- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:
Unless the institution cares not for its own existence, it has already ceased to be “truth”.
I was wondering if anyone could expand on this idea idea in quotes a bit. I can give my own interpretation, but I’d like to hear the interpretations of others — more detailed that what we’ve already said in this thread so far…I find the idea fascinating.
To me it means the following: A person or an organization can be dedicated to the ‘truth’, or to discovering the ‘truth’, but that is a single-minded endeavour. Any other considerations such as, “gee, baptisms are down, we need to do something about that” lead inevitably to conflicting goals. In the fight for survival, the pursuit of ‘truth’ usually loses out. Is that kind of what you meant, Tom?
By the way …
Quote:A mind stretched by a new idea can never go back to its original dimensions. –Oliver Wendell Holmes
I can’t remember where I read this the other day, but apparently it wasn’t here. I thought it was relevant.SilentDawning wrote:Quote:Unless the institution cares not for its own existence, it has already ceased to be “truth”.
I was wondering if anyone could expand on this idea idea in quotes a bit.
What doug said. Well said. Your thoughts, SD?
Unless I care not about my own image, I will not always project truth. Tom Haws wrote:SilentDawning wrote:Quote:Unless the institution cares not for its own existence, it has already ceased to be “truth”.
I was wondering if anyone could expand on this idea idea in quotes a bit.
What doug said. Well said. Your thoughts, SD?
It has a nice ring to it. But I find it lacking in something.
For me truth can be defined as “a knowledge of things the way they really are”.
So, to say “Unless the institution cares not for its own existence, it has already ceased to embody ‘things the way they really are’ ” seems not to make sense to me.
On the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly that an organization in the pursuit of truth, and Godliness may find that at times, it has to give up its very existence, or even its health, when its principles are in conflict with its interests to continue as an entity.
Here is a case in point. If plural marriage really was a true principle, then we should have allowed ourselves to be extinguished for it. However, in my view, the existence of the Church took precedent over that principle. I see this tendency all around me now. My story about the Bishop who told me to stay home from a mission since there was no money to send me is an example of that. He let the temporal concerns of the Church eclipse the spiritual principle embodied in Spencer W. Kimball’s statement “every worthy young man should serve a mission”, as well as all the other truths we hold dear, such as as our belief in miracles, etcetera…all for a temporal reason meant to contribute to the independence of the Church.
Here is another one — I have always agreed with the Church’s stance on education — that we should seek after it. I thought the reason was because it would help families have the income they need, enobles the spirit, increases our intellectual capacity, etcetera. However, one of the prophets stated “We like education because it increases our members’ capacity to serve in the Church”. I felt this was an example of a self-serving attitude toward education, that put the organization first.
So for me, the statement “An organization truly committed to truth seeks not to put its own interests ahead of the weflare of its members or its principles” is more accurate.
Just to rephrase something from SD’s last comment, in order to ask what I think is an important question: IFwe posit that polygamy was ” A truth in its time” (or even “A truth” without qualification) – and IFwe posit that continued existence is more important than continuing to hold onto “A truth” (with or without qualification) [since truth can’t be perpetuated without continued existence] – and IFwe posit that surviving to teach “truths” is more important than holding onto “A truth” – it would follow that an organization SHOULD value continued existence over refusal to let go of “A truth”. For purposes of this site, polygamy isn’t a good example of this – but I think the overall argument is valid and can’t be faulted, especially when continuing revelation leaves open the possibility of reinstating previously “lost” truth. Again, polygamy is a bad example for everyone here except Bruce, so perhaps a good question might be:
Quote:What “truths” are so important that they can never be sacrificed for continued existence, especially when they might be reinstated at a later date?
I believe there are such truths, but I am interested in hearing what everyone else thinks.
SilentDawning wrote:
For me truth can be defined as “a knowledge of things the way they really are”.
The Wikipedia article on
truthInstead of
Quote:Unless the institution cares not for its own existence, it has already ceased to embody ‘things the way they really are’
how about the following:
Quote:Unless the institution cares not for its own existence, it must give up completely honest and open inquiry into whatever ‘things the way they really are’ might possibly mean.
Of course, institutions, by definition, don’t do that anyway, since they are … well … institutional, so the point is probably moot.
That’s the pesky thing about the truth, it doesn’t even have an agreed upon true definition 😈 Human beings have been debating “what is true?” since as long as they had language and a little spare time from the brutal nature of survival to relax and think about life.I was thinking what Brian just said, that’s why I feel the need to categorize “truths” into two major buckets; personal/spiritual vs. universal/physical. The physical stuff is like evidence collected at a crime scene, it is verifiable and difficult to argue against the “proof” it provides (thus earns the “universal” title, whatever that is worth). The personal is like eye witness testimony, did they see what they think they saw?? It cannot be verified to the same degree through physical testing. So while I agree with Doug’s point, that all we can really achieve is a subjective approximation of “the way things really are” I think that approximation can be much much closer in some areas (the physical/universal) than others (personal/spiritual). Thus “truth” inherently has a floating value depending on the subject it is being applied to.
I like SD’s definition of truth. I think it’s very practical on a personal and collective (note I chose not to use the word “institutional”) level, because it implies aligning ourselves or harmonizing ourselves with reality instead of delusion (Is-ness instead of thought/story). The existence of the institution is a small part of reality that includes many other things (birds, flowers, Muslims, Spongebob, power lines, dresses, and monasteries). Caring for the institution distorts its place in reality. Caring is different than recognizing. Caring in the Jesus sense means attaching to or worrying. Of course there is another, loving, sense of care that is positive and appropriate.
Eckhart Tolle has insights into this in “A New Earth”, I think. He talks about the madness of the individual and the collective Ego.
doug wrote:[SD’s definition of truth corresponding to an objective reality is described as ‘Correspondence Theory’. Since (in my opinion) even if it exists, there is no way to know about this objective reality, the best we might be expected to do is to construct a rough, and very subjective, approximation of it. Therefore (again, in my opinion), since it is unknowable, it makes no sense to even talk about objective reality. So while I’m not sure which, if any, of these theories I would feel comfortable with, ‘Correspondence Theory’ isn’t one of them. I say this to to give context to my next comment, i.e. ignore it if you think I’m nuts.
I think the Church subscribes to Correspondence Theory (not officially, but implicitly). We stand up in F&T meeting and say “I know it’s true”, which can have different meanings, but I think most people are saying they believe the origins of the Church, the prophetic stature of Joseph Smith, and that the literal translation of the Book of Mormon actually happened pretty much as described. The preface to the Book of Mormon (the testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses) is meant to convince the world that the golden plates actually existed, meaning, the words we speak about our origins and scriptures correspond to reality.
Most of us here look at those origins with some skepticism, because as Doug said, since certain truths are objectively unknowable, correspondence theory makes no sense; on these matters because we can never know for sure if what we’re believing corresponds to reality.
So, on points of knowledge that can’t be verified independently, I think personal truth has to take over. And a working definition of this perseonal truth, for me, is “belief in ideas which motivate the person to action”. Personal truth is belief on steroids. In fact, we could extend this idea to say that Truth is faith. I think this definition balks at the traditional LDS definition of faith “belief in things that are unseen, but which are true [read –really exist]” — as personal truths don’t have to correspond to reality to be adopted as truth to the individual, and motivate him or her to action.
I see on this site tendencies to do away with Correspondence theory (a State 3 mindset) and to adopt personal truth instead. The problem (or is it a problem) with personal truth is that it can always shift, so it’s a form of truth which isn’t absolute.
I like Ray’s question — what truths are so important that we are willing to give them up for our existence? For LDS people, it would be the First Vision, the Origins of the Book of Mormon, the Authority of the Priesthood, The Doctrine and Covenants. If government said “if you want to exist as an organization, you have to actively remove these principles from your theology”, then would the people at the top actually do it? They might suppress it, but I don’t think they would outright deny it.
Now, we have an example of the Church’s willingness to sacrifice individual fairness for the existence of the organization in obeying the laws of the land (a principle I believe is there to promote the Church’s existence). In WW2, a youth named Helmut Hubener distributed anti-Nazi propaganda and was beheaded for it. He was a Mormon youth. The Church excommunicated him after his sentence was made public. However, later, SLC overturned the excommunication. I think this is an example of the Church’s willingness to put principles which assure its own existence ahead of individual fairness, relying on the reversability of their decisions to restore fairness at some point in the future.
SilentDawning wrote:I see on this site tendencies to do away with Correspondence theory (a State 3 mindset) and to adopt personal truth instead. The problem (or is it a problem) with personal truth is that it can always shift, so it’s a form of truth which isn’t absolute.
YES!! I don’t see it as a problem at all, on the contrary it solves a problem. A wise man (last name Bushman) said it’s the absolutist that will have problems with the church. I take that to mean someone that insists their personal truths are absolute — in addition to seeing the world in a binary black/white way.
Personal truths cannot be defined as absolute, that is why the distinction of “personal” is necessary. To me it is an important step in maturity to realize that your personal truths may not be absolute, while at the same time affirming their importance and meaning in your life. I see it as an act of humility, one that pays respect to God. Who are we as humans to think we have it all figured out? Only when we can lose ourself – our pride and arrogance, our desire for certainty – can we find what is most valuable… (in human relations, concerning the nature of truth, of our relationship to God, our deeper purpose on earth).
SilentDawning wrote:I think this is an example of the Church’s willingness to put principles which assure its own existence ahead of individual fairness, relying on the reversability of their decisions to restore fairness at some point in the future.
That immediately hit me as a practice that started with Joseph Smith.
Orson wrote:
That immediately hit me as a practice that started with Joseph Smith.I guess I’d have to have some examples.
SilentDawning wrote:… personal truth has to take over. And a working definition of this personal truth, for me, is “belief in ideas which motivate the person to action”.
Well, I really like that. I’d be comfortable talking about personal truth (by your definition) all day long (figuratively speaking). The idea of faith being ‘that which motivates us to action’ is a great one. Didn’t Fowler spend some time with that? Maybe it would be a good idea for me, while at church, to learn to mentally insert ‘of a personal nature’ into every sentence containing the word ‘truth’.
BTW, your Ben Franklin quote in the
threadThis is a great thread…very deep and I like all your views. As Ray has quoted the scripture several times, “We see through a glass darkly” – so I also believe that the universal and absolute truths may not all be achieved in this life, but we may get close to some or even at times pieces of some…but it would limit our potential for growth and experience if we actually achieved Truth in this life.
I like what Orson said
Orson wrote:Personal truths cannot be defined as absolute, that is why the distinction of “personal” is necessary. To me it is an important step in maturity to realize that your personal truths may not be absolute, while at the same time affirming their importance and meaning in your life. I see it as an act of humility, one that pays respect to God. Who are we as humans to think we have it all figured out? Only when we can lose our self – our pride and arrogance, our desire for certainty – can we find what is most valuable… (in human relations, concerning the nature of truth, of our relationship to God, our deeper purpose on earth).
In my mind, Orson has touched on this “middle way” that we realize my truth is just that…mine. I’m happy to share that with those who want to hear it, and I’m comfortable relying on that for the sake of making choices in my life … and I’m comfortable with others disagreeing with me and claiming to have their own truth. To me, it is whatever produces good results.
So, in my mind, missionary work is
notabout taking the message of truth to others who need to have it because the other religions are false, but it is about sharing personal truths with others who may be looking for something more that they can apply to their lives. And in doing so, Quote:D&C 50:22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.
And the missionaries grow as much as the converts (or more).
It seems the scriptures teach us that truth can only be received by the Spirit of Truth speaking personally to our spirit, and there is no other way. That to me, makes these religious truths all about receiving personal revelation. Maybe there are other truths we can find through education and science (like mathmatics truths, i.e. 2+2=4), so maybe we are back to needing to compartmentalize what types of truths we are seeking, and then see what methods (science, philosophy, religion, intuition, or experience) lead to recognizing those types of truth for us personally.
doug wrote:Didn’t Fowler spend some time with that?
Fowler defined belief and faith in his book, for purposes of discussing his theory.
Belief = affirming or accepting an idea or teaching.
A belief is a piece of your religious content. Believing that Jesus is the Son of God, that is accepting this idea as valid.
Faith = the focus of your trust and loyalty.
Having faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God means that you place your trust in this being, your loyalty is to the “Ultimate Reality” of a Christian universe. This is how you think the world operates, and what motivates your thoughts and actions. Faith is what motivates you and gets you out of bed in the morning.
Fowler says the opposite of faith is not doubt. It is nihilism — believing there is no meaning or purpose to anything.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.