cdowis Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: On the other hand, we don't have evangelists or pastors. I'm familiar with this interpretation of scripture - it's right out of the old 17 Points of the True Church thing. But in reality there was no such unity in the ancient church. And of course Paul is only selectively used in the LDS church as a source of doctrine. Paul was describing the offices in the church as we find them today. Evangelist In latter-day revelation an evangelist is defined as a patriarch (D&C 107:39–53). Joseph Smith taught that “an Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham. Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints” (HC 3:381). Bible Dictonary Pastor "See Bishop." "Pastorial Epistles" dealing with the pastoral office and the duties of the shepherds or ministers of the Church. Topical Guide A clergyman serving a local church or parish Webster's dictionary Edited September 8, 2016 by cdowis
Glenn101 Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: I get that "true" is a kind of code word that means "authorized by God and in possession of correct doctrines". But it still doesn't make grammatical sense. I can accept it as a kind of poetic phrase. That is good enough. The Bible has a lot of that, i.e. "true vine", "true riches", "true bread", "true holiness", "true Light", "true saying", "true grace", etc. Words are prone to change in meaning as people begin to use them differently. The dictionary is always playing "catch up." Glenn
Popular Post Gray Posted September 8, 2016 Popular Post Posted September 8, 2016 17 minutes ago, cdowis said: Paul was describing the offices in the church as we find them today. Evangelist In latter-day revelation an evangelist is defined as a patriarch (D&C 107:39–53). Joseph Smith taught that “an Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham. Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints” (HC 3:381). Bible Dictonary Pastor "See Bishop." "Pastorial Epistles" dealing with the pastoral office and the duties of the shepherds or ministers of the Church. Topical Guide A clergyman serving a local church or parish Webster's dictionary Unfortunately Joseph Smith was mistaken about what an evangelist was in the ancient church. Evangelists were those who preached the good news (gospel). Now, if it's not about titles after all, but functions, then just about every other church has apostles and prophets too. They just call them by different names. 5
hope_for_things Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 On 9/7/2016 at 2:31 PM, mfbukowski said: " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. Thanks, happy to be a guinea pig! I'm making progress here as a man on a street that is trying to learn a new language. This was an excellent post, you answered most of my questions as I was going along this time. I know because I've written you a couple responses and then deleted them after further review, reading and re-reading your post. Lets discuss Rorty a little more. Rorty's assertion that the world exists independent of human mental states. Seems to be key, but you then brought that into question by saying that even this statement is based on human sentences and potentially part of our minds. However, I think we have to start with this assumption that something is out there independent of human mental states. If the world is out there independent of human mental states, then isn't it also fair to say that this "world" has attributes about it of some kind or another. Attributes such as the world is large or small, solid or hard, hot or cold. Would you agree that this world that is out there also has attributes about it that should be measurable and observable? If the world exists it seems to reason that with the right tools someone or something should be able to make some observations about it? Isn't this what the scientific method attempts to do? Establish criteria for observing something, and systematically approach this process of observation in a way that can be duplicated over and over again. On 9/7/2016 at 2:31 PM, mfbukowski said: What tools should your wife use to evaluate the veracity of your experience? What tools should we use to evaluate the veracity of anyone else's subjective experience? Was there "something out there" before it was called "Mt. Everest"? How do we know for sure? Was there "something out there" before the "angel took back the plates?" How do we kinow for sure? Was your dream "real"? I suggest that these questions are just linguistic confusions and the problem is "putting it into words" The answer to the question "what is reality" and "how do we verify it" creates a BIG problem with words as hopefully you now see. ? Your example with the dream and the subjectivity of experiences makes some sense to me, but it creates some problems in my mind as well. It would seem that if all of these sentences that we use to describe our experiences are purely subjective, that we are approaching a place where potentially nothing is objectively true about the world we live in. In this scenario it seems like you have to place the lunatic rantings of a Brian David Mitchell (the Elisabeth Smart kidnapper) on the same level of value as the discoveries of Isaac Newton. If everything is subjective in this world aren't you also saying that all observations about the world are of equal value? What if Joseph knowingly made up the story about the plates and the angel? Wouldn't this be important to know? Or are you saying it doesn't matter whether any person is intentionally being deceptive because there is no way for us to know, and since reality isn't verifiable, even intentionally fallacious descriptions of the world have equal footing? My orientation is influenced by an impulse to bring abstract ideas into my contemporary world context. In the business world I'm constantly evaluating multiple options from a financial perspective to determine which option makes the most sense to move forward with. This is why I'm asking questions using examples like Brian David Mitchell or Joseph Smith. When you say "what is reality" and "how do we verify it", I wonder whether Brian David Mitchell's reality isn't just as valid as Joseph Smith or any other religious leader's reality. Do not compare religious leaders to criminals.
cdowis Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 (edited) 21 hours ago, Gray said: Now, if it's not about titles after all, but functions, then just about every other church has apostles and prophets too. They just call them by different names. And have these other churches canonize what their apostles and prophets write, is that correct? Do they claim modern revaltion. And "scripture and "revelation" have no meaning. In my discussions with the nonLDS, I make the statement that the historic Christian church has replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers. And NOT ONE individual has disagreed with me, has claimed that their church have them. They may say that they are unnecessary, etc etc, but they know exactly what is meant by those special callings. You are just trying to be clever. Edited September 9, 2016 by cdowis
bcuzbcuz Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 1 hour ago, cdowis said: And have these other churches canonize what their apostles and prophets write, is that correct? Do they claim modern revaltion. And "scripture and "revelation" have no meaning. In my discussions with the nonLDS, I make the statement that the historic Christian church has replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers. And NOT ONE individual has disagreed with me, has claimed that their church have them. They may say that they are unnecessary, etc etc, but they know exactly what is meant by those special callings. You are just trying to be clever. So, the Mormon church has apostles and prophets. Exactly what does that prove? I would remind you that the RLDS (or whatever they're calling themselves) also have apostles and prophets. And yes, I'm trying to be clever.
cdowis Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 (edited) Just pointing out that a hallmark of the "true church" is a foundation of apostles and prophets. And the COC does not make that "true church" claim at all.so we can eliminate them. However I will concede that the RCC do those positions in their organization, more or less. Edited September 9, 2016 by cdowis
UtahTexan Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 1 hour ago, cdowis said: Just pointing out that a hallmark of the "true church" is a foundation of apostles and prophets. And the COC does not make that "true church" claim at all.so we can eliminate them. However I will concede that the RCC do those positions in their organization, more or less. The RCC does not claim to have a prophet
ALarson Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 2 minutes ago, UtahTexan said: The RCC does not claim to have a prophet When did you change your screen name, CountryBoy? That is you, right?
UtahTexan Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, ALarson said: When did you change your screen name, CountryBoy? That is you, right? lol.....yes....I requested it. I was countryboy because of where I lived at the time. I moved....and this seemed more appropriate. Plus, I have this name on other boards. Unlike some who need to be sneaky and/or dishonest about who they are, I am open and honest. Edited September 9, 2016 by UtahTexan
ALarson Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 1 minute ago, UtahTexan said: lol.....yes....I requested it. I was countryboy because of where I lived at the time. I moved....and this seemed more appropriate. Plus, I have this name on other boards. Unlike some who need to be sneaky and/or dishonest about who they are, I am open and honest. Ok, that makes sense. I'm not sure about your dig regarding some being dishonest on here about who they are, as I haven't seen that (but I'm not always around).
UtahTexan Posted September 9, 2016 Posted September 9, 2016 (edited) 39 minutes ago, ALarson said: Ok, that makes sense. I'm not sure about your dig regarding some being dishonest on here about who they are, as I haven't seen that (but I'm not always around). I said dishonest AND/OR Sneaky. Though, I suppose some could odd, innocent reasons for not letting folks know who they are. No dig. Just open Edited September 9, 2016 by UtahTexan
mfbukowski Posted September 10, 2016 Posted September 10, 2016 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks, happy to be a guinea pig! I'm making progress here as a man on a street that is trying to learn a new language. Thi s was an excellent post, you answered most of my questions as I was going along this time. I know because I've written you a couple responses and then deleted them after further review, reading and re-reading your post. Lets discuss Rorty a little more. Rorty's assertion that the world exists independent of human mental states. Seems to be key, but you then brought that into question by saying that even this statement is based on human sentences and potentially part of our minds. However, I think we have to start with this assumption that something is out there independent of human mental states. If the world is out there independent of human mental states, then isn't it also fair to say that this "world" has attributes about it of some kind or another. Attributes such as the world is large or small, solid or hard, hot or cold. Would you agree that this world that is out there also has attributes about it that should be measurable and observable? If the world exists it seems to reason that with the right tools someone or something should be able to make some observations about it? Isn't this what the scientific method attempts to do? Establish criteria for observing something, and systematically approach this process of observation in a way that can be duplicated over and over again. Your example with the dream and the subjectivity of experiences makes some sense to me, but it creates some problems in my mind as well. It would seem that if all of these sentences that we use to describe our experiences are purely subjective, that we are approaching a place where potentially nothing is objectively true about the world we live in. In this scenario it seems like you have to place the lunatic rantings of a Brian David Mitchell (the Elisabeth Smart kidnapper) on the same level of value as the discoveries of Isaac Newton. If everything is subjective in this world aren't you also saying that all observations about the world are of equal value? What if Joseph knowingly made up the story about the plates and the angel? Wouldn't this be important to know? Or are you saying it doesn't matter whether any person is intentionally being deceptive because there is no way for us to know, and since reality isn't verifiable, even intentionally fallacious descriptions of the world have equal footing? My orientation is influenced by an impulse to bring abstract ideas into my contemporary world context. In the business world I'm constantly evaluating multiple options from a financial perspective to determine which option makes the most sense to move forward with. This is why I'm asking questions using examples like Brian David Mitchell or Joseph Smith. When you say "what is reality" and "how do we verify it", I wonder whether Brian David Mitchell's reality isn't just as valid as Joseph Smith or any other religious leader's reality. OK that's the whole post for context Now to specific questionsHowever, I think we have to start with this assumption that something is out there independent of human mental states. Quote If the world is out there independent of human mental states, then isn't it also fair to say that this "world" has attributes about it of some kind or another. Attributes such as the world is large or small, solid or hard, hot or cold. Would you agree that this world that is out there also has attributes about it that should be measurable and observable? If the world exists it seems to reason that with the right tools someone or something should be able to make some observations about it? OK. This is an important answer and the exact center of what you are not understanding Read it over and over until is soaks in! The world is out there but what we KNOW about it is "inside our heads"! Think about it. Pretend the world really IS made of atoms and quarks and all that invisible stuff. You look around and you see cars and mountains and chairs and buildings. What happened to the atoms and quarks?? YOU CANNOT PERCEIVE THEM "Where" is everything you know? If you didn't have a brain or it was not functioning, would you know ANYTHING? How did it get "in there"? Through your senses! It is in your mind/brain/consciousness/ spirit- the point is if YOU KNOW it, it is IN YOU, not out there! How do you have the idea of "attributes"? What is an "attribute"? Are "big and small, hot and cold" properties of quarks and atoms and electrons? Or are they things added by the way you see them? What is "big"? Isn't that a relative term? What about hot and cold? Aren't those "attributes" something NOT found "in the world" but something YOU define? How big is "hot"? How cold is "blue"? Is "blue" out there in the world or is it something produced in our minds/brains? Even calling what is out there "atoms and quarks" is STILL using human concepts! Atoms and quarks are theories, made of words, not "ultimate reality". IF WE HAVE A WORD FOR IT, that means we have constructed it. Without words, we cannot discuss anything! So again- we get back to Rorty. No sentences, no "truth". Quote Would you agree that this world that is out there also has attributes about it that should be measurable and observable? If the world exists it seems to reason that with the right tools someone or something should be able to make some observations about it? Sure it is BOTH measurable and observable! But by WHOM? Humans!! Observing anything makes it a HUMAN OBSERVATION. How could it NOT be a "human observation"? And who does the measuring? A human! Who creates the measures? Inches, centimeters, angstrom units, Small, medium large, bigger and biggest? These are all human ideas and human classifications! It's totally inescapable! That is the point! Once you observe it or measure it- you have created it in a human context! Quote Isn't this what the scientific method attempts to do? Establish criteria for observing something, and systematically approach this process of observation in a way that can be duplicated over and over again. YES! That is EXACTLY the scientific method. BUT NOTICE WHAT YOU SAID!! "ESTABLISH" criteria! Not "discover criteria!!" Who establishes it? Science! Are scientists people? Are they human? What they are doing is ESTABLISHING criteria for HUMAN OBSERVATION- not observation of the world as it is independent of humans! And it can be duplicated because- we DESIGN the criteria so that it CAN be duplicated! The criteria is not "out there" it is manufactured by the human mind! Quote If the world exists it seems to reason that with the right tools someone or something should be able to make some observations about it? EXACTLY backwards! It "fits" our observations because we CREATE THE CRITERIA for the OBSERVATIONS!! It is a mirror- Rorty wrote a book called "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" . We look out at nature and what we see are our own rules for observation reflected in "nature" ! We look through rose-colored glasses and then wonder why the world is rose colored! "What a miracle that our (rose colored) observations would show that the world really IS Rose colored!" we might be saying! What a miracle that math conforms to reality- when we are imposing math ON the world! Quote It would seem that if all of these sentences that we use to describe our experiences are purely subjective, that we are approaching a place where potentially nothing is objectively true about the world we live in. In this scenario it seems like you have to place the lunatic rantings of a Brian David Mitchell (the Elisabeth Smart kidnapper) on the same level of value as the discoveries of Isaac Newton. If everything is subjective in this world aren't you also saying that all observations about the world are of equal value? It depends on what you mean by "truth" doesn't it? If truth is what works, then there is no problem. "Objectivity" means what most people see subjectively. If we agree on an observation it is "objective". Isaac Newton's observations WORKED- and advanced human knowledge. Raving lunatics end up in jail or in an institution. Obviously they are not of "equal value" nor held to be by society Quote What if Joseph knowingly made up the story about the plates and the angel? Wouldn't this be important to know? Or are you saying it doesn't matter whether any person is intentionally being deceptive because there is no way for us to know, and since reality isn't verifiable, even intentionally fallacious descriptions of the world have equal footing? My orientation is influenced by an impulse to bring abstract ideas into my contemporary world context. In the business world I'm constantly evaluating multiple options from a financial perspective to determine which option makes the most sense to move forward with. This is why I'm asking questions using examples like Brian David Mitchell or Joseph Smith. When you say "what is reality" and "how do we verify it", I wonder whether Brian David Mitchell's reality isn't just as valid as Joseph Smith or any other religious leader's reality. What if Galileo (accidentally) made up his observations of the moon? But amazingly got it right anyway? Would his observations be "false"? Obviously not. The point was that he made up a theory which WORKED in the real world. We do not look at the personal lives of philosophers to see if they "made up"their theories- they are ALWAYS made up! Business is TOTALLY pragmatic- if it makes money and is legal- it is a "successful" investment What did Joseph give us? A theory of who we are and where we belong in the world which has given peace and meaning in the lives of millions, and which has been verified within their own hearts Mitchell gave us nothing but violence and destruction and anti-human insane behavior I don't think there is any comparison. Is a good investment good because performs or because of who made it up? Who care who came up with an investment idea which works as long as it works? Do we even know who came up with 90 % of tried and true invenstment strategies??
cdowis Posted September 10, 2016 Posted September 10, 2016 2 hours ago, UtahTexan said: The RCC does not claim to have a prophet "While in the United States, Pope Francis exercised his prophetic office by comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, but he did it with a soft and respectful voice."https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/pope-francis-prophet The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible at closely defined times. The Pope is only infallible when he, in union with the body of bishops, solemnly teaches that a doctrine as true. This is called "ex cathedra", literally meaning in Latin "from the chair". This comes from the words of Jesus to Peter (the first Pope) and the Apostles (the first bishops), "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 18:18) and "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16). https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090115021426AAn0hHI These are not official statements, but gives us a flavor of the answer, which is "yes" and "no".
UtahTexan Posted September 10, 2016 Posted September 10, 2016 2 hours ago, cdowis said: "While in the United States, Pope Francis exercised his prophetic office by comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, but he did it with a soft and respectful voice."https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/pope-francis-prophet The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible at closely defined times. The Pope is only infallible when he, in union with the body of bishops, solemnly teaches that a doctrine as true. This is called "ex cathedra", literally meaning in Latin "from the chair". This comes from the words of Jesus to Peter (the first Pope) and the Apostles (the first bishops), "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 18:18) and "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16). https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090115021426AAn0hHI These are not official statements, but gives us a flavor of the answer, which is "yes" and "no". Yes...the Catholic Church teaches that, regarding doctrine, the Pope is infallible. They do NOT believe he is a prophet
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2016 Author Posted September 10, 2016 On September 8, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Gray said: Unfortunately Joseph Smith was mistaken about what an evangelist was in the ancient church. Evangelists were those who preached the good news (gospel). Now, if it's not about titles after all, but functions, then just about every other church has apostles and prophets too. They just call them by different names. What makes you so certain Joseph Smith was not correct by virtue of revelation? 2
Gray Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) On 9/9/2016 at 2:50 PM, cdowis said: And have these other churches canonize what their apostles and prophets write, is that correct? Do they claim modern revaltion. Usually not, but we don't seem to do that anymore either. Quote And "scripture and "revelation" have no meaning. I don't see how that follows. Quote In my discussions with the nonLDS, I make the statement that the historic Christian church has replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and philosophers. And NOT ONE individual has disagreed with me, has claimed that their church have them. They may say that they are unnecessary, etc etc, but they know exactly what is meant by those special callings. You are just trying to be clever. Very few churches have prophets in the Biblical sense anymore - ours certainly does not. Our church leaders are doing roughly the same things that other church leaders are doing - that is they are seeking the Lord's inspiration in leading their churches. It would be nice, though, if we had theologians and philosophers. I mean we have them, but they don't seem to inform our approach to our doctrines. I don't think most people would like to have the Biblical prophet. Biblical prophets were outsiders - "heretics" who came in and criticized the institution. They were often killed. Only years later were they recognized as prophets. Jesus I think made some comments about the subject. Edited September 12, 2016 by Gray
Gray Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 On 9/9/2016 at 10:59 PM, Scott Lloyd said: What makes you so certain Joseph Smith was not correct by virtue of revelation? Because we know what the word evangelist means by its etymology, on top of its history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism#Etymology
hope_for_things Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) On 9/9/2016 at 6:39 PM, mfbukowski said: OK that's the whole post for context Now to specific questionsHowever, I think we have to start with this assumption that something is out there independent of human mental states. OK. This is an important answer and the exact center of what you are not understanding Read it over and over until is soaks in! The world is out there but what we KNOW about it is "inside our heads"! Think about it. Pretend the world really IS made of atoms and quarks and all that invisible stuff. You look around and you see cars and mountains and chairs and buildings. What happened to the atoms and quarks?? YOU CANNOT PERCEIVE THEM "Where" is everything you know? If you didn't have a brain or it was not functioning, would you know ANYTHING? How did it get "in there"? Through your senses! It is in your mind/brain/consciousness/ spirit- the point is if YOU KNOW it, it is IN YOU, not out there! How do you have the idea of "attributes"? What is an "attribute"? Are "big and small, hot and cold" properties of quarks and atoms and electrons? Or are they things added by the way you see them? What is "big"? Isn't that a relative term? What about hot and cold? Aren't those "attributes" something NOT found "in the world" but something YOU define? How big is "hot"? How cold is "blue"? Is "blue" out there in the world or is it something produced in our minds/brains? Even calling what is out there "atoms and quarks" is STILL using human concepts! Atoms and quarks are theories, made of words, not "ultimate reality". IF WE HAVE A WORD FOR IT, that means we have constructed it. Without words, we cannot discuss anything! So again- we get back to Rorty. No sentences, no "truth". Sure it is BOTH measurable and observable! But by WHOM? Humans!! Observing anything makes it a HUMAN OBSERVATION. How could it NOT be a "human observation"? And who does the measuring? A human! Who creates the measures? Inches, centimeters, angstrom units, Small, medium large, bigger and biggest? These are all human ideas and human classifications! It's totally inescapable! That is the point! Once you observe it or measure it- you have created it in a human context! YES! That is EXACTLY the scientific method. BUT NOTICE WHAT YOU SAID!! "ESTABLISH" criteria! Not "discover criteria!!" Who establishes it? Science! Are scientists people? Are they human? What they are doing is ESTABLISHING criteria for HUMAN OBSERVATION- not observation of the world as it is independent of humans! And it can be duplicated because- we DESIGN the criteria so that it CAN be duplicated! The criteria is not "out there" it is manufactured by the human mind! EXACTLY backwards! It "fits" our observations because we CREATE THE CRITERIA for the OBSERVATIONS!! It is a mirror- Rorty wrote a book called "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" . We look out at nature and what we see are our own rules for observation reflected in "nature" ! We look through rose-colored glasses and then wonder why the world is rose colored! "What a miracle that our (rose colored) observations would show that the world really IS Rose colored!" we might be saying! What a miracle that math conforms to reality- when we are imposing math ON the world! It depends on what you mean by "truth" doesn't it? If truth is what works, then there is no problem. "Objectivity" means what most people see subjectively. If we agree on an observation it is "objective". Isaac Newton's observations WORKED- and advanced human knowledge. Raving lunatics end up in jail or in an institution. Obviously they are not of "equal value" nor held to be by society What if Galileo (accidentally) made up his observations of the moon? But amazingly got it right anyway? Would his observations be "false"? Obviously not. The point was that he made up a theory which WORKED in the real world. We do not look at the personal lives of philosophers to see if they "made up"their theories- they are ALWAYS made up! Business is TOTALLY pragmatic- if it makes money and is legal- it is a "successful" investment What did Joseph give us? A theory of who we are and where we belong in the world which has given peace and meaning in the lives of millions, and which has been verified within their own hearts Mitchell gave us nothing but violence and destruction and anti-human insane behavior I don't think there is any comparison. Is a good investment good because performs or because of who made it up? Who care who came up with an investment idea which works as long as it works? Do we even know who came up with 90 % of tried and true invenstment strategies?? This is fun, thanks! I'm making progress, I follow most of this, but I have some questions/comments still. Quote The world is out there but what we KNOW about it is "inside our heads"! This makes much more sense to me now. I think the reason I've had a hard time grasping this concept is a cultural negative connotation for the words "inside our head". I think I've been taught that there is a difference between reality and whats inside my head, and I'm having to break through that cultural baggage in order to understand this philosophical concept. In essence, everything we know about the world is inside our head with respect to what we perceive using our senses and the constructs of language that have developed over the years. Language is also limited in its ability to effectively communicate what our senses have perceived because in many ways it fails to capture and communicate what we have experienced through our senses. Especially for some of the most dramatic life experiences, it seems like language is a very primitive tool for communication. But its the best tool we have. Quote I think we have to start with this assumption that something is out there independent of human mental states. This element is key to many of my questions. We are agreeing that something exists independent of human mental states. So something humans call earth, exists. What we know about it is in our head, but its also in the heads of all living creatures that interact with the earth. So a cat or a bird would also know that something humans call earth exists. We could hypothesize that an alien race will someday visit this area of the universe and that these aliens would also have knowledge of the existence of this planet. All of this exists independent of human mental states. I think we can take this a step further. I'll use the example of the earth's magnetic field. These magnetic fields are invisible to human senses, yet they still exist independent of human's ability to perceive them. But birds perceive them and use them for migrating thousands of miles each year. Other life forms knew of their existence prior to humans knowing of their existence. So their existence is independent of human mental states. If things exist independent of human mental states then how do we draw the line between this knowledge of existence, and this knowledge of "what we KNOW about it". Is the magnetic field an attribute of the earth? I would says yes. I say that the magnetic field existed independent of human minds, and is an attribute of the earth which also existed independent of a human's mind. I would also say that atoms exist independent of human minds, and atoms are also a property of the earth that exists independent of a human's mind. These are all attributes that describe the environments that we inhabit. How are these not descriptions about what we "know" about our environment? Quote Even calling what is out there "atoms and quarks" is STILL using human concepts! Atoms and quarks are theories, made of words, not "ultimate reality". IF WE HAVE A WORD FOR IT, that means we have constructed it. Without words, we cannot discuss anything! So again- we get back to Rorty. No sentences, no "truth". Sure it is BOTH measurable and observable! But by WHOM? Humans!! Observing anything makes it a HUMAN OBSERVATION. How could it NOT be a "human observation"? And who does the measuring? A human! Who creates the measures? Inches, centimeters, angstrom units, Small, medium large, bigger and biggest? These are all human ideas and human classifications! Now we're really getting into the meat of this. How do we measure things. Humans measure things differently than other life forms. Humans even measure things differently than other humans. How do we know which measurement is right? This seems to be a key question. Which measurement is correct? How can we know? Well, using the tools of this philosophical discussion I would say that we can never completely know the truth about anything, based on this knowledge always being subjective and in our mind. One person's mind differs from another, so what I know will be different than what you know. Which person is right? Neither of us can be 100% completely right, because there is always going to be a limitation to our ability to perceive and our language that we use to communicate that perception. I think knowing which measurement is right could be similar to the theory of special relativity and approaching the speed of light. Perhaps knowing which measurement is right is similar in that no one can know for 100% surety that any measurement is right. They can approach this 100% accuracy but never reach it because there will always be limits to perceptions, and there will always be a greater knowledge out there somewhere and yet to be learned about any particular thing. Quote YES! That is EXACTLY the scientific method. BUT NOTICE WHAT YOU SAID!! "ESTABLISH" criteria! Not "discover criteria!!" Who establishes it? Science! Are scientists people? Are they human? What they are doing is ESTABLISHING criteria for HUMAN OBSERVATION- not observation of the world as it is independent of humans! And it can be duplicated because- we DESIGN the criteria so that it CAN be duplicated! The criteria is not "out there" it is manufactured by the human mind! EXACTLY backwards! It "fits" our observations because we CREATE THE CRITERIA for the OBSERVATIONS!! It is a mirror- Rorty wrote a book called "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" . We look out at nature and what we see are our own rules for observation reflected in "nature" ! We look through rose-colored glasses and then wonder why the world is rose colored! "What a miracle that our (rose colored) observations would show that the world really IS Rose colored!" we might be saying! What a miracle that math conforms to reality- when we are imposing math ON the world! This part makes complete sense to me, we are good! Quote Isaac Newton's observations WORKED- and advanced human knowledge. Raving lunatics end up in jail or in an institution. Obviously they are not of "equal value" nor held to be by society What if Galileo (accidentally) made up his observations of the moon? But amazingly got it right anyway? Would his observations be "false"? Obviously not. The point was that he made up a theory which WORKED in the real world. We do not look at the personal lives of philosophers to see if they "made up"their theories- they are ALWAYS made up! Business is TOTALLY pragmatic- if it makes money and is legal- it is a "successful" investment What did Joseph give us? A theory of who we are and where we belong in the world which has given peace and meaning in the lives of millions, and which has been verified within their own hearts Mitchell gave us nothing but violence and destruction and anti-human insane behavior I don't think there is any comparison. Is a good investment good because performs or because of who made it up? Who care who came up with an investment idea which works as long as it works? Do we even know who came up with 90 % of tried and true invenstment strategies?? This last part is extremely important to me as I would like to understand your pragmatism and how it applies to these principles that Rorty and other philosophers outlined. This idea that knowledge is in our head makes me think that anyone's knowledge is of equal validity. You seem to be privileging Joseph Smith's knowledge over someone else's knowledge solely on your subjective viewpoint that another person's ideas have born less fruit than Joseph's. That other person's knowledge is less pragmatically good than Joseph's. So how do you practically measure who's knowledge is more true? How to you evaluate knowledge that is entirely subjective. Let me give another example. There are people on this earth that "know" that the earth is flat. They are in a vast minority in 2016, and their knowledge that the earth is flat would seem to be inferior. My knowledge that the earth is round seems superior. I think Rorty is saying that the knowledge of these two groups, flat earthers and round earthers, are equally true. How would Rorty then describe your choice that Joseph Smith's truth is superior to another person's truth. They both have knowledge that seems to be equally true according to Rorty, if I'm understanding things correctly. I want to understand how the philosopher's would value one subjective truth over another subjective truth. Edited September 12, 2016 by hope_for_things
Scott Lloyd Posted September 12, 2016 Author Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: Because we know what the word evangelist means by its etymology, on top of its history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism#Etymology I'm aware of what the word has come to mean through centuries of usage. But ascertaining meaning of a word in a specific age can be an elusive proposition. Words change in meaning over time. Furthermore, a word can have -- or could have had -- a narrower or more specific application within a broader usage. If an evangelist in a broad sense is one who brings good tidings, that could certainly apply to the office of a patriarch who, through revelation, brings good tidings from God to the one on whom he is pronouncing a blessing. The word may well have had such a specific application in the days of the earliest apostles. I think it is jumping to a conclusion to say Joseph Smith was mistaken about what an evangelist was in the ancient Church. I say you can't know that definitively. Moreover, "evangelist" is not the word that was used originally in establishing the offices of the Church. It is a Greek translation of that word and may have been a less than optimum translation. So I repeat the question: What makes you so certain Joseph Smith was not correct by virtue of revelation? Edited September 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm aware of what the word has come to mean through centuries of usage. This isn't a mystery lost to antiquity. We know how early Christians used the word. It seems apparent that Joseph Smith didn't understand that the root of the word meant "gospel". Which makes sense, as Joseph Smith was not fluent in ancient Greek. 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: But ascertaining meaning of a word in a specific age can be an elusive proposition. Words change in meaning over time. Furthermore, a word can have -- or could have had -- a narrower or more specific application within a broader usage. If an evangelist in a broad sense is one who brings good tidings, that could certainly apply to the office of a patriarch who, through revelation, brings good tidings from God to the one on whom he is pronouncing a blessing. The word may well have had such a specific application in the days of the earliest apostles. I think it is jumping to a conclusion to say Joseph Smith was mistaken about what an evangelist was in the ancient Church. I say you can't know that definitively. Only in the sense that we can't know anything at all definitively. But we can say with a high degree of probability that early Christians didn't understand the term "evangelist" to mean "patriarch." 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Moreover, "evangelist" is not the word that was used originally in establishing the offices of the Church. It is a Greek translation of that word and may have been a less than optimum translation. So I repeat the question: What makes you so certain Joseph Smith was not correct by virtue of revelation? Because Joseph said that an evangelist is a patriarch, instead of saying that a patriárchis is a patriarch. For the same reason that an onion isn't an aardvark.
hope_for_things Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 On 9/9/2016 at 0:47 PM, hope_for_things said: My orientation is influenced by an impulse to bring abstract ideas into my contemporary world context. In the business world I'm constantly evaluating multiple options from a financial perspective to determine which option makes the most sense to move forward with. This is why I'm asking questions using examples like Brian David Mitchell or Joseph Smith. When you say "what is reality" and "how do we verify it", I wonder whether Brian David Mitchell's reality isn't just as valid as Joseph Smith or any other religious leader's reality. Do not compare religious leaders to criminals. I just noticed this admin comment, so I made changes to my last post. I used the two examples because of their dramatic differences, not their similarities. No attempt to equivocate the two, my intent was to show the contrast and then ask how MFB distinguishes between this contrast using philosophical arguments. At any rate, correction noted. An interesting post on this topic of Joseph and ever being convicted of a crime in case anyone is interested. http://rationalfaiths.com/joseph-smith-ever-convicted-crime/
Kevin Christensen Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: This is fun, thanks! I'm making progress, I follow most of this, but I have some questions/comments still. This makes much more sense to me now. I think the reason I've had a hard time grasping this concept is a cultural negative connotation for the words "inside our head". I think I've been taught that there is a difference between reality and whats inside my head, and I'm having to break through that cultural baggage in order to understand this philosophical concept. In essence, everything we know about the world is inside our head with respect to what we perceive using our senses and the constructs of language that have developed over the years. Language is also limited in its ability to effectively communicate what our senses have perceived because in many ways it fails to capture and communicate what we have experienced through our senses. Especially for some of the most dramatic life experiences, it seems like language is a very primitive tool for communication. But its the best tool we have. This element is key to many of my questions. We are agreeing that something exists independent of human mental states. So something humans call earth, exists. What we know about it is in our head, but its also in the heads of all living creatures that interact with the earth. So a cat or a bird would also know that something humans call earth exists. We could hypothesize that an alien race will someday visit this area of the universe and that these aliens would also have knowledge of the existence of this planet. All of this exists independent of human mental states. I think we can take this a step further. I'll use the example of the earth's magnetic field. These magnetic fields are invisible to human senses, yet they still exist independent of human's ability to perceive them. But birds perceive them and use them for migrating thousands of miles each year. Other life forms knew of their existence prior to humans knowing of their existence. So their existence is independent of human mental states. If things exist independent of human mental states then how do we draw the line between this knowledge of existence, and this knowledge of "what we KNOW about it". Is the magnetic field an attribute of the earth? I would says yes. I say that the magnetic field existed independent of human minds, and is an attribute of the earth which also existed independent of a human's mind. I would also say that atoms exist independent of human minds, and atoms are also a property of the earth that exists independent of a human's mind. These are all attributes that describe the environments that we inhabit. How are these not descriptions about what we "know" about our environment? Now we're really getting into the meat of this. How do we measure things. Humans measure things differently than other life forms. Humans even measure things differently than other humans. How do we know which measurement is right? This seems to be a key question. Which measurement is correct? How can we know? Well, using the tools of this philosophical discussion I would say that we can never completely know the truth about anything, based on this knowledge always being subjective and in our mind. One person's mind differs from another, so what I know will be different than what you know. Which person is right? Neither of us can be 100% completely right, because there is always going to be a limitation to our ability to perceive and our language that we use to communicate that perception. I think knowing which measurement is right could be similar to the theory of special relativity and approaching the speed of light. Perhaps knowing which measurement is right is similar in that no one can know for 100% surety that any measurement is right. They can approach this 100% accuracy but never reach it because there will always be limits to perceptions, and there will always be a greater knowledge out there somewhere and yet to be learned about any particular thing. This part makes complete sense to me, we are good! This last part is extremely important to me as I would like to understand your pragmatism and how it applies to these principles that Rorty and other philosophers outlined. This idea that knowledge is in our head makes me think that anyone's knowledge is of equal validity. You seem to be privileging Joseph Smith's knowledge over someone else's knowledge solely on your subjective viewpoint that another person's ideas have born less fruit than Joseph's. That other person's knowledge is less pragmatically good than Joseph's. So how do you practically measure who's knowledge is more true? How to you evaluate knowledge that is entirely subjective. Let me give another example. There are people on this earth that "know" that the earth is flat. They are in a vast minority in 2016, and their knowledge that the earth is flat would seem to be inferior. My knowledge that the earth is round seems superior. I think Rorty is saying that the knowledge of these two groups, flat earthers and round earthers, are equally true. How would Rorty then describe your choice that Joseph Smith's truth is superior to another person's truth. They both have knowledge that seems to be equally true according to Rorty, if I'm understanding things correctly. I want to understand how the philosopher's would value one subjective truth over another subjective truth. On the issue of which paradigm is better, on the best way to assess competing truth claims, see Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Alma 32 which offers the same values to assess such competing claims. Fwiw, Kevin Christensen Paris, France 2
Jeanne Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) On 9/9/2016 at 5:02 PM, ALarson said: Ok, that makes sense. I'm not sure about your dig regarding some being dishonest on here about who they are, as I haven't seen that (but I'm not always around). I am Jeanne here....and Candygal on other boards. I am honest and love all of you!! When working on a government installation, I used to hand out candy and soda drinks to the soldiers and national guards that visited..so I became candygal for a long time. Edited September 12, 2016 by Jeanne 1
mfbukowski Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 19 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: On the issue of which paradigm is better, on the best way to assess competing truth claims, see Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Alma 32 which offers the same values to assess such competing claims. Fwiw, Kevin Christensen Paris, France Paris?? Kuhl !!
Recommended Posts