Robert F. Smith Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I would only add that it seems disingenuous to me to share one without the other. They were inseparable to Brigham. If we want to claim Brigham taught Adam and Eve were born like everyone else, we need to teach it in the context that Brigham did - i.e. Adam was God. Brigham taught that biological reproduction is normal for all of us, including Adam and Eve (the implication being that they were born elsewhere and brought to planet Earth). This was unrelated to any Adam-God theory.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Brigham taught that biological reproduction is normal for all of us, including Adam and Eve (the implication being that they were born elsewhere and brought to planet Earth). This was unrelated to any Adam-God theory. Unofficial friendly CFR. You have me curious
Robert F. Smith Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Unofficial friendly CFR. You have me curious Brigham Young, Quote “Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation. “He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.” Journal of Discourses, 3:319. “yet man is the king of kings and lord of lords in embryo.” Journal of Discourses, 10:223. Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, November 1909, Quote “all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.” * * * * * “True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.” Improvement Era, Nov 1909, 75–81 (emphasis added). Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley explicitly agreed to this in 1925 as the next First Presidency. Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie both emphasized that stories about creation of Eve from a rib, or of eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are figurative (not to be taken literally). Edited January 21, 2019 by Robert F. Smith 2
Teancum Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 On 1/20/2019 at 12:32 PM, JLHPROF said: This assumes that perfection has a finite boundary. Perfection can only be achieved within each sphere. The progression to a higher sphere occurs. What does this even mean?
JLHPROF Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Teancum said: What does this even mean? "To be as perfect as we possibly can, according to our knowledge, is to be just as perfect as our Father in heaven is. He cannot be any more perfect than He knows how, any more than we. When we are doing as well as we know how in the sphere and station which we occupy here, we are justified in the justice, righteousness, mercy, and judgment that go before the Lord of heaven and earth." Brigham Young (Also D&C 88:29-39) Genesis 6 says Noah was perfect yet he clearly wasn't without faults. D&C 107 says Seth was perfect. Perfect may not mean what the OP meant. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Teancum said: What does this even mean? When we say that a set is finite or infinite, we are referring to the number of elements in the set, not to the "extent" (putting it roughly) of those elements. You can think of it in the following way. Any set, all of whose elements lie between (for example) 0 and 1, is bounded, because no part of the set can possibly "go to infinity". But clearly it is possible to have an infinite number of elements in such a set. Thus, the set of all numbers between 0 and 1 is infinite and bounded. The fact that every member of that set is less than 1 and greater than 0 entails that it is bounded. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/889734/can-a-set-be-infinite-and-bounded . Edited January 22, 2019 by Robert F. Smith 4
mfbukowski Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: When we say that a set is finite or infinite, we are referring to the number of elements in the set, not to the "extent" (putting it roughly) of those elements. You can think of it in the following way. Any set, all of whose elements lie between (for example) 0 and 1, is bounded, because no part of the set can possibly "go to infinity". But clearly it is possible to have an infinite number of elements in such a set. Thus, the set of all numbers between 0 and 1 is infinite and bounded. The fact that every member of that set is less than 1 and greater than 0 entails that it is bounded. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/889734/can-a-set-be-infinite-and-bounded . Wow very cool! Never thought of it that way! 1
mfbukowski Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said: "To be as perfect as we possibly can, according to our knowledge, is to be just as perfect as our Father in heaven is. He cannot be any more perfect than He knows how, any more than we. When we are doing as well as we know how in the sphere and station which we occupy here, we are justified in the justice, righteousness, mercy, and judgment that go before the Lord of heaven and earth." Brigham Young (Also D&C 88:29-39) Genesis 6 says Noah was perfect yet he clearly wasn't without faults. D&C 107 says Seth was perfect. Perfect may not mean what the OP meant. Which shows that BY was a Pragmatist before they existed. It is part of the thought fabric of Americans. Seriously. Manifest destiny, a new continent full of matter unorganized for us to organize! NO one can do more than they can do = a tautology! It's essentially relativism. Perfection in the Western philos is synonymous with "complete"- that is the greek translation of the word "perfect" in Greek But we are based on eternal progression- not stasis! It will never be finished! So for us perfection is the best possible that can be accomplished for right now, waiting for the next step to be taken on. Build the perfect house for today's standards, but in 50 years it will no longer be "best" for their standards. Imagine the perfect house 200 years ago- no central heat, AC, no electricity possibly, no indoor plumbing etc And the fact that we are all sinners and yet given the commandment to be "perfect" indicates it is about BECOMING and process- not stasis 1
mfbukowski Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, November 1909, Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie both emphasized that stories about creation of Eve from a rib, or of eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are figurative (not to be taken literally). And that language was actually used in the endowment until 1990 1
mfbukowski Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Brigham taught that biological reproduction is normal for all of us, including Adam and Eve (the implication being that they were born elsewhere and brought to planet Earth). This was unrelated to any Adam-God theory. And also parallels 1- Lehi and family coming here from Israel and 2- the experience of the Saints in coming to Zion/America from everywhere, 3- boundless stories about travelers on a journey of self discovery and the creation of a "New World". Even for example Lord of the Rings, Stranger in a Strange Land etc etc etc 1
mfbukowski Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 On 1/20/2019 at 10:37 AM, Tacenda said: Loving unconditionally, seeking to help mankind, putting yourself in other's shoes, obeying the first two commandments of the ten, pretty much brings out a perfection in loving I guess. This was Jesus pretty much. And just because He got angry with people, just means He wanted others to not get hurt. Jesus is the Word He is the definition of a perfect human. Literally the definition. And that works regardless of whether he actually lived or not. (Of course He did etc- I am just making the point that others may believe the whole thing is figurative and a story about what defines "perfection"- and that might work for some)
mfbukowski Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 16 hours ago, Teancum said: What does this even mean? Are you now more perfect than you were at 15? Hope so! 2
mfbukowski Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 On 1/20/2019 at 11:11 AM, changed said: Yes, it is all metaphorical - a life for a perfect life, I just find it odd - that neither of them were perfect in the way God is supposedly perfect (perfect = complete, all-knowing, all-powerful etc. etc.) Jesus was born as an ignorant/ baby like everyone else, grew in stature, had an imperfect mortal body while Adam was supposedly immortal before the fall? I do love the sermon on the mount - some beautiful thoughts in there. You are exactly right BECAUSE that Greek idea that perfection = complete is exactly what caused the apostasy! God progresses through his children, we are all progressing, hopefully and the universe itself progresses through cycles and is "perfect". Perfection in the Restoration is progression! 1
Teancum Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 On 1/22/2019 at 12:35 PM, mfbukowski said: Are you now more perfect than you were at 15? Hope so! Well I don't know. My body is starting to fall apart. My faith is less strong then it was at that time. But if I am doing the best in the sphere I am placed in then maybe yea I am.
mfbukowski Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Well I don't know. My body is starting to fall apart. My faith is less strong then it was at that time. But if I am doing the best in the sphere I am placed in then maybe yea I am. There you go!! Keep learning and progressing in that sphere 'cause you shore ain't gonna be in any body else's sphere!! We are all unique in our spheres! Incidentally I found a really great article on truth today- I think it's great because it is an excellent summary of the state of philosophy on truth and is written for the general reader which is what Britannica is great for- it assumes that the folks reading the article are not specialists on the topic- or they would not be looking in the encyclopedia! And of course I like it because it bears out all I have been saying forever here that most people on this board have a totally outmoded way of understanding "truth" and they are back in the stone age ( well at least 2500 years old - with Aristotle-) in understanding truth.. Correspondence is dead dead dead! I heartily recommend it!! https://www.britannica.com/topic/truth-philosophy-and-logic (see below- article in its entirety) Edited January 25, 2019 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 This is the article on truth from the Encyclopedia Britannica on "truth" Here you have 2500 years of philosophy in a few paragraphs, written for non-specialists. What I like best is it confirms all I have been saying forever, while people think I am a nut job. It also has a brief discussion of the difference between Rorty and Peirce. https://www.britannica.com/topic/truth-philosophy-and-logic Quote Truth, in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case. Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person’s plans and may even cost him his life. Telling what is not true may result in legal and social penalties. Conversely, a dedicated pursuit of truth characterizes the good scientist, the good historian, and the good detective. So what is truth, that it should have such gravity and such a central place in people’s lives? The Correspondence Theory The classic suggestion comes from Aristotle (384–322 BCE): “To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true.” In other words, the world provides “what is” or “what is not,” and the true saying or thought corresponds to the fact so provided. This idea appeals to common sense and is the germ of what is called the correspondence theory of truth. As it stands, however, it is little more than a platitude and far less than a theory. Indeed, it may amount to merely a wordy paraphrase, whereby, instead of saying “that’s true” of some assertion, one says “that corresponds with the facts.” Only if the notions of fact and correspondence can be further developed will it be possible to understand truth in these terms. Unfortunately, many philosophers doubt whether an acceptable explanation of facts and correspondence can be given. Facts, as they point out, are strange entities. It is tempting to think of them as structures or arrangements of things in the world. However, as the Austrian-born philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed, structures have spatial locations, but facts do not. The Eiffel Tower can be moved from Paris to Rome, but the fact that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris cannot be moved anywhere. Furthermore, critics urge, the very idea of what the facts are in a given case is nothing apart from people’s sincere beliefs about the case, which means those beliefs that people take to be true. Thus, there is no enterprise of first forming a belief or theory about some matter and then in some new process stepping outside the belief or theory to assess whether it corresponds with the facts. There are, indeed, processes of checking and verifying beliefs, but they work by bringing up further beliefs and perceptions and assessing the original in light of those. In actual investigations, what tells people what to believe is not the world or the facts but how they interpret the world or select and conceptualize the facts. Coherence And Pragmatist Theories Starting in the mid-19th century, this line of criticism led some philosophers to think that they should concentrate on larger theories, rather than sentences or assertions taken one at a time. Truth, on this view, must be a feature of the overall body of belief considered as a system of logically interrelated components—what is called the “web of belief.” It might be, for example, an entire physical theory that earns its keep by making predictions or enabling people to control things or by simplifying and unifying otherwise disconnected phenomena. An individual belief in such a system is true if it sufficiently coheres with, or makes rational sense within, enough other beliefs; alternatively, a belief system is true if it is sufficiently internally coherent. Such were the views of the British idealists, including F.H. Bradley and H.H. Joachim, who, like all idealists, rejected the existence of mind-independent facts against which the truth of beliefs could be determined (see also realism: realism and truth). Yet coherentism too seems inadequate, since it suggests that human beings are trapped in the sealed compartment of their own beliefs, unable to know anything of the world beyond. Moreover, as the English philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell pointed out, nothing seems to prevent there being many equally coherent but incompatible belief systems. Yet at best only one of them can be true. Some theorists have suggested that belief systems can be compared in pragmatic or utilitarian terms. According to this idea, even if many different systems can be internally coherent, it is likely that some will be much more useful than others. Thus, one can expect that, in a process akin to Darwinian natural selection, the more useful systems will survive while the others gradually go extinct. The replacement of Newtonian mechanicsby relativity theory is an example of this process. It was in this spirit that the 19th-century American pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce said: The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. In effect, Peirce’s view places primary importance on scientific curiosity, experimentation, and theorizing and identifies truth as the imagined ideal limit of their ongoing progress. Although this approach may seem appealingly hard-headed, it has prompted worries about how a society, or humanity as a whole, could know at a given moment whether it is following the path toward such an ideal. In practice it has opened the door to varying degrees of skepticism about the notion of truth. In the late 20th century philosophers such as Richard Rorty advocated retiring the notion of truth in favour of a more open-minded and open-ended process of indefinite adjustment of beliefs. Such a process, it was felt, would have its own utility, even though it lacked any final or absolute endpoint. Tarski And Truth Conditions The rise of formal logic (the abstract study of assertions and deductive arguments) and the growth of interest in formal systems (formal or mathematical languages) among many Anglo-American philosophers in the early 20th century led to new attempts to define truth in logically or scientifically acceptable terms. It also led to a renewed respect for the ancient liar paradox (attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Epimenides), in which a sentence says of itself that it is false, thereby apparently being true if it is false and false if it is true. Logicians set themselves the task of developing systems of mathematical reasoningthat would be free of the kinds of self-reference that give rise to paradoxessuch as that of the liar. However, this proved difficult to do without at the same time making some legitimate proof procedures impossible. There is good self-reference (“All sentences, including this, are of finite length”) and bad self-reference (“This sentence is false”) but no generally agreed-upon principle for distinguishing them. These efforts culminated in the work of the Polish-born logician Alfred Tarski, who in the 1930s showed how to construct a definition of truth for a formal or mathematical language by means of a theory that would assign truth conditions (the conditions in which a given sentence is true) to each sentence in the language without making use of any semantic terms, notably including truth, in that language. Truth conditions were identified by means of “T-sentences.” For example, the English-language T-sentence for the German sentence Schnee ist weiss is: “Schnee ist weiss” is true if and only if snow is white. A T-sentence says of some sentence (S) in the object language (the language for which truth is being defined) that S is true if and only if…, where the ellipsis is replaced by a translation of S into the language used to construct the theory (the metalanguage). Since no metalanguage translation of any S (in this case, snow is white) will contain the term true, Tarski could claim that each T-sentence provides a “partial definition” of truth for the object language and that their sum total provides the complete definition. While the technical aspects of Tarski’s work were much admired and have been much discussed, its philosophical significance remained unclear, in part because T-sentences struck many theorists as less than illuminating. But the weight of philosophical opinion gradually shifted, and eventually this platitudinous appearance was regarded as a virtue and indeed as indicative of the whole truth about truth. The idea was that, instead of staring at the abstract question “What is truth?,” philosophers should content themselves with the particular question “What does the truth of S amount to?”; and for any well-specified sentence, a humble T-sentence will provide the answer. Deflationism Philosophers before Tarski, including Gottlob Frege and Frank Ramsey, had suspected that the key to understanding truth lay in the odd fact that putting “It is true that…” in front of an assertion changes almost nothing. It is true that snow is white if and only if snow is white. At most there might be an added emphasis, but no change of topic. The theory that built on this insight is known as “deflationism” or “minimalism” (an older term is “the redundancy theory”). Yet, if truth is essentially redundant, why should talk of truth be so common? What purpose does the truth predicate serve? The answer, according to most deflationists, is that true is a highly useful device for making generalizations over large numbers of sayings or assertions. For example, suppose that Winston Churchill said many things (S1, S2, S3,…Sn). One could express total agreement with him by asserting, for each of these sayings in turn, “Churchill said S, and S,” and then asserting, “And that is all he said.” But even if one could do this—which would involve knowing and repeating every single saying Churchill made—it would be much more economical just to say, “Everything Churchill said was true.” Similarly, “Every indicative sentence is either true or false” is a way of insisting, for each such sentence (S), S or not S. Despite their contention that the truth predicate is essentially redundant, deflationists can allow that truth is important and that it should be the aim of rational inquiry. Indeed, the paraphrases into which the deflationary view renders such claims help to explain why this is so. Thus, “It is important to believe that someone is ill only if it is true that he is” becomes “It is important to believe that someone is ill only if he is.” Other broad claims that appeal to the notion of truth can likewise be paraphrased in illuminating ways, according to deflationists. “Science is useful because what it says is is true” is a way of simultaneously asserting an indefinitely large number of sentences such as “Science is useful because it says that cholera is caused by a bacterium, and it is” and “Science is useful because it says that smoking causes cancer, and it does” and so on. While deflationism has been an influential view since the 1970s, it has not escaped criticism. One objection is that it takes the meanings of sentences too much for granted. According to many theorists, including the American philosopher Donald Davidson, the meaning of a sentence is equivalent to its truth conditions (see semantics: truth-conditional semantics). If deflationism is correct, however, then this approach to sentence meaning might have to be abandoned (because no statement of the truth conditions of a sentence could be any more informative than the sentence itself). But this in turn is contestable, since deflationists can reply that the best model of what it is to “give the truth conditions” of a sentence is simply that of Tarski, and Tarski uses nothing beyond the deflationists’ own notion of truth. If this is right, then saying what a sentence means by giving its truth conditions comes to nothing more than saying what a sentence means. As indicated above, the realm of truth bearers has been populated in different ways in different theories. In some it consists of sentences, in others sayings, assertions, beliefs, or propositions. Although assertions and related speech acts are featured in many theories, much work remains to be done on the nature of assertion in different areas of discourse. The danger, according to Wittgenstein and many others, is that the smooth notion of an assertion conceals many different functions of language underneath its bland surface. For example, some theorists hold that some assertions are not truth bearers but are rather put forward as useful fictions, as instruments, or as expressions of attitudes of approval or disapproval or of dispositions to act in certain ways. A familiar example of such a view is expressivism in ethics, which holds that ethical assertions (e.g., “Vanity is bad”) function as expressions of attitude (“Tsk tsk”) or as prescriptions (“Do not be vain!”) (see ethics: Irrealist views: projectivism and expressivism). Another example is the constructive empiricism of the Dutch-born philosopher Bas van Fraassen, according to which some scientific assertions are not expressions of belief so much as expressions of a lesser state of mind, “acceptance.” Accordingly, assertions such as “Quarks exist” are put forward not as true but merely as “empirically adequate.” If some such views are correct, however, then an adequate theory of truth will require some means of distinguishing the kinds of assertion to which it should apply—some account, in other words, of what “asserting as true” consists of and how it contrasts, if it does, with other kinds of commitment. Even if there is this much diversity in the human linguistic repertoire, however, it does not necessarily follow that deflationism—according to which the truth predicate applies redundantly to all assertions—is wrong. The diversity might be identifiable without holding the truth predicateresponsible. “Vanity is bad” or “Quarks exist” might contrast with “Snow is white” in important respects without the difference entailing that the first two sentences are without truth value (neither true nor false) or at best true in other senses. Simon W. Blackburn
mrmarklin Posted January 26, 2019 Posted January 26, 2019 I have always taken the word perfect in the case of Adam et al. to be defined as without sin, as the Christ was without sin. Adam and others lived righteously to achieve this “perfection”.
Recommended Posts