- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Language is the other part of the glass we see through darkly. Even if we can grasp concepts, expressing them is another trick. We say “The sun is setting in the west.” And yet we know it doesn’t literally set. The earth rotates around the sun and spins. But we just describe it and we don’t take it literally.
Prophets are useful when we try to understand the concepts they’re saying, not hanging on each word, or syntax, or punctuation.
Heber13 wrote:
Prophets are useful when we try to understand the concepts they’re saying, not hanging on each word, or syntax, or punctuation.Wow, best articulation and in my view at least truth of a analogy in a long time. That is very useful for not going overboard but remembering the importance of such things. This is clearly what the Pharisees did and why Christ was so critical of it.
At least from the way i see it we lose focus on what matters by doing so.
DevilsAdvocate: Thank for your reply. While I don’t think I’ll recount my history, I still wrestle with the idea of knowing “truth”, good ‘ol objective, never changing, reliable “truth.”
It seems that it is extremely important to know whether 1) if a theological doctrine is being taught, that the teaching is true; or 2) that it isn’t something necessary to know (or it is unknowable) and that the “teaching” (i.e. from church leaders) is just opinion. Thus, my use of the term “fact checker” is in reference to the role of a prophet. If a prophet is God’s mouthpiece then what is being taught by a prophet should be objectively true. Or, if not, then we (the members) should be advise that it is simply opinion. For example, a missionary is taught to follow his MIssion President because the line of authority authorizes the mission president to be the prophet of that particular mission. Thus, we hear stories of presidents acting on inspiration regarding missionary transfers and other such issues. That makes sense. Similarly, the President of the Church (the Church’s prophet) makes decisions that we believe and sustain as the mind and will of God. That makes sense. But, what doesn’t make sense is that if we adhere to the belief that a prophet receives the mind and will of God (and, I wouldn’t expect anything less than truth from God), then where is there room to think that a prophet’s teaching is simply his opinion.
This is at the heart of my original post. If Joseph Smith says he saw two personages, then it is either true (objectively) or it is a story. If he translated the Book of Mormon then he either did it as God’s mouthpiece or he made it up. God either called Joseph to be a prophet or he didn’t…there isn’t room to be something in between.
Thus, it makes a huge difference to know about the “true nature of God” (or some other theological concept). And, “how exactly do we know this?” turns into a threshold issue that brackets the very nature of religion. Can one rely on religion to dispense truth? If so, then I’m all for being religious; but, if the answer is no, then I would not want to place my trust in a person (or any church) who dispenses “opinion.”
Everything would be so nice if it was black and white, and simple to discern truth from error. And yet, I can see the wisdom of Gods plan which allows for prophets to have opinions and revelation at the same time, leaving us to determine what’s what for us. We must accept paradoxes exist. One way it can be simple is if we start with a premise already in mind, then prove it with supporting arguments (like proof texting). That keeps it simple, if you are ok with that approach. Spencer W Kimball did not believe that is always the case.
Nishka, I’m pretty sure the following answer is going to frustrate you, based on what you’ve written so far, but everything rests on perspective and how someone defines various words . . . As we all do, you’re seeing what you believe, rather than believing what you see. Here goes:
Quote:It seems that it is extremely important to know whether 1) if a theological doctrine is being taught, that the teaching is true;
Sure, as long as “true” doesn’t have to mean “objective fact” – if, for example, it can mean “pointed in the right direction” or “as accurate as I can imagine”. I’m a former history teacher, and “true” hasn’t always meant “objectively accurate” – and I”m totally fine with that.
Quote:If a prophet is God’s mouthpiece then what is being taught by a prophet should be objectively true.
Sure, if that’s what you believe should (or even can) be – or if that’s how you define “mouthpiece”. (and I don’t mean that lightly or flippantly) Fwiw, I really hate the unrealistic expectations involved in such an incredibly subjective term as “should”.
Quote:Or, if not, then we (the members) should be advised that it is simply opinion.
Why? Why can’t it be someone’s sincere belief in truth – something they don’t see as merely opinion? Again, that horrible “should”.
Quote:Similarly, the President of the Church (the Church’s prophet) makes decisions that we believe and sustain as the mind and will of God.
“We”? “Mind and will”? Some do; some don’t; some do in some cases but not in others.
Quote:But, what doesn’t make sense is that if we adhere to the belief that a prophet receives the mind and will of God (and, I wouldn’t expect anything less than truth from God), then where is there room to think that a prophet’s teaching is simply his opinion.
Again, we get back to how each person defines “prophet”. I mean this next statement seriously: If “prophet” has to mean what you just described, there have been NO prophets EVERY in the history of the world – which would make the word completely powerless and meaningless. Thus, I choose to define it in more realistic, meaningful, powerful ways.
Quote:If Joseph Smith says he saw two personages, then it is either true (objectively) or it is a story.
Sure, but that says absolutely nothing about the nature of the event. Even if it is objective truth as stated, it still could have been a vision of literal reality, a best view of what he could comprehend, a physiologically induced hallucination or something of any number of possibilities.
Quote:If he translated the Book of Mormon then he either did it as God’s mouthpiece or he made it up.
Again, that word “mouthpiece” – and the need for it to be black and white. I wish the Book of Mormon could be explained that easily, but then I remember how much I love seeing it as so much more complex than that.
Quote:God either called Joseph to be a prophet or he didn’t…there isn’t room to be something in between.
Sure, but what “called to be a prophet” can mean so many different things.
Quote:Thus, it makes a huge difference to know about the “true nature of God” (or some other theological concept).
Why, especially if it really is impossible for most of us to know objectively. Again, we get back to definitions – this time of “know”.
Quote:And, “how exactly do we know this?” turns into a threshold issue that brackets the very nature of religion. Can one rely on religion to dispense truth?
Absolutely, to the greatest extent possible in that realm and based on certain definitions of “truth”. Otherwise, no.
Quote:If so, then I’m all for being religious; but, if the answer is no, then I would not want to place my trust in a person (or any church) who dispenses “opinion.”
So, ultimately, you don’t trust anyone or anything but observable science? What a lonely, uninspiring life that would be
FOR ME. If it works for you, great (and I mean that sincerely) – but that is one good definition of Hell for me. Nishka wrote:…This is at the heart of my original post. If Joseph Smith says he saw two personages, then it is either true (objectively) or it is a story. If he translated the Book of Mormon then he either did it as God’s mouthpiece or he made it up. God either called Joseph to be a prophet or he didn’t…there isn’t room to be something in between.
Thus, it makes a huge difference to know about the “true nature of God” (or some other theological concept). And, “how exactly do we know this?” turns into a threshold issue that brackets the very nature of religion. Can one rely on religion to dispense truth? If so, then I’m all for being religious; but, if the answer is no, then I would not want to place my trust in a person (or any church) who dispenses “opinion.”
Truth: everything’s relative.The answer to “Where am I?” depends on perspective & what “I” I am referring to.
I am in my house… which is on a certain street, in a certain city, in a county, in a state, in a country, in a hemisphere, in a world, in a solar system, in a universe…
But where is the universe?
And if I took away the sun, the moon, the planets & stars in our solar system, where would I be? Would I be?
Who am I? Am I the cells & microbs that make up my body & shed & regenerate every so many years? Or am I something else?
What is mind-boggling & probably will always be… is the 10th dimension… infinite possibilities of infinite possible universes.
We can’t handle that kind of truth.
😆 I’ve learned from another wise poster (on another forum) that truth is in perspective & the more perspectives, the more truthful & that truth is that which causes influence.
Each perspective has some truth in it, even if the perspective is based on pure illusion/fiction.
IE: a boyscout ran back to camp, scraped up, bleeding with his clothes ripped & filthy.
His scout leader asked, “What happened to you??”
The boy responded, “There was a fatally poisonous snake that almost killed me!” And the boy explained what the snake looked like.
The leader responded, “Oh, that snake isn’t fatal.”
The boy said, “If it could make me jump off the cliff it is!!”
Everything we think (including thoughts of the General Authorities)…are limited in awareness & based on our subjective perspectives.
Nobody’s “All-knowing.”
So, everything we think is somewhat illusional… & our illusions are either functional or dysfunctional.
We need to find a perspective of truth that are functional – which will better aline our feelings/actions with the truth of what we really want.
Yet, hind sight is 20-20. Live & learn… we live by faith & love… hoping & striving for what’s bests through trial & error.
I believe there is one truth, but that truth is difficult to dicern and is gained in increments along the journey. I also think God doesn’t give it all at once on purpose and so it is metted out here a little, there a little and seems to imply God is very hesitant to put on the backs of his children more truth then they are prepared for or will be held accountable to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.