Popular Post jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted May 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not the same thing. Either the Church is true or it isn't. It's not a subjective judgment. And by the way, the Beatles, not Styx, are the best rock band ever. A testimony is pretty much the definition of subjective. It can't be transferred beyond the individual. Maybe you're defining "subjective" differently, but spiritual experience is, or at least it should be, perhaps the most intimately personal of all human experience and quite the antithesis of objective. 5
Garden Girl Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, theplains said: The average LDS member is not temple-worthy right? Jim Hello Jim... An "average LDS member" is not temple-worthy by their own choice... GG
stemelbow Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not the same thing. Either the Church is true or it isn't. It's not a subjective judgment. And by the way, the Beatles, not Styx, are the best rock band ever. Such a determination is only a subjective judgment. Each person makes the judgment him/herself. Even the witness of the Spirit is a subjective determination. 1
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Such a determination is only a subjective judgment. Each person makes the judgment him/herself. Even the witness of the Spirit is a subjective determination. I don't see how it could be otherwise. If people could objectively prove the church is true, there would be a lot more Mormons than there are.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: A testimony is pretty much the definition of subjective. It can't be transferred beyond the individual. Maybe you're defining "subjective" differently, but spiritual experience is, or at least it should be, perhaps the most intimately personal of all human experience and quite the antithesis of objective. A testimony by definition is an affirmation of fact -- in this case revealed fact. Fact is not subjective; it is either true or false. The means by which one arrives at divinely revealed truth does not make the truth subjective. If you say a testimony is "the definition of subjective," then I categorically reject your definition. Edited May 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Such a determination is only a subjective judgment. Each person makes the judgment him/herself. Even the witness of the Spirit is a subjective determination. See my response to jkwilliams. It goes for you as well. The truthfulness of the gospel is absolute; it does not fluctuate or vary depending on whether one embraces it. The notion that it would is, I suppose, yet another example of fuzzy progmo thinking. 1
stemelbow Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: A testimony by definition is an affirmation of fact -- in this case revealed fact. Fact is not subjective; it is either true or false. The divine means by which one arrives at truth does not make the truth subjective. If you say a testimony is "the definition of subjective," then I categorically reject your definition. A testimony is one person's perspective, which isn't fact. As it is anyone can observe a fact and totally get it wrong. That's why testimony is one piece of evidence in court. Someone might have seen the crime, but he/she might be set on one person having done it but not realize it was a different person. It's quite likely that if God tells someone something to take to another the message that gets to the other might not be precisely as God intended, as a consequence. That's the problem God deals with when it comes to humanity. our perceptions drive us, and color our testimony. 2
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: A testimony by definition is an affirmation of fact -- in this case revealed fact. Fact is not subjective; it is either true or false. The divine means by which one arrives at truth does not make the truth subjective. If you say a testimony is "the definition of subjective," then I categorically reject your definition. Again, if it were possible to gain a testimony objectively, everyone would be a Mormon. Apparently I'm not the only person who thinks a testimony is subjective. From the Ensign: Quote The revelation method of learning truth is subjective. Depending on senses additional to those we use to measure data quantitatively, this method utilizes our feelings, often to answer why—a question beyond the purview of the scientific method. Reproducing at will the receipt of revealed information is not under the investigator’s control. Edited May 13, 2016 by jkwilliams 4
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: A testimony is one person's perspective, which isn't fact. As it is anyone can observe a fact and totally get it wrong. That's why testimony is one piece of evidence in court. Someone might have seen the crime, but he/she might be set on one person having done it but not realize it was a different person. It's quite likely that if God tells someone something to take to another the message that gets to the other might not be precisely as God intended, as a consequence. That's the problem God deals with when it comes to humanity. our perceptions drive us, and color our testimony. 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Again, if it were possible to gain a testimony objectively, everyone would be a Mormon. Apparently I'm not the only person who thinks a testimony is subjective. From the Ensign: Maybe we can cut to the chase here by considering one question: Does God cease to exist just because you don't believe in him?
stemelbow Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Maybe we can cut to the chase here by considering one question: Does God cease to exist just because you don't believe in him? I don't see how that's cutting the chase. It seems like a different idea to explore altogether. I'd maintain that each person's determination of what is true is by definition a subjective determination.
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Maybe we can cut to the chase here by considering one question: Does God cease to exist just because you don't believe in him? First of all, I hope you are not suggesting I don't believe in God. But the converse is true: Believing in God does not mean he exists. Objective truth is something that can be demonstrated over and over. If I add sugar and hydrochloric acid in the right amounts, I'm going to get a "carbon tower" every time. A testimony is not like that. Not everyone gets the same answer to their prayers, and even those who do experience the divine in different--subjective, even--ways. 2
Storm Rider Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: I don't see how that's cutting the chase. It seems like a different idea to explore altogether. I'd maintain that each person's determination of what is true is by definition a subjective determination. That is just a bizarre notion of truth. What you are saying is what is a fact for one person is not a fact for another unless or until that person recognizes it as a fact. "The pine needles are green", says one person while having another person say, "Those pine needles are red because I say so". This makes no sense. A truth is a fact regardless if it is recognized as such. It does not matter whether you or anyone else recognizes it, it remains true. The pine needles on that tree remain green. It does not matter how many times another person wants to say they are red, yellow, blue, rainbows, or any other color - they are green.
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't see how that's cutting the chase. It seems like a different idea to explore altogether. I'd maintain that each person's determination of what is true is by definition a subjective determination. Frankly, I'm puzzled as to why Scott is objecting (no pun intended). Revelation is personal and does not transfer from one person to another. Scott cannot will his testimony onto me, just as I can't share how I experience the world with him. It doesn't work that way. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't see how that's cutting the chase. It seems like a different idea to explore altogether. I'd maintain that each person's determination of what is true is by definition a subjective determination. Then we are talking past each other. I maintain that divine truth is reality, regardless of whether or not one accepts it. I'm reminded of the words in Joseph Smith -- History: Quote 24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise. 25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.
cinepro Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: A testimony by definition is an affirmation of fact -- in this case revealed fact. Fact is not subjective; it is either true or false. The means by which one arrives at divinely revealed truth does not make the truth subjective. If you say a testimony is "the definition of subjective," then I categorically reject your definition. In what way do you find a testimony not fitting the definition of "subjective"? Pretty much everything ever taught by LDS scriptures and leaders about a "testimony" defines it as a subjective, personal experience. I'm also mystified by how you would account for the LDS and nonLDS who have testimonies of "non-facts" without being circular? Edited May 13, 2016 by cinepro 3
jkwilliams Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Then we are talking past each other. I maintain that divine truth is reality, regardless of whether or not one accepts it. I'm reminded of the words in Joseph Smith -- History: Well, I'm not talking about truth in itself but how we determine divine truth--and that is a subjective matter of necessity. That guy who sees revelations from God in the shadows of Mt. Olympus in Utah sees the reality of divine truth much differently than you or I do.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Frankly, I'm puzzled as to why Scott is objecting (no pun intended). Revelation is personal and does not transfer from one person to another. Scott cannot will his testimony onto me, just as I can't share how I experience the world with him. It doesn't work that way. I think what you suggested earlier has merit: that we are laboring under different definitions. I'm inclined to leave it at that and move on.
stemelbow Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Storm Rider said: That is just a bizarre notion of truth. What you are saying is what is a fact for one person is not a fact for another unless or until that person recognizes it as a fact. "The pine needles are green", says one person while having another person say, "Those pine needles are red because I say so". This makes no sense. A truth is a fact regardless if it is recognized as such. It does not matter whether you or anyone else recognizes it, it remains true. The pine needles on that tree remain green. It does not matter how many times another person wants to say they are red, yellow, blue, rainbows, or any other color - they are green. I'm honestly confused how you arrived at the above. I didn't say anything about whether or not people can make factual evaluations about anything. I've only said any particular person's determination of what is true, is by definition subjective. A person observes pine needles and concludes those needles are green. That just so happens to be that person subjective conclusion. And that person could very well, mostly likely is correct.
stemelbow Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Then we are talking past each other. I maintain that divine truth is reality, regardless of whether or not one accepts it. I'm reminded of the words in Joseph Smith -- History: Alrighty then. Take care.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Well, I'm not talking about truth in itself but how we determine divine truth. Fair enough. Again, I think we have had differing frames of reference.
Jeanne Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Such a determination is only a subjective judgment. Each person makes the judgment him/herself. Even the witness of the Spirit is a subjective determination. I agree...but the Beatles are still the best band ever!
JLHPROF Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 1 hour ago, theplains said: The average LDS member is not temple-worthy right? Jim Not what I said. Receiving your endowment and then breaking those covenants is not enough to warrant perdition. They are not unpardonable sins.
Recommended Posts