Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

So one of my worries is that by responding to your comment you'll want to find out where I live so that you can have me locked away for being a lunatic But I'll give it a go anyway. 

 

Let's take the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. You seem to be stating that the earth "in reality" does so. How did you arrive at this idea? My guess is that you have never made a direct observation that favors this theory over others. My guess is that you haven't observed the motion of the planets and determined that a heliocentric model is more useful than some other model. My guess is that this is an idea that has been taught to you and your own observations don't seem to contradict the idea, and since everyone goes around saying the same thing, you accept it as not just perception, but "reality." But even if you really could directly observe the earth circling the sun or if you were to derive a the heliocentric model from some other observation, all of that would still be perceptions in your mind. So how could you possibly assert that "in reality" the earth revolves around the sun without assuming that your perception is reality? And how in the world could you begin to justify that assumption? How can you say that "I perceived it with my mind, therefore that is the true state of things outside of my mind?" And if you can't do that, how do you begin to create some "hierarchy of realities" as if reality, objectivity, and subjectivity can be measured and given probabilities? What standard would you use that isn't conceived in your mind? 

 

Is it useful to make assumptions? I think so. It is useful for me to assume that I have fingers that are typing a reply in a language called English to a what I assume is a conscious being with the username of Meadowchik. Does any of this reflect "reality?" Or am I like Putnam's brain in a vat or a victim of Descartes' demon? I don't know and I don't care. I also don't know how any of my beliefs could possibly prove another's beliefs objectively wrong or not "real." My perceptions aren't their perceptions. I just find the beliefs I have to be more useful than the ones I don't. 

 

 

***Side note, I believe that the earth is a sphere that revolves around the sun, and I'm uncomfortable being around people who believe otherwise.

We can only start from our own experience, what makes the difference is how we relate to the expressions of others. I prefer trying to use internal logic and applying that as much as I can to ever-expanding spheres of contact.

In other words, yet again and unto infinity, the fact that experience is subjective does not mean we cannot try to be more objective within thst subjectivity.

Internal logic, my friend, internal logic.

Here's the bonus comment: I suspect it is possible that logic in microchosms frequently behaves similarly in macro. Math suggests this.

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Circular.

The post is full of YOUR unexamined preferences which limit your "objectivity".  Where do you get the dogma of not having dogma??   That is impossible.  You have a perspective and a prejudice in everything you do and see.  Right now you are looking at some kind of computing device and the reason you are doing it is your preference at this moment.  You could be doing a world of other things, but right now you wanted to be here more than anything else you could do.  THAT itself is a preference which you have placed above other preferences.  THAT is the nature of consciousness- we are always directing it from a particular point of view.

My goal is to pick consciously construct my prejudices in directions which I find work for me, and that is what I have done with my life.

In my life, like Decartes I decided to doubt everything down to the level of the brain in the vat silliness and Russell's comment that no one can prove that the world did not pop into existence 5 minutes ago and all our memories are implants or illusions.  That was the antithesis of what Russell was about and he did not actually believe that for a minute but he was willing to look at the idea and admit that even with all his logical expertise in Principia Mathematica he still admitted that he could not prove that this strange idea was not true.

Every view I put forward, I understand is only one way of looking at what is.

Ahab seems to think that because I understand atheism, I am an atheist.  I actually believe that Joseph was a prophet who had golden plates delivered by the angel Moroni and all the rest, but I also see a hundred different perspectives on how that not need to be the case.

 I have chosen the TBM way- that is my chosen preference and I have no illusions about that being a conscious choice for me in my life. I also know that it is the best possible choice I could have made because I have examined all the others I could find.  

When you have found the right prejudices and formed a path, those "dogmas" produce freedom.   But you are young and you will learn.

I understand what you're saying about preferences, I'm not claiming that anyone can be 100% objective.  You're right, I'm showing my preference in the very act of conversing on this message board.  And consequently I have some measure of allegiance to this community, so that if someone were to come in here and start criticizing this message board, I would instinctively come to its defense.  

I also understand that you've chosen your path and I respect it, I'm not saying its not the best path(it might be), I am saying consequently you've lost a measure of objectivity (by choice) in your allegiance to the institutional church.  To me, this is one of the risks of organized religion.  

I'm not saying this risk outweighs all the positives you get from membership.  (BTW, I'm a member too)  I am saying that whenever the institution makes ethically problematic decisions, positions, etc, your preferences will naturally be in support of some of these ethically problematic issues, precisely because of your chosen preference.    

This seems to me to be one of the arguments against organized religion.  The gospel message that I've been gravitating towards in the past year or two calls for a radical redefinition of many Christian traditions.  Humans naturally push back against change and to a large extent are blind to the problems that exist when the institution that they have chosen is opposed to any particular issue of controversy.  

Recognizing how human nature works, I'm making an argument that intentionally not joining any religious institutions, and all institutions have serious flaws some of which do real damage to real people, a person might be able to live a more ethical life.  Recognizing that just by choosing to align with an organized religion we also participate in some measure of responsibility for the poor choices of that institution.  And honestly, this argument goes way beyond organized religions. Thoughts?  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Not on the basis that those teachings are from the church or its leaders, though. Independent of that.

His allegiance is to himself and to God and to whoever else just happens to agree with him and God.

Those who do so "automatically" are putting the cart before the horse and he isn't the type who would put the cart before the horse. But turning the horse around backwards? Maybe.

Wherever you go and whatever you think you will always be amongst other people who believe as you believe, and either more or less organized.

I'm talking more about how our biases influence us.  This is undeniable and you're right that it follows us wherever we go.  However, the measure of influence that our biases have on us also is depended on how we choose to spend our time, how we explore issues using our intellect, the amount of empathy we intentionally practice, and the people and organizations we associate with.  Its not like we have no control over these biases, we do have control and knowledge about how the human mind works and what influences it. 

[Ahab]

51 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

...I also don't know how any of my beliefs could possibly prove another's beliefs objectively wrong or not "real." My perceptions aren't their perceptions. I just find the beliefs I have to be more useful than the ones I don't. 

Just that? Really?

One of my favorite things about objective reality is that once I find out that something is objectively real or true then I also know that anything that is the antithesis or opposite of that is not objectively real or true, simply because something can not be true and not true at the same time.

Either there is a God or there isn't.

Either the sky is blue or it isn't.

...or for those who judge by appearances, either the sky appears to be blue or it doesn't.

True, your perceptions still aren't other people's perceptions, but that it isn't necessary, really.  People can choose to disagree with other people just because they prefer to disagree than agree, sometimes, even sometimes going so far as to say the sun isn't shining when it is shining right in front of them.

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This seems to me to be one of the arguments against organized religion.  The gospel message that I've been gravitating towards in the past year or two calls for a radical redefinition of many Christian traditions.  Humans naturally push back against change and to a large extent are blind to the problems that exist when the institution that they have chosen is opposed to any particular issue of controversy.  

 

I am also in favor of a radical redefinition of many Christian traditions, and I call this "The Restored Gospel".

In fact I think that even the "restored gospel" needs a lot of redefinitions as well, but they redefinitions are only changing semantics, not the "truth as it is" (human experience)

Even the restored gospel incorporates Neoplatonism in its understanding of many doctrines and those understandings are dead in the water and not even compatible with the restored gospel.

In the restored gospel how does 

Quote

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Fit with "objective truth", hard fast and unchangeable?

How does an open canon agree with objective unchangeable truth?

How did God "call" things into existence if not by defining them linguistically by the power of his word?

Quote

5 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake; and the evening and the morning were the first day.

Quote

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Quote

...and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.

and on it goes.

It seems to me that words and their interpretation might be more important in the restored gospel than objective reality beyond the definition of language as invented by pagan Greeks?  I believe in visible worlds, not the world of "objective truth" which is invisible

There are many ways of describing anything, and any change in description is a "redefinition". 

Edited April 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Atheist Mormon]

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, your day of judgement is coming.

Get busy and prepare for it.

Like that, you mean, right?

Puh! For your sake I hope you are not joking. Because I WANT TO BE FIRST TO EXPERIENCE HELL (I'm not joking, I'd love to experience the heat of Hell every day, every second.)

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Just that? Really?

One of my favorite things about objective reality is that once I find out that something is objectively real or true then I also know that anything that is the antithesis or opposite of that is not objectively real or true, simply because something can not be true and not true at the same time.

Either there is a God or there isn't.

Either the sky is blue or it isn't.

...or for those who judge by appearances, either the sky appears to be blue or it doesn't.

True, your perceptions still aren't other people's perceptions, but that it isn't necessary, really.  People can choose to disagree with other people just because they prefer to disagree than agree, sometimes, even sometimes going so far as to say the sun isn't shining when it is shining right in front of them.

Science tells us the sky is not blue and there is no God, so i suggest you get off the internet because the internet is a product of Satan.  That is your logic.

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Science tells us the sky is not blue and there is no God, so i suggest you get off the internet because the internet is a product of Satan.  That is your logic.

No that is your logic, based on your understanding (or what I would call misunderstanding) of what I was saying. 

Just stick with the "you don't understand me" mentality that you have used before.

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Puh! For your sake I hope you are not joking. Because I WANT TO BE FIRST TO EXPERIENCE HELL (I'm not joking, I'd love to experience the heat of Hell every day, every second.)

Have you ever felt really really ashamed of something, or really really embarrassed?.)  That's pretty much what it feels like, and you can believe me when I tell you that you'd rather try to crawl under a lot of rocks than to keep feeling that way.

But, sure, go ahead and try it out for yourself. You're destined for it if you don't at least try to repent from all of your sins.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It seems to me that words and their interpretation might be more important in the restored gospel than objective reality beyond the definition of language as invented by pagan Greeks?  I believe in visible worlds, not the world of "objective truth" which is invisible

There are many ways of describing anything, and any change in description is a "redefinition". 

This isn't radical in the sense that I was describing.  From my perspective its not just about redefining words or getting the emphasis right.  There are harmful policies and practices, that seriously impact all sorts of people.  I hesitate to make a list because I don't want to sidetrack the discussion.

You are making a case for institutional religion, but you haven't explained how the dangers of institutional religion are mitigated.  You've admitted that this is your choice and that your preferences are biased towards the church and you acknowledge a need for some changes.  You haven't answered my question about whether or not it wouldn't be more ethical in principle to remain outside the organization.  Why organized religion, I think that is part of the crux of this thread, make the case for it, if not on philosophical grounds, then on practical ones.  

I know you're a pragmatist, and your argument tells me how the church works for you personally, but is it the ethically best choice, and what of my argument about how aligning with an institution that has unethical practices makes that person partially accountable for those practices.  

Edited April 11, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Ahab]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How did God "call" things into existence if not by defining them linguistically by the power of his word?

With the "them" he defined referring to things that already existed before he called them what he called them, you mean?

Basically defining what we call objective reality?

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This isn't radical in the sense that I was describing.  From my perspective its not just about redefining words or getting the emphasis right.  There are harmful policies and practices, that seriously impact all sorts of people.  I hesitate to make a list because I don't want to sidetrack the discussion.

You are making a case for institutional religion, but you haven't explained how the dangers of institutional religion are mitigated.  You've admitted that this is your choice and that your preferences are biased towards the church and you acknowledge a need for some changes.  You haven't answered my question about whether or not it wouldn't be more ethical in principle to remain outside the organization.  Why organized religion, I think that is part of the crux of this thread, make the case for it, if not on philosophical grounds, then on practical ones.  

I know you're a pragmatist, and your argument tells me how the church works for you personally, but is it the ethically best choice, and what of my argument about how aligning with an institution that has unethical practices makes that person partially accountable for those practices.  

Belief in absolute truth has caused problems in the past- the crusades, jihad today etc.

I agree with the church that it is doing nothing bad or immoral and only doing good.  There is nothing wrong that I see with its policies.   I will not go into that because it will be an instant derail of my own thread.

Pragmatically it is clear to me that following the commandments produce ideal pragmatic results for society.  Treating others as they would desire to be treated is the pefect formulation for morality

On the other hand some live in a manner which if practiced by everyone those behaviors would lead to the death of civilization. To make it short and sweet, breaking the commandments define behaviors which are not good for society and have no pragmatic value.  

Morality is what works to encourage life, and I personally take the Didache as pragmatic scripture from the first century. This is pure pragmatism as I see it

http://www.thedidache.com/
 

Quote

 

I

1. There are two Ways, one of Life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the two Ways. 
2. The way of life is this:" First, you shalt love the God who made thee, secondly, thy neighbor as thyself; and whatsoever thou wouldst not have done to thyself, do not thou to another." 
3. Now, the teaching of these words is this: "Bless those that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those that persecute you. For what credit is it to you if you love those that love you? Do not even the heathen do the same?" But, for your part, "love those that hate you," and you will have no enemy. 
4. "Abstain from carnal" and bodily "lusts." "If any man smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also," and thou wilt be perfect. "If any man impress thee to go with him one mile, go with him two. If any man take thy coat, give him thy shirt also. If any man will take from thee what is thine, refuse it not," not even if thou canst. 
5. Give to everyone that asks thee, and do not refuse, for the Father's will is that we give to all from the gifts we have received. Blessed is he that gives according to the mandate; for he is innocent; but he who receives it without need shall be tried as to why he took and for what, and being in prison he shall be examined as to his deeds, and "he shall not come out thence until he pay the last farthing." 
6. But concerning this it was also said, "Let thine alms sweat into thine hands until thou knowest to whom thou art giving."........

V

1. But the Way of Death is this: First of all, it is wicked and full of cursing, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, a double heart, fraud, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, foul speech, jealousy, impudence, haughtiness, boastfulness. 
2. Persecutors of the good, haters of truth, lovers of lies, knowing not the reward of righteousness, not cleaving to the good nor to righteous judgment, spending wakeful nights not for good but for wickedness, from whom meekness and patience is far, lovers of vanity, following after reward, unmerciful to the poor, not working for him who is oppressed with toil, without knowledge of him who made them, murderers of children, corrupters of God's creatures, turning away the needy, oppressing the distressed, advocates of the rich, unjust judges of the poor, altogether sinful; may ye be delivered, my children, from all these.

 

Yes, it is said these principles were taught by the apostles but guess what?  As I said one can affirm any of these purely through pragmatic principles.

If there were no traffic laws (commandments) there would be no freedom to drive down the street- it would be chaos.  Following traffic laws gives us pragmatic freedom- the rules of the road give us peace and order.  So too for the commandments = pure pragmatism.

I see absolutely NO problem in organizing these principles in the church, which is exactly the way I see OUR church.

Faith - understand that reality can be what you think it is, God and visions are real if you have faith

Repentance - Change your behaviors permanently to pragmatic standards ( the commandments)

Baptism - rituals and commitment to structure and routine in making those life changes habit

Holy Ghost - for further growth and inspiration in taking matter unorganized and creating our own worlds.

That's it.  The above principles in the commandments AND the principles of the church are all humanity needs- totally pragmatically. THAT for me is the LDS church.  Period.

The rest is interpretation.  Orthopraxis instead of orthodoxy.  If you can answer the temple recommend questions truthfully, there is no more to be done but "endure to the end"- keep at it forever.

[Spammer]

delete. i put this in the wrong thread.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Spammer

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with the church that it is doing nothing bad or immoral and only doing good.  There is nothing wrong that I see with its policies.   I will not go into that because it will be an instant derail of my own thread.

You honestly believe this?  I'm tempted to just stop the conversation here as we are very very far apart on a fundamental observation.  Perhaps I should re-emphasize my earlier point about how aligning with an institution makes a person biased towards that institution.  Your post is proof of that, and from someone with as diverse a background as you, how can you not see any immoral positions of the institution, this is shocking to me.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

If there were no traffic laws (commandments) there would be no freedom to drive down the street- it would be chaos.  Following traffic laws gives us pragmatic freedom- the rules of the road give us peace and order.  So too for the commandments = pure pragmatism.

I see absolutely NO problem in organizing these principles in the church, which is exactly the way I see OUR church.

Call me flabbergasted, because my jaw is literally(I mean figuratively - thanks Webster) on the floor.  What it sounds like to me is that you've mixed together a very utilitarian pragmatic approach with an appeal to authority, and defined this mixture as Mormonism.  It sounds like circular reasoning to me.  

Because the Mormon church is "doing nothing bad or immoral" then commandments from church leaders are automatically assumed to be ethical, and therefore it is pragmatic because we all know that society needs commandments to function properly.  I hope I'm misunderstanding you because I really have a hard time believing that you actually believe this.  

Let me try an example to see if this helps.  Lets say that tomorrow, April 12th, Mormon church leaders announce that the 1978 revelation granting priesthood and temple rights to all races is being reversed based on new revelation that current church leaders received.  Priesthood and temple rights have now been revoked and the policy is now identical to the pre-1978 policy.  

I'm guessing you would consider that decision an immoral one?  If not, why?  How would you evaluate whether this policy/position is moral or immoral?  Would you pray for confirmation?  Lets say you pray about it and you get a good feeling that the leaders of the church are inspired by God and that you're impressed that you should support your leaders.  

How is this a measuring stick for morality?  You've already decided that the church is moral, so your bias will continue to influence you with respect to decisions that leaders make.  Do you examine every practice and policy of the institutional church to evaluate whether it aligns with your personal ethics?  Based on what you've written, I would say no.  This is the danger of organized religion.  It has throughout time caused people to compromise what they otherwise might consider to be immoral practices in the name of allegiance to the institution and deference for authority figures. 

In fairness this tendency for allegiance and deference is not unique to religion.  Governments and other authoritarian institutions have had these same problems.  Does this mean we should get rid of religious institutions all together, or governments or the social contract?  No, but we desperately need to learn from the mistakes of our past.  We shouldn't ever sell our personal morality out to an institution, authority figure, or commandment.  Shouldn't we constantly be evaluating and re-evaluating our principles and our ethics based on new information, situational context, and reason?   

You acknowledged that attempts to define truth in universal terms have been disastrous.  Isn't this what commandments attempt to do?  

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Lets say you pray about it...

How is this a measuring stick for morality?

Serious?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Serious?

Absolutely.  Feelings are what justifies all kinds of immoral decisions.  God gave us a brain for a reason, he expects us to use it.  

[Ahab]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ahab seems to think that because I understand atheism, I am an atheist.

Just saw this. No I don't think that. It may have seemed to you that I thought that, but I didn't and still don't think that. Just that it seems to me that you think  like atheists think, sometimes, when you talk as if you think God is not out there as a part of objective reality or that there is no objective reality out there.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Belief in absolute truth has caused problems in the past- the crusades, jihad today etc.

Just for the record I don't buy that. Quest for power is behind most of those things. The Stalinists, the Khemer Rouge, the Nazis and so forth were more about power than truth even if truth is a great way to motivate people. The crusades in particular had much more complex causes than some abstract notion of truth. 

Saying the problem was belief in absolute truth is about on par with how New Atheists say the problem was religion. It's overly reductive and depends upon simplifications of the history.

In any case, I think humans have some basic instinctual drives towards truth so even if that were the problem it's likely genetic and not apt to be changed any time soon. Much like you likely can't get rid of religion, merely sublimate it with pseudo-religious drives like communism or even certain types of atheism.

Quote

Science tells us the sky is not blue and there is no God, so i suggest you get off the internet because the internet is a product of Satan.  That is your logic.

Umm what? Physics does a pretty good job recognizing the sky is blue during the day and explaining it due to scattering effects. 

Quote

Fit with "objective truth", hard fast and unchangeable? How does an open canon agree with objective unchangeable truth?

Doesn't this conflate whether there is truth with the question of whether we always know it?

Edited April 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Absolutely.  Feelings are what justifies all kinds of immoral decisions.  God gave us a brain for a reason, he expects us to use it.  

Actually, it is our brains that do the justifying.  Really smart people who use their brains and ignore the feelings of their conscience are the most dangerous people on earth.

Until God gives us an objective measure for morality, the best we can do is use our conscience.  

Edited April 12, 2017 by pogi

[SmileyMcGee]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

We can only start from our own experience, what makes the difference is how we relate to the expressions of others. I prefer trying to use internal logic and applying that as much as I can to ever-expanding spheres of contact.

In other words, yet again and unto infinity, the fact that experience is subjective does not mean we cannot try to be more objective within thst subjectivity.

Internal logic, my friend, internal logic.

Here's the bonus comment: I suspect it is possible that logic in microchosms frequently behaves similarly in macro. Math suggests this.

"Objective within that subjectivity."  That's an interesting idea. Let's say someone (person A) has read the Book of Mormon and prayed and feels that the BoM is from God and that Joseph Smith is a prophet. I think you would refer to this as subjective experience. Let's then say that they encounter someone online (person B) who says that Joseph isn't a prophet because he was a money-digger and practiced polyandry. Person A reads some source material and is unconvinced that the material is accurate and puts little stock in it and continues to believe that JS is a prophet and the BoM is true. Person B then says that Person A is delusional and isn't being objective in considering all the evidence. Person A responds that they did objectively consider the evidence but came to a different conclusion. So who is being objective here? What would you consider "objective within subjectivity?" Let's say that Person A changes their mind and rejects JS as a prophet. Is Person A being more objective now than before? 

This notion of objectivity, even "within [a] subjectiv[e]" realm takes for granted the inability to objectively justify the value that a person puts on some evidence vs. other evidence. People say they are being objective when they "consider all the evidence" or  take certain things into account. But they fail to explain how the value they place some evidence is objectively justifiable. How would you propose doing this without ultimately making an appeal to your own subjectivity? How can you objectively show that a historical account of polyandry should be given more weight than feelings, or vice versa? 

My belief is that neither person in this scenario is objective or even objective within subjectivity, because I don't even know how that is possible. They are merely accepting the explanation that makes the most sense, or is of the most use, to them given their perception. Call this "internal logic" if you'd like.

Edited April 12, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

On 4/9/2017 at 3:01 PM, mfbukowski said:

Good to see you!!  It's been a while!!

This is exactly what I am saying as well but it seems you use language others understand better!   Thanks!

Likewise! I have been much more of a lurker than a participant lately, but when I saw this thread and who started it I couldn't help myself. I think it's great that you continue to promote a pragmatic approach to life's experience on this board. While I have the formal philosophical training of a two-year old, the way you explain makes sense to me (at least I like to think it does). It's had more of a positive impact on my life than you probably know. Keep on keeping on!

Edited April 12, 2017 by SmileyMcGee

[Calm]

"Science tells us...there is no God"

I assume you are being sarcastic about how some (Arab) view science.  If not, could you explain this comment.  If you are just demonstrating where a certain viewpoint takes the reasoner, just ignore  me (Clark made me uncertain of how to read your comment when he took it seriously; it is all Clark's fault  )

Edited April 12, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This isn't radical in the sense that I was describing.  From my perspective its not just about redefining words or getting the emphasis right.  There are harmful policies and practices, that seriously impact all sorts of people.  I hesitate to make a list because I don't want to sidetrack the discussion.

You are making a case for institutional religion, but you haven't explained how the dangers of institutional religion are mitigated.  You've admitted that this is your choice and that your preferences are biased towards the church and you acknowledge a need for some changes.  You haven't answered my question about whether or not it wouldn't be more ethical in principle to remain outside the organization.  Why organized religion, I think that is part of the crux of this thread, make the case for it, if not on philosophical grounds, then on practical ones.  

I know you're a pragmatist, and your argument tells me how the church works for you personally, but is it the ethically best choice, and what of my argument about how aligning with an institution that has unethical practices makes that person partially accountable for those practices.  

The church has no unethical pracrices or I would leave

Institutions are necessary for any truth to exist- truth only exists in sentences in a community-  truth exists in "spheres"

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You honestly believe this?  I'm tempted to just stop the conversation here as we are very very far apart on a fundamental observation.  Perhaps I should re-emphasize my earlier point about how aligning with an institution makes a person biased towards that institution.  Your post is proof of that, and from someone with as diverse a background as you, how can you not see any immoral positions of the institution, this is shocking to me.  

Call me flabbergasted, because my jaw is literally(I mean figuratively - thanks Webster) on the floor.  What it sounds like to me is that you've mixed together a very utilitarian pragmatic approach with an appeal to authority, and defined this mixture as Mormonism.  It sounds like circular reasoning to me.  

Because the Mormon church is "doing nothing bad or immoral" then commandments from church leaders are automatically assumed to be ethical, and therefore it is pragmatic because we all know that society needs commandments to function properly.  I hope I'm misunderstanding you because I really have a hard time believing that you actually believe this.  

Let me try an example to see if this helps.  Lets say that tomorrow, April 12th, Mormon church leaders announce that the 1978 revelation granting priesthood and temple rights to all races is being reversed based on new revelation that current church leaders received.  Priesthood and temple rights have now been revoked and the policy is now identical to the pre-1978 policy.  

I'm guessing you would consider that decision an immoral one?  If not, why?  How would you evaluate whether this policy/position is moral or immoral?  Would you pray for confirmation?  Lets say you pray about it and you get a good feeling that the leaders of the church are inspired by God and that you're impressed that you should support your leaders.  

How is this a measuring stick for morality?  You've already decided that the church is moral, so your bias will continue to influence you with respect to decisions that leaders make.  Do you examine every practice and policy of the institutional church to evaluate whether it aligns with your personal ethics?  Based on what you've written, I would say no.  This is the danger of organized religion.  It has throughout time caused people to compromise what they otherwise might consider to be immoral practices in the name of allegiance to the institution and deference for authority figures. 

In fairness this tendency for allegiance and deference is not unique to religion.  Governments and other authoritarian institutions have had these same problems.  Does this mean we should get rid of religious institutions all together, or governments or the social contract?  No, but we desperately need to learn from the mistakes of our past.  We shouldn't ever sell our personal morality out to an institution, authority figure, or commandment.  Shouldn't we constantly be evaluating and re-evaluating our principles and our ethics based on new information, situational context, and reason?   

You acknowledged that attempts to define truth in universal terms have been disastrous.  Isn't this what commandments attempt to do?  

The church is moral now and  I would not join or participate in an immoral organization.    I joined only after the priesthood ban was lifted and would leave if anything immoral was in the doctrine.

We persistently cannot communicate- if you want to stop that's fine.  I blindly obey no one nor any organization- if I disagree I leave.  You are imagining what I think and are projecting your former abject obedience to the church onto me.  My objectivity is not compromised one iota.  And I object to your feeble attempt to psychoanalyze me with your weaknesses 

I obey what God tells me- not what men tell me. Fortunately that is a church principle if you truly understood Mormonism.  No testimony- no belief- 

 ^"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Edited April 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Serious?

Exactly.  What else is there?