Spencer W. Kimball and Ordinary Language Pragmatism

[mfbukowski]

You gotta read it ALL but I will give you a taste.

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

Quote

 

Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field. Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation. The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it” (D&C 93:30). A geologist who has discovered truths about the structure of the earth may be oblivious to the truths God has given us about the eternal nature of the family.

If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. To become a plumber, one must study the laws which govern plumbing. He must know stresses and strains; temperatures at which pipes will freeze; laws which govern steam, hot water, expansion, contraction, and so forth. One might know much about plumbing and be a complete failure in training children or getting along with men. One might be the best of bookkeepers and yet not know anything of electricity. One might know much about buying and selling groceries and be absolutely ignorant of bridge building.

One might be a great authority on the hydrogen bomb and yet know nothing of banking. One might be a noted theologian and yet be wholly untrained in watchmaking. One might be the author of the law of relativity and yet know nothing of the Creator who originated every law. I repeat, these are not matters of opinion. They are absolute truths. These truths are available to every soul.

Any intelligent man may learn what he wants to learn. He may acquire knowledge in any field, though it requires much thought and effort. It takes more than a decade to get a high school diploma; it takes an additional four years for most people to get a college degree; it takes nearly a quarter-century to become a great physician. Why, oh, why do people think they can fathom the most complex spiritual depths without the necessary experimental and laboratory work accompanied by compliance with the laws that govern it? Absurd it is, but you will frequently find popular personalities, who seem never to have lived a single law of God, discoursing in interviews on religion. How ridiculous for such persons to attempt to outline for the world a way of life!

And yet many a financier, politician, college professor, or owner of a gambling club thinks that because he has risen above all his fellowmen in his particular field he knows everything in every field. One cannot know God nor understand his works or plans unless he follows the laws which govern. The spiritual realm, which is just as absolute as is the physical, cannot be understood by the laws of the physical. You do not learn to make electric generators in a seminary. Neither do you learn certain truths about spiritual things in a physics laboratory. You must go to the spiritual laboratory, use the facilities available there, and comply with the governing rules. Then you may know of these truths just as surely, or more surely, than the scientist knows the metals, or the acids, or other elements. It matters little whether one is a plumber, or a banker, or a farmer, for these occupations are secondary; what is most important is what one knows and believes concerning his past and his future and what he does about it.

When we were spiritual beings, fully organized and able to think and study and understand with him, our Heavenly Father said to us, in effect: “Now, my beloved children, in your spirit state you have progressed about as far as you can. To continue your development, you need physical bodies. I intend to provide a plan whereby you may continue your growth. As you know, one can grow only by overcoming.

“Now,” said the Lord, “we shall take of the elements at hand and organize them into an earth, place thereon vegetation and animal life, and permit you to go down upon it. This will be your proving ground. We shall give you a rich earth, lavishly furnished for your benefit and enjoyment, and we shall see if you will prove true and do the things that are asked of you. I will enter into a contract with you. If you will agree to exercise control over your desires and continue to grow toward perfection and godhood by the plan which I shall provide, I will give to you a physical body of flesh and bones and a rich and productive earth, with sun, water, forests, metals, soils, and all other things necessary to feed and clothe and house you and give to you every enjoyment that is proper and for your good. In addition to this, I will make it possible for you to eventually return to me as you improve your life, overcoming obstacles and approaching perfection.”

To the above most generous offer, we as sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father responded with gratitude. We took our turns and came to earth as bodies were prepared by our earthly parents. We are now on trial—on the proving ground. This, also, is an absolute truth. It cannot be disproved. It is an incontrovertible fact. If one can accept these unassailable truths, then he is ready to start his experimentation and his laboratory work.

 

Note that his definition of "absolute truth" as that which CANNOT BE REFUTED.

I totally agree- none of LDS doctrine CAN be refuted in the sense of "disproven".   And also we know that what constitutes "doctrine" can be a bit slippery.

But our dear prophet has moved on and I am sure that by now he sees his minor flaws in a field he never meant to enter, much better than we can even know.

And there are tautologies- that the Earth is in the shape of a sphere is definitional- that shape is what defines the word "sphere".  It is as absolutely true as A=A- it is what shape defines planets.  It is actually an EMPIRICAL truth based on experience- No one has found a cubical planet. 

I think everything he says here is "TRUE", and I have a personal testimony that they are.  One has to WORK to achieve the spiritual confirmations of what our church teaches.

Wikipedia, surprisingly, does a pretty good job describing what is meant by "ordinary language philosophy' which is the area in which I study.

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

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And there are tautologies- that the Earth is in the shape of a sphere is definitional- that shape is what defines the word "sphere".  It is as absolutely true as A=A- it is what shape defines planets.  It is actually an EMPIRICAL truth based on experience- No one has found a cubical planet. 

[InCognitus]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don't buy into circular reasoning, sorry.

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I don't buy into circular reasoning, sorry.

Cute!

Definitions are circular by design.

A=A?  The INTENTION of a definition is not even "reason".  It is what it is. 🤪

ACTUALLY These are called "tautologies".  And yes they cannot be disproved

All of those descriptions, if correct are tautologies.

tau·tol·o·gy

/tôˈtäləjē/

 

 

noun

1. the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession ).

   "there was also a lot of tautology: there's no need to say ‘return back to’" ....

    
   • a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.

     plural noun: tautologies

     "all of the ‘evidence’ in support of these claims boils down to tautologies and circular reasoning"
   • LOGIC

     a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

     "all logical propositions are reducible to either tautologies or contradictions"

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 

sphere

1 of 3

noun

ˈsfir 

Synonyms of sphere

1

a(1)

: the apparent surface of the heavens of which half forms the dome of the visible sky

(2)

: any of the concentric and eccentric revolving spherical transparent shells in which according to ancient astronomy stars, sun, planets, and moon are set

b: a globe depicting such a sphere

broadly : GLOBE sense a

2

a

: a globular body : BALL

b

: PLANET, STAR

c(1)

: a solid that is bounded by a surface consisting of all points at a given distance from a point constituting its center see Volume Formulas Table

(2)

: the bounding surface of a sphere

3

: natural, normal, or proper placeespecially : social order or rank

not in the same sphere as his moneyed friend

....... Note the last point, also verifying the meaning of "sphere" as used in "sphere of knowledge ".

Entirely consistent 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

All of those descriptions, if correct are tautologies.

[mfbukowski]

Where would we be without a dictionary in Sacrament talks?

🤔

[MiserereNobis]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

One has to WORK to achieve the spiritual confirmations of what our church teaches.

Is this not true for every religion?

One cannot simply show up at a monastery, say "I want to be a monk," and that's that. There is a long process of work before the community will accept you and before you can make a profession of final vows.

[Smiley McGee]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Note that his definition of "absolute truth" as that which CANNOT BE REFUTED.

My turn to quote Rorty: “We can’t tell you about Truth, there’s nothing to be said about it…Truth isn’t relative to anything, because it isn’t relative to anything there’s nothing to be said about it.” 
 

In the talk you’re referencing, Spencer W Kimball has plenty to say about Truth, and even identifies some absolute truths: “God, our Heavenly Father—Elohim—lives. That is an absolute truth. All four billion of the children of men on the earth might be ignorant of him and his attributes and his powers, but he still lives. All the people on the earth might deny him and disbelieve, but he lives in spite of them. They may have their own opinions, but he still lives, and his form, powers, and attributes do not change according to men’s opinions. In short, opinion alone has no power in the matter of an absolute truth. He still lives. And Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Almighty, the Creator, the Master of the only true way of life—the gospel of Jesus Christ. The intellectual may rationalize him out of existence and the unbeliever may scoff, but Christ still lives and guides the destinies of his people. That is an absolute truth; there is no gainsaying.”

What a pragmatist that President Kimball!

The purpose of Kimball’s comment on the specialization of knowledge is to suggest that the “doubter” in his talk is spiritually inept and unqualified to make judgements on spiritual matters. Yet we don’t know what the doubter has done or not done, we only know that Kimball doesn’t like their conclusion. We don’t how Kimball can somehow knows absolute truths, he just asserts that he does and everyone who disagrees is wrong. 
 

This is a strange talk to select in support of pragmatism since it’s full of incredibly dogmatic statements. 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Where would we be without a dictionary in Sacrament talks?

🤔

In a utopian and/or translated society?

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

My turn to quote Rorty: “We can’t tell you about Truth, there’s nothing to be said about it…Truth isn’t relative to anything, because it isn’t relative to anything there’s nothing to be said about it.” 
 

In the talk you’re referencing, Spencer W Kimball has plenty to say about Truth, and even identifies some absolute truths: “God, our Heavenly Father—Elohim—lives. That is an absolute truth. All four billion of the children of men on the earth might be ignorant of him and his attributes and his powers, but he still lives. All the people on the earth might deny him and disbelieve, but he lives in spite of them. They may have their own opinions, but he still lives, and his form, powers, and attributes do not change according to men’s opinions. In short, opinion alone has no power in the matter of an absolute truth. He still lives. And Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Almighty, the Creator, the Master of the only true way of life—the gospel of Jesus Christ. The intellectual may rationalize him out of existence and the unbeliever may scoff, but Christ still lives and guides the destinies of his people. That is an absolute truth; there is no gainsaying.”

What a pragmatist that President Kimball!

The purpose of Kimball’s comment on the specialization of knowledge is to suggest that the “doubter” in his talk is spiritually inept and unqualified to make judgements on spiritual matters. Yet we don’t know what the doubter has done or not done, we only know that Kimball doesn’t like their conclusion. We don’t how Kimball can somehow knows absolute truths, he just asserts that he does and everyone who disagrees is wrong. 
 

This is a strange talk to select in support of pragmatism since it’s full of incredibly dogmatic statements. 

I already answered that. Dogmatism is in the eyes of the beholder.

Every time he uses "absolute truth" he SAYS the statement cannot be proven false. 

He is right in all those cases- he DEFINES "absolute truth" that way.

It cannot be disproven/proven that either God exists or DOESN'T exist

You are not understanding what Pragmatism is, and I suppose that is my fault for even trying to bring it up.

Your Rorty quote is incomplete. He is making the point that there is nothing we can SAY ABOUT truth because it is undefinable.  He says we know what it means, how to use the term in ORDINARY LANGUAGE- children understand what it means, and use the word correctly.

I bear my testimony in church using standard ordinary language all the time, that the church is "true", and it is. It does for me in my life all I need in religions, and I promote its causes. I love going to the temple and was a temple worker for 15 years, and a bishop for 5.  Yes the church is true, and yes, I know that.

I believe it presents the best possible set of religious paradigms.

[Smiley McGee]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Every time he uses "absolute truth" he SAYS the statement cannot be proven false. 

He is right in all those cases- he DEFINES "absolute truth" that way.

He’s not saying “it cannot be proven or disproven,” he is saying “you may disagree but you would be wrong”:

“God, our Heavenly Father—Elohim—lives. That is an absolute truth. All four billion of the children of men on the earth might be ignorant of him and his attributes and his powers, but he still lives. All the people on the earth might deny him and disbelieve, but he lives in spite of them.”

And this: “The earth was made by the Gods as was the watch by the watchmaker. Opinions do not change that.“

In classic form to induce fear, a la The Miracle of Forgiveness, he then adds this gem: “Someday you will see and feel and understand and perhaps even berate yourself for the long delay and waste of time. It is not a matter of if. It is a matter of when.”

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are not understanding what Pragmatism is

This is likely true; I am a novice at best and find much of philosophy laden with so much jargon so as to be inaccessible to me (my only redemption is that I aced the only philosophy class I took at BYU…probably not a good endorsement for their program), so please critique what I’m about to say. To me, foundational to a pragmatic philosophy is that, with regards to the quest of absolute truth, the game is over, in fact, there was no game at all. We can’t comprehend the absolute, we can’t comprehend our proximity to it; it’s a game for fools and charlatans. Our concern is to find the most useful way to achieve our goals. The value of a belief is not in whether it corresponds to reality, since we’ll never know that; its value is expressed in its utility for achieving some goal. To paraphrase another Rorty quote I’m fond of (probably from the same video) is that at some point we stopped looking for Truth and starting looking for ways to improve the lives of our great great grandchildren. I love that idea. At some point we’ll to stop seeking for and fighting about the Absolute and focus on what works, what brings joy, whatever is good or praiseworthy—we should be focused on seeking after these things. 
 

While I certainly think President Kimball cared deeply for his great great grand children, he seems to be playing the Absolute Truth game in this talk.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

 To me, foundational to a pragmatic philosophy is that, with regards to the quest of absolute truth, the game is over, in fact, there was no game at all. We can’t comprehend the absolute, we can’t comprehend our proximity to it; it’s a game for fools and charlatans. Our concern is to find the most useful way to achieve our goals. The value of a belief is not in whether it corresponds to reality, since we’ll never know that; its value is expressed in its utility for achieving some goal. To paraphrase another Rorty quote I’m fond of (probably from the same video) is that at some point we stopped looking for Truth and starting looking for ways to improve the lives of our great great grandchildren. I love that idea. At some point we’ll to stop seeking for and fighting about the Absolute and focus on what works, what brings joy, whatever is good or praiseworthy—we should be focused on seeking after these things. 

Of course he was not "trained" in philosophy, it was useless in his life.

Good for him!

But you are in the same position, and like him,"get it".

Yet is it an absolute truth that murder is wrong?

Yes. It cannot be proven that it is right.

All the 10 commandments imo are pragmatically absolute truths in the same way

Are stop signs red?

Absolutely, in the US.

Is red red?

Does God exist? It is impossible to prove he is not.

Go through the talk and count the number of times he says that a truth is absolute because it cannot be proven false. That is a reasonable assertion in that context.

But that is not my point in starting this- the point is that he repeatedly talks about true statements existing within their own contexts,  independent of other contexts, and that type of thinking is perfectly compatible with the LDS world.

Your point is important, and an objection I anticipated, but not really on point for the thread.  Technically though, imo his definition of absolute truth is valid.

Let's get past that point.

Edited April 25, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Smiley McGee]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

that a truth is absolute because it cannot be proven false.

I still disagree that he is saying this. But assuming he is, to equate “absolute” with “unfalsifiable” feels vacuous to me (though understand it’s not formally vacuous). The statement, “Harry Potter lives in a distant, unobservable galaxy” is unfalsifiable, but nonsense. Would you feel comfortable calling this an “absolute truth”? It’s a truth candidate, just as President Kimball’s beliefs are. 
 

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Your point is important, and an objection I anticipated, but not really on point for the thread.  Technically though, imo his definition of absolute truth is valid.

Let's get past that point.

Fair enough. 

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

the point is that he repeatedly talks about true statements existing within their own contexts

Ya, I agree with this. I get frustrated when people attempt explain religious experience in scientific terms (hammer and nail syndrome on their part I suppose). It’s like describing the experience of making love using a biology textbook…doesn’t quite capture the experience .

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Navidad]

Didn't Spencer Kimball believe and write in Miracle of Forgiveness that every time I baptized anyone I was committing blasphemy? Is that truth? Or is it simply irrelevant for you in this thread, therefore it is not truth? Or, because it is unfalsifiable on this side of the veil, it is absolute truth? I like real world examples.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Didn't Spencer Kimball believe and write in Miracle of Forgiveness that every time I baptized anyone I was committing blasphemy? Is that truth? Or is it simply irrelevant for you in this thread, therefore it is not truth? Or, because it is unfalsifiable on this side of the veil, it is absolute truth? I like real world examples.

Quote please. 
 

added:  never mind as I see you have already mentioned this before…

 

As a side note, according to his son he regretted some of the things he wrote in that book, perhaps because his understanding expanded when his experiences of leadership and revelation expanded. 

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2762815&itype=CMSID

Quote

"The book's tone, tougher than Spencer's in-person counseling, reflected his belief that people rationalize sin too quickly and consider repentance easy," writes the Mormon leader's son, Edward L. Kimball's in a popular 2005 biography of his father, "Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball."

Indeed, writes the son, "Miracle" was a book "more on sin and repentance than on forgiveness."

Kimball "later seemed to wish he had adopted a gentler tone," Edward Kimball writes.

In 1977, the Mormon leader said to Lyle Ward, his neighbor, "Sometimes I think I might have been a little too strong about some of the things I wrote in that book."

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote please. 
 

added:  never mind as I see you have already mentioned this before…

 

As a side note, according to his son he regretted some of the things he wrote in that book, perhaps because his understanding expanded with his experiences of leadership and revelation expanded. 

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2762815&itype=CMSID

 

Agree.

He was human.

We are exploring HOW he thought, not WHAT he thought.

That's a distinction some just do not ever understand I guess.

THAT is the essence of philosophy 

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree.

He was human.

We are exploring HOW he thought, not WHAT he thought.

That's a distinction some just do not ever understand I guess.

THAT is the essence of philosophy 

 

Ok let's get into what this is all about.

Section 93, one of the most "Philosophical" sections, and most "neopragmatic" statements in scripture 

This is quoted by president Kimball and is the heart of his way of thinking. THIS IS WHAT HIS TALK IS ABOUT

"28 He that ^akeepeth his commandments receiveth ^btruth and ^clight, until he is glorified in truth and ^dknoweth all things.

29 Man was also in the ^abeginning with God. ^bIntelligence, or the ^clight of ^dtruth, was not ^ecreated or made, neither indeed can be.

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

31 Behold, here is the ^aagency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is ^bplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the ^alight is under condemnation.

33 For man is ^aspirit. The elements are ^beternal, and ^cspirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

34 And when ^aseparated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

35 The ^aelements are the ^btabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even ^ctemples; and whatsoever temple is ^ddefiled, God shall destroy that temple.

36 The ^aglory of God is ^bintelligence, or, in other words, ^clight and truth."

Ok

What does this mean to you?

Is it true or false, and in what sense?

Edited April 26, 2023 by mfbukowski
Add more

[Smiley McGee]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What does this mean to you?

Note that the themes in verses 29-31 are found in 2 Ne 2, as noted in the chapter heading “Freedom of choice (agency) is essential to existence and progression.” This echoes the ideas in v30, “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.” 

Joseph seemed to suggest that the essence of (wo)man is intelligence (labeling primitive spirits as “intelligences”), so D&C 93 could be rephrased as “(wo)man is placed in a sphere to act her-/himself, otherwise there is no existence.” This section could be seen as a discourse on agency without suggesting the “truth is relative to a framework” idea. 🤷‍♂️

That said, I think Joseph was a very pragmatic individual and would have felt right at home in pragmatic philosophy. IMO, AoF 13 is probably as eloquently pragmatic as religion can get. 
 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Note that the themes in verses 29-31 are found in 2 Ne 2, as noted in the chapter heading “Freedom of choice (agency) is essential to existence and progression.” This echoes the ideas in v30, “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.” 

Joseph seemed to suggest that the essence of (wo)man is intelligence (labeling primitive spirits as “intelligences”), so D&C 93 could be rephrased as “(wo)man is placed in a sphere to act her-/himself, otherwise there is no existence.” This section could be seen as a discourse on agency without suggesting the “truth is relative to a framework” idea. 🤷‍♂️

That said, I think Joseph was a very pragmatic individual and would have felt right at home in pragmatic philosophy. IMO, AoF 13 is probably as eloquently pragmatic as religion can get. 
 

 

 

Ok, then, what does human agency have to do existence?

It says TRUTH is independent to ACT for itself, in its spheres.

Truth can act without intelligences?

How then is this about human agency creating "existence"?

How does human agency cause the existence of truth?

Could it be that human intelligence creates the world AS HUMANS KNOW IT?

That almost seems like a tautology to me.

Does whale intelligence create their world as whales know it?

See Nagel- "What Is it like to be a  Bat?"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F#:~:text="What Is It Like to,Nagel's Mortal Questions (1979).

"Daniel Dennett, while sharply disagreeing on some points, acknowledged Nagel's paper as "the most widely cited and influential thought experiment about consciousness."^[4"

Edited April 26, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We are exploring HOW he thought, not WHAT he thought.

That's a distinction some just do not ever understand I guess.

Methinks that is a distinction without a difference. How you think has much to do with leading to what you think and perhaps more importantly what you say or write.

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Navidad
Changed my Mind

[Smiley McGee]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok, then, what does human agency have to do existence?

It says TRUTH is independent to ACT for itself, in its spheres.

Truth can act without intelligences?

How then is this about human agency creating "existence"?

How does human agency cause the existence of truth?

Could it be that human intelligence creates the world AS HUMANS KNOW IT?

No idea 🤷‍♂️. Since you’re asserting that section 93 is Mormonism’s neopragmatic manifesto I was hoping you would connect these dots in plain English. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Methinks that is a distinction without a difference. How you think has much to do with leading to what you think and perhaps more importantly what you say or write.

 

So it doesn't make a difference, but it does.

And the non-difference leads to an important difference in what you write.

Huh?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

No idea 🤷‍♂️. Since you’re asserting that section 93 is Mormonism’s neopragmatic manifesto I was hoping you would connect these dots in plain English. 

Thought I was helping you by asking questions.  Socratic stuff 

Sorry.  I may get a chance to respond tomorrow afternoon.