mine suggest the means of determining truth as outlined as the LDS way is not foolproof. I very much agree. We can easily mix up Spirit confirmations with emotional/subjective feelings, biases, and conclusions.

 

Again, the assumption here is that there exists some abstract world out there of "TRUTH" which is both discoverable and one is able to verbalize.

 

It assumes that there is a world of "Correct Spirit Confirmations" separate from emotional feelings and biases and conclusions, waiting to be discovered.

 

The spirit is a guide who helps you in specific situations.  Specific situations mean situations which are already FULL of subjective emotions, feelings and biases.

 

Indeed the spirit communicates by means of feelings.  What the spirit teaches us is how to deal with these feelings and know what is "right" in a given situation.

 

Like the boiling point of water, the truth of the spirit depends on context, but it is OUR context of emotions and feelings and conclusions.  He teaches us the right decision for US in a situation, not the right decision for everyone else on the planet.

 

That is why in Mormonspeak we call that "PERSONAL Revelation" and distinguish it from revelation for the whole church.   Of course, if revelation is personal, it would be for YOU and not for ME.  I get my OWN personal revelation.

[stemelbow]

Your question is one many are facing and assumes that there is somewhere a perfect world of "TRUTH" floating around to be discovered, and seeing whether or not what we believe somehow corresponds to that theoretically observable but yet obviously totally invisible world.

That view, which I find erroneous, springs ultimately from Plato, who actually believed there existed such a world, and that that world was more "real" than ours, a world of decisions and best solutions rather than a world in which absolute "truth" exists.

The usual question raised by most Christians when I bring this up is one of resistance, because Platonic philosophy was adopted into Christian philosophy early, very early.   I think this has had disastrous consequences for Christianity.

 

In the last 150 years, most philosophers have viewed the idea of "truth" differently.  They now view it as a property of sentences- meaning it is a linguistic idea, not an idea about some ultimate world beyond our ability to see.

 

So the truth of a scientific proposition is shown by it's ability to work in the real world- water always boils at 212 degrees, so saying so is "true".   On a different scale, it boils at 100 degrees, so both the statements "Water boils at 100 degrees" and "Water boils at 212 degrees" are true, based on the context in which we view them.

 

There is no absolutely true statement about even such a simple thing as the temperature of boiling water- the statement all depends on the context, and how well that context works in the real world of experience.

 

The purpose of religious propositions is to give us an understanding of our place in the world- not to reflect some ideal world beyond our linguistic abilities.

 

I personally think we CAN EXPERIENCE such an ideal world- but we cannot SAY anything "true" about such a world, because such experiences are beyond our ability to speak them in language.

 

So I have found that, using language, we are stuck with fumbling around and getting good linguistic descriptions that kind of work within a given context, and not worry too much about what cannot be said clearly.

 

Remember, everything anybody has ever SAID about ANYTHING is limited by our ability to put the "TRUTH" into words- and that is a major problem.  First we have to perceive the "truth" correctly- it has to go into a human brain and somehow magically come out again represented perfectly in language.

 

Ain't gonna happen.

 

If you can't say it clearly, don't say it at all.  Go with your gut in determining what is right and wrong, what your purpose in life should be, and what is important to you personally.

 

In Mormon Language we would translate the above statement into "Follow the spirit- it's all we have"

 

My advice would be to follow Alma 32, and learn what beliefs are "sweet" to you, and don't worry about the rest.

 

Lots of times words do nothing but get in the way.

 

To paraphrase St Francis, "Follow the truth always- if necessary try to use words"

 

To that I would add "Use words, but know the minute you open your mouth you are going to get it wrong anyway, and don't worry about it".

 

Try to describe the color blue to a blind man and you will instantly know what I mean.  Then describe the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person.

 

Good luck with that. 

hah...Interesting. I like this, "Use words, but know the minute you open your mouth you are going to get it wrong anyway, and don't worry about it".

I'm not sure where I gave the impression I side with Plato, per se. I am suggesting, though, we in the LDS Church, often make claims to truth. Perhaps the issue is why do we approach the things of God in such a way?

[stemelbow]

In a way, your bishop was right, but again the words got in the way.

 

I think what he meant was about what I said above- "follow your common sense, and don't worry about coming up with semantically confusing questions"

 

It's not that we should not question- it's just that we need that every question comes with a whole context and reason for asking the question in the first place.

 

When you ask a question you need to know what you expect to get for an answer, why you expect to get that answer, and whether or not an answer is even possible.

Perhaps.

[Boanerges]

Pres. Uchtdorf gave a talk about truth that I find fascinating. Here's the link, hope it helps. (I particularly like his very Obi Wan Kenobi like "truths we cling to" reference.)

 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/print/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

Edited October 20, 2014 by Boanerges

[stemelbow]

One more thought

Again, the assumption here is that there exists some abstract world out there of "TRUTH" which is both discoverable and one is able to verbalize.

 

It assumes that there is a world of "Correct Spirit Confirmations" separate from emotional feelings and biases and conclusions, waiting to be discovered.

 

The spirit is a guide who helps you in specific situations.  Specific situations mean situations which are already FULL of subjective emotions, feelings and biases.

 

Indeed the spirit communicates by means of feelings.  What the spirit teaches us is how to deal with these feelings and know what is "right" in a given situation.

 

Like the boiling point of water, the truth of the spirit depends on context, but it is OUR context of emotions and feelings and conclusions.  He teaches us the right decision for US in a situation, not the right decision for everyone else on the planet.

 

That is why in Mormonspeak we call that "PERSONAL Revelation" and distinguish it from revelation for the whole church.   Of course, if revelation is personal, it would be for YOU and not for ME.  I get my OWN personal revelation.

Well said. I think what you speak against is how it is in the minds of most LDS, no? They assume the truth is in God's world and as we live and grow in faith we get more and more glimpses into that world, thus being able to comprehend truths, being able to understand them to the point of communicating them.

[mfbukowski]

hah...Interesting. I like this, "Use words, but know the minute you open your mouth you are going to get it wrong anyway, and don't worry about it".

I'm not sure where I gave the impression I side with Plato, per se. I am suggesting, though, we in the LDS Church, often make claims to truth. Perhaps the issue is why do we approach the things of God in such a way?

To me the question is why we think of TRUTH this way, and I blame it culturally all on Plato.

It's in our cultural genes ie:memes

 

That is why it's so hard to overcome.  It's in our language.  We have "things" and we have "ideas" and the ideas are supposed to represent "things".

 

"True" ideas are supposed to represent "things" perceptions perfectly, or they are not "true".

 

In my experience, we have patches of color, some of which I attach the name "chair" to and others are called "tables".  After 45 years of thinking a new way, I have only experiences, all of which are real to me.  These experiences have specific functions- you sit in some at put your computer on others.

 

I especially like the patch of colors, which radiates love,  known as "wife" who ineffably loves me despite my weirdness. 

Edited October 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I had a conversation with Christ Smith once who insisted that I must walk into walls because I don't believe they exist.  My answer was that indeed I have wall experiences and those experiences very clearly tell me that I cannot get through them to the other side.

 

I also have "falling off the roof experiences", which I don't recommend.

[mfbukowski]

Well said. I think what you speak against is how it is in the minds of most LDS, no? They assume the truth is in God's world and as we live and grow in faith we get more and more glimpses into that world, thus being able to comprehend truths, being able to understand them to the point of communicating them.

Yep- that view in my opinion is sectarian nonsense that snuck into the Restoration because we don't have a vocabulary to deal with it in our way.

 

We have imported the erroneous memes of sectarian Christianity and need to develop our own way of seeing and speaking about the world- and we are getting there slowly- too slowly imo.

 

Everyone does it- the GA's are not immune from thinking that way.  That is not a criticism- we all think the way we were taught to think because we don't have the vocabulary to speak it in a different way.

[mfbukowski]

I don't mean to dominate the thread- I will be back in a day or two

[pogi]

Try to describe the color blue to a blind man and you will instantly know what I mean.  Then describe the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person.

 

Good luck with that. 

 

You are right, it is impossible for the deaf and blind to understand, which makes words the perfectly imperfect vehicle for truth.  With words, truth is not forced but simply offered.  Words keep the blind, blind and the deaf, deaf and impart understanding to those who let themselves see and hear.  Christ used imperfect words to impart his perfect truth to the understanding of men.  It is not the words that matter so much in the end, but the spirit that is attached to them somehow.  Even then, ultimately it is the ears and the eyes and the humble heart of the receiver that really matters. 

Edited October 20, 2014 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

You are right, it is impossible for the deaf and blind to understand, which makes words the perfect vehicle for truth and understanding.  It is not forced, but simply offered. Words keep the blind, blind and the deaf, deaf and impart understanding to those who let themselves see and hear.  Christ used imperfect words to impart his perfect truth to the understanding of men.  It is not the words that matter so much in the end, it is the ears and the eyes and the humble heart.  

That's why it is possible to both agree with Pres Uchtdorf and not agree with him.

 

The existence of "absolute truth" is one issue and the other is stating what that might be, linguistically.

 

In his example of the elephant the assumption was that there WAS an "elephant" waiting to be discovered, impartially, when the blind men only saw part of the elephant at the same time.

 

To me the question - because people will ask this question- is what if there IS no "elephant" to be discovered out there?   Agnostics will ask exactly that question. 

 

Where IS that floating world of "absolute truth" beyond any way of reaching it, waiting to be discovered?

 

We can answer that question without even defining what the spirit is- for those who do not believe in such things.  (Even if we actually DO believe in the spirit)

 

The answer is that "absolute truth" can be defined (again- should we want to do so to communicate with people who do not believe in such things) in pra=gmatic terms of "what always works".

 

For example, the Golden Rule (Kantian Categorical Imperative for those who care) ALWAYS works to define morality in any civilized society, because the society would not be "civilized" if it does not honor the Golden Rule.  It is true because it always works.

 

We need not define absolutes in terms of "absolutes" for folks who do not need to believe in them- ie for non-Platonists.

 

Remember we are speaking in language here- and all we have is various definitions for communications purposes.  This might be one way of communicating with relativists to help them learn the gospel.

[stemelbow]

I had a conversation with Christ Smith once who insisted that I must walk into walls because I don't believe they exist.  My answer was that indeed I have wall experiences and those experiences very clearly tell me that I cannot get through them to the other side.

 

I also have "falling off the roof experiences", which I don't recommend.

Kinda brings a whole new meaning to idea that Mormons worship Smith.

Just playing. I know who Chris is, and he ain't no Jesus.

[pogi]

I'm not trying to criticize anything. I'm suggesting this is where we are. We have, at least it seems to me, very little added to our reservoir of eternal meaningful revelation over the past many decades. Most take that to mean we don't need any. Some take that to mean we aren't ready for more.

 

When it comes to "eternal meaningful revelation", I think it is more useful to measure our personal reservoirs rather than our collective reservoirs.  I don't know if there is such a thing as a collective reservoir of universally understood truth in the church.  Personally, I have had significant flows of revelation to my personal reservoir in the last decade.  We as a church have been given what is necessary to begin our personal quests for greater individual truth.  We will not always see eye to eye, for reasons that mfbukowski has mentioned. 

[Calm]

 

 

To that I would add "Use words, but know the minute you open your mouth you are going to get it wrong anyway, and don't worry about it".

Read this last night and thought of you:

 

Speech, originally, was the device whereby Man learned, imperfectly, to transmit the thoughts and emotions of his mind. By setting up arbitrary sounds and combinations of sounds to represent certain mental nuances, he developed a method of communication - but one which in its clumsiness and thick-thumbed inadequacy degenerated all the delicacy of the mind into gross and guttural signaling.

Down- down- the results can be followed; and all the suffering that humanity ever knew can be traced to the one fact that no man in the history of the Galaxy, until Hari Seldon, and very few men thereafter, could really understand one another. Every human being lived behind an impenetrable wall of choking mist within which no other but he existed. Occasionally there were the dim signals from deep within the cavern in which another man was located-so that each might grope toward the other. Yet because they did not know one another, and could not understand one another, and dared not trust one another, and felt from infancy the terrors and insecurity of that ultimate isolation - there was the hunted fear of man for man, the savage rapacity of man toward man.

Feet, for tens of thousands of years, had clogged and shuffled in the mud - and held down the minds which, for an equal time, had been fit for the companionship of the stars.

Grimly, Man had instinctively sought to circumvent the prison bars of ordinary speech. Semantics, symbolic logic, psychoanalysis - they had all been devices whereby speech could either be refined or by-passed.

 

http://interconnected.org/home/more/2012/03/seldonsplan.html

[mfbukowski]

Kinda brings a whole new meaning to idea that Mormons worship Smith.

Just playing. I know who Chris is, and he ain't no Jesus.

LOL!  I hate the spell checkers on these devices that make edits for you!  Augh!

[mfbukowski]

 

Read this last night and thought of you:

 

http://interconnected.org/home/more/2012/03/seldonsplan.html

 

Absolutely wonderful!!   Thanks!!  "Gross gutteral signalling"- just perfect!