On Happiness and How We Choose to See Things

[Kevin Christensen]

This sounds interesting.

What It’s About: Stumbling on Happiness is like the red-headed stepchild of happiness books. It doesn’t fit in with the rest because it basically tries to convince you that you don’t even know what the hell makes you happy in the first place, so why stress out about it?

Quote

"In fact, decades of Gilbert’s research on happiness all points to the same unsettling fact: happiness has little to do with what happens to us in our lives, and more to do with how we end up choosing to see things. "

Reminds me of a comment Nibley made somewhere that the real tragedy is not what happens to people, but what they become.  And that, and Professor Birinbaum at SJSU, unlocked King Lear, as being Shakespeare's inverting of "What profiteth a man if he gain the whole world, but loose his own soul?" by showing Lear loosing everything, but at the very end, gaining his own soul.  You can see it in the moment, when he asks a commoner to loosen his cloak, and then thanks him for it, despite his desperate grief over loosing Cordelia, the Christ figure of the play.  At the start of the play, it was all about flattering Lear.  At the end, he could even make space in his personal grief to ask for help, and give sincere thanks.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[RevTestament]

This reminds me of a priesthood meeting in which one of my neighbors said "I've never had a bad day," and one of my other neighbors got up and stormed out....

I perhaps have yet to learn this skill, because I certainly have had bad days. Nevertheless, I can agree that at least part of happiness is derived from our state of mind. However, I would contend that we create our happiness through our actions. The happiest times of my life are memories of times spent with family and friends. I was enjoying the feeling of belonging and the comradery of relationships - doing "fun" things together, etc. Money, power, nor fame can accomplish this alone. It is accomplished through a state of being created through our actions - and yes there is certainly a certain intent involved. We can make an effort to act and be happy - to enjoy the moment. Do I know what makes me happy or what happiness is? I have enjoyed and created it before, so I think I can do it again... and again. Don't worry about losing your soul if you are living in Christ. I think that is perhaps something LDS struggle with a bit.

[LoudmouthMormon]

If I read that book will it make me happy?

Oh wait - I'm all about Mark 8:35.  Matthew 10:39, and 16:25. And Luke 9:24, and 17:33.  

[longview]

Obtaining the experience of mortality/earth life/journey through "a dark and dreary wilderness" (1 Nephi 8:4)/highs and lows is a precious gift to each of us.  No matter the circumstances we find ourselves, we must turn to the Lord and trust in His Purposes.  Walk hand in hand with Him and try to get the most out this mortal probation.  Our spirits are strengthened and magnified through the exertions of our "clay tabernacles".  Whether we end up the lowest of the "untouchables" in Hindustan or the boredom of upper crust aristocracy, the Lord has provided for us to multiply the talents and attributes we had as spirit children in the pre-existence.  Is it conceivable that the most intelligent of of spirits in the pre-existence will be given the most humble station in earth life (such as being dirt poor scratch farmer using a stick or dwelling in a severely handicapped body)?  And the most modest spirit being given sumptuous high visibility earthly privileges?

[Maestrophil]

I had an older neighbor when I was a teen.  He was always in a good mood.  When you asked him how he was doing, his answer was always the same, "terrific!!"

My, often grumpy, French mother used to get really frustrated with his cheerful demeanor and one day asked him, "You always seem so happy and it p*&ses me off!"  He chuckled, and said that he used to be surly, angry and pushed people away, and one day realized the pain he was causing and made an instant choice to change his perception dn never again have a 'bad day.'  I really admired that and he was a great example to me.  When I asked him how he maintained the choice so well, his answer to me was "My mother taught me that I always had a choice to be happy or to be miserable, no matter my circumstances, and she didn't;t raise me to be a fool, so I always make the smart choice!"

What is hard, is that I think so many in the world, and even the church, seem to see people who choose to be happy as simpletons or frauds.

 

I sure try and emulate my neighbor as much as I can!

[Ahab]

The gospel has been called the plan of happiness because by following it we can know how to be happy.  If any of you lacks the wisdom to know what the true gospel is then ask it of God who giveth liberally and upbraideth not and it will be given to him.

[HiJolly]

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort." 
                           -- Herm Albright (1876 - 1944) 

[Stargazer]

I just returned to the UK after a couple of weeks in the US, and on the airplane happened to sit in the same row as a young woman who was flying to Spain to teach English for a year (actually flying back, as she had been there two previous times for the same purpose). We had a very good conversation, and she told me about her life, which hadn't started off very well, being born to drug-addicted parents, being taken out of the home at age 5 by child protection services, adopted by another family at age 8, and then was abused by her adoptive father.  I was rather amazed by this, and expressed my feeling that even though I had lost my mother at age 7, everything had gone fairly well for me, and I thought myself "lucky" as compared to her history. She replied that she never considered herself "unlucky", and had realized at an early age that her happiness was largely dependent upon her attitude. She had not let all her negative experiences dictate to her what she would be, but held control over her own life.

I was quite impressed with her, actually!  Besides English (she was a native-born American) she also spoke Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and had a degree in Linguistics.

[The Nehor]

[Coop]

On 9/23/2019 at 8:49 AM, RevTestament said:

This reminds me of a priesthood meeting in which one of my neighbors said "I've never had a bad day," and one of my other neighbors got up and stormed out....

 

23 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I had an older neighbor when I was a teen.  He was always in a good mood.  When you asked him how he was doing, his answer was always the same, "terrific!!"

What is hard, is that I think so many in the world, and even the church, seem to see people who choose to be happy as simpletons or frauds.

I've been in numerous priesthood meetings where this topic has come up.  And someone will make a comment like, "It is better to be an optimist than a pessimist".  It is often accompanied by a quote from a Church leader, typically President Hinckley.

I argue that this is a false dichotomy.  Limiting your choice to only two options is an error in logic as well as psychologically and spiritually unwise.

Studies into decision-making have shown that the best decisions are made by those who are neither an optimist nor a pessimist, but rather a realist.  The way we promote optimism in the Church is a mistake in my mind.

All the best,

Bob

[Ahab]

I am HAPPY when I think about how well things are going for me and SAD when I think about some of the bad things that are going on in either my own life or somebody else's life.

It's as if I have a switch in my mind and can go from happy  to sad and from sad to happy at an instant, depending on what I am thinking about.

So the answer someone would get if they were to ask me how I am doing would depend on what I am thinking about at that time.  Sometimes I'm sad, and sometimes I'm happy.

I don't think I would even want to be happy all of the time because sometimes I think it is good to feel sad about something, because some things that go on in this world are just sad to think about.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ahab

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, Coop said:

 

I've been in numerous priesthood meetings where this topic has come up.  And someone will make a comment like, "It is better to be an optimist than a pessimist".  It is often accompanied by a quote from a Church leader, typically President Hinckley.

I argue that this is a false dichotomy.  Limiting your choice to only two options is an error in logic as well as psychologically and spiritually unwise.

Studies into decision-making have shown that the best decisions are made by those who are neither an optimist nor a pessimist, but rather a realist.  The way we promote optimism in the Church is a mistake in my mind.

All the best,

Bob

Bob,

 

I totally agree there is a danger in our culture to try and 'fake it' and there is a resulting pressure to be on point all the time - which is not realistic.  I believe that "to everything there is a season" and there are times to be sad. I also was in no way implying that choosing to work on being happy vs giving in to sadness and woe means that one only takes into account optimistic views or lives in a Pollyanna-ish world.

But even when acting as a realist, or even in difficult situations, I am in charge of what emotions I give power to.  I want to strive to choose happiness as often as I can.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Coop said:

 

I've been in numerous priesthood meetings where this topic has come up.  And someone will make a comment like, "It is better to be an optimist than a pessimist".  It is often accompanied by a quote from a Church leader, typically President Hinckley.

I argue that this is a false dichotomy.  Limiting your choice to only two options is an error in logic as well as psychologically and spiritually unwise.

Studies into decision-making have shown that the best decisions are made by those who are neither an optimist nor a pessimist, but rather a realist.  The way we promote optimism in the Church is a mistake in my mind.

All the best,

Bob

I don't think that it is a mistake to promote optimism.  Studies show that when we choose to perceive, interpret, and make judgments in an optimistic way, it has a profoundly positive affect on our health and well-being. 

Common definition of a realist - "a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly."

The problem with this definition is that it suggests that any given situation has only one right way to perceive it - that we can perceive this so called reality "as it is" without interpretation or judgment.  That simply is not the case - EVERYTHING is a matter of interpretation, and we can practice a more mindful and positive approach to life with proven and positive outcomes.  

A realist is nothing more than an optimist or pessimist in any given situation who is only pretending that he can perceive reality as it is without interpreting or making judgment.

We all are a mixed bag and cannot be all optimist or all pessimist, but we can practice and choose to harness a more positive outlook on the world.  We can cultivate gratitude, compassion, etc.  It is a choice of perspective.    

[Coop]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think that it is a mistake to promote optimism.  Studies show that when we choose to perceive, interpret, and make judgments in an optimistic way, it has a profoundly positive affect on our health and well-being. 

Common definition of a realist - "a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly."

The problem with this definition is that it suggests that any given situation has only one right way to perceive it - that we can perceive this so called reality "as it is" without interpretation or judgment.  That simply is not the case - EVERYTHING is a matter of interpretation, and we can practice a more mindful and positive approach to life with proven and positive outcomes.  

A realist is nothing more than an optimist or pessimist in any given situation who is only pretending that he can perceive reality as it is without interpreting or making judgment.

We all are a mixed bag and cannot be all optimist or all pessimist, but we can practice and choose to harness a more positive outlook on the world.  We can cultivate gratitude, compassion, etc.  It is a choice of perspective. 

 

Common definition of a realist - "a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly."  I like this definition.  And in discussions like this it is always helpful when those on opposite sides of an argument can find some common ground.

If I understand you correctly I think there is one point on which we agree and one on which we disagree.

I think where we agree is in the matter of choice.  When you said that "...We can cultivate gratitude, compassion, etc. It is a choice of perspective...' and "..we can practice a more mindful and positive approach to life with proven and positive outcomes...' I agree with you that choosing to be an optimist is a good thing.  What I said was the way we do this is a mistake and not that promoting optimism isn't a good idea.

Where we disagree is in our ability to perceive reality.  If I understand you correctly you are arguing that because there is no reality and that "...EVERYTHING is a matter of interpretation..." it makes sense to choose to be an optimist because being an optimist has positive outcomes.  You further argue that a realist is "...only pretending that he can perceive reality..."  I would argue that there is a reality out there, that we need to know what is real and what isn't.  And here is why.

In the D&C 93 it states that "...truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come..."  I would argue that a knowledge of what is true is a critical component in life.  And this is because I believe that our purpose in life is to learn to discern between good and evil and that we need to know that there is truth out there somewhere so we can make those decisions that God will hold us accountable for.  In fact I can't imagine a world where everything is just a "...matter of interpretation...".

All the best,

Bob

[Ahab]

56 minutes ago, Coop said:

In the D&C 93 it states that "...truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come..."  I would argue that a knowledge of what is true is a critical component in life.  And this is because I believe that our purpose in life is to learn to discern between good and evil and that we need to know that there is truth out there somewhere so we can make those decisions that God will hold us accountable for.  In fact I can't imagine a world where everything is just a "...matter of interpretation...".

Welcome to the board! (I'm just trying to be polite and do what I think polite people should do to be perceived as being polite and nice and friendly, all good positive things)

We have some die-hard philosophers around here and they can help to set you straight about how you should interpret what they mean when they say something along the lines of all we have are interpretations.  Even these words must be interpreted before you can get any meaning from them.  And you have to interpret what a chair is for, too, and what a chair is, along with what a keyboard and computer screen and computer and anything you see whether on the screen or off of it is what it is or what you think it may be.  Everything must be interpreted and everything is in some form of matter so it's just a matter of telling the truth to say that everything is just a matter of interpretation.  Or maybe we shouldn't say "just" a matter of interpretation and just say everything IS a matter of interpretation.  Or was, or will be.

Not that an interpretation is a bad thing.  It could be bad, sometimes, but it could also be a good thing.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Coop said:

Common definition of a realist - "a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly."  I like this definition.  And in discussions like this it is always helpful when those on opposite sides of an argument can find some common ground.

If I understand you correctly I think there is one point on which we agree and one on which we disagree.

I think where we agree is in the matter of choice.  When you said that "...We can cultivate gratitude, compassion, etc. It is a choice of perspective...' and "..we can practice a more mindful and positive approach to life with proven and positive outcomes...' I agree with you that choosing to be an optimist is a good thing.  What I said was the way we do this is a mistake and not that promoting optimism isn't a good idea.

Where we disagree is in our ability to perceive reality.  If I understand you correctly you are arguing that because there is no reality and that "...EVERYTHING is a matter of interpretation..." it makes sense to choose to be an optimist because being an optimist has positive outcomes.  You further argue that a realist is "...only pretending that he can perceive reality..."  I would argue that there is a reality out there, that we need to know what is real and what isn't.  And here is why.

In the D&C 93 it states that "...truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come..."  I would argue that a knowledge of what is true is a critical component in life.  And this is because I believe that our purpose in life is to learn to discern between good and evil and that we need to know that there is truth out there somewhere so we can make those decisions that God will hold us accountable for.  In fact I can't imagine a world where everything is just a "...matter of interpretation...".

All the best,

Bob

Well I would be the person Ahab is referring to above, I think.  Welcome also. 

Perhaps if you are interested in getting into the discussion you might read my siggy which is a quote from a famous philosopher representing a school of philosophy- Pragmatism- which I like

"Knowledge of things as they are" gets a little tricky when one combines it with "Now we see things through a glass darkly, but then face to face". (paraphrase)- so which is it?

Things as they are or through a glass darkly??

I think DC 93 also answers that one as well:

Quote

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

I take intelligence acting for itself to be "interpretation" or else there can be no KNOWLEDGE of the "existence" of anything.

A chaos of light waves, let's accept that myth for the moment, hits your retina/brain and you create a world that makes sense out of it thus interpreting chaos and organizing a world right there literally "before your eyes!"

No interpretation, no existence.  But still this is through a glass darkly

But aha!   There are "spheres" of knowledge that humans have sliced and diced to make knowledge of individual worlds- or spheres- understandable.  There is the "world of plumbing"  which allows one to make a good living knowing nothing more than the world of plumbing or the world of cosmology which allows one to make a living teaching others theories about cosmology. 

Here is a great article as well that addresses the issue well from the LDS perspective.  President Kimball on "Absolute Truth"

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/absolute-truth/

But of course this is all MY interpretation.

And so choosing how we see things is absolutely crucial.  I mean after all these are OUR worlds we are creating from matter unorganized, right? 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Welcome to the board!

Hereabouts I think mostly that should be spelled "bored". 

Acts 17

Quote

 18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. 19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? 20For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. 21(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

This was an early version of this board or facebook I think. 

 

[JAHS]

On 9/23/2019 at 7:10 PM, HiJolly said:

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort." 
                           -- Herm Albright (1876 - 1944) 

Kind of goes along with the scripture:
"Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you." (Luke 6: 27-28)

Doing that can also really annoy someone who wants to hate you. 🙂

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Welcome to the board!

Coop has been around for years, just rarely posts. So I say “welcome back!  And why not around more this time if possible.”

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Knowledge of things as they are" gets a little tricky when one combines it with "Now we see things through a glass darkly, but then face to face". (paraphrase)- so which is it?

Why not both?  Seeing darkly is our current state, but with effort guided by the Spirit we can move closer to “truth of things as they are” with the ultimate goal to step fully into the light when we are brought before God in our next stages of infinite life (using infinite rather than eternal as “eternal life” is often defined as exaltation among Saints.

I have my doubts that God will pick us up and drag us into a knowledge of Truth in the next life if we haven’t shown any significant desire to search and see him and Truth face to face.  Instead I suspect we will be spending time learning the lesson of the value of Truth. 

I think the scripture is clear pure and constant knowledge of things as they are must wait until we embrace the Atonement fully and not only desire, but are able to endure living in the presence of God, the ultimate enlightenment.  But there is encouragement in scripture we should be still attempting to receive as much pure knowledge through revelation as we can prepare ourselves to receive. 

Of course, there is the problem of figuring out who else has received pure knowledge and if their interpretation they communicate of it helps us further down our path or hinders our growth because our interpretation of their expression of their experience of knowledge connects with the foundations of Truth we have built already or weakens them. 

[Coop]

On 9/23/2019 at 11:33 AM, Ahab said:

The gospel has been called the plan of happiness because by following it we can know how to be happy.  If any of you lacks the wisdom to know what the true gospel is then ask it of God who giveth liberally and upbraideth not and it will be given to him.

I like what you said in your first sentence.  While I'm wandering around wearing those darn dim glasses or peering out of a cave full of smoke I hope the end result is a "man is that he might have joy" experience.  And this is because for me the bottom line isn't what I'm perceiving or if I know what truth is or what reality is, it is that I'm happier doing good than thinking about good.

Thanks to all those who have welcomed me back and those who are meeting me for the first time.  I don't post much because I'm old and I don't have the energy to slay windmills like in the olden days.

All the best,

Bob

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here is a great article as well that addresses the issue well from the LDS perspective.  President Kimball on "Absolute Truth"

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/absolute-truth/

But of course this is all MY interpretation.

And so choosing how we see things is absolutely crucial.  I mean after all these are OUR worlds we are creating from matter unorganized, right? 

 

 

Funny story.  I just read that talk last month.  And I hope I'm not being an idiot, a word by the way that my wife hates me using but it fits me so well, if I could ask an impudent question.  I agree that the article does explain the traditional LDS perspective but does it represent your perspective?  And the reason why I ask is because there are parts of his talk that I question in the sense that I disagree.

All the best,

Bob

[pogi]

8 hours ago, Coop said:

What I said was the way we do this is a mistake and not that promoting optimism isn't a good idea.

I see.  If you are talking about how many in the church are consumed with keeping up the appearance of optimism and happiness while they suffer internally (reminds me of the scripture about "whited sepulchers")...I agree.  Optimism is not about appearances, it is internal.  I haven't however heard a talk about optimism by Hinkley or otherwise that I disagree with, so I think it is more a cultural thing.

8 hours ago, Coop said:

Where we disagree is in our ability to perceive reality.  If I understand you correctly you are arguing that because there is no reality and that "...EVERYTHING is a matter of interpretation..." it makes sense to choose to be an optimist because being an optimist has positive outcomes.  You further argue that a realist is "...only pretending that he can perceive reality..."  I would argue that there is a reality out there, that we need to know what is real and what isn't.  And here is why.

In the D&C 93 it states that "...truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come..."  I would argue that a knowledge of what is true is a critical component in life.  And this is because I believe that our purpose in life is to learn to discern between good and evil and that we need to know that there is truth out there somewhere so we can make those decisions that God will hold us accountable for.  In fact I can't imagine a world where everything is just a "...matter of interpretation...".

All the best,

Bob

I wouldn't say that there is no reality.  I would simply say that our perceptions of it in mortality are a matter of interpretation, un-whole,  and therefore imperfect.  I have never really studied philosophy seriously but have learned from spending time on these forums that I am a holist.  I believe that there is an ultimate reality and absolute truth, but until we have all the variables, our understanding of any particular variable in and of itself may be inaccurate as new light may alter our understanding.  

You bring up D&C 93 "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come...".  I would suspect that if you ask 100 different Latter-day Saints what that passage means, you will get many different and likely conflicting explanations.  This just furthers my point that everything is a matter of interpretation.  Only God has knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come...therefore God stated, "I am the truth" -which aligns perfectly with this passage.  Capital T TRUTH cannot be known in its purity without the knowledge of all things past present and future.  One mast utilize the all seeing eye before one can truly be one with and "know" TRUTH (God).  It reminds me of the passage - "and this is life eternal, to know God."  In other words, to know God fully, is to know truth wholly, is to be one with God (eternal life), to know as he knows and see as he sees.     

This passages explains my perspective well:

Quote

 

. . . that which doth not edify is not of God and is darkness.

     That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day. (D&C 50:23-24.)

 

This is how I answer your question about accountability.  We are told that we will be judged by the light we are given.  We may not understand it perfectly and view it through a dim glass, but we are given impressions which edify us.  The more we follow those impressions (as imperfect as our interpretations and understanding of them may be) we are given more clarifying light.  Our understanding is stretched and grows brighter and brighter, but we CANT know TRUTH as it is until we know God as He is (God is the truth) - speaking for myself, I am not there yet.  Some may feel uncomfortable in such a state of uncertainty, but I am given all confidence that I am on the right track.  I am at peace with utilizing faith instead of certain knowledge of truth. I am edified by the light I am given.  I don't need certainty.  All I need to do is do my personal best with the light I have been given.  There is happiness and fulfillment in being true to your conscience, what more do you need than happiness?  Isn't that the purpose of life?  Some search for certainty, but I search for happiness and it seems to work. 

I share this poem often as it explains well my perspective of truth and reality in mortality.  It both affirms eternal and absolute truth (the elephant as it is known by God) as well as the relative truth we experience in mortality.  It was shared by then President Uchtdorf in a general conference:

T’was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind.

 

The First approached the Elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

"God bless me!—but the Elephant

Is very like a wall!"

 

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried: "Ho!—what have we here

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me 't is mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a spear!"

 

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake:

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant

Is very like a snake!"

 

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,

And felt about the knee.

"What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain," quoth he;

"'T is clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a tree!"

 

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: "E'en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a fan!"

 

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant

Is very like a rope!"

 

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

 

So, oft in theologic wars

The disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance

Of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant

Not one of them has seen!

Edited September 26, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, Coop said:

Funny story.  I just read that talk last month.  And I hope I'm not being an idiot, a word by the way that my wife hates me using but it fits me so well, if I could ask an impudent question.  I agree that the article does explain the traditional LDS perspective but does it represent your perspective?  And the reason why I ask is because there are parts of his talk that I question in the sense that I disagree.

What parts of what he said do you disagree with?  We like to discuss such things around here. It's a long talk and I read through about half of it, not seeing anything in particular stand out as something I do not agree with.  Except maybe the part where he said nobody could kill Jesus Christ. As a mortal it was possible to put him to death, and that is what actually happened.  Some people killed him. if what Spencer meant (I often call former Presidents of the Church by their first name when they are dead) was that Jesus could have escaped other people's attempts to put him to death, perhaps by translating himself into a resurrected being or by calling down angels to defend him, then I can go along with that. Usually it's just a matter of interpretation, or how to interpret what someone means when they say something.

[Coop]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I see.  If you are talking about how many in the church are consumed with keeping up the appearance of optimism and happiness while they suffer internally (reminds me of the scripture about "whited sepulchers")...I agree.  Optimism is not about appearances, it is internal.  I haven't however heard a talk about optimism by Hinkley or otherwise that I disagree with, so I think it is more a cultural thing.

This quote, and all the rest which I have eliminated for ease of readability, is great.  Much applause CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, etc.

If I could shift the discussion on truth just a little I would like to share something that Mortimer Adler said in his book Six Great Ideas.  Adler, in the chapter on the liar and skeptic, argued that it is possible to be either a liar or skeptic, but not both.  Of course, he said, it is better to be neither.  The extreme skeptic is a person who argues that nothing is knowable and because no statement can be true or false he interdicts himself from telling lies.  Even milder forms of skepticism give me pause.  The liar on the other hand knows the truth, and knows when he is lying or telling the truth.    Truth then is when our ontological predicates match.  Or in other words truth is when what we say, matches with what we think.  This definition of truth fits my world view better than the belief that the truth is out there somewhere.  But just because the truth isn't out there doesn't mean that there isn't any truth outside of us.

For example my Bishop and I play golf together as well as watch the pros play when they are in town.  This means we have a common vocabulary and when he says something about his seven iron the existence of this seven iron isn't a question.  The same cannot be said for all of my friends.  Some have no idea what a seven iron is.  So when we talk about golf I have to explain what a seven iron is and they take it on faith that I'm telling the truth.  So the idea of a seven iron exists both as an idea in our minds, like some of my friends, as well as in the real world that my Bishop and I share.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

What parts of what he said do you disagree with?  We like to discuss such things around here. It's a long talk and I read through about half of it, not seeing anything in particular stand out as something I do not agree with.  Except maybe the part where he said nobody could kill Jesus Christ. As a mortal it was possible to put him to death, and that is what actually happened.  Some people killed him. if what Spencer meant (I often call former Presidents of the Church by their first name when they are dead) was that Jesus could have escaped other people's attempts to put him to death, perhaps by translating himself into a resurrected being or by calling down angels to defend him, then I can go along with that. Usually it's just a matter of interpretation, or how to interpret what someone means when they say something.

First off I believe President Kimball was telling the truth when he said that he spent a lot of time praying and pondering on how to reply to his young friend.  What I have a problem with is how he defines truth.  He suggests that there are two type of truth.  They are namely absolute truth and relative truth.   He argues that the truths of the gospel and the truths of various natural phenomenon, like the fact that the earth is round, are absolute truths.  He then argues that an example of relative truth are those discounted theories of science that have been proven false.  I agree that there are absolute truth and relative truth.  I disagree in his definitions however.

I believe, to the extent possible, that there are some absolutes and I agree with President Kimball that these absolutes consist of various natural phenomenon.  Where I disagree is in his inclusion of religious truth as an absolute truth.  For me religious truth is, and has to be relative, otherwise what purpose does this world serve if not to learn what is true through faith.  But even if we had all the faith possible we would still be short of an absolute knowledge of the truth until the next life or if God makes a personal visit.

All the best,

Bob

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Coop said:

I agree that there are absolute truth and relative truth.  I disagree in his definitions however.

I believe, to the extent possible, that there are some absolutes and I agree with President Kimball that these absolutes consist of various natural phenomenon.  Where I disagree is in his inclusion of religious truth as an absolute truth.  For me religious truth is, and has to be relative, otherwise what purpose does this world serve if not to learn what is true through faith.  But even if we had all the faith possible we would still be short of an absolute knowledge of the truth until the next life or if God makes a personal visit.

Ah, I see, I think. I was focusing more on the idea he was trying to get across to that young man, and others who heard him or read what he said.  I think his intent was simply to illustrate that both absolute and relative truth are different types of truth.

God is real, for example.  We may know that only through faith but still that is something we can say we know in an absolute sense.  God isn't something or someone who doesn't really exist in an absolute way and it's just that some people believe or have faith God exists. And we can know God exists even if we will never see him again, as long as he has some way to communicate with us and we have some way to know it is him.  I know lots of people I have never seen before.  You, for example.  Are you real?  Even if your "real" name isn''t "Coop" I know for a fact you exist. And what about goodness, anything that is good.  Are there really good things or are there only some things that people think are good but really are not?  I know, I know, I can get a bit silly with these kinds of ideas, but I have a real intent with my message.  And even if you aren't convinced that some things we put in a box and label "religious stuff" do really exist, or at least did in the past, or will in the future, then those things are still absolutely true even if you do not think so.