- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m quoting something from an article posed earlier, below. I don’t post it to discuss individual reactions, or criticism, only to understand what the heck the guy is saying. I wonder if anyone interested in this exercise could resist the urge to read the responses of others, and simply paraphrase what you think the man is saying in the simplest terms possible — as if trying to describe the meaning to someone who is in grade four. It will be interesting to see if there is consonance among the various responses.
Here is the mind-bender.
Quote:
The acting subject is something acted upon even in its very acting, for the acting subject is itself a function of the anonymous, presubjective forces by which it is traversed—by language, the unconscious, by the weight and momentum of its own past, of the collective past to which it belongs, by the biochemistry and neurophysiology of which it is constituted, and by numberless (because anonymous) other forces. When the subject acts, we cannot be sure what acts, i.e., what is happening, because the individual subject is an irreducible complex of other events..
My summary: Quote:We (humans collectively and individually) are much more complex than we realize, so we can’t always know why we do what we do – what the “acting agent” (or fundamental causation) really is.
What you said made sense Ray — now, why couldn’t he just say that? I read stuff like this all day sometimes when working on my PhD and I get a bit frustrated when they put all that thickness between myself and the ideas!!! Anyone else find it a bit thick to read? yes very thick. i call it verbal diahrrea lol. by the way SD… love your avatar ! hee hee. BeLikeChrist wrote:yes very thick. i call it verbal diahrrea lol. by the way SD… love your avatar ! hee hee.
I think it’s a bit edgy with the Savior in it; I’d rather have the guy on his knees praying those words and no Deity in it. But I’m not a graphic artist to remove it or alter it.
Regarding the quote, here is my interpretation, although it’s not as concise as Ray’s:
Quote:Human behavior is a function of language (perhaps due to he individual’s interpretation of the meaning of words, whether intended or not), unconscious thoughts (think Freud here), past experiences, the history of its cultural groups, biology and many other forces. And it is ever changing — with behavior changing as the individual interacts with its world. So, we never really know the cause of a person’s behavior given the web of variables which interact with the person’s current experiences.
I think the guy is using this as a reason to embrace certainty over uncertainty.
Not sure I entirely agree with this philosopher’s assertion. I teach courses where I have entire classes of students analyzing the case to determine what they should do. I find that the majority of the people usually fall into two or three different camps. Occasionally, you get some fringe players, but after teaching the same case 5 different times, I pretty much know one group wants to sell the company, the other group wants to divest unprofitable product lines and keep the profitable ones, and the other group wants to keep trying with the existing product lines. I hear many of the same reasons for each course of action too.
The other thing — I’ve been reading a really good book called
How To Measure Anything, and the author asserts that the quest for absolute certainty can be a waste of time, and often unecessary. First, absolute certainty is almost never required to make good decisions, and two all we need to do is REDUCE uncertainty to a certain point. We don’t need to get rid of it entirely to make accurate decisions. Second, the cost of absolute certainty is quite high, and will often wipe out the benefits. You only need to reduce the uncertainty enough to make a defensible decision given the perceived benefits of the decision. He implies that the amount of effort invested in achieving a certain level of certainty needs to be justified by the benefits of the “perfect information”. Looking at this backwards, he is therefore implying that decisions which have a high cost of being wrong may well justify higher levels of effort to get that “perfect information” needed to make one’s decision.
Now, when it comes to the gospel, I think one of the reasons people will often insist on absolute certainty, leading to debates like the kind we have seen at StayLDS, is the huge cost of being wrong about the truthfulness of Mormonism.
If the LDS Church is NOT the only true Church on the earth, and tithing and the temple are NOT required for salvation, the person who starts paying tithing at 18 until he dies at 70, earning an average of $40,000 a year, will invest about $166,000 after tax, which is a substantial sum. For the person who earns an average of $50,000 a year over his or her lifetime, the cost is $208,000 after tax. And that doesn’t even take into account the interest that could be earned on those savings over a lifetime, which is huge.
No wonder people demand a higher level of certainty when it comes to the claims of the LDS Church given the high cost of being wrong.
I don’t mean to be flippant, but I find it fascinating how people see things differently. I see those figures and think, “Wow, that’s not all that much over a lifetime.” That’s not really relevant to the thread, however, so . . . back to the regularly scheduled program.
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t mean to be flippant, but I find it fascinating how people see things differently. I see those figures and think, “Wow, that’s not all that much over a lifetime.”
That’s not really relevant to the thread, however, so . . . back to the regularly scheduled program.
Well, if you want to see the true value, use the FV function in Excel. The future value of a stream of $4000 annual payments at 6% for 70-18 =52 years is actually: =FV(0.06,70-18,4000,0,1)
$1,391,913.23)1.3 Million dollars over a lifetime when the time value of money is included. That is the equivalent of 9 houses at current prices in my locale, 20 bachelor’s degrees at a private collage, a comfortable retirement nest egg….and the list goes on.
And I suppose if I’m looking at it in these terms right now, I have no business paying it as one is supposed to do it willingly.
However, to make it relevant to the discussion, I see why people start demanding a higher level of certainty about the truthfulness of the Church’s claims when the costs of being wrong seem to be so high. I remember my father in law, who is a traditional believer, saying once “If this turns out NOT to be true, I’m going to be TICKED”. I can see why when you work the numbers.
I agree, SD – but I just don’t care enough about this particular issue to crunch the numbers and be upset about it. There are lies, damned lies and statistics – and there are good uses of statistics. I actually am HUGE on data analysis when it comes to making business decisions, but this is one area where I really just don’t care. 10% is fine for me, especially if I can determine what that means – and I can. That’s just me, however – and I really do understand why others are upset. I didn’t mean at all to devalue the way you see this. I just wanted to make the point that it is fascinating to me how differently people see things. That’s all.
No problem Ray. One of the principles I’m finding peace in is this. To respect the ways other people view things. Hopefully this came through when I resolved to teach my children to respect the sanctity with which members hold having a temple wedding even even though they have relatives who might be offended without the civil wedding — while also offering the idea that a civil wedding first, followed by a temple wedding a year later has certain advantages that should be considered. The same applies to tithing. When you crunch the numbers, the amount invested is quite astounding to me on a pure numbers basis — and my estimate of a 6% growth rate is not be any means outrageous (for example, that return can be garnered simply by paying down a mortgage during average cycles). And I’m not convinced the assumptions overall are unreasonable.
On the other hand, I realize many Church goers hold the sacrifice of tithing as well worth the expected blessings and current rewards in GREAT esteem. I know I did for a couple decades. And for some, like Tom Haws, the act of getting rid of money has deep personal significance. I respect that, although I personally don’t see it exactly the same way at this point in time.
Also, I think I should modify Shultz’s quote in my signature line to say. “I say with only partial certainty that I know nothing about the absolute truth of certain religious beliefs”.
SilentDawning wrote:I remember my father in law, who is a traditional believer, saying once “If this turns out NOT to be true, I’m going to be TICKED” [snip] If the LDS Church is NOT the only true Church on the earth, and tithing and the temple are NOT required for salvation….
In imagining a heaven where everyone gets in and progresses to their ultimate potential eventually (the heaven put forward recently by Rob Bell in his book Love Wins), I also imagine some LDS persons (and persons of other faiths believing that certain sacrifices are necessary for salvation) being quite put off upon finding so many “less worthy” persons among heaven’s hosts. I also imagine Jesus as saying quite sternly, “It is I who paid the price for sins. I will determine who will receive the effects of my merciful atonement in its fullness and who will not. I have seen fit to allow you continued progression despite your shortcomings and that should be sufficient for you.” Then He softens some before adding, “Please don’t begrudge your brothers and sisters of that same mercy that I have extended to you.”
I think that kind of a world is easy to envision. And I feel it can be justified from the D&C — the scripture that says endless punishment is God’s punishment — not that it’s necessarily eternal, it’s that it is from God, and therefore, considered endless because He is endless…. On the other hand, Alma 1 says this:
Quote:
2 And it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of Alma in the judgment-seat, there was a man brought before him to be judged, a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength.3 And he had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down bagainst the church; declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.
4 And he also testified unto the people that aall mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.
Later, he is brought up on charges of murder and also, inciting priestcraft. However, never sanctioned as far as I can tell for preaching this particular doctrine about all people getting salvation at some point. However, the scriptures did imply that he disseminated these ideas to be popular and get money rather than because it was true — although that is my own reading between the lines.
However, the doctrine is debunked more specifically here:
Quote:
2 Nephi 28: 88. And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, afalse and vain and bfoolish cdoctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.
10 And the ablood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.
11 Yea, they have all gone out of the away; they have become corrupted.
Even this, however, can be parsed out (maybe Ray could help). The scripture could be interpreted this way. The part about justifying sin is wrong, but the part about eventually all are saved is correct.
Bottom line, the D&C scripture about the distinction between endless and eternal punishment implies there may be opportunities for advancement even if you make some mistakes in this life. However, the other two scriptures might imply that spreading this blessing, along with justification of sin now, is a false doctrine. Saying all are eventually saved, while affirming the need to be good now lest we abuse this priviledge, could be construed as sound doctrine.
This is one of those things on which I have only an opinion. I welcome discussion how to reconcile these potentially conflicting scriptures. I like Rob Bell’s ideas based on the few YouTube videos I’ve watched of him. They have this inclusiveness that I would like to think is part of a loving God’s view of the world.
We have to be told we must do our best and try our hardest. Anything else leads to laziness for too many people – and abuse of all sorts. We have to told we can’t make it on our own, no matter our best efforts. Anything else leads to pride for too many people – and abuse of all sorts.
We respond best to whichever matches (or doesn’t match) our fundamental nature – whichever is the best motivator for each of us as individuals – whichever is the one we want to hear.
Good leaders have no freaking clue which message will ring true with which individual, unless they can get to know each individual, so they have to teach both in any organization that is too large to know everyone individually.
Thus, good leaders of groups ALWAYS are wrong – while simultaneously ALWAYS being right. The only alternative is exclusion of a huge portion of those they try to lead.
SilentDawning wrote:I think that kind of a world is easy to envision. And I feel it can be justified from the D&C — the scripture that says endless punishment is God’s punishment — not that it’s necessarily eternal, it’s that it is from God, and therefore, considered endless because He is endless….
On the other hand, [Alma 1 and 2 Nephi 28 seem to point in the other direction]
I had a similar experience where something that I found as personal truth was contradicted by scripture (or at least the spin or interpretation the scripture received in the relevant institute manual):
Quote:I wrote in my introduction:
Roy wrote:In reading, I have been seeking “The Answer.” When I read “Believing Christ” I was floored with “The Answer.” “Wow, of course God doesn’t expect me to be a saviour for those dearest to me- He loves me in my weakness and accepts my offering as long as my heart is in the right place. Why didn’t I know this before?”
I had been working out my relationship with God. The book “Believing Christ” comes along and confirms many of my “God loves me in my imperfections” feelings/revelations and presents these theories as core (if underemphasized) Mormonism. Here I was wondering if my new beliefs were compatible with the church, and suddenly – through this book – I felt that my new beliefs were the new true doctrine.
I could now interpret that to “endure in faith on his name to the end” (D&C 20:29-30) is an exercise in maintaining a “broken heart and a contrite spirit.” This was much easier for me to swallow as my heart was never in question, just my fortitude.
It was one last grasp at binary thinking. This lasted for two or three weeks and then came the second portion of my introductory post:
Roy wrote:In attempting to answer some questions by a very sweet and sincere missionary as to how I could believe in “easy grace,” I looked up some of the relevant scripture verses in my institute manuals. I found that the interpretation and emphasis given these verses in the institute manual are not the same as that given in “Believing Christ.”
I looked up “grace” in the bible dictionary and found the following definition:
Quote:It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means. This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.
Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings. However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do”
Now I was back to my visualization of the perpetual handcart journey only now “grace” seemed to be that extra little shove to keep you going when every muscle is screaming at you to stop…until of course, you fall down dead in mid-step.
I was not so sure of myself to think that the church authorities quoted in these institute manuals and the editors of the bible dictionary were somehow in error while I was enlightened. Nor could I dismiss the differences as S. Robinson seems to dismiss those differences in his students’ understandings as being “a function of age and maturity” or being “soft in the middle.”
Now I am more confident in my personal truth while understanding that this may have little correlation with absolute truth or the personal truths of others. Thanks in large part to this site I am discovering that my own personal revelation is as pure a source of spiritual truth as I can find. My own personal compass can be relied upon to explore personal meaning that matters.In applying this to the scriptures I think it is misleading to force them all to agree with one another. The prophets and other writers of the scriptures wrote from their life experiences mingled with inspired personal truths. As a consequence various scriptures seem contradictory. In our assumption that Truth is always supported by other Truth, we try to explain away contradictions and interpret the truth of all past ages through our current lens and understanding.
Perhaps it is worthwhile trying to parse the words of Prophets ancient or modern so that they better agree with our mental framework, even if this parsing distorts the meaning beyond the speaker’s intention. I reconcile my truth with a different approach. When I find a source of truth that does not fit well with my understanding, I consider it, I explore it. It is always possible that this new truth may be an even better fit and supersede the truth of my previous understanding. If I ultimately decide not to add it to my body of truth, then perhaps it just isn’t my preferred flavor of truth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.