Opinions, Convictions, Facts, Beliefs, Truth Oh My!

[Navidad]

I have tried a new tact on the forum. I am enjoying reading all the discussions and am trying to refrain from commenting so much unless it is lighthearted and not apt to offend. There is one particular thread right now that has fascinated me. It reads like a lot of political threads I see on Facebook. This one thread has used the terms opinion (something the other has), conviction (something the poster has), fact (something the poster has), belief (something the poster and the other have, but only one is right), truth (certainly what the poster has and usually ends all debate), doctrine (whatever either needs to defend his or her position), and practice (whatever is; but isn't doctrine - it changes, but doctrine doesn't), and other descriptors that I am sure I have missed. I am fascinated by the use of all these words to defend, defeat, deflate, deride, and/or define the other. It seems to me that each of us at times confuses all these words by using them to our own benefit. We call an opinion a fact; a fact an opinion; a practice a doctrine or vice-versa to our own benefit. An opinion seems easy to malign. A conviction is sacred. I believe this tendency to use and abuse these very important terms is common in all Christian groups, including Mennonites and the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am and have for years been fascinated by this. There has to be a book in here somewhere!

In the same way I am very interested in the religious strife and conflict that ensues when doctrine turns to dogma to duty to destruction in sequence. I think this is the pathway for religious conflict. It happened here in Mexico in the two Cristiadas; in the Shepherd's Crusades of the 14th century; and at many other times in religious history, including perhaps at Mountain Meadows.

OK....I am making some observations and conclusions. I would be very interested in your ideas and thoughts about all of this. Do we misuse the bold and highlighted terms above to our own advantage when discussing and debating? Do we recognize it when we do it? Thanks for any input you may have. I hope someone responds; it took me forever to bold and italicize all those words! Ha!

[Bernard Gui]

Facts are what I have. Opinions are what you have. And that's a fact.

Edited March 24, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have tried a new tact on the forum. I am enjoying reading all the discussions and am trying to refrain from commenting so much unless it is lighthearted and not apt to offend. There is one particular thread right now that has fascinated me. It reads like a lot of political threads I see on Facebook. This one thread has used the terms opinion (something the other has), conviction (something the poster has), fact (something the poster has), belief (something the poster and the other have, but only one is right), truth (certainly what the poster has and usually ends all debate), doctrine (whatever either needs to defend his or her position), and practice (whatever is; but isn't doctrine - it changes, but doctrine doesn't), and other descriptors that I am sure I have missed. I am fascinated by the use of all these words to defend, defeat, deflate, deride, and/or define the other. It seems to me that each of us at times confuses all these words by using them to our own benefit. We call an opinion a fact; a fact an opinion; a practice a doctrine or vice-versa to our own benefit. An opinion seems easy to malign. A conviction is sacred. I believe this tendency to use and abuse these very important terms is common in all Christian groups, including Mennonites and the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am and have for years been fascinated by this. There has to be a book in here somewhere!

In the same way I am very interested in the religious strife and conflict that ensues when doctrine turns to dogma to duty to destruction in sequence. I think this is the pathway for religious conflict. It happened here in Mexico in the two Cristiadas; in the Shepherd's Crusades of the 14th century; and at many other times in religious history, including perhaps at Mountain Meadows.

OK....I am making some observations and conclusions. I would be very interested in your ideas and thoughts about all of this. Do we misuse the bold and highlighted terms above to our own advantage when discussing and debating? Do we recognize it when we do it? Thanks for any input you may have. I hope someone responds; it took me forever to bold and italicize all those words! Ha!

How much of this do you think is just human nature? Seems to me it would apply across all lines....religious, political, academic, scientific, etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

........................ We call an opinion a fact; a fact an opinion; a practice a doctrine or vice-versa to our own benefit. An opinion seems easy to malign. A conviction is sacred. ......................... There has to be a book in here somewhere!

.................... doctrine turns to dogma to duty to destruction in sequence. I think this is the pathway for religious conflict. ..........................

.................... Do we misuse the bold and highlighted terms above to our own advantage when discussing and debating? Do we recognize it when we do it? Thanks for any input you may have. I hope someone responds; it took me forever to bold and italicize all those words! Ha!

This is the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, and that is what takes place here.  It does not consist of one unified community, and it does sometimes get out of hand, forcing the monitors to shut this or that thread, or even to ban someone.   By and large, however, it is usually civil, with some humor expressed along the way.  There are lots of other discussion boards, most not nearly as civil as this one.

[Meadowchik]

On 3/24/2020 at 9:09 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Facts are what I have. Opinions are what you have. And that's a fact.

I think it's freeing to admit our own opinions as opinions, and to attempt to adhere to a standard of fact while trying to be aware of the limitations of knowledge Just my opinion, though

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think it's freeing to admit our own opinions as opinions, and to attempt to adhere to a standard of fact while trying to be aware of the limitations of knowledge Just my opinion, though

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. 

Edited March 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

On 3/24/2020 at 4:39 PM, Navidad said:

I have tried a new tact on the forum. I am enjoying reading all the discussions and am trying to refrain from commenting so much unless it is lighthearted and not apt to offend. There is one particular thread right now that has fascinated me. It reads like a lot of political threads I see on Facebook. This one thread has used the terms opinion (something the other has), conviction (something the poster has), fact (something the poster has), belief (something the poster and the other have, but only one is right), truth (certainly what the poster has and usually ends all debate), doctrine (whatever either needs to defend his or her position), and practice (whatever is; but isn't doctrine - it changes, but doctrine doesn't), and other descriptors that I am sure I have missed. I am fascinated by the use of all these words to defend, defeat, deflate, deride, and/or define the other. It seems to me that each of us at times confuses all these words by using them to our own benefit. We call an opinion a fact; a fact an opinion; a practice a doctrine or vice-versa to our own benefit. An opinion seems easy to malign. A conviction is sacred. I believe this tendency to use and abuse these very important terms is common in all Christian groups, including Mennonites and the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am and have for years been fascinated by this. There has to be a book in here somewhere!

In the same way I am very interested in the religious strife and conflict that ensues when doctrine turns to dogma to duty to destruction in sequence. I think this is the pathway for religious conflict. It happened here in Mexico in the two Cristiadas; in the Shepherd's Crusades of the 14th century; and at many other times in religious history, including perhaps at Mountain Meadows.

OK....I am making some observations and conclusions. I would be very interested in your ideas and thoughts about all of this. Do we misuse the bold and highlighted terms above to our own advantage when discussing and debating? Do we recognize it when we do it? Thanks for any input you may have. I hope someone responds; it took me forever to bold and italicize all those words! Ha!

Such is the nature of discussion and debate. It can be challenging to accurately express what one really means, and especially what one really feels.

[smac97]

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

I have tried a new tact on the forum. I am enjoying reading all the discussions and am trying to refrain from commenting so much unless it is lighthearted and not apt to offend. There is one particular thread right now that has fascinated me. It reads like a lot of political threads I see on Facebook. This one thread has used the terms opinion (something the other has), conviction (something the poster has), fact (something the poster has), belief (something the poster and the other have, but only one is right), truth (certainly what the poster has and usually ends all debate), doctrine (whatever either needs to defend his or her position), and practice (whatever is; but isn't doctrine - it changes, but doctrine doesn't), and other descriptors that I am sure I have missed.

Patrick Moynihan had it right: "He who controls the dictionary controls the debate."

I try hard to use words according to their normative, from-the-dictionary definitions.  Where I deviate from that (such as by using doctrinal/theological terms that are ambiguous, or which are infused with particular meaning by the Church), I try to justify that in the discussion.

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

I am fascinated by the use of all these words to defend, defeat, deflate, deride, and/or define the other. It seems to me that each of us at times confuses all these words by using them to our own benefit. We call an opinion a fact; a fact an opinion;

These are rather easily distinguishable.  

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

a practice a doctrine or vice-versa to our own benefit.

This is a little more dicey, owing largely to ambiguity.  For example, the Word of Wisdom is clearly "doctrine," but how it is construed and applied is . . . what?  "Doctrinal?"  "Practice?"

How do we differentiate "doctrine" from "practice?"  A few years ago, I wrote this:

Quote

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

 

Quote

 

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

 

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

To further illustrate here is  an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

Quote

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40).

 

So, there's some nuance here.

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

An opinion seems easy to malign.

Not all opinions are created equal.  An informed, well-reasoned opinion is harder to dismiss than a glib, ignorant one.

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

A conviction is sacred.

In 1521, an imperial diet (assembly) of the Holy Roman Empire called by Emperor Charles V in Worms (a city what is now Germany).  During this "Diet of Worms" (now there's a catchy title), Martin Luther attended to defend the Protestant Reformation.  Included in his remarks was this statement: "Most human affairs come down to depending on whose ox is gored.”  Per this article, Luther was possibly Exodus 21:28-36, which sets forth the law about what to do if an ox gores a person, but his meaning was that "a given event will be seen differently depending on the degree to which the viewer’s self-interest is involved." 

I'm bringing this up because "convictions" often seem to be an "eye of the beholder" or "whose ox is {being} gored" kind of thing.  (This article has some interesting things to say about "religious convictions.")

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

I believe this tendency to use and abuse these very important terms is common in all Christian groups, including Mennonites and the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am and have for years been fascinated by this. There has to be a book in here somewhere!

Daniel Peterson and Stephen Ricks wrote a very good book about a related topic: Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-Day Saints

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

In the same way I am very interested in the religious strife and conflict that ensues when doctrine turns to dogma to duty to destruction in sequence.

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

I think this is the pathway for religious conflict. It happened here in Mexico in the two Cristiadas; in the Shepherd's Crusades of the 14th century; and at many other times in religious history, including perhaps at Mountain Meadows.

I'm not sure how much "doctrine" was in play at Mountain Meadows.

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

OK....I am making some observations and conclusions. I would be very interested in your ideas and thoughts about all of this. Do we misuse the bold and highlighted terms above to our own advantage when discussing and debating?

Sometimes, yes.

On 3/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Navidad said:

Do we recognize it when we do it?

Sometimes.

Thanks,

-Smac