The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

This presupposes that God was not able to do something.

This presupposes that because God can do something, that he will...

God gives men agency.  He lets us make mistakes.  He lets us fall.  He lets us get lost.  He lets us be confused.  He lets us believe false ideas...

Edited April 17, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

Thus the meaning of the utterance can't be reduced to the speaker's understanding of what they say nor their intents. So to even pose the issue as who's words are they: God's or Paul's is to fundamentally miss what's going on. (I don't mean this as a criticism of you - this is a feature of texts that is typically misunderstood)

Yet, this is precisely how the church operates.  The church finds it incredibly important to ask "who's words are they? (as do I)"  They include writings that they feel are inspired, and they remove writings from the canon that they feel are not inspired.  Is the church misunderstanding this "feature of texts" by doing so?  Should they really bother asking, "what is inspired and what is not?"

The D&C has had many parts included and removed over the years.  If it doesn't matter if they were received through inspiration, why bother?   Your comment suggests that by posing this issue, the church is "missing what is going on", because it doesn't really matter if the words/ideas were originally inspired or not, so long as we have the tools of hermeneutics, the quote function, and semiotics to obscure/twist the original meaning into something inspirational (By that logic, it seems any nonsense is worthy of canonization with a little help from the hermeneutics wand). For example, the lectures on faith are probably quoted more often then Paul's ideas about women, yet the lectures were removed from the canon and Paul's words remain. 

Sure we can twist words however we want, and by so doing make any writings "inspired in a sense", but by doing so, we make every sentence ever spoke by man (inspired or not) potentially worthy of canonization.  I personally feel that there should be a distinction between inspired writings and and inspired twisting of an originally uninspired meaning.  The later doesn't belong in our canon, and should be removed with everything else that has been considered uninspired. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by pogi

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

This presupposes that because God can do something, that he will...

God gives men agency.  He lets us make mistakes.  He lets us fall.  He lets us get lost.  He lets us be confused.  He lets us believe false ideas...

Satan loves tricking men into believing the Word of God is corrupt.  Indeed, the idea is a critical prerequisite to deception.  Before Eve could be deceived, Satan had to get her to doubt God's Word.

God has already told us that His Word is pure and that He will keep his word perfectly pure.

Psalms 12:6-7  “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” 

Consider also that God tells us that His Word is magnified even above His name.

Psalms 138:2   I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. 

It takes just as much faith for me to believe God's word is pure and perfect as is does for you to believe that it isn't, or that God's test of truth is a feeling in your bosom.

 

[MormonMason]

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Satan loves tricking men into believing the Word of God is corrupt.  Indeed, the idea is a critical prerequisite to deception.  Before Eve could be deceived, Satan had to get her to doubt God's Word.

God has already told us that His Word is pure and that He will keep his word perfectly pure.

Psalms 12:6-7  “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” 

Consider also that God tells us that His Word is magnified even above His name.

Psalms 138:2   I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. 

It takes just as much faith for me to believe God's word is pure and perfect as is does for you to believe that it isn't, or that God's test of truth is a feeling in your bosom.

Problem is, a number of passages have gotten themselves corrupted.  Take just Deuteronomy 32:43.  This is a reconstruction of the oldest wording that was seen by the translators of the Septuagint (with modern vowel points and cantillation added):

Quote

הַרְנִ֤֯ינוּ שָׁמַיִם֙ עִמּ֖וֹ  וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ־ל֝וֹ כָּל־אֱלֹהִ֔ים
הַרְנִ֤֯ינוּ גוֹיִם֙ עִם־עַמּ֖וֹ  וְהֵעִיזוּ־ל֝וֹ כָּל־בְּנֵ֣י אֱלֹהִ֑ים
כִּ֥י דַם־בָּנָ֖יו יִקּ֖֯וֹם   וְיָק֤וּם וְנָקָם֙ יָשִׁ֣֯יב לְצָרָ֔יו
וְלִמְשַׂנְאָ֥יו יְשַׁלֵּ֖ם   וַיְכַפֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אַדְמַ֥ת עַמּֽוֹ׃ פ

By the time the Dead Sea Scrolls came around, it read like this (with modern vowel points and cantillation added):

Quote

הַרְנִ֤֯ינוּ שָׁמַיִם֙ עִמּ֖וֹ  וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ־ל֝וֹ כָּל־אֱלֹהִ֔ים
כִּ֥י דַם־בָּנָ֖יו יִקּ֑֯וֹם    וְנָקָם֙ יָשִׁ֣֯יב לְצָרָ֔יו
וְלִמְשַׂנְאָ֥יו יְשַׁלֵּ֖ם    וַיְכַפֵּ֥ר אַדְמַ֣ת עַמּֽוֹ׃  פ

This is what the verse reads like now in Hebrew Bibles.

Quote

הַרְנִ֤֯ינוּ גוֹיִם֙ עַמּ֖וֹ  כִּ֥י דַם־עֲבָדָ֖יו יִקּ֑֯וֹם

וְנָקָם֙ יָשִׁ֣֯יב לְצָרָ֔יו   וְכִפֶּ֥ר אַדְמָת֖וֹ עַמּֽוֹ׃ פ

Vowel points and cantillation did not exist until well after the first century.  But aside from these, one can see how substantial the changes to that verse have been over the centuries.  These are huge differences, and they affect theology.  Since the changes, Satan has been working to convince people that the Bible hasn't been changed to get them to adhere to the false traditions of men created in part as a result of the changes.  Some of these were created first and the Bible afterward changed up to match the traditions.  It is much easier for him to deceive people that way.

Now if you look at the first example of the longer, older text, you can see that it speaks of gods in heaven.  They are commanded to worship God so they must be real gods, not false gods.  Scribes got rid of parts of the Bible to match them up with their later beliefs.  They got rid of the sons of God and gods in heaven.

Edited April 17, 2018 by MormonMason
Made corrections to typos and added a few words.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Can you show me where these statements by Paul have been quoted elsewhere in scripture, or even used in a general conference talk, etc.?

The argument is that to be put into canon is a type of quotation. 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Your assuming that the inclusion of those versus in the Bible was inspired by God.  I don't see where God "uses" those versus in our church anywhere.

No quite the contrary. I was arguing the inclusion of the text was inspired. However that means all the verses good and bad come along for the ride.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Because of how the church professes to use the standard works as a rod to measure all of our practices against.

Don't they mean scripture as a whole and not just select verses? That is aren't they making a theological claim about the standard works as a whole in which all the texts are seen not isolated but in terms of each other. So this inherently is a claim about intertextuality.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I am missing something by asking what is inspired and what is not?  What are the words of Brigham Young,  and what are the words of God?  To ask such a question is missing what is going on?   On the contrary, I think to not ask the question is missing what is going on.  I don't care who quotes Brigham Young and his racist ideas...quoting him doesn't make his words/meaning more inspired (even if they are taken out of context or hermeneutically rendered/twisted to be more acceptable).  

All I'm saying is that's not as straightforward of a question as it appears at first glance. Again though you're assuming absolutism. Either it's totally God or (in this example) it's totally Brigham Young. It's precisely that assumption I've been arguing against and don't accept.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Yet, this is precisely how the church operates.  The church finds it incredibly important to ask "who's words are they? (as do I)"  They include writings that they feel are inspired, and they remove writings from the canon that they feel are not inspired.  Is the church misunderstanding this "feature of texts" by doing so?  Should they really bother asking, "what is inspired and what is not?"

Well I certainly think questions of authorship are important. I just don't think they are absolute. i.e. Either it's God or it's someone else. I think most texts are joint works.

As for removing from canon, other than the Lectures on Faith, what's been removed from canon? Even things explicitly declared uninspired like the Song of Solomon remain in our canon.

Again, I think the problem is that you think the question of inspiration can be reduced to the question of authorship. Whereas I think the question of authorship is never simple. There's not some pure language of intentionality that determines meaning once you figure out the author.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

The D&C has had many parts included and removed over the years. 

Do you mean the difference between the Book of Commandments and the D&C? Or do you mean some things moving to the Pearl of Great Price? In the latter case they still remained in canon.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Your comment suggests that by posing this issue, the church is "missing what is going on", because it doesn't really matter if the words/ideas were originally inspired or not, so long as we have the tools of hermeneutics, the quote function, and semiotics to obscure/twist the original meaning into something inspirational (By that logic, it seems any nonsense is worthy of canonization with a little help from the hermeneutics wand). For example, the lectures on faith are probably quoted more often then Paul's ideas about women, yet the lectures were removed from the canon and Paul's words remain. 

I'm saying that inspiration isn't an either/or property. Either it's totally inspired or totally not inspired. I can think for instance that the US constitution is inspired while simultaneously seeing problems with it because the country wasn't ready to treat blacks as full citizens with full rights. So what I'm critiquing is your meaning of inspiration and attempting to provide arguments for why it alls apart.

The bits about quotation is just to show why this is problematic. Someone can quote something uninspired and make it inspired. Someone can quote something inspired and make it uninspired. That strongly suggests meaning isn't in the text or the author. Yet  your arguments are premised on authorship as controlling meaning. I just reject that view.

You are assuming that if we treat something as canon that logically that entails a kind of authority that I certainly reject. Thus you see a problem with the article of faith. What I'm suggesting is that this different way of looking at texts resolves the problems you've created for yourself. Instead of there being inherent meaning, there are simply fallible interpretations. We give texts meaning when we use them. Authors don't control meaning. There's no absolute correct meaning. There's simply things we try, as authors, to do with texts. Yet we're limited by the inherent limitations of texts. That's as true for God as it is for me.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I certainly think questions of authorship are important. I just don't think they are absolute. i.e. Either it's God or it's someone else. I think most texts are joint works.

And sometimes they are the sole workmanship of man, to be cast of like a bad seed.  Just because they are in the Bible, doesn't make them inspired in any way.  They could have been wrongly added, like the lectures on faith.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, I think the problem is that you think the question of inspiration can be reduced to the question of authorship. Whereas I think the question of authorship is never simple. There's not some pure language of intentionality that determines meaning once you figure out the author.

The pure language of intentionality is the Holy Spirit.  That is what determines the inspired meaning of text.  It is the spirit of discernment which teaches us the truth of all things... I like how Alma 32 describes how we should treat texts/words:

Quote

Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

The words of Paul do not grow, swell, or enlarge my soul - regardless of how I try to twist them.  The church does not use them, they are not quoted, they are not studied and applied, they are not practiced, they simply sit there like a sterile dead seed.  What then should I do with them?

Quote

Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away (Alma 32).

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm saying that inspiration isn't an either/or property. Either it's totally inspired or totally not inspired. I can think for instance that the US constitution is inspired while simultaneously seeing problems with it because the country wasn't ready to treat blacks as full citizens with full rights. So what I'm critiquing is your meaning of inspiration and attempting to provide arguments for why it alls apart.

If there are bad seeds in the constitution, we should not justify them because they were included with good seeds into a single document.  We should cast out the bad, as described in Alma.  You are trying to justify uninspired works of men, by their inclusion with inspired works.  I see that as problematic.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The bits about quotation is just to show why this is problematic. Someone can quote something uninspired and make it inspired. Someone can quote something inspired and make it uninspired. That strongly suggests meaning isn't in the text or the author. Yet  your arguments are premised on authorship as controlling meaning. I just reject that view.

If texts can simply be twisted to mean whatever we want them to mean, or if the hermenetuics wand can turn bad seeds into good seeds, then why argue that authorship is important?  Why does it matter if we ultimately control the meaning, and not the Holy Spirit? 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I was arguing the inclusion of the text was inspired. 

Are you sure?

Edited April 17, 2018 by pogi

[Eek!]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, I have come to see the Holy Spirit as the ultimate authority in my life as well. But in doing so, I find myself feeling like I am on the fringes of Mormondom.  Because in rejecting Paul's words as "NOT the word of God", I grapple with one of the fundamental tenants of Mormonism - AoF 8.  

How do you approach AoF 1:8?

I don't think Joseph Smith would have the LEAST objection to you questioning the wisdom of blindly applying the 8^th Article of Faith as if it were all there is to know on the subject.

That being said, imo the 8^th Article of Faith teaches two good concepts:

- One of the ways God communicates with us is through inspired writings, and

- Not everything that makes it into a compilation of inspired writings is correct.

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you feel restricted by the covenant of common consent, to uphold the words of Paul as canonical?

I'm no longer LDS nor affiliated with any religion.   I think a person is not out of line to follow the highest they know.   If you made a covenant to God that now seems to be a barrier to following the highest you know, ask Him if you can amend the contract. 

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Perhaps I shouldn't feel so uncomfortable questioning an article of faith, as Joseph Smith himself rejected the idea of creeds.  He wanted the freedom to believe whatever the spirit directed him to believe without being restricted by creeds.  Ironically, I am now feeling restricted by the creeds that Joseph wrote. 

Joseph Smith was willing to make a course-correction when he came upon greater light and knowledge.  His soul recognized higher truth when he encountered it.  I bet yours does too. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Eek!

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

And sometimes they are the sole workmanship of man, to be cast of like a bad seed.  Just because they are in the Bible, doesn't make them inspired in any way.  They could have been wrongly added, like the lectures on faith.

I think the Lectures were removed for more complicated reasons. I tend to see them as semi-inspired. The Old Testament is probably more problematic just for the reasons the Book of Mormon outlined not to mention the historic confirmation. 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

The pure language of intentionality is the Holy Spirit.  That is what determines the inspired meaning of text.  It is the spirit of discernment which teaches us the truth of all things... I like how Alma 32 describes how we should treat texts/words:

Yeah, I don't believe that. I don't think there is a pure language of the sort you suggest. It's signs all the way down and limited by the inherent logic of signs. As Gödel showed even mathematics isn't pure. God is bound even by logic. And, I've argued Alma 32 adopts a fairly pragmatic treatment of such things.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

If texts can simply be twisted to mean whatever we want them to mean, or if the hermenetuics wand can turn bad seeds into good seeds, then why argue that authorship is important?  Why does it matter if we ultimately control the meaning, and not the Holy Spirit?

People can twist things but they can't twist things in a justified way. That's the big difference. Texts might be underdetermined, but context matters in how we interpret. The authors form part of the context but don't determine meaning.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you sure?

I'm sure about very little. I'm quite confident but I'm always open to new evidence and argument. That which persists through investigation one gets more and more confident in.

[rongo]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

People can twist things but they can't twist things in a justified way. That's the big difference.

But who decides whether or not the twisting was or was not justified? People. People who can decide pretty much whatever they want. That tends to accrue to pogi's point.

The authors form part of the context but don't determine meaning.

You are also making pogi's point here. You are saying that the reader can determine meaning however he wants. Who decides whether that is justified? The reader. Let's leave the author out of it. Etc.

[FormerLDS]

17 hours ago, MormonMason said:

Problem is, a number of passages have gotten themselves corrupted.  Take just Deuteronomy 32:43.  This is a reconstruction of the oldest wording that was seen by the translators of the Septuagint (with modern vowel points and cantillation added):

Just as Thomas Jefferson's "correction" and revision of God's word didn't corrupt God's word, other variations, revisions, corrections and "inspired" versions of the Word of God did not and can not corrupt God's pure, perfect Word.

I choose to believe Deuteronomy 32:43 in the King James Bible tells us exactly what God intended, because I choose to believe that God can, did and will preserve His Word perfectly just as He said He would.

Like it or not, the cold, hard reality is that neither you nor the atheists, skeptics, doubters, unbelievers or anyone else of like company can or will prove that the Word of God wasn't accurately preserved just as God promised.     

[FormerLDS]

On 4/13/2018 at 11:45 AM, MormonMason said:

On 4/13/2018 at 11:22 AM, hope_for_things said:

Another other problem is with your perception of what is happening in real time.  Its filtered through your beliefs and your limited senses, so even quickly recording experiences still is fraught with many problems when it comes to accuracy.  

My beliefs came through my experiences.  The first times it scared the heck out of me.  I was an atheist at the time.  I had no beliefs in a God who could speak to me.  But limited senses, I'm down with that.

Thank you for sharing.  I’m not trying to demean your personal beliefs, but it's always interesting how when someone (myself included) experiences a clearly supernatural event they assume it was the true and living God.

The Bible warns us about Satanic deception in 1 John 4:1 “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”  False spirits are synonymous with false prophets and we’re commanded not to believe every supernatural manifestation or experience, because Satan wants to deceive.

I often wonder how Joseph Smith’s experience would have changed had he read 2 Corinthians 11:14 instead of James 1:5.

“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”

Just because one experiences a supernatural vision, feeling or message does NOT mean that is from God.

Mohammad couldn’t read or write when the “angel Gabriel” appeared to him and told him to write the text of Quran:

Throughout the ages men have received miraculous writings and revelations from what they thought was “God”.

The “Urantia Book”:

The voluminous “Course in Miracles”:

Interestingly, the messages are always the same.  Inevitably, these false spirits offer a supernatural experience as evidence of their legitimacy.  They teach that the Bible has been corrupted and is in need of additional revelations or interpretation to be fully understood, and they teach that we're all going to arrive safely, just keep doing [insert list of do's and don'ts] and you will receive a reward of eternal life.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yeah, I don't believe that. I don't think there is a pure language of the sort you suggest. It's signs all the way down and limited by the inherent logic of signs. As Gödel showed even mathematics isn't pure. God is bound even by logic. And, I've argued Alma 32 adopts a fairly pragmatic treatment of such things.

First I want to echo what rongo said, but second I want to address your article. 

In the article you suggest that "true" means "reliable" when speaking of objects, like the church.  While I like that usage, it has its limits.  First, like words, objects are just symbols.  We all interpret objects differently.  As Yoram Hazony suggests, it is not the object itself that is true/reliable, but our interpretation of a thing that is true or pragmatically reliable. 

He says:

Quote

In every case, we find that the truth or falsity of the object is something that cannot be determined when first one comes across it, but only once it has “stood the test of time.”35 To say of an object that it is reliable, or that it is true, then, is to say that the object in question has done what we had hoped it would do despite the hardships thrown up by changing circumstance

Quote

 In these and all other cases, an object is found to be reliable when it proves,proves, through changing time and circumstance, to be what we think it ought to be.

In other words, the object itself is not inherently true or false, but our estimation/interpretation/intention of it, or for it, can be considered reliable/true, or not.  To use the example of the tent peg in the article -- If someone believes that a tent peg is supposed to be used as a fastener/nail in wood, then the tent peg would not be reliable in "what we think it ought to be", and therefore is not true to that person.  However, it might be perfectly reliable as a peg to secure a tent, and would therefore be "true" to the person who views it's purpose as such. 

Quote

What we really hope for when we drive this peg into the ground is something normative: We want it to be what a tent-pegought to be(in our estimation) in the face of the stresses and strains of the storm.

You use this as an argument to justify the use of the phrase "the church is true".  However, this argument can only be used to justify the phrase for yourself.  But when people say, "this is the only true church on the face of the whole earth, by which man can be saved via the ordinances..."  Then this cannot be justified by use of your argument.  Because that would require a person to extensively test every other church, not only for themselves, but for everyone one earth, and determine that it is the only reliable one for everybody for the purposes of salvation.  In fact, you cannot even say that it is reliable in terms of salvation via the ordinances until you yourself are saved.  Nope, there is only one way that a person can confidently testify to that truth...the Holy Spirit.  The only way that this could be justified with any degree of confidence is through the pure communion of the Holy Spirit.  If the Holy Spirit does not deliver pure communion, then we cannot trust our interpretation as reliable until we test for ourselves all other churches to see if they deliver the promise of salvation.   Not possible.      

If pure communication is not possible, then one cannot say that "this is the only true and living church for all men" with any degree of confidence. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

20 hours ago, Eek! said:

I don't think Joseph Smith would have the LEAST objection to you questioning the wisdom of blindly applying the 8^th Article of Faith as if it were all there is to know on the subject.

That being said, imo the 8^th Article of Faith teaches two good concepts:

- One of the ways God communicates with us is through inspired writings, and

- Not everything that makes it into a compilation of inspired writings is correct.

I'm no longer LDS nor affiliated with any religion.   I think a person is not out of line to follow the highest they know.   If you made a covenant to God that now seems to be a barrier to following the highest you know, ask Him if you can amend the contract. 

Joseph Smith was willing to make a course-correction when he came upon greater light and knowledge.  His soul recognized higher truth when he encountered it.  I bet yours does too. 

Sorry, I thought you were a Mormon because we think so much a like on most subjects, it seems.  Thanks for your words.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Just as Thomas Jefferson's "correction" and revision of God's word didn't corrupt God's word, other variations, revisions, corrections and "inspired" versions of the Word of God did not and can not corrupt God's pure, perfect Word.

I choose to believe Deuteronomy 32:43 in the King James Bible tells us exactly what God intended, because I choose to believe that God can, did and will preserve His Word perfectly just as He said He would.

Like it or not, the cold, hard reality is that neither you nor the atheists, skeptics, doubters, unbelievers or anyone else of like company can or will prove that the Word of God wasn't accurately preserved just as God promised.     

And like it or not, for you, this is all based on unverifiable presuppositions -- neither can you "prove" that "God promised" anything.  The best you can do is demonstrate that somebody wrote a book claiming that God promised something.

[FormerLDS]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

The best you can do is demonstrate that somebody wrote a book claiming that God promised something.

Correct!  Life has taught me the Word of God was all I have and all I really needed.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

In the article you suggest that "true" means "reliable" when speaking of objects, like the church.  While I like that usage, it has its limits.  First, like words, objects are just symbols.  We all interpret objects differently.  As Yoram Hazony suggests, it is not the object itself that is true/reliable, but our interpretation of a thing that is true or pragmatically reliable. 

Right, but he's going through the Hebrew usage. I'm not saying the Hebrew usage is the most useful way to talk about objects. I'm just saying that when reading scripture we have to be aware of such usage. So this is a linguistic argument.

Now the counterargument is that the Nephite language over the 400 years since Nephi would have changed a lot. But there's at minimum Hebrew usage much as we find it in our Church even though few speak Hebrew.

Quote

In other words, the object itself is not inherently true or false, but our estimation/interpretation/intention of it, or for it, can be considered reliable/true, or not.  

Again, the issue is the language. You can "translate" "what's really going on" into the way we think of objects. But that's not really the point. I wasn't discussing ontology in the article but linguistic usage. 

Quote

You use this as an argument to justify the use of the phrase "the church is true".  However, this argument can only be used to justify the phrase for yourself.

Again the issue is the meaning of the phrase. It's just not in the sense of being true in a more contemporary epistemological sense but in the sense that it's a legitimate linguistic usage. So I think you're missing what I was arguing. The post was inspired by a Mormon Matters podcast with Dennis Potter and a few others arguing that these phrases commonly used in Church were meaningless. I then expanded from that to discussing how knowledge in this linguistic structure ended up being similar to what I'd call a pragmatic tradition. (C. S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey) But the discussion was about meaning not whether the Church is actually true. Clearly I think it true, but the question is what I mean by that phrase.

7 hours ago, rongo said:

But who decides whether or not the twisting was or was not justified? People. People who can decide pretty much whatever they want. That tends to accrue to pogi's point.

Well people can believe anything. Again the question is the reasons they believe. But certainly it's easy to deceive oneself or not do adequate inquiry. Indeed I'd say that the common state of people. Here though I'm assuming we're in a discussion where evidence and argument matters so that the reasons one presents to other are key. If that's not the case then as you say anything goes.

7 hours ago, rongo said:

You are also making pogi's point here. You are saying that the reader can determine meaning however he wants. Who decides whether that is justified? The reader. Let's leave the author out of it. Etc.

People can make things mean whatever they want. They can't do so in a justified manner. Again I'm assuming that evidence and argument can be compared and judged. That is that inquiry done sincerely will let us see what grounds for a belief hold up. If the reader doesn't care then they'll simply believe lots of false things. C'est la vie. 

What matters if people are concerned with truth is whether they do their duty to honestly inquire by seeking out evidence and reasoning about it. Inquiry doesn't guarantee being correct of course, but if continued will correct over time false beliefs.

Edited April 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again the issue is the meaning of the phrase. It's just not in the sense of being true in a more contemporary epistemological sense but in the sense that it's a legitimate linguistic usage. So I think you're missing what I was arguing. The post was inspired by a Mormon Matters podcast with Dennis Potter and a few others arguing that these phrases commonly used in Church were meaningless. I then expanded from that to discussing how knowledge in this linguistic structure ended up being similar to what I'd call a pragmatic tradition. (C. S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey) But the discussion was about meaning not whether the Church is actually true. Clearly I think it true, but the question is what I mean by that phrase.

Right, what I gather from your article, by the phrase "the church is true", you mean that it is pragmatically reliable based on your personal experience (which "truth" cannot be projected onto other's experience), correct?  That meaning and use kind of loses its power as a form of testimony however. That is like testifying that chocolate is a reliably good "true" flavor for you.  That means nothing to other people who might not like chocolate. 

But that is not what most people mean when they say "the church is true".  Most people are not referring to a relative, pragmatic truth, but they mean "this church is just as true for me as it is for you - like it or not."

[pogi]

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

Correct!  Life has taught me the Word of God was all I have and all I really needed.

Sounds like relative truth and pragmatism vs. the absolutism, which you claim.  Life?  Can you be more specific?  If there is one thing that I have learned from life, it's that life often leads me in the wrong direction, and into wrong conclusions.  This is a fallen world after all.    

How has fallen/fallible life given you absolute certainty that the word of God was accurately preserved in the Bible, and that no philosophies of men have been added?  Give me specifics?  How has life taught you that the passages in the OP are the perfectly preserved word of God?

Edited April 18, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right, what I gather from your article, by the phrase "the church is true", you mean that it is pragmatically reliable based on your personal experience (which "truth" cannot be projected onto other's experience), correct?  That meaning and use kind of loses its power as a form of testimony however. That is like testifying that chocolate is a reliably good "true" flavor for you.  That means nothing to other people who might not like chocolate. 

But that is not what most people mean when they say "the church is true".  Most people are not referring to a relative, pragmatic truth, but they mean "this church is just as true for me as it is for you - like it or not."

No, what is meant by true is that a thing is what it initially shows itself to be. That is that this initial showing is reliable and won't be contradicted by future experience. That's also the pragmatic sense of truth.

"True for me" just means "lines up with my experience." (And often as used linguistically just means "what I want things to be")  Truth proper though is a claim about things over time into the future. Even if you conceive of truth in terms of "the way things really are" you're making a claim about potential interactions. So if I say a diamond is hard, I'm making a claim about what would happen with potential interactions with a diamond. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Eek!]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Sorry, I thought you were a Mormon because we think so much a like on most subjects, it seems.  Thanks for your words.

Ha!  At times I wondered if you were still Mormon because we think so much alike on most subjects, it seems.

In my opinion Mormonism produces really good people.  I'm not sociologist enough to have an educated idea as to why that might be, but I'm speculative and opinionated enough to have a theory (surprise, surprise).  I THINK it has to do with the sort of thing this thread is about:  Mormonism has pretty darn good creeds, and then where those creeds meet their limitations, Mormons have been taught all their lives that they have the Gift of the Holy Ghost, so they are more likely to be aware of and listen to the still, small inner voice that rings true to their souls. 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Eek!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Well people can believe anything. Again the question is the reasons they believe. But certainly it's easy to deceive oneself or not do adequate inquiry. Indeed I'd say that the common state of people. Here though I'm assuming we're in a discussion where evidence and argument matters so that the reasons one presents to other are key. If that's not the case then as you say anything goes.

In this exchange we were discussing the meaning of phrases and the importance of authorship.  You said, "The authors form part of the context but don't determine meaning."  I still am unclear as to why authorship matters then, if they don't determine meaning.  They might "provide some context", but "context" is given by using more words/phrases -- but again, "authors don't determine the meaning" of those words, so context is also out of their determination.  So even context can be taken out of...context.  So what is the value in authorship? What do they offer that can be unambiguously justified through "adequate inquiry" if meaning is ultimately out of their hands?   Are you suggesting that through adequate inquiry, everyone will come to the same conclusion?  As rongo and I are saying, even justification can be twisted into whatever you want.  So where will adequate inquiry get you that does not simply end up being your own meaning?

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

People can make things mean whatever they want. They can't do so in a justified manner. Again I'm assuming that evidence and argument can be compared and judged. That is that inquiry done sincerely will let us see what grounds for a belief hold up. If the reader doesn't care then they'll simply believe lots of false things. C'est la vie. 

What matters if people are concerned with truth is whether they do their duty to honestly inquire by seeking out evidence and reasoning about it. Inquiry doesn't guarantee being correct of course, but if continued will correct over time false beliefs.

Again, justification is in the eye of the beholder.  "Evidence" is also in the eye of the beholder.  What evidence of original intent/meaning in a phrase can there be if "authors don't determine the meaning"?  If it is not determined by them, then there is nothing to find through inquiry...there is no evidence other then what you determine it means.  Again, evidence is in the eye of the beholder...as is argument...as is comparison and judgment.  It can all be twisted.  There is no objective/absolute justification to determine the intended meaning.  

Edited April 18, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

In this exchange we were discussing the meaning of phrases and the importance of authorship.  You said, "The authors form part of the context but don't determine meaning."  I still am unclear as to why authorship matters then, if they don't determine meaning.  They might "provide some context", but "context" is given by using more words/phrases -- but again, "authors don't determine the meaning" of those words, so context is also out of their determination.  So even context can be taken out of...context.  So what is the value in authorship? What do they offer that can be unambiguously justified through "adequate inquiry" if meaning is ultimately out of their hands?   Are you suggesting that through adequate inquiry, everyone will come to the same conclusion?  As rongo and I are saying, even justification can be twisted into whatever you want.  So where will adequate inquiry get you that does not simply end up being your own meaning?

More or less authors are part of context. And context is what gives meaning to words. By determinate I mean completely determine meaning.  So knowing about authors helps, but is just one part of many. For instance you obviously have to know what is often called the corporate meaning of words. That's the typical range of meanings of the words for a given community.

But my point ultimately is that texts meaning isn't fully controlled by authorial intent. There's an easy example of this. You're writing an essay for a school assignment and you accidentally write "Napoleon won the war of 1812" instead of England. Let's assume you intended to write that England won the war against Napoleon. But what you wrote was different. You could say it was a mistake but that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. You'll get the answer marked wrong by your teacher.

Words and sentences are tools we try to do things with. We can have intents. But as with any tool, our intents don't control the consequences. Just like hammering a nail I can hit off center and bend the nail, when using words they can often do things beyond what I want.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Again, justification is in the eye of the beholder.  "Evidence" is also in the eye of the beholder.  What evidence of original intent/meaning in a phrase can there be if "authors don't determine the meaning"?  If it is not determined by them, then there is nothing to find through inquiry...there is no evidence other then what you determine it means.  Again, evidence is in the eye of the beholder...as is argument...as is comparison and judgment.  It can all be twisted.  There is no objective/absolute justification to determine the intended meaning.  

Exactly. So there are two ways to look at this. One is the way Mark favors where all there is is subjectivity. The other is that over time if we continue in inquiry reality tends to knock sense in us. Maybe we, as finite flawed individuals will never fully know. But typically we tend to get better. (Not always - of course sometimes we get worse)

While I wouldn't use the term "objectivity" due to the amount of philosophical baggage it carries, there's something close enough to count. Consider an infinity community of inquirers given an infinite amount of time inquiring about questions. What they converge on as agreement is true for all practical matters. While we might call that a regulative notion, it gives the idea that reality acts on inquirers and that it's agreement with this idealized if not actual community that is what we mean by truth. But again in the short term we're all cut off from it.

[pogi]

23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

No, what is meant by true is that a thing is what it initially shows itself to be. 

 Isn't it up to the observer to determine what the thing is, and not the thing itself?  It's all about perspective. It's all about how we look at it and not about how it "shows itself".  Maybe that's what you meant and we are getting linguistically twisted up here.

For example, some people's initial impression of the church is that it manifests to them as the church of the devil.  They spend their lifetime battling it, they have extensively researched it's history and Scriptures, teachings, etc. which only further solidifies their initial impression.  According to your definition, are they then justified in saying it is truly the church of the devil? Because it consistently matches up with what they think it "ought to be".

Edited April 19, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

In other words, "true" to you is entirely relative to your perception and experience.  That's basically exactly what I said, so what am I missing here? 

 

I was distinguishing true from how people use "true for me." As I said the issue is how much inquiry duty people have done. As we can see from the flood thread, most people don't spend a lot of time inquiring - especially about what might contradict their beliefs. But it's human, all too human.

9 hours ago, pogi said:

This next part  confused me, because it seems to contradict what you just stated.  It suggests that a thing has inherent truth which it manifests beyond "what I want things to be".

Exactly. This is where Mark and I disagree. There's not dualistic world that makes things true but reality acts on us affecting our beliefs. I can't look outside and will myself to believe the sky is red rather than blue. If it acts then given enough time that shapes belief given enough inquiry. So what I'm saying that beyond what I want to be true there is this convergence due to reality if only as a regulatory notion. When my beliefs are the same as these idealized beliefs that's what we mean by true. 

9 hours ago, pogi said:

Isn't it up to the observer to determine what the thing is, and not the thing itself?  It's all about perspective. It's all about how we look at it and not about how it "shows itself".  Maybe that's what you meant and we are getting linguistically twisted up here.

If and only if beliefs are purely volitional. I don't think they are. We have freedom to control much of our thinking, but not all of it. Much of our interpretations comes out of our emotions, our peers, and our pre-existing beliefs. 

9 hours ago, pogi said:

For example, some people's initial impression of the church is that it manifests to them as the church of the devil.  They spend their lifetime battling it, they have extensively researched it's history and Scriptures, teachings, etc. which only further solidifies their initial impression.  According to your definition, are they then justified in saying it is truly the church of the devil? Because it consistently matches up with what they think it "ought to be".

Yes, and the key issue is whether they question and inquiry. There are usually quite good explanations for why people think that given the conditions under which they were raised, their expectations, their fears, and their pre-existing conditions. Moroni's promise is largely a request that they inquire - that they exercise humility, recognize they don't know everything and ask.

Even for Mormons, having once had a testimony is not enough. A testimony is something that needs nourished which means it has to repeatedly be re-establised. Further many Mormons expect answers to be given with little work despite being told we have to study, fast, and pray. So we're in a similar situation to those people who think the true Church is the church of the devil if we don't continue to inquire.