Conflicting Truth Claims

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited December 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is interesting and intriguing to me.   But if what you say is true is this not an unbridgeable gap?  Anyone can be positive they have the best path and the correct spirit but actually have the wrong one.  Also I find it interesting you call it only the best path.  I know you don't like to say The Truth.

Truth means "I think this is the best answer"

That's the best definition anyone can come up with.  That's not me saying that, it is the opinion of probably most philosophers today.  We know how to use the term but it cannot be defined

That's a problem with language- nothing more or less. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Truth means "I think this is the best answer"

However, the universe doesn't care about what we think. 

[volgadon]

Wittgenstein's Tractatus should be required reading on this thread.

[volgadon]

5 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

However, the universe doesn't care about what we think. 

Can a fallen universe really contain an expressible, absolute, and entirely correct truth, or can it only be conveyed through flawed language?

[Avatar4321]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Truth means "I think this is the best answer"

That's the best definition anyone can come up with.  That's not me saying that, it is the opinion of probably most philosophers today.  We know how to use the term but it cannot be defined

That's a problem with language- nothing more or less. 

I prefer Gods definition of truth.

[volgadon]

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I prefer Gods definition of truth.

The succinct definition in the D&C is actually a model familiar to mystics, and is essentially saying that what we see is not actually true.

[TheSkepticChristian]

19 minutes ago, volgadon said:

Can a fallen universe really contain an expressible, absolute, and entirely correct truth, or can it only be conveyed through flawed language?

Let's me try again. The truth doesn't care about what we think. The truth doesn't care about our interpretations. 

"he Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not" Dr. Krauss 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, volgadon said:

Wittgenstein's Tractatus should be required reading on this thread.

Oh yeah.

Better yet: Philosophical Investigations.

Sigh.   Not gonna happen. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, volgadon said:

Can a fallen universe really contain an expressible, absolute, and entirely correct truth, or can it only be conveyed through flawed language?

Nice try.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, volgadon said:

The succinct definition in the D&C is actually a model familiar to mystics, and is essentially saying that what we see is not actually true.

Exactly.  Thanks.  D&C is completely Wittgensteinian and perfectly explains "language games".. It just shows how brainwashed we are by Cartesianism that we can't even read what the words plainly say.

Is this worth it?

[Teancum]

On December 12, 2015 at 2:08 PM, consiglieri said:

We are confronted in today's world with many different truth claims.

One person says her religion is true, and that she has a spiritual witness to confirm it.

Another person says his religion is true, and that he has a spiritual witness to confirm it.

And so on, and so on, until the examples are legion.

And many, if not all, of these spiritually confirmed truth claims conflict with one another.

This has led many to throw out the idea of spiritual witnesses confirming any truth claim, since they are obviously unreliable, as the same Spirit is testifying to the truth of conflicting claims.

It has led others to privilege their own witness as the only one that is correct, leading them to view such claims from others as either fraudulent or inspired by sources other than God.

I view it differently.

I accept the testimony from others that the Spirit has witnessed to them the truth of their own faith, even when that faith conflicts with my own.

What makes my witness more important to me is simply that--it is my spiritual witness.

While others may receive witnesses that lead them in their own spiritual journey, I believe that my witnesses are meant to lead me in my spiritual journey.

Those journeys do not have to be the same, and frequently are quite divergent.

But that is okay.

Because God is working with everybody, to the extent they are willing to be worked with.

And God is leading them in the way that is best for them.

One of those ways is Mormonism.  Many of those ways are not Mormonism.

One of those ways may lead a person into Mormonism.

Another of those ways may lead a person out of Mormonism.

And into and out of any religious faith or belief system.

But it is the same Spirit that worketh all in all.

I am interested in the thoughts that others may have on this subject.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig

I have read your post a few more times now.  I see my initial response did not really do it justice.

When my testimony of the LDS church started to weaken for a number of years I saw things I think in the way you put it above.  God would speak to human beings in many different ways.  Any honest seeker of truth would get answers from God that best suited them.  For some that may be Islam, other Catholicsm, Mormonism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc.  

Like many others here I held that the LDS Church had the best truth.  Over time that modified to be the best truth for me but not necessarily the best truth and the only Church or religion with God's priesthood authority.  In fact the idea of rituals and ordinances being required to enter God's highest heaven started to make less sense but that's another issue really.   

Recently I started reading a book called God is Not One.   It covers eight major world religions.   The opening chapter of the book basically debunks the idea that all religions ultimately  lead to God and in fact how can they when they differ so very much.   Some don't even have the concept of One God, some don't recognize sin and the idea that sin separated us from a creator.  Some focus exclusively on the hear and now and have nothing about an after life.  

So now it is tough to even accept that God gives a variety of answers that may best suit the many varied human experiences and be what is best for that person.  What the person chooses to do with these experiences may still be good for them.  But to credit these to God giving the answers is tough for me now.

Add to this the idea that almost all honest adherents can give a narrative that sounds a lot like having an other than themselves spiritual experience that convinces them their path is best and well....now I am not sure 

Further, reading how human societies have evolved and how religion has come along with that and why it has been a useful thing in human societies both for building unity but also for keeping the masses in line as well as the scientific studies on the brain and emotional reactions to all sorts of things including spiritual  experiences, and well, thus I have become more skeptical.  

As I have noted I have had what I term spiritual experiences and indeed still have them.  But at least currently I view them differently.

Hope this rambling post helps you understand my current thoughts on this.  I am open to be persuaded.  I have enjoyed Mark's comments on this thread.

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 2:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

Have fun creating your own reality.  I hope you are happy!

Do we not all create our own reality?

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2015 at 6:45 PM, Calm said:

All who are exalted become one with God, so there is only one ultimate destination.

But how many paths?

[consiglieri]

22 hours ago, JAHS said:

We certainly cannot deny that those of other faiths have spiritual witnesses to the truths that they believe in, especially if what they believe brings forth good fruits in their lives. President Hinckley seemed to recognize this when he said:

“Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service” (meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 17 Feb. 1998).

The issue I have with quotes such as these is that it presumes Mormonism has the Truth with a capital "T" and all other religions have truth only insofar as they line up with Mormonism.

It was in breaking through this wall in my thinking that I personally experienced a transcendent experience in my own spiritual journey.

[consiglieri]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There is only one path to God.  There may be many paths in life to get you to that path.  But only one that leads to God.  But that is just my religion.  And I believe it to be true.

Then I must ask the follow up question--do you believe God would confirm by the Spirit the truth of any religion other than yours?

[consiglieri]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

Two disagreeing truth claims cannot be true no matter what the experience is of the people claiming them. Either Christ is the only way to eternal life or he is not. Either baptism is required or it is not. Either we are reincarnated or we are not. Both sides can't hold true.

Thank you for giving such good examples, Rain.

Five years ago, I would have agreed with you.

Now I find myself disagreeing.

I think one of the fundamental problems of religious thought is this either/or dichotomy--either one thing is true or it is not true.

I have come to believe it is not so much "either/or" as it is "both/and."

I believe everything you say in your post can be true, even those things that are mutually exclusive.

I believe both that Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life and that he is not.

I believe baptism is both required and it is not required. (See D&C 137)

I believe both that we are reincarnated and that we are not.

Both sides can be true.

At least for me.

Edited December 14, 2015 by consiglieri

[CA Steve]

I have a tee shirt that, on the front, says; "If I agreed with you, we would both be wrong".

On the back it says; "We are probably both wrong anyways".

[Zakuska]

21 hours ago, Rain said:

Two disagreeing truth claims cannot be true no matter what the experience is of the people claiming them. Either Christ is the only way to eternal life or he is not. Either baptism is required or it is not. Either we are reincarnated or we are not. Both sides can't hold true.

How you find something to be true is another story. Assuming mormonism is true (and I am) Mark found the path to that truth through atheism. I found it through being raised in the church. A friend found it through anti-mormon classes at her church. So we all have different paths, but if those paths are not leading to truth then you won't have a truth claim, just a belief claim. 

Like, I think, bluebell said, I take others spiritual experiences as neutral.

This is demonstrably false.

Truth is all a matter of perspective.

It is "true" this cylinder in a circle under one perspective.

It is "true" this cylinder in a square under one perspective.

But the Gobal truth is its a cylinder.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Zakuska

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

The issue I have with quotes such as these is that it presumes Mormonism has the Truth with a capital "T" and all other religions have truth only insofar as they line up with Mormonism.

It was in breaking through this wall in my thinking that I personally experienced a transcendent experience in my own spiritual journey.

God confirms the truth of certain doctrines and "truths" to anyone of any religion. Since we claim that the LDS Church is led by God through His prophets it makes sense that His Church does have the Truth with a capital "T". I think there can be a difference between Mormonism and God's Truth. "Mormonism" encompasses all the teachings, policies, and culture of the faith, which may not always line up with the "Truth".  Whereas God's Truth and true doctrine, which we hope are contained within the LDS Church and some of which is found within other faiths, is what's most important. Also important is of course the priesthood authority which is only found within His church.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

To try and make it verbal though probably unsuccessfully, it is like trying to say that "My testimony is more important to me than your testimony is to you, so mine wins".

We are talking here about which "fruits" of the spirit are "sweeter" and which have more "light and goodness", using Alma's epistemology. 

Alma 32

 

Adam Miller identifies the word "experiment" with "experience".  It is through experience that we learn what is "real", and therefore also what is "light" and "good".  That is subjective and cannot be quantified. 

 

But notice that Alma does not come to saying there IS "perfect knowledge" except as one lets the principles - the "tree" you have planted- grow for a lifetime.

The only possible measure of comparison between two testimonies is its measure over a lifetime- and even then it is subjective.

 

President Kimball gave a talk about "Absolute Truth",  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng  but if you read it carefully really all he establishes philosophically is that you CAN have "absolute truth" - but within a specific "sphere" as judged by the results of the beliefs in your life.  He acknowledges that scientific truth is different than religious truth and twice quotes D&C 93

That is exactly what we are saying.  Truth is contextual, and is independently considered true or false depending on its "sphere".

Things as they "really are" are according to Alma, above, what we have experienced, including their "light" and "good"  President Kimball cites "things as they are" without defining them further than Alma has.  And he says that this is the kind of truth to which the spirit testifies.
..........................................................................   

But President how do you KNOW that??

 

Quote

 

 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng 

Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field. Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation. The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” (D&C 93:30.) A geologist who has discovered truths about the structure of the earth may be oblivious to the truths God has given us about the eternal nature of the family.

If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. To become a plumber, one must study the laws which govern plumbing.....

Why, oh, why do people think they can fathom the most complex spiritual depths without the necessary experimental and laboratory work accompanied by compliance with the laws that govern it? Absurd it is, but you will frequently find popular personalities, who seem never to have lived a single law of God, discoursing in interviews on religion. How ridiculous for such persons to attempt to outline for the world a way of life!....

One cannot know God nor understand his works or plans unless he follows the laws which govern. The spiritual realm, which is just as absolute as is the physical, cannot be understood by the laws of the physical. You do not learn to make electric generators in a seminary. Neither do you learn certain truths about spiritual things in a physics laboratory. You must go to the spiritual laboratory, use the facilities available there, and comply with the governing rules. Then you may know of these truths just as surely, or more surely, than the scientist knows the metals, or the acids, or other elements. It matters little whether one is a plumber, or a banker, or a farmer, for these occupations are secondary; what is most important is what one knows and believes concerning his past and his future and what he does about it......

Now, it is a good question which has been asked by millions since Joseph Smith phrased it: How am I to know which of all, if any, of the organizations is authentic, divine, and recognized by the Lord?

He has given the key. You may know. You need not be in doubt. Follow the prescribed procedures, and you may have an absolute knowledge that these things are absolute truths. The necessary procedure is: study, think, pray, and do. Revelation is the key. God will make it known to you once you have capitulated and have become humble and receptive. Having dropped all pride of your mental stature, having acknowledged before God your confusion, having subjected your egotism, and having surrendered yourself to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, you are ready to begin to learn. With preconceived religious notions stubbornly held, one is not teachable. The Lord has promised repeatedly that he will give you a knowledge of spiritual things when you have placed yourself in a proper frame of mind. He has counseled us to seek, ask, and search diligently. These innumerable promises are epitomized by Moroni in the following: “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Moro. 10:5.) What a promise! How extravagant! How wonderful!

 

 

So yes there are "absolute truths" within their "sphere".  These truths are known through revelation- in the "religious sphere" after a lifetime of experience and savoring their fruits.

So let's get this straight for once and for all.  Yes Mormons believe there are "absolute truths" where one can have absolute certainty.

What kind of truths are these?  Religious truths.  How does one obtain such certainty?  Through a lifetime of reaping the benefits of the fruit they bring into their lives.

No metaphysics.

No correspondence theory.

Pure pragmatism.

I rest my case. 

Pres Kimball really did understand the issue.  Thank you for calling that First Presidency Message (Sept 1978) to my attention, Mark.  It deserves to be more widely known and quoted.

Confusing science and religion is simply a category mistake.  Each is valid in its own sphere.

[SmileyMcGee]

14 hours ago, volgadon said:

Wittgenstein's Tractatus should be required reading on this thread.

I downloaded Tractatus a few weeks ago and have been too intimidated to read it. I accepted his first statement in his preface at face value ("This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it—or similar thoughts") and, realizing that when it comes to philosophy I am a wannabe/poser/newbie, I figured that I'd better get more exposure to philosophical problems before attempting Wittgenstein. Just started Pragmatism by James (not saying this is a prerequisite to reading Wittgenstein). I really liked a video of Rorty that Mark posted a while back and have been trying to get acquainted with pragmatism. Any further reading recommendations would be appreciated!

Edited December 14, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Robert F. Smith]

42 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

This is demonstrably false.

Truth is all a matter of perspective.

It is "true" this cylinder in a circle under one perspective.

It is "true" this cylinder in a square under one perspective.

But the Gobal truth is its a cylinder.

It is indeed often merely a matter of perspective, and funny you should mention a "cylinder," because there is a classic biblical problem based on just such a difference in perspective:

Biblical sources differ significantly as to the capacity of the great Bronze Sea of the Temple of Solomon:

I Kings 7:26         2,000 baths    = 44,000 liters    = 11,440 gallons U.S.
II Chronicles 4:5  3,000 baths    = 66,000 liters    = 17,160 gallons U.S.

It is doubtful that this discrepancy can be accounted for via differing cubit standards, and Robert North gives us the most credible solution by showing that I Kings uses the formula for the volume of a hemisphere, V=⅓Cr², for the 2,000 baths, while the Chronicler uses the formula for finding the capacity of a cylinder, V=½Crh, in order to obtain 3,000 baths.  That the Sea was a hemispherical washing tub for the priests is the likeliest since I Kings is based on eyewitness testimony, whereas Chronicles is late and compiled after the destruction of the Brazen Sea.  -- See discussion in Biblical Archaeologist, 12:86-90; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, I:202-204; Harold Lindsell, Battle for the Bible, 165-166; and Edward F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth, Anchor Bible 7, p. 104 notes.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Do we not all create our own reality?

 

No, just our perception of it and to some extent our place in it... the it being the real reality.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

But how many paths?

Lots.  Many years ago when both of us were young, I studied for a short time under a Bengali monk, Swami Chetanananda of the Vedanta Society of Kansas City and St Louis (he is still there).  He used to say that it wasn't so important which path one trod, but only that we should realize that a path is not a home.  He made another point also:  Whatever religion one adopts, one should plunge into it wholeheartedly.

Reminds me of Jesus saying that "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62; cf. I Kings 19:19-21).