Do Latter-day Saints have the best theology?

[Jake Starkey]

On 11/7/2019 at 4:25 PM, Rivers said:

I’ve been thinking about how I would make a logical argument for the veracity of my religion to those of other faiths without relying on the traditional “read and pray” or testimony bearing approaches (not that those are bad).  

I feel the best approach is to go straight to the theology.  I would begin by laying out some basic assumptions:

-There is a God.

-God is benevolent.

I would then argue that there must be an afterlife since there is too much injustice in this life.  If God is loving then there would have to be an afterlife.

Then I would ask what kind of  if afterlife is  consistent with a benevolent God?  That obviously rules our Calvinism.  It would also rule out any religion that teaches anyone suffers forever in Hell for not having the right religion as is portrayed in the South Park movie.  Universalism makes  much more sense since God is loving.  And our understanding of varying degrees of glory is a universalist model that also takes into account the gradations of virtue and holiness that individuals attain. 

I can’t think of a better model consistent with a benevolent God.  Can you?

 

 

I think a religion is ruled out if the first principle is obedience.  "Elder Bruce R. McConkie has taught: Obedience is the first law of heaven, the cornerstone upon which all righteousness and progression rest. It consists in compliance with divine law, in conformity to the mind and will of Deity, in complete subjection to God and his commands.Jun 27, 2002   Heartfelt and Willing Obedience - BYU-Idaho   www2.byui.edu › Transcripts › EducationWeek › 2002_06_27_Bednar"   Elder Bruce R. McConkie has taught: Obedience is the first law of heaven, the cornerstone upon which all righteousness and progression rest. It consists in compliance with divine law, in conformity to the mind and will of Deity, in complete subjection to God and his commands.Jun 27, 2002   Heartfelt and Willing Obedience - BYU-Idaho  www2.byui.edu › Transcripts › EducationWeek › 2002_06_27_Bednar"

Such obedience led many of our forefathers through the portals of hell at Mountain Meadows. 

We must find another first principle for such a religion in love and charity that we wish to follow.

[Jake Starkey]

Elder Rasband stating up for righteousness is a good example for us.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2019/11/11/lds-church-denounces/?fbclid=IwAR0R-fk06s7grvo7Ynf5HiGBtWv0H1gnFTJOqTAyFKU1Aqw_zbIiPnPHgR8

[CV75]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

10/4 Good buddy!

Moroni 10:4 that is!

Per Wikipedia (process theology having been developed from process philosophy): Process theology and process philosophy are collectively referred to as "process thought".

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I cannot accept the church as a special conduit to God because its doctrines and practices are too far from the divine character I seek.

This is the crux.  Do we want God as he actually is, or as we imagine him to be.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This is the crux.  Do we want God as he actually is, or as we imagine him to be.

Well, yes it is. I think it is a disservice to myself and not-so-faithful to God to let others define God from some self- proclaimed authority.

[Ahab]

On 11/7/2019 at 3:25 PM, Rivers said:

I’ve been thinking about how I would make a logical argument for the veracity of my religion to those of other faiths without relying on the traditional “read and pray” or testimony bearing approaches (not that those are bad).  

I feel the best approach is to go straight to the theology.  I would begin by laying out some basic assumptions:

I think it would be best if you left out any assumptions.  You shouldn't assume anything and nobody else should, either. When people don't know something they just need to know who to ask to get the right answers, and rather than trying to give all the right answers to everybody, yourself, it would be better for you to point them toward someone who knows even more than you do about what the right answers are.  To the person you have or should have learned from.  Teaching others how to fish instead of catching fish for everybody who wants to ask you a question.

So to the extent that you can, if you can, I recommend that you do whatever you can to help to point them to who can give them all the right answers.  Whoever can answer all of their questions and give them all the right answers.

That's what I love most about my religion, now. I don't need to go to anybody else but God to find out what is right and good and true.  Even Jesus Christ was all about trying to get us to go to God, our Father, for the right answers, rather than trying to get all of us to go to him or to some prophet for all the right answers.  The Holy Ghost could answer all of our questions too but we are directed to go directly to our Father for our answers, which our Father will give us "through the power" of the Holy Ghost and "in the name of" Jesus Christ.

So if anybody has any questions, about anything, they should go to him, and not you or me or anyone else who posts messages on this board as if we are always going to give everybody all the right answers, exactly the same as our Father can, and will.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/9/2019 at 10:06 AM, MiserereNobis said:

In context of my recent posts on this thread, I like this quote from the article:

 

To me it is very simple.

We pretty much all - theists and atheists regard the statement "It is wrong to murder" as being "true" and probably we take that pretty axiomatic.  Kant's Categorical Imperative essentially ends up saying that the cornerstone of all morality is the Golden Rule.

And I have posted here before that even avowed atheists like Christopher Hitchens will admit that there is "something" that whispers to us that we should not do wrong things even if no one will ever know.

We are creatures of our passions and there is NO SUCH THING as "objectivity" - everything we find "rational" is ultimately based on some kind of moral imperative.  

We cannot divorce our emotions from rationality.   Even the most "logical" people actually base their lives on emotional values.  The most rigorous atheist positivist will take a job to help his children, take care of them, and worry about them if they are not home at 2 am and find it "rational" to do so.  He would rather work in a lab curing cancer than making new bombs, all things being equal.  Is that a moral life choice based on positivism?  Of course not!

So if it is true that it is wrong to murder- and we want to show that it is "rational" to believe that, the only way is to INCLUDE the emotions in what is defined as "rational".   And I defy you to find an atheist that tells you that atheism dissolves morality.

So if it is ok to have a belief that "Murder is wrong"is rationally justifiable,  that same LOGIC will tell you that belief in God is justifiable.

For an atheist, acting in a moral way, and returning the thousand dollars found in the purse in the cab makes one "feel right" and gives one a sense of peace.  No atheist knows where that feeling comes from, but it is there.

For the theist, the results are the same, she also "feels right" and has a sense of peace.

The difference is that the theist knows where that feeling comes from. 

 

Believing

[mfbukowski]

On 11/9/2019 at 7:15 PM, JLHPROF said:

There is only one truth.  Something is either true or not.  All else is p.o.v. or semantics.

Unfortunately 2000 years of philosophy disagree with you.  It's ok to ignore that if you like, obviously, after all those are the evil "philosophies of men".

I prefer to think that God wants us to figure it our for ourselves instead of relying on slogans. And I think the simple view that THINGS, not statements can be true is in fact a problem in semantics, since no one can define "truth".

You can assert as an axiom "Something is either true or not" but just don't think about what that means or you will be immediately in trouble.   What single view of reality will give you a basis for truth for both propositions that "water boils at 212 degrees F" AND "murder is wrong"? 

Pick your commandment you think is true and show me A SINGLE theory about the nature of reality that makes both of those "true"?  Can anyone see God and verify his existence the way anyone can measure the temperature of boiling water?   What then can you do to show that your theory that there is "one truth" is itself true?

If you cannot show it to be true, IS IT?

What view of reality will show both of those being true, along with "God exists"?

They are different propositions relying upon "different kinds of truth" QUITE OBVIOUSLY!

So is there "one truth"???   How do you get there from those propositions?   What do they have in common?

Edited November 12, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Unfortunately 2000 years of philosophy disagree with you.  It's ok to ignore that if you like, obviously, after all those are the evil "philosophies of men".

Unfortunate for philosophers, true.  Or is that just semantics too and really not true?

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I prefer to think that God wants us to figure it our for ourselves instead of relying on slogans. And I think the simple view that THINGS, not statements can be true is in fact a problem in semantics, since no one can define "truth".

Truth is another word for correct or real, in reality.  Something as it is or was or will be, in reality.  Versus something someone may think is true but really isn't or wasn't or has never been real, in reality.

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You can assert as an axiom "Something is either true or not" but just don't think about what that means or you will be immediately in trouble.   What single view of reality will give you a basis for truth for both propositions that "water boils at 212 degrees F" AND "murder is wrong"? 

The true or correct view.  The way it really is.  At least on this planet.  Who knows, maybe things are different in other places but we can see what really happens for real in reality right here on this planet.

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Pick your commandment you think is true and show me A SINGLE theory about the nature of reality that makes both of those "true"? 

Be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.  I'm not sure what you mean in the second part of your challenge.

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can anyone see God and verify his existence the way anyone can measure the temperature of boiling water? 

Yes, anyone who can see him just as they can see that water boils at that temperature.

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 What then can you do to show that your theory that there is "one truth" is itself true?

Showing anything as it really is will suffice.  Not that I can make you believe it is true but I can at least show you some things that are true, leaving you to see for yourself.

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you cannot show it to be true, IS IT?

Like what, for example?  I can't show you right now that water will boil at a certain temperature, no way I know how to do that over the internet, but it is still true anyways.

 

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What view of reality will show both of those being true, along with "God exists"?

The correct or true view.  What else would you expect?

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They are different propositions relying upon "different kinds of truth" QUITE OBVIOUSLY!

You think so, do you.  I am not convinced by your assertion.

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So is there "one truth"???   How do you get there from those propositions?   What do they have in common?

All things that are true are true in the same way that anything that is true is true.  It is real.  It is the way it is, or was, or the way it will be, in reality.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Unfortunate for philosophers, true.  Or is that just semantics too and really not true?

Truth is another word for correct or real, in reality.  Something as it is or was or will be, in reality.  Versus something someone may think is true but really isn't or wasn't or has never been real, in reality.

The true or correct view.  The way it really is.  At least on this planet.  Who knows, maybe things are different in other places but we can see what really happens for real in reality right here on this planet.

Be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.  I'm not sure what you mean in the second part of your challenge.

Yes, anyone who can see him just as they can see that water boils at that temperature.

Showing anything as it really is will suffice.  Not that I can make you believe it is true but I can at least show you some things that are true, leaving you to see for yourself.

Like what, for example?  I can't show you right now that water will boil at a certain temperature, no way I know how to do that over the internet, but it is still true anyways.

 

The correct or true view.  What else would you expect?

You think so, do you.  I am not convinced by your assertion.

All things that are true are true in the same way that anything that is true is true.  It is real.  It is the way it is, or was, or the way it will be, in reality.

Good for you!

I suggest you never question your views!  You have it.  Just never question any of it.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good for you!

I suggest you never question your views!  You have it.  Just never question any of it.

No problem.  I save my questions for things I don't see or understand yet.  I see no good reason to question what I already see and understand.

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No problem.  I save my questions for things I don't see or understand yet.  I see no good reason to question what I already see and understand.

Yes I have noticed that about you- that is a good description!   Not everyone has that trait.  Some keep questioning and examining their lives for a lifetime and think it is good to have a fully examined life.

Edited November 12, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I have noticed that about you- that is a good description!   Not everyone has that trait.  Some keep questioning and examining their lives for a lifetime and think it is good to have a fully examined life.

Whatever floats their boat, I suppose.  I have examined my life already so I just keep up to date with any changes as they come up.  No need to keep looking back, reexamining things I have already examined.  Remember Lot's wife.  I don't want to turn into a pillar of salt.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/11/2019 at 3:03 PM, CV75 said:

Per Wikipedia (process theology having been developed from process philosophy): Process theology and process philosophy are collectively referred to as "process thought".

I would not suggest you read Whitehead though without taking a course in Process thought.  It is an entirely different way of seeing reality.  It took me a few years.  Rorty et al are kind of a watered- down version, and that is one of the reasons I use his stuff so much- he is supposedly the "lucid philosopher" but folks here seem to not really get Rorty so I am not sure they are ready for Whitehead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality

For people, we are constantly becoming and changing- there is no "reality" from a Cartesian point of view- people are like bundles of EXPERIENCES.   You have to see humans and things also as processes instead of fixed entities.

You are not the "same person" you were as a child- you have progressed.  Today or tomorrow you may have an experience that changes you, even if only a tiny bit.  Today you may learn a little about process philosophy and the next time it pops up you may look it up- or whatever- but YOU are a process.

Tables and chairs can be seen as processes as well- they are as we experience them.  I learned the other day the difference between a "sofa" and a "chesterfield"- something I had never noticed before!  I now have a new way of looking at sofas- and of experiencing them!  Even my old easy chair that I love is getting worn out- and look at that sentence!  Is it correct to say I "love" an easy chair?   Yet I feel a connection to it.   My experience and knowledge of that particular easy chair is a process of events- the time I spilled the soup, the nick in the upholstery when I dropped my knife- is it the "same" easy chair I bought?   In one sense yes, and in another, no.

If you are interested, read the wikipedia page.  Most of all LDS theologians of late are process thinkers- Ostler, Mason, etc.   They try to convey meaning to the general membership but actually they are process thinkers and the membership is just not ready for that yet.

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I have noticed that about you- that is a good description!   Not everyone has that trait.  Some keep questioning and examining their lives for a lifetime and think it is good to have a fully examined life.

There's a scripture description for that.

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I  prefer God's idea.

D&C 93:24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come

Pretty easy for God to define truth.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's a scripture description for that.

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I  prefer God's idea.

D&C 93:24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come

Pretty easy for God to define truth.

You're funny!

You can't answer my questions and ignore scriptures that disagree with you!

Why receive personal revelation if once you know the truth, you know it??   I knew the Catholic church was true too.

Why does 1 James tell us to ask God?  What about Moroni 10 telling us the same thing?

What about DC 93 speaking of spheres of truth?

How can we progress if once we know it, it's all done?

Why are we even on this board discussing things since each of us already know the "truth" and it's all done?  Why not just have the bible- why do we need any modern day scriptures?

A bible a Bible we already have a bible.

If that's what you believe, you are in the wrong church  And those who liked this comment as well.  Ridiculous!

That scripture is exactly right- but that is 3 truths- not ONE!!  Was, is, and will be!

It's a process!

This is why LDS theologians won't discuss this stuff on places like this

Edited November 13, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CA Steve]

Who is this man?
What sort of devil is he
To have me caught in a trap
And choose to let me go free?
It was his hour at last
To put a seal on my fate
Wipe out the past
And wash me clean off the slate!
All it would take
Was a flick of his knife.
Vengeance was his
And he gave me back my life!

 

Damned if I'll live in the debt of a thief!
Damned if I'll yield at the end of the chase.
I am the law and the law is not mocked
I'll spit his pity right back in his face
There is nothing on earth that we share
It is either Valjean or Javert!

 

And my thoughts fly apart
Can this man be believed?
Shall his sins be forgiven?
Shall his crimes be reprieved?

And must I now begin to doubt,
Who never doubted all these years?
My heart is stone and still it trembles
The world I have known is lost in shadow.
Is he from heaven or from hell?
And does he know
That granting me my life today
This man has killed me even so?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You're funny!

You can't answer my questions and ignore scriptures that disagree with you!

Why receive personal revelation if once you know the truth, you know it??   I knew the Catholic church was true too.

Why does 1 James tell us to ask God?  What about Moroni 10 telling us the same thing?

What about DC 93 speaking of spheres of truth?

How can we progress if once we know it, it's all done?

Why are we even on this board discussing things since each of us already know the "truth" and it's all done?  Why not just have the bible- why do we need any modern day scriptures?

A bible a Bible we already have a bible.

If that's what you believe, you are in the wrong church  And those who liked this comment as well.  Ridiculous!

That scripture is exactly right- but that is 3 truths- not ONE!!  Was, is, and will be!

It's a process!

This is why LDS theologians won't discuss this stuff on places like this

You are the one said "Philosophers don't even define truth, so there goes that problem.  Define that and you get the gold ring- they don't use that word much anymore."

God does define truth.
I never said it is possible to know all things.  I don't believe in omniscience, even for God.
But I do believe in God's definition of truth.

If you are speaking of the eternal progression in our understanding I fully agree with you.
If you are saying it's impossible to know anything is "truth" then I don't.

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Why receive personal revelation if once you know the truth, you know it?? 

To get knowledge of truth from God's perspective.  Once you know the truth you know it, unless it changes.  What was true in the past isn't necessarily true today.  But it was true back then, otherwise it wasn't true to say or think it was.

Quote

 I knew the Catholic church was true too.

Was it?  Or did you just think it was, when it really wasn't?  How old are you?  I'm not very old and can't imagine a time when it was ever true, but maybe it was a long, long time ago.  Or maybe you're just wrong about what the Catholic church was.

Quote

Why does 1 James tell us to ask God?  What about Moroni 10 telling us the same thing?

It's a good thing to teach others to do.  Ask God and find out for yourself.

Quote

What about DC 93 speaking of spheres of truth?

Past, present and future, maybe?  I dunno.   Why don't you ask God and see what he says.

Quote

How can we progress if once we know it, it's all done?

We don't know everything yet.  Or at least I certainly don't.  I do know some things are true though and I keep adding to my knowledge as my life goes on and on and on....

Quote

Why are we even on this board discussing things since each of us already know the "truth" and it's all done?  Why not just have the bible- why do we need any modern day scriptures?

Where are you getting the idea that "it's all done"?  Is this coming from the philosopher side of you?  Are you done already?  I'm still going and I plan to keep going and going and going... for a very long time until I finally learn everything about everything there is to know.

Quote

A bible a Bible we already have a bible.

We have a Book of Mormon too, and the D&C, and the Pearl of  Great Price, and words from living prophets today, and a lot of other things too, including personal revelation from  God, too, if you are interested in that kind of thing.

Quote

If that's what you believe, you are in the wrong church  And those who liked this comment as well.  Ridiculous!

Heh heh heh, what do YOU think was ridiculous about it?

Quote

That scripture is exactly right- but that is 3 truths- not ONE!!  Was, is, and will be!

No, those are all aspects of the one thing we call truth.  Reality.  Whether past, present or future.  All part of the one reality.

Quote

It's a process!

Learning is a process.   Truth is absolute, according to whatever is or was or will be real in reality.

Quote

This is why LDS theologians won't discuss this stuff on places like this

Is there some test of accreditation to determine who is an LDS theologian and who isn't... in your version of reality?  What do you think a theologian is?  LDS or otherwise?

Edited November 13, 2019 by Ahab

[blarsen]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would not suggest you read Whitehead though without taking a course in Process thought.  It is an entirely different way of seeing reality.  It took me a few years.  Rorty et al are kind of a watered- down version, and that is one of the reasons I use his stuff so much- he is supposedly the "lucid philosopher" but folks here seem to not really get Rorty so I am not sure they are ready for Whitehead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality

For people, we are constantly becoming and changing- there is no "reality" from a Cartesian point of view- people are like bundles of EXPERIENCES.   You have to see humans and things also as processes instead of fixed entities.

You are not the "same person" you were as a child- you have progressed.  Today or tomorrow you may have an experience that changes you, even if only a tiny bit.  Today you may learn a little about process philosophy and the next time it pops up you may look it up- or whatever- but YOU are a process.

Tables and chairs can be seen as processes as well- they are as we experience them.  I learned the other day the difference between a "sofa" and a "chesterfield"- something I had never noticed before!  I now have a new way of looking at sofas- and of experiencing them!  Even my old easy chair that I love is getting worn out- and look at that sentence!  Is it correct to say I "love" an easy chair?   Yet I feel a connection to it.   My experience and knowledge of that particular easy chair is a process of events- the time I spilled the soup, the nick in the upholstery when I dropped my knife- is it the "same" easy chair I bought?   In one sense yes, and in another, no.

If you are interested, read the wikipedia page.  Most of all LDS theologians of late are process thinkers- Ostler, Mason, etc.   They try to convey meaning to the general membership but actually they are process thinkers and the membership is just not ready for that yet.

 

I was introduced to process philosophy/theology/metaphysics a few years ago by a friend, and am still trying to fully wrap my head around it.  One benefit, it's forcing me to revisit philosophy in general.  David Ray Griffin's Process Theology  contains fairly a short exposition of it and further explains that point of view in terms of eschatology, religious pluralism, etc.  Griffin has a few other books and many articles devoted to this exposition.  I also found Lowe's two volume biography of Alfred North Whitehead quite fascinating.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You are the one said "Philosophers don't even define truth, so there goes that problem.  Define that and you get the gold ring- they don't use that word much anymore."

God does define truth.
I never said it is possible to know all things.  I don't believe in omniscience, even for God.
But I do believe in God's definition of truth.

If you are speaking of the eternal progression in our understanding I fully agree with you.
If you are saying it's impossible to know anything is "truth" then I don't.

Please listen to the Rorty video I have posted a hundred times. Of course we know what is true and false. We just can't define what makes truth true in all circumstances.

And I do not believe that the scriptures are God breathed do you?

[MiserereNobis]

One issue that happens in philosophy quite frequently that doesn't happen as often in other disciplines is that people think there is no need for experts. It's probably because philosophy deals with ideas that most people have at least a cursory interest or experience with, such as: what is good, what is true, what is beautiful (the Platonic triumvirate!). Non-philosophers might not realize that these questions (and other philosophical ones) have been examined and debated for millennia, and that means that there are experts who know the arguments and the problems with the various positions. Philosophy is not just a bunch of hogwash. It's a real discipline which means it has a history and it has experts.

Perhaps an analogy. You know that every now and then some new poster pops in here and brings up some anti-Mormon stuff, or some old issue, as if it were something new and terrifying to you. Many of you respond that you've already been down that road and know the issue more than the new poster and if the new poster is really interested in learning about it then they should go read old posts about the topic. In a sense, you are the experts because you have studied and are studying Mormonism (apologies, President Nelson, but there's yet no equivalent term).

It can be the same with philosophy. Someone who hasn't studied it much, who has just a cursory understanding of the issues, drops in and claims to have some unshakeable position that philosophy actually has been dealing with for quite some time. This person's arguments aren't really new and the person giving them doesn't have enough background and contextual knowledge to be persuasive to someone, the philosopher, who knows the background and contextual knowledge. The philosopher's response can be similar to the LDS responses on this board: here is a basic answer, and here are some resources for you to read to learn more (the equivalent of referring the new poster to the old threads).

This doesn't happen much in math, for example. If some non-mathematician has a cursory understanding of non-Euclidean geometry and makes a claim about it to a mathematician who knows it inside and out, usually the non-mathematician will accept the mathematician's view because, after all, she's the mathematician and she knows the background and context better. But of course, people don't interact with non-Euclidean geometry like they interact with philosophical questions so it's easy to shrug shoulders about math and go our merry way. This is why philosophy deals with this problem when many other fields don't.

I encourage anyone who has interest in these issue to pick up an introductory book, or a philosophy for laymen book, on the issues. You'll see how much thinking has been done on these issues and realize that there are positions you probably never even thought of. You'll see the arguments for the various positions. You'll realize that this is an actual discipline with an actual history and, yes, actual experts. It's a worthy endeavor.

And I agree with Socrates. As he was on trial for his life, charged because of his philosophical inquiries, he said that the unexamined life is not worth living. It is worth it to examine our lives, to examine our assumptions, to examine the beliefs that are the foundations of our actions. Find truth wherever it may be, through God's revelations, through the Holy Spirit, through mystical experience, through the deep and hard thinking of the philosophers, theologians, and saints.

You are a strong proselytizing church. By definition that means you are asking people to reevaluate their deepest beliefs about themselves and the nature of reality and see if your position is closer to the truth than theirs. This means that you agree with Socrates -- you want to live an examined life. Don't poo-poo philosophy for being one of the few academic disciplines that actually does that.

Edited November 13, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Please listen to the Rorty video I have posted a hundred times. Of course we know what is true and false. We just can't define what makes truth true in all circumstances.

And I do not believe that the scriptures are God breathed do you?

Some, yes I do.  But obviously not all.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Some, yes I do.  But obviously not all.

Does the writer have his agency while writing, or is he a robot?

[CV75]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would not suggest you read Whitehead though without taking a course in Process thought.  It is an entirely different way of seeing reality.  It took me a few years.  Rorty et al are kind of a watered- down version, and that is one of the reasons I use his stuff so much- he is supposedly the "lucid philosopher" but folks here seem to not really get Rorty so I am not sure they are ready for Whitehead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality

For people, we are constantly becoming and changing- there is no "reality" from a Cartesian point of view- people are like bundles of EXPERIENCES.   You have to see humans and things also as processes instead of fixed entities.

You are not the "same person" you were as a child- you have progressed.  Today or tomorrow you may have an experience that changes you, even if only a tiny bit.  Today you may learn a little about process philosophy and the next time it pops up you may look it up- or whatever- but YOU are a process.

Tables and chairs can be seen as processes as well- they are as we experience them.  I learned the other day the difference between a "sofa" and a "chesterfield"- something I had never noticed before!  I now have a new way of looking at sofas- and of experiencing them!  Even my old easy chair that I love is getting worn out- and look at that sentence!  Is it correct to say I "love" an easy chair?   Yet I feel a connection to it.   My experience and knowledge of that particular easy chair is a process of events- the time I spilled the soup, the nick in the upholstery when I dropped my knife- is it the "same" easy chair I bought?   In one sense yes, and in another, no.

If you are interested, read the wikipedia page.  Most of all LDS theologians of late are process thinkers- Ostler, Mason, etc.   They try to convey meaning to the general membership but actually they are process thinkers and the membership is just not ready for that yet.

 

I agree. My remarks were first about the misuse of the temple phrase considering the archaic definition of philosophy that was likely its original context; then in support of your comments about process theology in light of the changing understanding of what philosophy is/was over the past 150 years or so.