On The Deflationary Theory

[Ahab]

Brilliant stuff- thanks!

I don't know how you can hear this and conclude that there is "reality" separate from language. Language IS "reality" as we know it. It does not "correspond" to reality - it IS reality AS WE KNOW IT

Putting it another way, without language this becomes an alien world. It forms the categories of our perceptions, it forms logic. Logic is not out there somewhere it is in here- and is socially constructed through language.

God organized all that he organized through the Word.

John 1

Christ as the personification of the Word- the Logos, the Message, the Truth and indeed life itself. No Word, no life as we know it, no light of intelligence as we know it.

Giving names organizes "things" from matter "unorganized"- Genesis 1:5

Punctuation added

And while on that point let's not forget to mention that Adam named all of the animals too, and woman too, while having a reason to name his woman the name he gave her.

Do we really need to know exactly how he spelled woman, considering that he may have used different letters than the ones we use?

Nah, I don't think so, and this philosophy seems to support that idea.

[mfbukowski]

i'm glad you enjoyed it.  it's formed a very vital part of my testimony.

This stuff is incredibly important, and this is why we need to lose sectarian dualism, the divorce between "reality" and my perceptual interpretations.

 

With that goes the Trinity.  With that goes a transcendent god who is inhuman, a Platonic Form of Goodness.  With that goes the Nicene Creed, "one substance" that is everywhere nowhere and no-thing.  With that goes the divorce between "reality" and "spiritual experience", married again into one great whole of life as we feel and sense everything.

 

We gain a model of a God who is our Father, not some cloudy ineffable force, a being wise beyond measure who loves us and is like us in very important ways.  We lose "divine nature" and just have "human nature" which includes agency and the ability to both sin and become like God himself after eons of development, and develop knowledge while doing so.

 

In short, the Restoration is restored.

[mfbukowski]

And while on that point let's not forget to mention that Adam named all of the animals too, and woman too, while having a reason to name his woman the name he gave her.

Do we really need to know exactly how he spelled woman, considering that he may have used different letters than the ones we use?

Nah, I don't think so, and this philosophy seems to support that idea.

EXACTLY.  Naming makes no-thing into some-thing with a name!  It defines reality into "existence"!

 

And who named Adam?  God.  That is the point.  The Word named Adam!

 

And there was no "death" before we had KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.  We could not see death as "evil" (adverse- bad, something to be "avoided")  No language, no knowledge, no categories perhaps some carbon cycle where something "dying" (we have to use words to even imagine it) is just recycled into new beings.   As Jill Bolte says, it is just oneness with the universe, no individuality nothing with names.

 

Nothing "lives" nothing "dies" we are born, eat and are eaten I suppose, but those ideas are all verbal.  "We" who are not "we" because "we" don't have that category- are part of a cycle we don't see or understand.

 

Adam receives a name and becomes an individual.  The name gives him self-hood.  He, because he is now a being with a name, knows good and evil because some things are "beneficial" to this being and some are not.

 

Satan tells him "you shalt not surely die" which is part of the lie- an untruth.  Surely since he is now an individual- this individual named Adam WILL die because he is no longer part of ALL, he is differentiated into an individual.

 

And yet now he "loves" someone else named "Eve", another individual.   Separation is not "good"- that is why they want to stay in the garden- to avoid "separation"

 

And so "death" as we know it- as a human concept - as separation of a loved one, which is "bad" - comes into "existence".

 

All this becomes metaphysics, but is just an attempt to tell a story.  This itself is a model - a way to think of these things and in itself is neither "true" nor "false".  If it works for you- as it does for me- great!

[Spammer]

Well it appears to be the majority view here.

Perhaps the problem is that you think your experiences SHOULD "correlate with reality", and that you do not take them at face value. Do you worry about if your experience of anything else, like the color "red" correlates with "reality"? How would you even measure that or know if it does or not??

You might want to think about that. Perhaps your own words and thought habits are confusing you.

Talk to actual missionaries about the process of being a missionary - I will assure you they understand this well.

Because you did not get a "yes" to Moroni's promise does not mean you did "something wrong". God leads us on the best path for us individually. There is probably something in your thought processes which draw you to the Orthodox church, and that is where you need to be.

I find it very revealing that you left a Pragmatic church for a more traditional view- as I recall you were a Mormon and are now Orthodox- and how your views are more correlated with "correspondence" than ours, or perhaps I am totally wrong. It happened one other time in 1994 as I recall.

I don't doubt for a moment that if I was living as an atheist in a Muslim country that God could give me a "Moroni experience" to join Islam because it is a strong theistic faith and perhaps the closest thing to the "truth" available where I lived.

We need good strong believers of all faiths to save theism as a viable way of life and should not be quibbling about doctrine.

On the other side, I am a Pragmatist and believe that Pragmatism is undeniably "true". It just matches my world view perfectly and it just so happens that Mormonism is the most Pragmatist religion of any anywhere.

Of course I am convinced that I am right and that eventually everyone will see the "truth"- that these beliefs work the best of any available anywhere to provide what mankind needs. To me that is what the "only true and living church" means. To me, it is the only path that provides absolutely all we need to establish a belief system for everyone to achieve the optimum lifestyle for humans.

I think that eventually everyone will see that, regardless of the path they are on now. No one has beliefs they think are "wrong", and I am no different than anyone else. All faiths are good, some are better, and I am convinced mine is the best- that indeed is why I chose it, but you get to decide for yourself what works for you.

That's all we ask, regardless of what you think we think.

All we have is our experience and my experience in the LDS church (born into it and Utah raised; stopped attending at 41 yrs old) is such that not a single LDS person I know or knew among family, friends, church leaders, teachers, mission companions and presidents (except for you and a couple of people on this board) accepts that the deflationary theory of truth applies to spiritual experiences. It's officially taught and believed by everyone I know that Moroni's Promise and Alma 32 can be put to the test to objectively determine the Truth and that spiritual experiences which occur within the LDS framework actually correspond with Reality. That's where I'm coming from, so based on that experience I disagree that the LDS Church is Pragmatic. There may be individual members like you who believe that it is, but you're the only one I know. It's no different in my Orthodox circle. I happen to agree with the deflationary theory. All we have are our experiences and we can't get outside of them to check whether they correspond with reality, even if our spiritual experiences are sweet to us (Alma 32). Orthodox spirituality is similarly experience-based, but like Mormonism, underneath the veneer of pragmatic and utilitarian reliance on direct experience, is the dogmatic assertion that even if we end up having an experience that leads us to conclude differently, God really does have such and such a nature and this nature is absolutely, transcendently true, regardless of what we happen to think of or can say about the matter using language (he's either a resurrected glorified man or is Holy Trinity, respectively, and will remain so even if there are no humans and all thought and language except for God's disappears from the cosmos). The implication of Pragmatism as I understand it is that until we have a direct experience of God's presence for ourselves, i.e., God the resurrected, glorified man appears to us a la Joseph Smitjh, or reveals Himself to us in a vision of the Divine Light as Holy Trinity, a la Orthodox hesychasts, God's true essence or nature Is unknowable. Even then, the vision will still be filtered through our language-bound, contingent brains. That said, the problem I'm having with Pragmatism within either a Mormon or Orthodox context is that I see an incompatibility between accepting the deflationary theory of truth and believing along with what both churches teach that determining what God's true nature is can be known through our spiritual experiences. Alas, in my understanding of Pragmatism, this is fallacious as our spiritual experiences are just as contingent as our sensory experiences. No matter how powerful or sweet our spiritual experiences are, we can never get outside of them to check whether they correspond with Reality. The deflationary theory of truth seems much more compatible with Buddhism than either Mormonism or Orthodoxy. That said, I understand why you are where you are. It's the same reason I'm where I am. As you say, if you were in the Middle East, you could very well have a Moroni experience that would convince you Islam is "true". Those kinds of positive experiences and saving theism are ultimately what matters. I agree. None of this can be proved either way.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Spammer

[Ahab]

All we have is our experience and my experience in the LDS church (born into it and Utah raised; stopped attending at 41 yrs old) is such that not a single LDS person I know or knew among family, friends, church leaders, teachers, mission companions and presidents (except for you and a couple of people on this board) accepts that the deflationary theory of truth applies to spiritual experiences. It's officially taught and believed by everyone I know that Moroni's Promise and Alma 32 can be put to the test to objectively determine the Truth and that spiritual experiences which occur within the LDS framework actually correspond with Reality. That's where I'm coming from, so based on that experience I disagree that the LDS Church is Pragmatic. There may be individual members like you who believe that it is, but you're the only one I know. It's no different in my Orthodox circle. I happen to agree with the deflationary theory. All we have are our experiences and we can't get outside of them to check whether they correspond with reality, even if our spiritual experiences are sweet to us (Alma 32). Orthodox spirituality is similarly experience-based, but like Mormonism, underneath the veneer of pragmatic and utilitarian reliance on direct experience, is the dogmatic assertion that even if we end up having an experience that leads us to conclude differently, God really does have such and such a nature and this nature is absolutely, transcendently true, regardless of what we happen to think of or can say about the matter using language (he's either a resurrected glorified man or is Holy Trinity, respectively, and will remain so even if there are no humans and all thought and language except for God's disappears from the cosmos). That said, the problem I'm having with Pragmatism within either a Mormon or Orthodox context is that I see an incompatibility between accepting the deflationary theory of truth and believing along with what both churches teach that determining what God's true nature is can be known through our spiritual experiences. Alas, in my understanding of Pragmatism, this is fallacious as our spiritual experiences are just as contingent as our sensory experiences. No matter how powerful or sweet our spiritual experiences are, we can never get outside of them to check whether they correspond with Reality. The deflationary theory of truth seems much more compatible with Buddhism than either Mormonism or Orthodoxy.

The basic idea I equate with the deflationary theory of truth is that the spiritual experiences of anyone and everyone are known only to each individual through their own individual experiences. God our Father could possibly be seen as an exception to the rule if indeed he does know everything including everything other people experience. And it is also possible that other people as developed as he is can see everything from other people's perspective too. But aside from that type of exception, as far as people like you and me at our common stage of development, still mortal and not perfect yet, you can't experience what I experience and vice versa and wverybody else in our common state is in the same boat. I know what is really true based on my own experiences, including my experiences of experiencing God, and you are in no position to refute that. You're entitled to your own perspective but your perspective does not override or overrule my perspective. And my perspective includes my perspective of you and my perspective of your perspective.

Think whatever you want but I'm going to think whatever I think about anything including you and you won't ever be able to change what I think about anything, unless maybe I decide on my own to agree with what you think

[Spammer]

The basic idea I equate with the deflationary theory of truth is that the spiritual experiences of anyone and everyone are known only to each individual through their own individual experiences. God our Father could possibly be seen as an exception to the rule if indeed he does know everything including everything other people experience. And it is also possible that other people as developed as he is can see everything from other people's perspective too. But aside from that type of exception, as far as people like you and me at our common stage of development, still mortal and not perfect yet, you can't experience what I experience and vice versa and wverybody else in our common state is in the same boat. I know what is really true based on my own experiences, including my experiences of experiencing God, and you are in no position to refute that. You're entitled to your own perspective but your perspective does not override or overrule my perspective. And my perspective includes my perspective of you and my perspective of your perspective.

Think whatever you want but I'm going to think whatever I think about anything including you and you won't ever be able to change what I think about anything, unless maybe I decide on my own to agree with what you think

Read back everything you just wrote to me as if I just wrote it to you word for word. Well said. I think and say the same thing to you. The problem is, which of us is right? The deflationary theory of truth says we can never know whether our personal spiritual experiences really correspond with reality. We just guess and assume they do and live our lives accordingly. There's nothing else we can do. Neither of us can step outside of our perceptions of our experiences to see if they do correspond with reality. Objective Truth, therefore, whatever that is, is unknowable. So why do our two churches officially talk as if absolute truth is knowable? Edited July 9, 2015 by Spammer

[Okrahomer]

I had to re-read your post to find what seemed out of place.  Here it is: 

 

 

It's officially taught and believed by everyone I know that Moroni's Promise and Alma 32 can be put to the test to objectively determine the Truth and that spiritual experiences which occur within the LDS framework actually correspond with Reality.

 

I also grew up in the LDS Church, but I was never taught that Moroni's Promise or Alma 32 were "objective" tests to determine the Truth.  Objectively determining truth implies exactly the opposite of Moroni's promise.  An objective approach seems to imply using things external to one's heart and feelings; But Moroni's promise and Alma 32 have everything to do with the feelings of our hearts.

[Spammer]

I had to re-read your post to find what seemed out of place. Here it is:

I also grew up in the LDS Church, but I was never taught that Moroni's Promise or Alma 32 were "objective" tests to determine the Truth. Objectively determining truth implies exactly the opposite of Moroni's promise. An objective approach seems to imply using things external to one's heart and feelings; But Moroni's promise and Alma 32 have everything to do with the feelings of our hearts.

Right, and the feelings in our hearts, along with the concepts and images in our brains associated with them, correspond with objective reality. That's what I was taught and is what every Mormon I knew or know offline personally believes. Edited July 9, 2015 by Spammer

[Okrahomer]

Right, and the feelings in our hearts correspond with objective reality. That's what I was taught and is what every Mormon I knew or know offline personally believes.

 

OK.  I think I understand your meaning better now, and I don't disagree. 

 

I will say though, that what my soul craves is spiritual--not objective.  And what I was taught--what I have no doubt you were taught--is that we should "hold to the rod" of the spiritual--even in the face of its apparent non-correspondence with the "objective."

 

By the way, I've just had quick look at lds.org.  The only hits I'm getting for the word "objective" have to do with goal-setting and purposeful living--but there's no association with testimony.  One gets much further with that when one uses words like "feelings" and "heart."

Edited July 9, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Ahab]

Read back everything you just wrote to me as if I just wrote it to you word for word. Well said. I think and say the same thing to you. The problem is, which of us is right? The deflationary theory of truth says we can never know whether our personal spiritual experiences really correspond with reality. We just guess and assume they do and live our lives accordingly. There's nothing else we can do. Neither of us can step outside of our perceptions of our experiences to see if they do correspond with reality. Objective Truth, therefore, whatever that is, is unknowable. So why do our two churches officially talk as if absolute truth is knowable?

We seem to be close to agreement, but not quite.

The difference is that I would and will and do say that I know that what I experience IS true and IS reality, and I'm talking about the only truth and reality that exists. It doesn't matter to me that you don't agree with me, when you don't. At least not enough that I would change what I think just because you don't agree with me. My perspective of reality and truth is not based on whether or not other people agree with me, at least as long as I know that I agree with God our Father. My goal is to agree with him, regardless of what those who disagree with him say. So when I have confirmed that what I think on some point is the same as what he thinks, based on my perspective on what he tells me, then I'm set, ready to rock and roll. I simply can't be persuaded otherwise as long as I stick to what he tells me, line upon line and precept upon precept. Contrary opinions are just that, and not true or real to me.

Now say you agree on the same principles and then we'll see where we stand. We can agree on the principle and still disagree on the details of what you and I believe. But I will say it would also be nice if we agreed on the details too, and not only on the principles. Nice, but not necessary. I will go on without you.

[tagriffy]

All within the framework of your own perspective.  I would argue that your emotions play a part in your interpretation of textual material and your pov determines what you consider as irrelevancies.

 

To a certain extent. However, regardless of my emotions or pov, the text is there. I can go back to it.

[Stroopwafel]

Well I appreciate the reply.

Indeed since reality is a word and words are human creations it is not out of the realm of possibility that the concept of "reality" does not exist without the word reality.

 

So the short answer is Yes.  For me the phrase "no death before the fall" means just that.  No concept of death, no death.  I literally cannot say anything about what happened before language, as I cannot describe reality without words.

 

Clearly "something was happening".   I am not a solipsist, but can we SAY these things with accuracy?  Of course not.  Read Rorty again.

 

 

The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.....

 

I have no issues with that. What I find problematic however is the view that since language cannot adequately express the whole spectrum of human experience, it would somehow mean that we can't express anything adequately enough.

 

 

"Death" is a description and so is "reality"

But anyway back to the question at hand.

 

I want to ask everyone reading this to predict how I will handle this objection because I think it is perfectly predictable.  My answer is, predictably, "It all depends on how you define "represent"".

 

Did you expect anything else?

 

And what's the next thing I will say, class?  That's right!

 

"The definition always depends on the context"

 

Context 1: simple tautology: 

 

25x=100

x=4

 

Does 4 "represent" x?  Absolutely.  All of the meaning and significance of x is "represented" in the number 4.   There is nothing outside of that representation that does not include the number 4.  What I mean by "X" IS 4.  There is nothing more to it.

 

So far you are all right.

 

Context 2.  A tad more complex.

 

"H2O Represents 'water'"  Does it?

Let's look at your own definition

Using your words is "The content of the experience of 'water' perfectly communicated" in the symbol" H2O"

 

No, it is not "perfectly communicated".   Water is a liquid, H2O can be a gas or a liquid or a solid.   Big difference.  Does the symbol capture every nuance of the experience of "water"?

 

Can we substitute the symbol H2O and get the same feeling?   I think not.

 

Have you ever translated a nuanced sentence from one language to another?  Are they ever "equivalent"?  Have you ever translated poetry literally, word for word?

 

But so far we have used pretty simple examples of objects and mathematical equivalencies

 

Do the letters "R-E-D" re- present (present again) the "content of the experience"?

 

Clearly not.  Again, do those letters convey the "content of the experience" to a blind person?  Absolutely not.

 

And that is a simple experience.

 

Does the word "truth" convey all that we have discussed?  Does the word "reality" convey the full meaning of all the nuances of what that can mean?  Absolutely not.

 

Of course the experience of water, or of the colour red, will never be communicated in all its possible nuances. But as we formulate specific enough formulations, we come to know an exact/particular experience we are referring to, and that's all that is required of language in order to be an adequate tool of communication, and to "correspond" to reality. Language doesn't have to give the full content of the experience of the world to the hearer/reader, it only has to evoke it. That's all we are asking it to do, and that's sufficient to say that it cannot be anything else but representation. No one has been blinded by discussing light too much. But we know the phenomenon we are talking about. Our descriptions of it may be misguided, but we have experienced it, and we know that the signifier "light" refers to this particular experience.

 

 

And of course you misquoted Rorty as well.  Notice he said that we needed to drop language as REPRESENTATIONS.  He did not say to drop language

 

Language CANNOT fully capture any experience, all the nuances and feelings involved.  It cannot RE-PRESENT the experience in it's entirety.

 

In simple cases as shown, yes.   In complex nuanced words and experiences, never.

 

I hope I do not get thrown off the board for this but if you think the three letters s-e-x re-presents in the sense of 'presents again" or even "communicates" the fullness of the experience, I do not know what to say, but to disagree and leave it at that.

 

There is absolutely no "correspondence" between the three letters and the experience.  In fact to put something into words generalizes and objectifies, it strips away all the particulars and makes subjectives disappear. 

 

A testimony cannot be confused with heartburn though both may be called a "burning in the bosom".  That is precisely the issue here.  Words simply do not do it.

 

Regarding my "misquote" of Rorty, I admit I could have worded differently the sentence you're talking about which seems as if I didn't understood what he meant. However, if you follow the reasoning in the paragraph, you'll see that I'm wondering How can language be anything but representation? So, to me, Rorty advocating that we "the drop the idea of language as representation" is just plain asking to drop language. Again, how can language be anything else but representation? He's advocating it, and you seem to be as well. How does that work then?

 

Other than that, once more, I have no issues with what you're saying here. Neat! In the end, it's that we just seem to not agree on the consequences of the inadequacies of language. Well, let's live with it.

[Mars]

I have no issues with that. What I find problematic however is the view that since language cannot adequately express the whole spectrum of human experience, it would somehow mean that we can't express anything adequately enough.

 

I'm not well versed in philosophy, but I don't believe that's what the deflationary theory is trying to say. 

 

I think it's trying to say that the best you can come up with per your language, experience, understanding, and ability to perceive, is the best you can come up with.  There's nothing outside of what you can perceive, so that means whatever you decide is true based on your ability to perceive, is totally legit.

 

All that assumes, imo, that sincerity and honesty and integrity are taken into account.  Clearly human beings have very refined BS meters and we can tell deep down when we are lying to ourselves.

 

Imo I think this means that the question of "Whose experiences are valid when they conflict?  How can God be silent when this gal prays about the Book of Mormon, tell that dude over there that it's a bunch of lies, and tell Mars that it contains the fullness of His Gospel?"

 

Well, they're all true.  And I don't mean that as a cop out, but it might sound like one.  We love clear winners and losers - it makes the choices a little more clear.

 

Consider D&C 50, and the iterating toward a more perfect understanding and brighter day.  Each of us, provided we are sincere, will receive line upon line and precept upon precept.  It's just how we absorb more information.  In any quest for knowledge, in any subject, we do it step by step.  Assuming the Mormon Gospel is THE GOSPEL, like, THE REAL ONE, then it makes sense to me that God would take each person and slowly lead them toward something more correct than what they had, rather than tell them to make the wide cultural leap when they may not be prepared for it.  The honest and sincere person has eternity to get there - there's no rush.

 

I haven't gotten around to squaring this away with D&C 76, where the vision of the lower kingdoms shows people who were deceived - that doesn't quite make sense to me.  I choose to believe that perhaps that wasn't the final word on the subject.

[Ahab]

I haven't gotten around to squaring this away with D&C 76, where the vision of the lower kingdoms shows people who were deceived - that doesn't quite make sense to me. I choose to believe that perhaps that wasn't the final word on the subject.

Think about how deceivers deceive. Think about who the deceived are trusting. Those of celestial glory/intelligence are/will be those who accept the Holy Spirit/God as their guide. Being valiant in obtaining/holding onto a testimony of Jesus Christ/God through the power of the Holy Ghost is a matter of obtaining/holding onto that degree of intelligence/glory even while deceivers/the deceived try to share their false information/ lesser degree of intelligence/glory.

Remember the glory of God is intelligence, and his glory is celestial glory/intelligence.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

 

The basic idea I equate with the deflationary theory of truth is that the spiritual experiences of anyone and everyone are known only to each individual through their own individual experiences. God our Father could possibly be seen as an exception to the rule if indeed he does know everything including everything other people experience. And it is also possible that other people as developed as he is can see everything from other people's perspective too. But aside from that type of exception, as far as people like you and me at our common stage of development, still mortal and not perfect yet, you can't experience what I experience and vice versa and wverybody else in our common state is in the same boat. I know what is really true based on my own experiences, including my experiences of experiencing God, and you are in no position to refute that. You're entitled to your own perspective but your perspective does not override or overrule my perspective. And my perspective includes my perspective of you and my perspective of your perspective.

Think whatever you want but I'm going to think whatever I think about anything including you and you won't ever be able to change what I think about anything, unless maybe I decide on my own to agree with what you think

Read back everything you just wrote to me as if I just wrote it to you word for word. Well said. I think and say the same thing to you. The problem is, which of us is right? The deflationary theory of truth says we can never know whether our personal spiritual experiences really correspond with reality. We just guess and assume they do and live our lives accordingly. There's nothing else we can do. Neither of us can step outside of our perceptions of our experiences to see if they do correspond with reality. Objective Truth, therefore, whatever that is, is unknowable. So why do our two churches officially talk as if absolute truth is knowable?

 

Because they are stuck in pre-restoration thinking because that's all they know.

 

But ours is changing.  I think yours cannot. I have given much evidence for the fact that many Mormons are fully aware of William James and Pragmatism and that we participate in that tradition.  Go back through the thread and find it.  Google mormon william james and see what you get.  Tons of references to Pragmatism and Mormonism.

   

Here's a quote from the prophet himself

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/01/living-the-abundant-life?lang=eng

 

Have a Positive Attitude

A in my ABCs refers to attitude. William James, a pioneering American psychologist and philosopher, wrote, “The greatest revolution of our generation is the discovery that human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.”¹

 

Indeed it could be said that that is the whole point of this thread.  Reality starts from inside ourselves, not from outside.  There you have the essence of Pragmatism in one quote from a Mormon prophet.

 

I presume your old crowd in Utah are not philosophically educated.  I find that education to be as much curse as much as a blessing but at least it makes a few things crystal clear.

 

A church cannot believe in "absolute unchangeable truth" and agree in any way with deflationism, and I think yours is stuck with that view.  We have an open canon.  We are open to new revelation and doctrinal change.  There have been many talks recently saying that GA's are not infallible and that we are "all in this together".

 

We have a lay ministry, not a formal clergy educated for it as a job.  We have doctors lawyers and Indian chiefs, literally as leaders.  We are led by pragmatic business folks who have specifically NOT been educated in "Christian Theology", while your leadership have spent years being trained in traditional Christian theology.

 

When we say we believe the truth is unchanging it is because someone has misspoken.  They have mot been trained in theology, thank goodness.  Ask them about whether or not it was Unchanging Truth that we should or should not practice polygamy or give blacks the priesthood and they have no idea how to handle that question.  They are not equipped to deal with it, and neither are your Utah friends.

 

Yes on the other hand certain MORAL truths never change because they define human values.  Murder will always be wrong, because we cannot be a civilized society believing in random murder..  such a belief has no survival value and leads to death of the species.  We could go on about that but not here.

 

The fact is, with an open canon we must be able to affirm that yes, God's will for his church can change and respond to social needs and see that as a strength not a weakness.  Based on Greek philosophy, you cannot do that.  Truth is perfect and complete and unchanging.  The two ideas are totally incompatible.

 

We can. believe in change.   We believe in an open canon, we just have not developed the idea of what that means very well.  It means that yes, truth itself is situational and changes as the environment changes.  What works for one era may not work for the next. 

 

We have been teaching sectarian theology because we have nothing else.  We are Methodists with a Book of Mormon, but all that is changing.

 

It takes 200 years for a religion to develop a philosophical base.  For you that was 1800 years ago.  For us, it is just starting.

Edited July 10, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 

Well it appears to be the majority view here.

Perhaps the problem is that you think your experiences SHOULD "correlate with reality", and that you do not take them at face value. Do you worry about if your experience of anything else, like the color "red" correlates with "reality"? How would you even measure that or know if it does or not??

You might want to think about that. Perhaps your own words and thought habits are confusing you.

Talk to actual missionaries about the process of being a missionary - I will assure you they understand this well.

Because you did not get a "yes" to Moroni's promise does not mean you did "something wrong". God leads us on the best path for us individually. There is probably something in your thought processes which draw you to the Orthodox church, and that is where you need to be.

I find it very revealing that you left a Pragmatic church for a more traditional view- as I recall you were a Mormon and are now Orthodox- and how your views are more correlated with "correspondence" than ours, or perhaps I am totally wrong. It happened one other time in 1994 as I recall.

I don't doubt for a moment that if I was living as an atheist in a Muslim country that God could give me a "Moroni experience" to join Islam because it is a strong theistic faith and perhaps the closest thing to the "truth" available where I lived.

We need good strong believers of all faiths to save theism as a viable way of life and should not be quibbling about doctrine.

On the other side, I am a Pragmatist and believe that Pragmatism is undeniably "true". It just matches my world view perfectly and it just so happens that Mormonism is the most Pragmatist religion of any anywhere.

Of course I am convinced that I am right and that eventually everyone will see the "truth"- that these beliefs work the best of any available anywhere to provide what mankind needs. To me that is what the "only true and living church" means. To me, it is the only path that provides absolutely all we need to establish a belief system for everyone to achieve the optimum lifestyle for humans.

I think that eventually everyone will see that, regardless of the path they are on now. No one has beliefs they think are "wrong", and I am no different than anyone else. All faiths are good, some are better, and I am convinced mine is the best- that indeed is why I chose it, but you get to decide for yourself what works for you.

That's all we ask, regardless of what you think we think.

All we have is our experience and my experience in the LDS church (born into it and Utah raised; stopped attending at 41 yrs old) is such that not a single LDS person I know or knew among family, friends, church leaders, teachers, mission companions and presidents (except for you and a couple of people on this board) accepts that the deflationary theory of truth applies to spiritual experiences. It's officially taught and believed by everyone I know that Moroni's Promise and Alma 32 can be put to the test to objectively determine the Truth and that spiritual experiences which occur within the LDS framework actually correspond with Reality. That's where I'm coming from, so based on that experience I disagree that the LDS Church is Pragmatic. There may be individual members like you who believe that it is, but you're the only one I know. It's no different in my Orthodox circle. I happen to agree with the deflationary theory. All we have are our experiences and we can't get outside of them to check whether they correspond with reality, even if our spiritual experiences are sweet to us (Alma 32). Orthodox spirituality is similarly experience-based, but like Mormonism, underneath the veneer of pragmatic and utilitarian reliance on direct experience, is the dogmatic assertion that even if we end up having an experience that leads us to conclude differently, God really does have such and such a nature and this nature is absolutely, transcendently true, regardless of what we happen to think of or can say about the matter using language (he's either a resurrected glorified man or is Holy Trinity, respectively, and will remain so even if there are no humans and all thought and language except for God's disappears from the cosmos). The implication of Pragmatism as I understand it is that until we have a direct experience of God's presence for ourselves, i.e., God the resurrected, glorified man appears to us a la Joseph Smitjh, or reveals Himself to us in a vision of the Divine Light as Holy Trinity, a la Orthodox hesychasts, God's true essence or nature Is unknowable. Even then, the vision will still be filtered through our language-bound, contingent brains. That said, the problem I'm having with Pragmatism within either a Mormon or Orthodox context is that I see an incompatibility between accepting the deflationary theory of truth and believing along with what both churches teach that determining what God's true nature is can be known through our spiritual experiences. Alas, in my understanding of Pragmatism, this is fallacious as our spiritual experiences are just as contingent as our sensory experiences. No matter how powerful or sweet our spiritual experiences are, we can never get outside of them to check whether they correspond with Reality. The deflationary theory of truth seems much more compatible with Buddhism than either Mormonism or Orthodoxy. That said, I understand why you are where you are. It's the same reason I'm where I am. As you say, if you were in the Middle East, you could very well have a Moroni experience that would convince you Islam is "true". Those kinds of positive experiences and saving theism are ultimately what matters. I agree. None of this can be proved either way.

 

The Mormon God is a God who cries.  He is immanent and can hear and answer prayers.  Think about it.  An unchangable god cannot go from state 1 to state 2.  He cannot say in effect- "Oh Spammer needs some encouragement today- he needs to learn thus and so.  Let me tell him about that"

 

Human interaction requires responding to the other,  An Unchanging God cannot go from state 1- hearing a question- to state 2- giving an answer.  He cannot interact with children and teach them.  Our God can do that.  "Taking care of kids" is HIGHLY interactive!

[mfbukowski]

 

I have no issues with that. What I find problematic however is the view that since language cannot adequately express the whole spectrum of human experience, it would somehow mean that we can't express anything adequately enough.

 

I'm not well versed in philosophy, but I don't believe that's what the deflationary theory is trying to say. 

 

I think it's trying to say that the best you can come up with per your language, experience, understanding, and ability to perceive, is the best you can come up with.  There's nothing outside of what you can perceive, so that means whatever you decide is true based on your ability to perceive, is totally legit.

 

All that assumes, imo, that sincerity and honesty and integrity are taken into account.  Clearly human beings have very refined BS meters and we can tell deep down when we are lying to ourselves.

 

Imo I think this means that the question of "Whose experiences are valid when they conflict?  How can God be silent when this gal prays about the Book of Mormon, tell that dude over there that it's a bunch of lies, and tell Mars that it contains the fullness of His Gospel?"

 

Well, they're all true.  And I don't mean that as a cop out, but it might sound like one.  We love clear winners and losers - it makes the choices a little more clear.

 

Consider D&C 50, and the iterating toward a more perfect understanding and brighter day.  Each of us, provided we are sincere, will receive line upon line and precept upon precept.  It's just how we absorb more information.  In any quest for knowledge, in any subject, we do it step by step.  Assuming the Mormon Gospel is THE GOSPEL, like, THE REAL ONE, then it makes sense to me that God would take each person and slowly lead them toward something more correct than what they had, rather than tell them to make the wide cultural leap when they may not be prepared for it.  The honest and sincere person has eternity to get there - there's no rush.

 

I haven't gotten around to squaring this away with D&C 76, where the vision of the lower kingdoms shows people who were deceived - that doesn't quite make sense to me.  I choose to believe that perhaps that wasn't the final word on the subject.

 

The scriptures are not always consistent.  That should be no surprise

[mfbukowski]

Stroopwafel

My quote function seems to not be working properly sorry.

 

No you are wrong.  I don't feel like debating it.   No one else understands Rorty that way. NO one.   He is not saying language is inadequate.  That is absurd.

 

For language to re-present experience it has to do it in all its nuances.

 

That is the whole point of "correspondence".  You are yourself in effect attacking correspondence and making arguments for me.

 

Find me a philosopher who affirms correspondence by saying that it kinda sorta corresponds with reality.  Weak correspondence is no correspondence- we are talking about "TRUTH" here.

 

Cracks in correspondence mean cracks in the truth, meaning that truth is not always very true at all.

 

Guess what.  You are a deflationist but just don't know it.

[Mars]

Spammer,

 

God really does have such and such a nature and this nature is absolutely, transcendently true, regardless of what we happen to think of or can say about the matter using language

 

Completely agree.  And per yours and my acceptance of this theory, God's nature as it differs from our understanding is absolutely, transcendentally useless to us until we can perceive it. 

[Tacenda]

Well it appears to be the majority view here.

Perhaps the problem is that you think your experiences SHOULD "correlate with reality", and that you do not take them at face value. Do you worry about if your experience of anything else, like the color "red" correlates with "reality"? How would you even measure that or know if it does or not??

You might want to think about that. Perhaps your own words and thought habits are confusing you.

Talk to actual missionaries about the process of being a missionary - I will assure you they understand this well.

Because you did not get a "yes" to Moroni's promise does not mean you did "something wrong". God leads us on the best path for us individually. There is probably something in your thought processes which draw you to the Orthodox church, and that is where you need to be.

I find it very revealing that you left a Pragmatic church for a more traditional view- as I recall you were a Mormon and are now Orthodox- and how your views are more correlated with "correspondence" than ours, or perhaps I am totally wrong. It happened one other time in 1994 as I recall.

I don't doubt for a moment that if I was living as an atheist in a Muslim country that God could give me a "Moroni experience" to join Islam because it is a strong theistic faith and perhaps the closest thing to the "truth" available where I lived.

We need good strong believers of all faiths to save theism as a viable way of life and should not be quibbling about doctrine.

On the other side, I am a Pragmatist and believe that Pragmatism is undeniably "true". It just matches my world view perfectly and it just so happens that Mormonism is the most Pragmatist religion of any anywhere.

Of course I am convinced that I am right and that eventually everyone will see the "truth"- that these beliefs work the best of any available anywhere to provide what mankind needs. To me that is what the "only true and living church" means. To me, it is the only path that provides absolutely all we need to establish a belief system for everyone to achieve the optimum lifestyle for humans.

I think that eventually everyone will see that, regardless of the path they are on now. No one has beliefs they think are "wrong", and I am no different than anyone else. All faiths are good, some are better, and I am convinced mine is the best- that indeed is why I chose it, but you get to decide for yourself what works for you.

That's all we ask, regardless of what you think we think.

All we have is our experience and my experience in the LDS church (born into it and Utah raised; stopped attending at 41 yrs old) is such that not a single LDS person I know or knew among family, friends, church leaders, teachers, mission companions and presidents (except for you and a couple of people on this board) accepts that the deflationary theory of truth applies to spiritual experiences. It's officially taught and believed by everyone I know that Moroni's Promise and Alma 32 can be put to the test to objectively determine the Truth and that spiritual experiences which occur within the LDS framework actually correspond with Reality. That's where I'm coming from, so based on that experience I disagree that the LDS Church is Pragmatic. There may be individual members like you who believe that it is, but you're the only one I know. It's no different in my Orthodox circle. I happen to agree with the deflationary theory. All we have are our experiences and we can't get outside of them to check whether they correspond with reality, even if our spiritual experiences are sweet to us (Alma 32). Orthodox spirituality is similarly experience-based, but like Mormonism, underneath the veneer of pragmatic and utilitarian reliance on direct experience, is the dogmatic assertion that even if we end up having an experience that leads us to conclude differently, God really does have such and such a nature and this nature is absolutely, transcendently true, regardless of what we happen to think of or can say about the matter using language (he's either a resurrected glorified man or is Holy Trinity, respectively, and will remain so even if there are no humans and all thought and language except for God's disappears from the cosmos). The implication of Pragmatism as I understand it is that until we have a direct experience of God's presence for ourselves, i.e., God the resurrected, glorified man appears to us a la Joseph Smitjh, or reveals Himself to us in a vision of the Divine Light as Holy Trinity, a la Orthodox hesychasts, God's true essence or nature Is unknowable. Even then, the vision will still be filtered through our language-bound, contingent brains. That said, the problem I'm having with Pragmatism within either a Mormon or Orthodox context is that I see an incompatibility between accepting the deflationary theory of truth and believing along with what both churches teach that determining what God's true nature is can be known through our spiritual experiences. Alas, in my understanding of Pragmatism, this is fallacious as our spiritual experiences are just as contingent as our sensory experiences. No matter how powerful or sweet our spiritual experiences are, we can never get outside of them to check whether they correspond with Reality. The deflationary theory of truth seems much more compatible with Buddhism than either Mormonism or Orthodoxy. That said, I understand why you are where you are. It's the same reason I'm where I am. As you say, if you were in the Middle East, you could very well have a Moroni experience that would convince you Islam is "true". Those kinds of positive experiences and saving theism are ultimately what matters. I agree. None of this can be proved either way.

The Mormon God is a God who cries.  He is immanent and can hear and answer prayers.  Think about it.  An unchangable god cannot go from state 1 to state 2.  He cannot say in effect- "Oh Spammer needs some encouragement today- he needs to learn thus and so.  Let me tell him about that"

 

Human interaction requires responding to the other,  An Unchanging God cannot go from state 1- hearing a question- to state 2- giving an answer.  He cannot interact with children and teach them.  Our God can do that.  "Taking care of kids" is HIGHLY interactive!

I kinda think you just put God in a box, He's incomprehensible IMO, how were you able to define Him to that degree?

[Mars]

how can you worship an incomprehensible God?  how could anything about that God make any sense?  by definition that God doesn't make sense at all.

 

God most certainly is knowable.

[Spammer]

In the Orthodox tradition, we say that any attempt to carefully and accurately define God based on what makes sense to us only ends up creating a god in our own image; an idol. We end up worshiping ourselves.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Spammer

[Mars]

i can't worship a God i don't understand.

 

if He penalizes me for that, then i'm not so sure he's a very good God in the first place.

[Spammer]

i can't worship a God i don't understand.

 

if He penalizes me for that, then i'm not so sure he's a very good God in the first place.

 

I'll share the Orthodox view of God.  God is Love.  He penalizes no one and keeps no one away.  He is the Father of the Prodigal Son.  We penalize ourselves by engaging in self-serving behaviors that benefit only ourselves.  Any separation from God is self-imposed; we make ourselves unable to dwell in His presence.  After death, He still welcomes us with arms outstretched, but due to the self-inflicted condition of our souls His presence is painful and we flee from Him.  Hell is locked from the inside.  Those who lives lives of love that reflect God's nature, Orthodox or not, will dwell in His presence for eternity.  

[Mars]

spammer,

 

i don't want to offend, and i certainly agree with the notion that you want to dispose of the old and adopt the new - the whole redemption idea that's patently Christian - but ...

 

i can't help but see that line as setting us up to fail.  we'll always worship idols of our own making, then.  we can't understand anything outside of what we can understand.  so as soon as you understand something new about God, and it makes sense to you - BAM!  it's an idol.

 

that feels impossible to me.  i don't know how an impersonal and distant God who is unknowable and incomprehensible could be of any value to me.  how would communication between me and this God work?  how would personal instruction function?

 

the idea that God is perfected Man and that I can be that too makes so much more sense to me.  if that makes me an idol worshipper, then so be it.

 

 

I'll share the Orthodox view of God.  God is Love.  He penalizes no one and keeps no one away.  He is the Father of the Prodigal Son.  We penalize ourselves by engaging in self-serving behaviors that benefit only ourselves.  Any separation from God is self-imposed; we make ourselves unable to dwell in His presence.  After death, He still welcomes us with arms outstretched, but due to the self-inflicted condition of our souls His presence is painful and we flee from Him.  Hell is locked from the inside.  Those who lives lives of love that reflect God's nature, Orthodox or not, will dwell in His presence for eternity.  

 

 

that's a very nice sentiment but it's a bit off topic.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mars