CV75 Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I've considered this already, and there's very little that has changed. Not talking just about religious things here. I'm sorry, but I am very unsure what kind of viewage difference you're meaning. How I view now what happened in the past versus how I viewed them when they happened? Well, all I can say is that I don't seem to have had any nasty surprises, or significant shifts about any of it. About the only thing I could mention was the matter of my mother's death when I was 7. I was vaguely aware that she was sick (breast cancer), but there was no anticipation of her passing away. I was unfortunately not present at her funeral because my father thought I was too young to understand. I remember him telling me that she had died, but the fact of her absence was a bit of a mystery to me. He wrote in my "baby book" that her death tore my life asunder -- his words -- but I don't recall that. Apparently my grades suffered, but I am not sure if that was a product of her death, or of my attention deficit disorder. I don't know about that. I've read what you've written in the past about the changes in your life with respect to matters of faith, and it made me sad. If you're fine with it all, great (I guess), but my life seems to have been a long, steady, and deeply rewarding climb towards a deeper and deeper conviction that God is there, is watching, and knows who I am. He is deeply interested in me, and indeed in everyone of his children. It hasn't been graph-paper consistent, of course. It's always been a squiggly line, but one trending upwards, and especially lately more steeply upward trending. By the way, I thank you for this thread -- I've gotten a lot of thinking done in connection with it. Deep contemplation is pleasing. One way I’ve looked at this is that one example of a global non-negotiable is that women not eat their newborns (although we do find the exceptional practices of eating aborted fetuses and ritual cannibalism). Who decided that, and why? Who will reevaluate it, and why? I think the status of this behavior as instinct, and our common capacity to build societies that share common beliefs based on human instinct justifies our expectation. Those who reevaluate this and rationalize their disagreement to the point of eating infants will leave their society one way or another. The Lord’s Resurrection is not a universal non-negotiable in the same way, but as the very basis of our religion, it is a non-negotiable in that sense. “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven.” (Joseph Smith) In another post I addressed who decided that, and how individually we can evaluate and reevaluate our acceptance of that belief as a fact for ourselves. I think this belief is instinctual at its root (e.g. survival) or, can be made to be virtually instinctual with practice. Either way, we choose what we believe by evaluating and acting on our instinct, or just acting on our instinct without choosing to evaluate it, or with practice. The Book of Mormon provides some excellent guidance on how to do this. Alma 30 shows how to reevaluate and reject existing beliefs in the resurrection (you may have to dial down the rhetoric and translate into more modern language and methods), and Alma 32 shows how to evaluate, keep and expand upon them.
CV75 Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Personally I think all of our experiences are being reevaluated at some level throughout out lives. Perhaps you could answer my question that I posed earlier in the thread, to reflect back important experiences of your earlier life, things like your first love or a close friendship or a special event with your parent or a traumatically embarrassing experience, things from your childhood, and tell me if you view anything differently about them now than how you viewed these memories when you were younger. I would also argue that anyone's personal and subjective observations about consistency with respect to personal experiences over time have an extremely high risk of being selectively biased. A subjective view of what constitutes consistency is more likely to be an illusion than an evidence of actual consistency. Fortunately I recorded these kinds of experiences, kept the original handwritten documents, and haven't edited them. I can look at them through other lenses and interpretations, including those of others who have shared their points of view about what was probably going on with me when i had them (both supportive and critical). I think one's attitude or intent toward life in general (bias) informs the original and subsequent interpretations of such experiences that are impressive enough to write down. People usually don't go out of their way to reevaluate biases, but there is also plenty of opportunity in life to allow for that to occur against any bias to reevaluate or not. The biases that remain tend to be those that work for them. 1
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 16 hours ago, clarkgoble said: No, I'd say Moroni is exactly the opposite. Interestingly when I was on my mission I was explicitly taught to teach the opposite of fideism which may be part of my anti-fideist bias. We always explicitly said not to believe us, but to pray and God could tell them directly the truth. Typically by the second or third discussion the spirit would be there pretty strong and we'd stop the discussion and ask them to describe what they felt. We'd give the standard "fruits of the spirit" scripture but then say that these are just aspects of God speaking to them and that they vary from person to person. Some feel a burning, others a chill up their backbone, but then we'd get at them trying to see what was beyond the feelings. So it was very much an empirical push. The interpretation would be up to them, but that there was something there we'd get them to describe and identify rather than us. So I'd say first that "feeling" is a great way to identify that something is going on but not a good way to get at the content/interpretation. But the approach is, to my mind, completely empirical. I don't know if all missions do that of course. It was certainly very effective in my mission. In general if I could get people to the third discussion they'd have that experience and we'd focus on identifying the spirit, and getting them to interpret it. But something was there going on even if skeptics might interpret it differently. Fideism is much more saying "hey I will take a leap of faith" or else "this is very useful for your personal flourishing in the circumstances you find yourself in." Jordan Peterson, whom someone mentioned in one of the other threads, is explicit in this. I suspect Peterson is for the most part just appropriating William James here. One can make a case for this with Alma 32 (although as I've argued I don't think that the meaning but it's wrapped up with Hebrew conceptions of truth). I don't think Moroni 10:4-5 is fideism. One could argue it takes a more Popper like falsification approach. i.e. you don't know it's true but treat it as true and attempt to show it false. I think that's reading too much into "if these things are not true" though. The whole idea is "manifesting the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." So it's the claim of revelation not utility in some sense of flourishing in the short term. This helps clarify, but I'm still a little confused. So its the experience of "feelings" that takes the blind faith approach away from fideism. Your saying those feelings constitute the evidence that whatever someone is being asked to put their faith in is actually real and therefore its no longer a blind faith because the person received evidence through these feelings. Also, can you elaborate on your Peterson comment, I follow him fairly closely and I want to know if you are saying Peterson's pragmatic approach to religious ideas is a type of fideism. 16 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Yes. And I'd note that if even the best science in top journals gets around 20% replication at best, we should perhaps be a tad more skeptical of rationalist pronouncements as to what's true based on very limited evidence. But I'd also say that as individuals we should be more skeptical particular about confirmation bias. I know critics usually point to that with regards to members, but I also think there's a certain group think that goes on with critics as well. Again, this is human all too human. It's not something unique to Mormons. Yes, agreed. 16 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Certainly reasoning is affected by unconscious motivated thinking. Indeed that's in large part what I'm using to critique both Mormon conceptions of knowledge as well as critics' confidence that only Mormons are doing motivated reasoning. By intellectual honesty though I'm more focused on whether he's being fair to the facts. But I'd certainly accept that confirmation bias and a lot else can affect his reasoning. Hopefully though by listening to critics (like his student who left the church) he's aware of the counter arguments and is honestly engaging with the evidence as best he can. But without asking him I don't think we really even know what his reasoning is. However there's pretty obvious ways to interpret the evidence in a faithful fashion so I don't think it takes a lot to not be bothered by it. I can't say I've encountered a critic who honestly believes that Mormons are the only ones doing motivated reasoning, although I do see some exmormons who do get somewhat evangelical about their anti church binary thinking which can be just as annoying and shallow as the pro church people on the other side of the spectrum. But they come by their approach honestly and I think that is part of the legacy of the culture that is Mormonism and has been encouraged and perpetuated by good intentioned leaders. Also, for motivation, I don't think asking someone always tells you everything you might want to consider. People are often motivated in ways that they aren't even consciously aware of or haven't thoughtfully considered. I think pointing out that someones career and social world revolves around a particular approach to things is clearly an influencing factor whether they are even consciously aware of it or not. 17 hours ago, clarkgoble said: While ethics are important to me, I also think the question of why be ethical matters a great deal as does how to be ethical. Certainly if you are a good person you'll simply want to help others. But that question of why matters. (Not that philosophers really can answer it and God's punishment really isn't an answer either) Ultimately as important as being good is, I think in terms of living life knowing whether or not there is life after death matters a huge amount in terms of deciding what to prioritize in life. Also one is always making tradeoffs, even in terms of being good. You and I may agree ethically, but maybe one of us heads to India to work with the lower castes who are dying of various diseases and an other doesn't. Both might be good people but what particular acts or sacrifices within an ethical life matters a great deal. To me the basic ethics are easy. Deciding what to sacrifice and more importantly what to enjoy is much trickier. The mere fact you're able to type on a computer suggests you're willing to put personal goods ahead of making someone else's life better. (Obviously I am as well) We can then ask how we can justify that. That seems the trickier discussion. Ethics to me is largely beside the point since culturally I think most of us agree in the broad sweep of ethics just not that question of sacrifice. But the question there seems very much wrapped up with whether there is life after death. So those theological questions really do matter I think for practical ethical reasoning even if most Christians (and atheists) simply avoid the discussion. I like how you're thinking, these are difficult questions that I frequently ask myself, and I honestly feel some level of discomfort with my own privilege and the wealth that I enjoy. As I've gotten older I have also contributed more financially and through service, but at the same time I've tried to balance that with self care and attention to the priorities that matter most to me. But I think a regular evaluation of our motives, our lifestyles, our actions, our priorities is in order, and we should try to be willing to change as we learn more about the challenges facing the world. The question of life after death is one that I'm concerned about as well, but my concern is more about how a belief in life after death actually motivates otherwise decent people to compromise their ethics for what they perceive is a future reward or punishment. These promised future rewards and punishments become justification for prejudice and suffering in this world. This strong motivational component to the theological claims of an afterlife can be a powerful tool used for good and for evil in the here and now, and unfortunately I see a lot of it being used for evil throughout history and in our present day.
clarkgoble Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Also, can you elaborate on your Peterson comment, I follow him fairly closely and I want to know if you are saying Peterson's pragmatic approach to religious ideas is a type of fideism. I don't really follow Peterson much, but I brought it up because I knew several here did. I'm pretty sure he's explicitly adopting a Jamesian position religiously. This frustrates people trying to figure out his religious views on God because he simply doesn't tend to talk in terms of theology he believes in a straightforward way. Instead he talks about how acting as if something is true affects behavior. I'd again note that fideism is a broad category and not one thing. People don't necessarily agree with a single definition when they use it. The way I am using it is primarily to cover a range of beliefs between two poles: acting as if something is true because it helps (works) for human flourishing and taking a leap of faith and treating something as true, but not necessarily for pragmatic reasons. i.e. in that case you don't care if it works. 22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: So its the experience of "feelings" that takes the blind faith approach away from fideism. Your saying those feelings constitute the evidence that whatever someone is being asked to put their faith in is actually real and therefore its no longer a blind faith because the person received evidence through these feelings. If you're believing because of evidence then it's not fideism. Ones reasoning might be completely horrible, but if ones reasons depend on inferences from evidence then that's not fideism. This can get blurry though such as in the case of Alma 32. Is Alma saying you should believe because it has good consequences? Or is he saying that the good consequences are evidence that something is true? The former is fideism while the later is verificationalism of a sort. This isn't a minor point but ends up being how Mark and I read the same passage so differently. 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I can't say I've encountered a critic who honestly believes that Mormons are the only ones doing motivated reasoning, although I do see some exmormons who do get somewhat evangelical about their anti church binary thinking which can be just as annoying and shallow as the pro church people on the other side of the spectrum. But they come by their approach honestly and I think that is part of the legacy of the culture that is Mormonism and has been encouraged and perpetuated by good intentioned leaders. I think most assume everyone does motivated reasoning - at least those coming at the issues from a more intellectual stance. However in practice what you find is a downplaying that any motivated reasoning is going on in their group while emphasizing how much is going on in the group they're criticizing. Of course again this isn't tied to that particular debate. It's just a tendency that humans tend to have. There's critical focus on the out-group and their reasoning and little critical focus on the in-group. Indeed critical focus on ones in-group if stated usually is taken as a sign one is not really part of the group. That in-group and out-group policing is again common to human psychology and gets stronger if the topic is stressful or if there are reasons why group identity is important. It also leads to crowd behavior issues and especially the negative aspects of that. So intentions can be completely good on both sides, but these aspects of human psychology if not attended to and focused upon still distort reasoning and behavior. 29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Also, for motivation, I don't think asking someone always tells you everything you might want to consider. People are often motivated in ways that they aren't even consciously aware of or haven't thoughtfully considered. I think pointing out that someones career and social world revolves around a particular approach to things is clearly an influencing factor whether they are even consciously aware of it or not. Oh I definitely agree. Not only don't they tell you everything relevant, but often they don't even know everything relevant. That's why I'm not sure self-reported explanations of behavior or belief are terribly helpful. They tell us a bit but typically we don't really know why we do something. Outsiders who are watching us sometimes have a much better grasp of our reasoning than we do. This recognition is actually pretty old. Plato has a whole dialog on the topic, for instance. So he sees self-knowledge as only possible on the basis of dialog because the only way we can see ourselves is through the other acting as a mirror. While I'm not sure I buy Plato, I think this is a very deep insight that we all too often neglect. This is also why in a certain sense I'm skeptical we have to know that we have knowledge when we do. That is I tend to be an externalist about knowledge rather than thinking we can't know without knowing we know. That's why tests in school are so useful. We may be confident meaning that we think we know the subject. But the test may show our confidence was misplaced. Likewise we may not be confident we know yet consistently get the answers right demonstrating we know. I think in religion the same thing is true. There are many people who might say they have a testimony but demonstrate that they don't when the tests happen. 34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I like how you're thinking, these are difficult questions that I frequently ask myself, and I honestly feel some level of discomfort with my own privilege and the wealth that I enjoy. As I've gotten older I have also contributed more financially and through service, but at the same time I've tried to balance that with self care and attention to the priorities that matter most to me. But I think a regular evaluation of our motives, our lifestyles, our actions, our priorities is in order, and we should try to be willing to change as we learn more about the challenges facing the world. The question of life after death is one that I'm concerned about as well, but my concern is more about how a belief in life after death actually motivates otherwise decent people to compromise their ethics for what they perceive is a future reward or punishment. These promised future rewards and punishments become justification for prejudice and suffering in this world. This strong motivational component to the theological claims of an afterlife can be a powerful tool used for good and for evil in the here and now, and unfortunately I see a lot of it being used for evil throughout history and in our present day. While life after death changes motivations, to me the reward/punishment bit is the least interesting. Not the least of which because I think that a separate topic from life after death. My own view there is that there's not retributive punishment but that things that seem like punishments are there to help us developmentally. The way my son thinks extra homework or practice is a punishment for a bad grade. It's not. To me though while motivation is always an interesting topic that's ultimately a psychological issue. The more interesting topic is the economic one. We have only so much time and resources. We have to decide how to use them. Further in making that decision we're always taking a risk. It's that element of risk in our moral choices that tends to get overlooked so much in ethical reasoning yet to me is the key issue in ethics. I have to decide who to help, where to place my resources. Almost certainly because of my extremely finite nature (limited mental capabilities, limited knowledge, motivated reasoning, etc.) I'll make a lot of bad choices along the way even if my motives were 100% their best. Thinking through the implications of that are challenging. You have philosophers who actually take an utilitarian calculus and argue all that matters are the results and that ethically there's no material good that can be justified if the time and money could be spent helping someone in abject poverty in say Africa. So there's no justifiable leisure or even Christmas present. I think this neglects the place of exhaustion in humans but also the place of duty. My duty to my children seems different than my duty to a child in Africa. I can simultaneously think I should do things to help the child in Africa while also thinking that spending a few hundred dollars on ultimately frivolous Christmas presents is fine. But there's still a lot to unpack thinking through the issues. However in practice most people don't think through the issues. They react when an obvious ethical demand is made to them - say a neighbor or family member in need. They might be more skeptical of certain ethical demands (say a homeless person at a corner with a sign asking for money). But the majority of ethical demands because they aren't in their attention (people in pain in far off lands, needs of neighbors behind closed doors, climate change, etc.) and thus simply never get attended to. Thinking through it though one quickly realizes that ethical demands can't merely be responded to as they are brought to me demanding my attention, they have to be sought out. Again inquiry seems a necessary task just as in knowledge. The question is whether the vast majority of people who never conduct such inquiry are being immoral. (And ultimately that relates to broad questions on knowledge as well)
clarkgoble Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The interpretation that took place happened way back when you first learned to sit or stand or walk or laugh or whatever the behavior. I'd call that a habit of interpretation. It might be a habit due to genetics or due to experience (meaning repetition and seeing consequences). So I react differently to a rattle snake than to a garden snake for instance. I doubt there's any genetic instinct for the rattle but there certainly is knowledge and experience if only learned indirectly. To my eyes interpretations happen to us. We can through various techniques we learn in school limit how that proceeds. But I don't think we even get to pick our interpretations since an interpretation is just a belief about the text - even if only in the sense of a beliefs about the different ways a text could be interpreted. (Meaning by text here any set of signs whether words on a page or natural signs in nature such as scientists study) But I think Mark is correct that interpretation shouldn't be seen just in terms of a new text (representation) you create. You also do things. That might be jumping when you see a snake. But we can do other sorts of things as well. The line between action and interpretation is blurry at best. So, to promise which is an act I first have to have interpretations about the content of my promise as well as interpretations about my expectation of what promising entails. I have expectations of how others will react to my promising. And so forth. In a certain sense we're cast into a world given us by our parents both in terms of teaching, experience and genetics where we find ourselves already embedded in habits of interpretation, practices and behaviors. We cope with the world around us and in a very real way don't choose most of the habits we have. 1
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 17 hours ago, CV75 said: Moving on from Weyment and on to you and me, I have experiences that I define as spiritual, I believe God’s intervention is epitomized in His Atonement (which I put on a par with His Resurrection) which I recognize more and more in everyday life as my sense of belonging to and oneness with Him continue to grow. My various conceptions about Him fall out of that, so it goes without saying (though I will) that these conceptions change over time. All these are subject to ongoing evaluation. To be non-negotiable is not to be non-evaluable. Good points, I would agree with you about these things changing and subject to ongoing evaluation that is an important part of learning and growing. And I think your points about Atonement or Resurrection can be viewed through a metaphorical/symbolic lens and that those theological concepts don't have to be literal historical events to be powerful religious truths. It sounds like you disagree with Givens then. 17 hours ago, CV75 said: I’m not quite sure what you mean by strategic position, but as I said, there are a few points, such as the Lord’s Atonement and Resurrection where the faith (the Church’s tenets) is the history, or in other words, a “done deal.” Who decides what is a “done deal” for the Church? I would say the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, and the rest is negotiable. Who decides what is a “done deal” and what is negotiable for you? I would say you do. I think aligning these “done deals” and negotiables between the Church and the individual is virtually under the full control of the individual, and so rarely does the Church step in to remove an apostate, and won’t act on a person’s refusal of a “done deal” until he becomes apostate about it. Other than with these exceptions, the Church is in a constant strategic position of invitation and tolerance of various levels and kinds of understanding. Givens is an incredibly thoughtful, smart and well read apologist. I think he absolutely is familiar with development of the idea of resurrection and the historical evidence around that topic. I believe his position of non-negotiable is not based on evidence, but is rather based on a strategic decision he's made because he thinks its an important position to hold within Mormonism. I don't understand his reasoning for why, and that is what I would like to understand. He didn't really articulate the reasoning in this interview, and I think it important to ask whether his position of non-negotiable is the most reasonable position to hold. A couple comments on your point about the First Presidency being in charge of the negotiables. I think they play an important role, but I could argue that changes the church is implementing are reflective of the desires of many stakeholders and influencing cultural factors throughout the church membership and external influencing factors as well. Take two examples of recent changes implemented. The two hour block and the temple changes. Both of those were implemented by the new leadership. What factors influenced these ideas getting all the way up to leadership and being considered for implementation? I would say that cultural factors influenced both decisions. Its no coincidence that the changes made to the temple reflect concerns that women have had for many years about concepts presented in the rituals that were increasingly out of touch with the more egalitarian contemporary western world. The two hour block is also something that many members have been asking about for years as their lives are increasingly busy. So while the FP plays a role, they are responding to and a part of a complex process. I think even Givens recognizes that he has an influential role in the discussions that take place.
clarkgoble Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I believe his position of non-negotiable is not based on evidence, but is rather based on a strategic decision he's made because he thinks its an important position to hold within Mormonism. Not sure what you mean. What would evidence look like? It is after all discussed in all scripture except the Old Testament and arguably hinted at there. It's constantly stated as important. Are you speaking descriptively or proscriptively? Descriptively it's of course demonstrable that some people see everything and merely motivational or metaphorical for ethics. So the new life of Christ becomes merely a personal ethical or behavioral transformation. Clearly people do that. Further I think it unarguable that some churches have survived albeit in a reduced form with such transformations. Would Mormonism survive? Perhaps. Would Mormonism do that any time soon (like within 50 years)? Almost certainly not and I don't think it takes a whole lot of evidence to see that.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 18 hours ago, Stargazer said: Over time I have learned to distinguish the workings of the Spirit from emotional experiences. The Spirit sometimes comes with emotion, but in my experience (which may differ from others') that is not so common. For instance, we were watching the last Harry Potter film. You know: Deathly Hallows, Part 2. The scenes near the end when Harry realizes that he is going to have to die in the process of defeating Lord Voldemort. Just before he meets Voldemort, suddenly he is faced with a vision of his parents and his relative Sirius Black and receives reassurances from them that things will be alright. Since he has a Resurrection Stone, we know that his death will be temporary, but it's a very emotionally charged moment in the story, and it always brings a tightness in the chest and tears to my eyes. This is not the Spirit. I am very much afraid that some people think that it is. Thanks for sharing the comments. Here is an honest question that has recently occurred to me and I can't recall this being discussed here before. I'm wondering what the origins of the concept that spiritual experiences and emotions are two uniquely distinct and separate things. Do we know when this notion was first articulated? Is there a history of this idea in broader Christian thought or is this concept unique to Mormonism? Also, I can't think of any scriptures that are typically used to support this idea that there is a distinction between emotion and spiritual experience. If you're aware of any books or essays that might address this topic too, I'm open to suggestions and am curious.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 12 hours ago, Glenn101 said: It is not because I have seen other people do it and lose their faith. I have had multiple spiritual experiences and one that was transcendent, more profound than anything I have ever experienced before or after. But how do you "critically evaluate" a spiritual experience? There is nothing to compare it to and no way to transfer it to another in order that someone else could understand. How do you know what can and cannot be derived from another's spiritual experience? All you have, all anyone has is what they have derived from their own experiences. I have never intimated that any of my experiences could answer factual questions about history, but I do not put it out of the realm of possibility that a prophet could do such if required by the Lord. Historians are pretty good about piecing together narratives concerning recent history, but even that can be "spotty." When we are talking about ancient history, we have so little in the way of records in relation to the amount of history and historical events that have happened over the millennia. Historians have to take what we have and try to work back, trying to understand and assemble a historical narrative that is ever changing. I do not hang my spiritual hat on a physical history. I know that I will find out everything I need to know eventually. But not knowing everything about history is not a problem for me. I am more concerned in learning and applying what I need to know and do please the Lord. That is what I can derive and do derive from my spiritual experiences. To me, the core doctrines of the Church have not changed with culture and the times. Policies have, and will continue to do so. For me, the existence of God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Ghost are part of those core doctrines. I know that the Holy Ghost exists because I have met him. The Atonement and Resurrection are also part of that core, as is the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ in this dispensation and that the Book of Mormon is a historical document, not inspired fiction, is on that list, as I have already noted. I think that those are things still being taught by the Church and always will be. In other words, prophets and apostles have that say. And I values the information I have received through my own study of the scriptures and the spiritual experiences over that of any man's secular opinion. Glenn The evaluation of spiritual experiences could include practicing emotional/spiritual intelligence through mindfulness and inspecting your thought and emotional experience through deliberate and conscious self reflection. It can also include learning more about how our brains function, the various studies on the mind, split brain studies have yielded some very interesting results about how different parts of our mind have competing self interest and learning more about how our minds work can cause us to question some of the traditional assumptions we make about what is happening when we feel different things. Other interesting studies about how our nervous systems work show that the context of the experience has a big influence on how we interpret the raw nervous feelings that are being input into our brain. For example we might interpret sensations in our stomach as anxiety in one instance or love and affection in another, and the context of the situation is the determining factor, but the actual sensation is completely the same. Or another example with smell, some of the smells of cheese could make us hungry if we are shown a picture of cheese, but if we were shown a picture of a dirty old shoe and given the exact same scent our body reacts with disgust. Those are only a couple examples of ways we might begin to evaluate experiences we've had, but hopefully what I'm saying makes sense. History is an academic study of evidence and I agree that it has limits the further back you go. Perhaps you weren't asserting that you could learn accurate historical information through spiritual experience as it sounds like you're not claiming that now in your follow up. I've had many discussions about this in the past on this message board, and learned that some people have a different categories of history (MFB in particular) where they aren't talking about scholarly history, but instead a spiritual/religious history (I'm still not entirely sure what it means). If this is what you meant then perhaps you are one more example of what I hadn't encountered before. As for the changing times and doctrine, we'll just have to disagree there. The evidence is literally everywhere and continuing to happen as the church moves forward with recent changes. The distinction between policy and doctrine is changing just as much as the actual teachings, whatever label you apply to them doesn't matter to me. As for the BoM being a non-negotiable, I haven't heard Givens make a strong claim on that subject, he seems to leave more room open that what you're saying from what I've observed.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sorrensen ended up with positions much like mine - there was a thread a few years ago written by I believe his son who quoted letters that he wrote to his family about the subject. They should be findable on the board. I think Calm happens to be very good at that. I am pretty immersed in Givens right now, reviewing one of his books. I honestly don't think I would disagree with anything he has written. Thanks, I'm haven't studied Sorenson's work much, but thats interesting to hear that his positions continued to evolve over time. What Given's book are you reviewing? I have a few on my shelf I still haven't jumped into yet, but maybe I could be persuaded.
clarkgoble Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks for sharing the comments. Here is an honest question that has recently occurred to me and I can't recall this being discussed here before. I'm wondering what the origins of the concept that spiritual experiences and emotions are two uniquely distinct and separate things. Do we know when this notion was first articulated? Is there a history of this idea in broader Christian thought or is this concept unique to Mormonism? It pops up early in Mormonism due to charismatic movements such as speaking in tongues. Joseph had troubles with these types of behaviors. His view that the Holy Ghost was more informational in content also goes back quite a way. The best known is this quote from June 27, 1839. "This first comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind enlightening the understanding & storeing the intellect with present knowledge" The other very well known quote is the Try the Spirits editorial from April 1, 1842. "One great evil is, that men are ignorant of the nature of spirits; their power, laws, government, intelligence, &c., and imagine that when there is anything like power, revelation, or vision manifested, that it must be of God. Hence the Methodists, Presbyterians, and others frequently possess a spirit that will cause them to lie down, and during its operation, animation is frequently entirely suspended; they consider it to be the power of God, and a glorious manifestation from God--a manifestation of what? Is there any intelligence communicated? Are the curtains of heaven withdrawn, or the purposes of God developed? Have they seen and conversed with an angel--or have the glories of futurity burst upon their view? No! but their body has been inanimate, the operation of their spirit suspended, and all the intelligence that can be obtained from them when they arise, is a shout of "glory," or "hallelujah," or some incoherent expression; but they have had "the power." The Shaker will whirl around on his heel, impelled by a supernatural agency or spirit, and think that he is governed by the Spirit of God; and the Jumper will jump and enter into all kinds of extravagances. A Primitive Methodist will shout under the influence of that spirit, until he will rend the heavens with his cries; while the Quakers (or Friends) moved as they think, by the Spirit of God, will sit still and say nothing. Is God the author of all this? If not of all of it, which does He recognized? Surely, such a heterogeneous mass of confusion never can enter into the kingdom of heaven. Every one of these professes to be competent to try his neighbor's spirit, but no one can try his own, and what is the reason? Because they have not a key to unlock, no rule wherewith to measure, and no criterion whereby they can test it." So Joseph was pretty consistent in this. You can see it in places like D&C 88 & 93 as well. He primarily saw the spirit as an influx of intelligence and distrusted a focus on other aspects. The issue of course pre-dates Mormonism. The debate between emotion and intelligence was an old one. There's a case to be made that Joseph is reflecting the more platonic idea that tends to distrust emotion. Emotions were frequently distrusted or repressed. I'd actually go so far as to say elements of that tradition persist when Mormon spiritual experiences get characterized as emotion. This is only a strategy because emotions are seen as inherently problematic rather than just cognitive equipment to produce quick largely reliable judgments. The idea isn't just in Platonism but in Stoicism and Aristotle as well. This played out in the religious arena - particularly between those skeptical or downright antagonistic to charismatic movements. But the issue really was much broader. A great source to get a grounding in this is the SEP on 17th and 18th Century Theories of Emotion. It doesn't get at the religious issues but the religious issues were largely parasitic on the philosophical issues. Likewise its discussion of the (largely Greek) background for those also is worth reading. While the ideas of pure intelligence pop up in other figures like Kant, it's probably more platonic conceptions such as found in Emerson that's a bigger influence. Particularly since some terminology of Joseph's may have arise from the broad platonic tradition. Some suggest telestial comes from the telestic of Proclus. Within platonism pure intelligence is the nous which corresponds roughly to the universal spirit in Lectures on Faith prior to the emphasis of the Holy Ghost as a person. This idea persists in Orson Pratt's idea of the spirit as the aether. Edited January 18, 2019 by clarkgoble 4
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 3 hours ago, stemelbow said: Most definitely. It seems to me answers through prayer are most directed by personal biases and preferences. It's not as if Joseph's early dealing with spiritual experiences were working outside of his ability to imagine. We like to put a lot of emphasis on Joseph's first vision not because it's anything but fideism but because it tells a good story. Criticisms are always with the story told, often due to the different version telling different stories. In the sum though his first vision is no more useful to me than, say, my son's own dream. His vision has all the markings of fantastic dreaming. If so, the question my son poses regarding his dream is just as applicable to Joseph's vision--was it really God who caused the vision or was it dream/imagination and the like? We'd never know. The only way we claim to know today is because we each have our own biased perceptions confirmed through spiritual experience of our own, which itself might be nothing more than us imagining the spirit and God and really wanting it. If God, he definitely works in mysterious ways---and I'd say the Church telling us how God works is a major mistake that has limited our people's imagination. Imagination, afterall, is all we have that really drives our spiritual experiences. I agree and I think this idea that dreams we have are uniquely individual and subjective aligns well with my perspective of God as not a person or conscious external force but as an internal process or experience that people feel. God in this context is essentially an imaginary friend, and I'm not saying that to be dismissive, as many people have a very close affinity towards this friend and it helps them cope with and experience life through a lens that they find very inspiring. God knows that is the way I experienced things for most of my life.
Gray Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) On 1/17/2019 at 1:00 PM, The Nehor said: Does it though? Then again I am a proud supernaturalist that believes spiritual experiences are a direct spirit to spirit communication that requires little or no interpretation. In general though most experiences do have to be interpreted. PS: Yes, I know the LDS position is that nothing is truly supernatural and that all is natural so please nobody feel the need to pedantically correct me with a long spiel that will put everyone to sleep because we have all heard it a million times. Of course it does. That's why missionaries give investigators their preferred interpretation ahead of time before asking them to pray for confirmation. A feeling of elevation/numinousness can be interpreted many different ways. Edited January 18, 2019 by Gray
Gray Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Nope. Neener neener. There are no facts only interpretations. I am talking qualia here you are talking sentences. How long do you have to think about it before you know something is red? Does red have meaning? A feeling of the numinous can be interpreted a hundred different ways. Without the interpretation it's just the feeling. Nothing more. The experience can be interpreted as having something to do with Jesus, or Allah, or Buddah, or Yahweh, or meditation, or nature, or something else. But it doesn't have to have anything to do with any of those things. Red can be experienced as just red. But it doesn't mean anything until you interpret it. For instance, it can mean danger, like if you see red pooled on the ground or flashing red lights. Edited January 18, 2019 by Gray
Gray Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 20 hours ago, Stargazer said: Don't see how. Unless one proposes that one is going or has gone insane. What other ways would there be? If the voice tells one that something is going to happen, which one really has no reason to expect to happen, and in fact didn't even ask for the information, then it happens, then what does one do? What if it happens more than once? Assume that one is a psychic? I suppose that might be a valid interpretation -- if one believed in psychics. Unfortunately, I am the wrong sex to put out a shingle for "Psychic Readings: $20". Well obviously the most common interpretation of hearing voices that no one else can hear is that one is experiencing auditory hallucinations. Based on that interpretations one can come up with varying takeaways (not all of them ending with seeking medical help). If you interpret the voices as coming from somewhere outside your own head, one can certainly interpret that very differently too. For example if a devout Mormon heard a voice telling them the church wasn't true, they might interpret that as a trick from the devil. If you hear a voice say, "you are loved" you will attribute that to different sources depending on your religious background. 1
Stargazer Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 Just now, Gray said: Well obviously the most common interpretation of hearing voices that no one else can hear is that one is experiencing auditory hallucinations. Based on that interpretations one can come up with varying takeaways (not all of them ending with seeking medical help). If you interpret the voices as coming from somewhere outside your own head, one can certainly interpret that very differently too. For example if a devout Mormon heard a voice telling them the church wasn't true, they might interpret that as a trick from the devil. If you hear a voice say, "you are loved" you will attribute that to different sources depending on your religious background. I suppose. Being told something will come to pass that one has not expected, and then have that thing happen... kind of a different sort of thing, then, isn't it? And it wasn't auditory.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: I've considered this already, and there's very little that has changed. Not talking just about religious things here. I'm sorry, but I am very unsure what kind of viewage difference you're meaning. How I view now what happened in the past versus how I viewed them when they happened? Well, all I can say is that I don't seem to have had any nasty surprises, or significant shifts about any of it. About the only thing I could mention was the matter of my mother's death when I was 7. I was vaguely aware that she was sick (breast cancer), but there was no anticipation of her passing away. I was unfortunately not present at her funeral because my father thought I was too young to understand. I remember him telling me that she had died, but the fact of her absence was a bit of a mystery to me. He wrote in my "baby book" that her death tore my life asunder -- his words -- but I don't recall that. Apparently my grades suffered, but I am not sure if that was a product of her death, or of my attention deficit disorder. I don't know about that. I've read what you've written in the past about the changes in your life with respect to matters of faith, and it made me sad. If you're fine with it all, great (I guess), but my life seems to have been a long, steady, and deeply rewarding climb towards a deeper and deeper conviction that God is there, is watching, and knows who I am. He is deeply interested in me, and indeed in everyone of his children. It hasn't been graph-paper consistent, of course. It's always been a squiggly line, but one trending upwards, and especially lately more steeply upward trending. By the way, I thank you for this thread -- I've gotten a lot of thinking done in connection with it. Deep contemplation is pleasing. Thanks for sharing the experience of your Mother's death. I can only imagine how hard that must have been. Its not only about how you remember what you experienced and that other family members may have a different memory of the past. But its how you view the feelings from your memories, and the meaning that you create around the experience. At 7 your world might have felt like it was falling apart, or perhaps you didn't understand the gravity of mortality, or how her death might have impacted your mood and your actions. Now, you certainly view things through a different lens on many different levels, not just accuracy of memory, but interpretation and meaning of the event. Let me say that I'm sorry that any of my posts have made you experience sadness in the past. That has not been my intent as I engage on this message board. I am glad to hear that you're finding value in this thread, and I'm thankful for your participation and everyone else's. Thanks 1
Gray Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Do you want to expand? Are you talking about the content or the actual experience? Both I think. The most common interpretation of hearing voices that no one else can hear is that one is experiencing auditory hallucinations. Based on that interpretation, one can come up with varying takeaways (not all of them ending with seeking medical help - hallucinations are quite common and often benign). If you interpret the voices as coming from somewhere outside your own head, one can certainly interpret that very differently too. For example if a devout Mormon heard a voice telling them the church wasn't true, they might interpret that as a trick from the devil. If you hear a voice say, "you are loved" you will attribute that to different sources depending on your religious background. There are million directions it could go.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 3 hours ago, CV75 said: Fortunately I recorded these kinds of experiences, kept the original handwritten documents, and haven't edited them. I can look at them through other lenses and interpretations, including those of others who have shared their points of view about what was probably going on with me when i had them (both supportive and critical). I think one's attitude or intent toward life in general (bias) informs the original and subsequent interpretations of such experiences that are impressive enough to write down. People usually don't go out of their way to reevaluate biases, but there is also plenty of opportunity in life to allow for that to occur against any bias to reevaluate or not. The biases that remain tend to be those that work for them. I've recently been reading some things from an old journal of mine and I'm surprised how foreign some of the wording is to how I talk and think today. I guess my experience in life shows me a person that is constantly changing, and that is what I observe in others to one degree or another as well. I haven't seen examples of people staying static and completely consistent through the passage of many years. But maybe thats my bias speaking, who knows.
CV75 Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Good points, I would agree with you about these things changing and subject to ongoing evaluation that is an important part of learning and growing. And I think your points about Atonement or Resurrection can be viewed through a metaphorical/symbolic lens and that those theological concepts don't have to be literal historical events to be powerful religious truths. It sounds like you disagree with Givens then. Givens is an incredibly thoughtful, smart and well read apologist. I think he absolutely is familiar with development of the idea of resurrection and the historical evidence around that topic. I believe his position of non-negotiable is not based on evidence, but is rather based on a strategic decision he's made because he thinks its an important position to hold within Mormonism. I don't understand his reasoning for why, and that is what I would like to understand. He didn't really articulate the reasoning in this interview, and I think it important to ask whether his position of non-negotiable is the most reasonable position to hold. A couple comments on your point about the First Presidency being in charge of the negotiables. I think they play an important role, but I could argue that changes the church is implementing are reflective of the desires of many stakeholders and influencing cultural factors throughout the church membership and external influencing factors as well. Take two examples of recent changes implemented. The two hour block and the temple changes. Both of those were implemented by the new leadership. What factors influenced these ideas getting all the way up to leadership and being considered for implementation? I would say that cultural factors influenced both decisions. Its no coincidence that the changes made to the temple reflect concerns that women have had for many years about concepts presented in the rituals that were increasingly out of touch with the more egalitarian contemporary western world. The two hour block is also something that many members have been asking about for years as their lives are increasingly busy. So while the FP plays a role, they are responding to and a part of a complex process. I think even Givens recognizes that he has an influential role in the discussions that take place. I’m sure the case can be made that I also agree with Givens, in a sense, as well. I see conceptualization as more a rational exercise, and spiritual experience as less so, but certainly the two can be integrated in a functional way. You seem to be focusing on his apologetic role, and where I see apologetics as a largely rational, evidence-based exercise, debate on what he means as an apologist and his strategy in that capacity is certainly expected, hopefully on the same rational basis as he delivers. I’m sure at times he speaks from the heart as well. It’s hard to say which hat he is wearing in the excerpts I've seen in this brief discussion, which is why I’ve considered both ways in my responses. He may be receptive to a letter if you seek to understand his reasoning. I am focusing on the Resurrection as a non-negotiable, not the types of practices and policies, etc. we see change regularly, which I do not take to be fundamental principles. Where there is give and take in these “negotiable” areas, the leaders are ultimately determining in council which if any are requirements for or determinants of Church membership (per my remarks about invitation, tolerance and apostasy). The Church operates through councils large and small, formal and informal, so of course the concerns that various people have will ultimately get into the mix. Givens may well be part of the council process. I have even seen some of my input reflected in Church policy as a result of that process and I’m a nobody!
CV75 Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I've recently been reading some things from an old journal of mine and I'm surprised how foreign some of the wording is to how I talk and think today. I guess my experience in life shows me a person that is constantly changing, and that is what I observe in others to one degree or another as well. I haven't seen examples of people staying static and completely consistent through the passage of many years. But maybe thats my bias speaking, who knows. I can say the same thing about the record I mentioned above, and as a person who is constantly changing, I still find, whenever I go back to it, a fundamental consistency between what i wrote, what I remember, and what I do with that knowledge today. As we can see with the Resurrection and policies, a very few basic things do not change but many ancillary things do, yet those things that do change continue to be based in that one unchanging fundamental principle of our religion.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: So its the experience of "feelings" that takes the blind faith approach away from fideism. Your saying those feelings constitute the evidence that whatever someone is being asked to put their faith in is actually real and therefore its no longer a blind faith because the person received evidence through these feelings. If you're believing because of evidence then it's not fideism. Ones reasoning might be completely horrible, but if ones reasons depend on inferences from evidence then that's not fideism. This can get blurry though such as in the case of Alma 32. Is Alma saying you should believe because it has good consequences? Or is he saying that the good consequences are evidence that something is true? The former is fideism while the later is verificationalism of a sort. This isn't a minor point but ends up being how Mark and I read the same passage so differently. The idea that feelings constitute evidence is problematic on many levels. There are many different kinds of meaning we can derive from our feelings depending on the context and the meaning we derive can be completely different from one situation to the other even if the feelings were identical (if there were even a way to measure these feelings in an objective way). The Alma 32 principle as I interpret it is essentially a pragmatic approach to religion. Trust that some principle is true, and then act as if it is true. If at the end of the actions you are able to see that your actions brought some fruit into your life, then that fruit constitutes the evidence that the original principle is true. Which essentially is confirmation bias in a practical application form. The fruit could be the result of the placebo effect or the result that the idea being practiced does have some measurable value, or it could be just a coincidence. Worst yet, a person could have bad things happen in their life and consider that an answer to their experiment that God wants them to learn a lesson and they still view this as a positive answer to their experiment confirming the truth of the original principle. People can find all kinds of ways of justifying the Alma 32 method, but that doesn't mean this method really has all that much merit, although I will admit that I prefer it to many other approaches because of its practically focused orientation. 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I think most assume everyone does motivated reasoning - at least those coming at the issues from a more intellectual stance. However in practice what you find is a downplaying that any motivated reasoning is going on in their group while emphasizing how much is going on in the group they're criticizing. Of course again this isn't tied to that particular debate. It's just a tendency that humans tend to have. There's critical focus on the out-group and their reasoning and little critical focus on the in-group. Indeed critical focus on ones in-group if stated usually is taken as a sign one is not really part of the group. That in-group and out-group policing is again common to human psychology and gets stronger if the topic is stressful or if there are reasons why group identity is important. It also leads to crowd behavior issues and especially the negative aspects of that. So intentions can be completely good on both sides, but these aspects of human psychology if not attended to and focused upon still distort reasoning and behavior. Great points, I love the balance you're trying to apply to different sides of issues as its refreshing to hear and important. 5 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Oh I definitely agree. Not only don't they tell you everything relevant, but often they don't even know everything relevant. That's why I'm not sure self-reported explanations of behavior or belief are terribly helpful. They tell us a bit but typically we don't really know why we do something. Outsiders who are watching us sometimes have a much better grasp of our reasoning than we do. This recognition is actually pretty old. Plato has a whole dialog on the topic, for instance. So he sees self-knowledge as only possible on the basis of dialog because the only way we can see ourselves is through the other acting as a mirror. While I'm not sure I buy Plato, I think this is a very deep insight that we all too often neglect. This is also why in a certain sense I'm skeptical we have to know that we have knowledge when we do. That is I tend to be an externalist about knowledge rather than thinking we can't know without knowing we know. That's why tests in school are so useful. We may be confident meaning that we think we know the subject. But the test may show our confidence was misplaced. Likewise we may not be confident we know yet consistently get the answers right demonstrating we know. I think in religion the same thing is true. There are many people who might say they have a testimony but demonstrate that they don't when the tests happen. More good stuff, I agree. 5 hours ago, clarkgoble said: While life after death changes motivations, to me the reward/punishment bit is the least interesting. Not the least of which because I think that a separate topic from life after death. My own view there is that there's not retributive punishment but that things that seem like punishments are there to help us developmentally. The way my son thinks extra homework or practice is a punishment for a bad grade. It's not. To me though while motivation is always an interesting topic that's ultimately a psychological issue. The more interesting topic is the economic one. We have only so much time and resources. We have to decide how to use them. Further in making that decision we're always taking a risk. It's that element of risk in our moral choices that tends to get overlooked so much in ethical reasoning yet to me is the key issue in ethics. I have to decide who to help, where to place my resources. Almost certainly because of my extremely finite nature (limited mental capabilities, limited knowledge, motivated reasoning, etc.) I'll make a lot of bad choices along the way even if my motives were 100% their best. Thinking through the implications of that are challenging. You have philosophers who actually take an utilitarian calculus and argue all that matters are the results and that ethically there's no material good that can be justified if the time and money could be spent helping someone in abject poverty in say Africa. So there's no justifiable leisure or even Christmas present. I think this neglects the place of exhaustion in humans but also the place of duty. My duty to my children seems different than my duty to a child in Africa. I can simultaneously think I should do things to help the child in Africa while also thinking that spending a few hundred dollars on ultimately frivolous Christmas presents is fine. But there's still a lot to unpack thinking through the issues. However in practice most people don't think through the issues. They react when an obvious ethical demand is made to them - say a neighbor or family member in need. They might be more skeptical of certain ethical demands (say a homeless person at a corner with a sign asking for money). But the majority of ethical demands because they aren't in their attention (people in pain in far off lands, needs of neighbors behind closed doors, climate change, etc.) and thus simply never get attended to. Thinking through it though one quickly realizes that ethical demands can't merely be responded to as they are brought to me demanding my attention, they have to be sought out. Again inquiry seems a necessary task just as in knowledge. The question is whether the vast majority of people who never conduct such inquiry are being immoral. (And ultimately that relates to broad questions on knowledge as well) For an example of negative life after death reward/punishment motivation I'm thinking of terrorists who are willing to kill themselves and innocent others for a promised reward. I'm also thinking within Mormonism of our pioneers who were willing to justify breaking laws and breaking their wives hearts to practice polygamy and its perceived future rewards, or the current members who ostracize their LGBT children to uphold a value that they perceive as important in the next life. When people are willing to do something that otherwise doesn't seem conscionable, but they are willing to override their standard ethics because the idea that God will reward/punish them in the next life, then that kind of powerful influence is concerning to me. Your other comments about economic motivations are interesting, and I've thought about some of those things as well. I try not to get too critical of myself or get overly worked up about the ultimate best use of my time and financial resources, even though I recognize that I could always do more with what I have if I really wanted to. One thing you might find interesting that I was made aware of recently is some work by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg on prioritizing where societies can best use their resources to do the most good from a charitable perspective. I recently made aware of him through Jordan Peterson's podcast, and there are bunch of links to his work here. I found the method he's employing quite persuasive to a finance/business minded person like myself. Check it out if you're interested. https://jordanbpeterson.com/podcasts/59-bjorn-lomborg/
Gray Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: I suppose. Being told something will come to pass that one has not expected, and then have that thing happen... kind of a different sort of thing, then, isn't it? And it wasn't auditory. Happens all the time, from both internal and external sources. Many ways to interpret it. Not trying to poo-poo the way you interpreted it, just saying it's not so black and white.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 5 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I'd call that a habit of interpretation. It might be a habit due to genetics or due to experience (meaning repetition and seeing consequences). So I react differently to a rattle snake than to a garden snake for instance. I doubt there's any genetic instinct for the rattle but there certainly is knowledge and experience if only learned indirectly. To my eyes interpretations happen to us. We can through various techniques we learn in school limit how that proceeds. But I don't think we even get to pick our interpretations since an interpretation is just a belief about the text - even if only in the sense of a beliefs about the different ways a text could be interpreted. (Meaning by text here any set of signs whether words on a page or natural signs in nature such as scientists study) But I think Mark is correct that interpretation shouldn't be seen just in terms of a new text (representation) you create. You also do things. That might be jumping when you see a snake. But we can do other sorts of things as well. The line between action and interpretation is blurry at best. So, to promise which is an act I first have to have interpretations about the content of my promise as well as interpretations about my expectation of what promising entails. I have expectations of how others will react to my promising. And so forth. In a certain sense we're cast into a world given us by our parents both in terms of teaching, experience and genetics where we find ourselves already embedded in habits of interpretation, practices and behaviors. We cope with the world around us and in a very real way don't choose most of the habits we have. I mostly agree with you here. I think our interpretations are definitely influenced by nature and nurture, but I don't think they are always the same or that they won't change over time. I also think to some extent that we have an ability to alter the interpretations we have through the actions we take over time. This could get more into a free will argument, and I'm somewhat on the fence about how much free will I believe we actually have. I currently take a position that I like the idea of thinking that I have a certain amount of free will almost as a faith proposition of sorts, but I'm not entirely convinced that I could prove this hypothesis is true.
hope_for_things Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I believe his position of non-negotiable is not based on evidence, but is rather based on a strategic decision he's made because he thinks its an important position to hold within Mormonism. Not sure what you mean. What would evidence look like? It is after all discussed in all scripture except the Old Testament and arguably hinted at there. It's constantly stated as important. Are you speaking descriptively or proscriptively? Descriptively it's of course demonstrable that some people see everything and merely motivational or metaphorical for ethics. So the new life of Christ becomes merely a personal ethical or behavioral transformation. Clearly people do that. Further I think it unarguable that some churches have survived albeit in a reduced form with such transformations. Would Mormonism survive? Perhaps. Would Mormonism do that any time soon (like within 50 years)? Almost certainly not and I don't think it takes a whole lot of evidence to see that. I can imagine what evidence might look like. There could be contemporary accounts from the Romans about the burial of Jesus, and perhaps accounts from the soldiers that were guarding the tomb. There could be other accounts as well by actual eye witnesses, instead of what we have today (gospel narratives written 2-3 generations after the death of Jesus, written for particular narrative theological purposes). I'm not discounting the importance of the idea of resurrection in the tradition, just the specific claim for a literal historical resurrection event, rather than viewing the concept of resurrection in some other sense. Religions in the affluent Western world are dwindling in relevance at a rapid pace. Whether a more fundamentalist approach to religion is good for society as a whole is a more important question to me than if Mormonism or a particular denominational branch of religion can retain membership numbers in a declining membership environment. The health of the broader society is of greater importance in my book, and I would argue that the more rigid literalist approach has certain negative ramifications for society, one being the polarization of our nation by dogmatic views that are increasingly hostile to collaboration and engagement with differing perspectives. In fairness I see some similar problems on the left of the spectrum with their dogmatism as well, and I find myself increasingly at odds with people on both extremes of these divides.
Recommended Posts