What evidence leads to the truth.

[Anonymous]

It strikes me that in my conflict to find peace and maintain membership in the church I constantly have two conflicting types of evidence that lead me in different directions. First I have empirical evidence that in my estimation lends itself with great force against the church or at least some of its teachings. Things like the flood, The BofA, or just the actually history of the church all show so much documented and reliable evidence to say all is not well in Zion.

On the other hand I have anecdotal evidence the church may be true. I felt the spirit today, or I saw someone get better after receiving a blessing, or it must be true because we continue to grow.

I can not point to one hard piece of reliable data in my life that screams this is true you dummy. But I have many such pieces of evidence that say it is not what it claims. So which is it. Do I run with the anecdotal evidence becasue it feels good, or do I deal with the hard evidence that says it is not as it claims to be.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I can not point to one hard piece of reliable data in my life that screams this is true you dummy. But I have many such pieces of evidence that say it is not what it claims. So which is it. Do I run with the anecdotal evidence becasue it feels good, or do I deal with the hard evidence that says it is not as it claims to be.

Historians nowdays have a hard time sorting out what’s anecdotal and what’s “hard”. Bushman knows as much or more of church history than anyone and sees it, warts and all, as a faithful, believing person. I read the same stuff and think to myself, “give me a break”. What someone will categorize as anecdotal will be seen differently by someone with a certain point of view and searching for a hard fact that will prove something yay or nay is going to be a quest you’ll never finish. The first thing is to define and come to terms with your point of view and then be realistic on how that filter spins the things you see. When it comes to history and religion, you’re going to have trouble finding Truth unless all you’re interested in is dates.

[Anonymous]

It probably won’t — unless you have a vision and actually speak to someone divine or resurrected, and I think this happens infrequently — never happened to me.

So, the litmus test becomes the best of all truth-sensing experiences available to us. For me, it’s things that encourage me to do good, improves my personal peace, and does good in the world. With the exception with some hugely jarring experiences borne out of the frailties of other humans, and the uber-conformist culture of our Church, I’ve experienced these things in strong doses in the LDS Church…and that’s my litmus test for truth.

[Anonymous]

I personally find resolution to this dilemma when I look around a bit and notice all 7 billion of my brothers and sisters with their richness and power. Suddenly in that light my LDS heritage becomes very small and personal, and not so globally important.

As you gain exposure to the extra-Mormon materials that surface now and again in our discussions, the blinders that force this dissonance gradually melt away. Here’s another list (I love to make them):

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

[*]Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth

You keep mentioning this one Tom, so I just ordered it from the library. Also, they had a book regarding how to use myth to write good fiction. I thought that was interesting.

[Anonymous]

Cadence, I agree with what Tom says, and let me use a different word:

Both!

They don’t have to be mutually exclusive! Take all the “truth” pieces and don’t let any of them go. The false edges of one may not interlock with the other, but the church is not an “all or nothing” proposition. Yes it has been described as such in the past, try to take that one teaching out as a piece that doesn’t fit with the whole puzzle – and keep working at it. The flood: no problem, many good Mormons don’t believe in a global flood. The BoA: I think Hugh Nibley even said “this is not a translation in the traditional sense of the word.” History: Leaders are clearly human and may even make mistakes while calling it revelation. You may think that changing a few pieces makes the entire puzzle unrecognizable…

Just don’t fall into the trap of thinking it is “worthless” because it doesn’t create the picture that you always thought it should create!

As you re-arrange all the pieces it may look like total chaos for a time, that’s alright. It may be a long time, have patience. When the new picture starts to emerge it will fill your soul like nothing ever has. It will be worth all the effort.

This is the picture God wants you to find. Don’t burn any of the pieces, when they don’t fit set them aside – but remember you may want to come back and re-examine them at some point in the future. Just keep focusing on all the pieces that look true to you – and keep sifting through everything else.

[Anonymous]

There’s truth … and then there’s truth.

A mathematician prophecies that if I put 2 apples in a basket, and then put 2 more apples in a basket, if I am obedient to his words, then I will have 4 apples in my basket.

That is one form of truth, which I think is the kind of truth that you find comfort in. You can repeat this over and over, so can other people, and it always seems to end up with 4 apples in the basket.

Then there’s spiritual “truth.” Religion deals in the workings of an invisible realm of “the spiritual” and in emotions. But that doesn’t make it not real, it just makes it not tangible (like apples, or physics, or chemistry).

If I really want to get picky, science doesn’t deal in certainty either, it just deals in probabilities. Does gravity always work? Well … we can’t actually make that claim. But the probability of it ever working differently seems to be very very very small, so small we call it the “Law of Gravity.” But we can’t actually prove empirically that gravity is the same everywhere in the universe, because we can’t actually measure that — thus we have “faith” in gravity.

So that was all a long-winded introduction to my response. Why isn’t this “evidence” as valid to you as you would like?:

Cadence wrote:

On the other hand I have anecdotal evidence the church may be true. I felt the spirit today, or I saw someone get better after receiving a blessing, or it must be true because we continue to grow.

You did in fact experience these things (according to you, I believe you). What does it mean? Ahhhh, that’s where religion reaches into the world of probabilities and tries to make meaning out of the mysterious.

Did Noah build an ark and save 2 of every creature from a world wide flood? Well … we really can’t prove that one way or another, but it doesn’t seem likely. Here is my final point about there being truth … and then there being truth. The story of Noah, for example, isn’t an important religious myth because it’s factually and historically true. The important meaning, the use of the story as a religious and spiritual tool, is “true” because it works for some/most people (at least in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim world).

If it works (functions correctly), that makes it “true.”

But here is where we at StayLDS take on a more nuanced approach. Many of us decide it is OK to abandon a myth if it actually doesn’t produce the results we want. The literal / orthodox tend not to do that. And sometimes the “orthodox” insist that we actually can’t, like we aren’t permitted to do abandon any myth they cherish.

Religion IMO is more a realm of personal and individual truths, and really ends up far from absolute the farther down in detail and specifics we go. Love one another? Yeah, very universal, generic and absolute. We should all love one another. Don’t eat bacon or you break kosher and go to hell? Well … that’s a lot more specific of a “truth” to apply to everyone universally. Hard to prove that.

I personally don’t even *know* if God exists or that Jesus was a real person. I think it very likely that Jesus was at least a human being and a preacher in Israel. But I feel that those ideas are powerful and I see direct evidence in my personal life that following the words of Jesus (or trying to) has made me a better person, someone that I like. I am a better person, and more happy, than before (far far far from perfect, but definitely happier). So to me, on some level God must exist, and Jesus is the Son of God. That is “true” to me, at least as much as is necessary to make it work religiously and spiritually.

Feelings are also truth, evidence of spiritual truths.

[Anonymous]

I remember a conversation with a non-Mormon friend some years ago. He was saying that the Mormon belief in being the only true church and the implications that other churches are varying degrees of false is offensive.

I replied that no offense is intended but to believe otherwise would “water down the religion.”

“A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary [to lead] unto life and salvation” Lectures on Faith

To reduce the Mormon path from THE path to “a good path” would cut the heart out of the religion.

R. Bushman said something similar about downgrading the B of M to “a good book or inspirational fiction.”

I lived and defended this logic and I understand why it is so important to many today.

Truth is slippery and as you have already noted – what counts as evidence of truth changes depending on your confirmation bias. We as humans continue to search for meaning. Meaning in most cases cannot be proven true or untrue.

To say it another way, perhaps it is more productive to seek after meaning and worry less about truth. Meaning is more flexible. The meaning I find in my life does not detract from you or anyone else. In the end if I can have a meaningful life without ever figuring out the entire true/untrue dichotomy, it will still have been a life well lived.

:thumbup:

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

It strikes me that in my conflict to find peace and maintain membership in the church I constantly have two conflicting types of evidence that lead me in different directions. First I have empirical evidence that in my estimation lends itself with great force against the church or at least some of its teachings. Things like the flood, The BofA, or just the actually history of the church all show so much documented and reliable evidence to say all is not well in Zion…I can not point to one hard piece of reliable data in my life that screams this is true you dummy. But I have many such pieces of evidence that say it is not what it claims. So which is it. Do I run with the anecdotal evidence becasue it feels good, or do I deal with the hard evidence that says it is not as it claims to be.

Personally, I like to consider all the evidence that looks interesting to me whether anecdotal, hearsay, made-up stories, etc. To me, it’s not so much about trying to find the absolute truth as much as simply settling on beliefs that work for me because they make sense or seem like the most likely explanation from my point-of-view. As much as I try to keep an open mind and consider all remotely reasonable possibilities I have had a very hard time with many of the Church’s basic claims about prophets, authority, one trueness, etc. Basically, I already think they are completely wrong about many things; now the only question is whether or not this is a good reason to cut all ties with the Church and openly oppose it. At this point I don’t think so.

[Anonymous]

You keep bringing this topic up, Cadence, so it obviously is very important to you. I really can’t add anything I haven’t said previously, and I really can’t add much to what already has been said in this thread. Perhaps all I can add is this:

You CAN’T choose your basic, foundational paradigm – meaning you can’t go from someone who wants order and logic and an understanding of truth to someone who operates simply on faith in the unknown, regardless of order and logic. However, you CAN choose HOW you decide to operate from that basic, foundational paradigm – meaning you can accept the differing kinds of “evidence” that Brian mentions for differing “realms of experience”.

Iow, you can categorize what gives evidence to your mind / intellect / etc. apart from what gives “evidence” to your heart / spirit / desires / etc. You can give validity and meaning to your feelings and desires and “subjective experiences” apart from the validity you give to your thoughts and “objective observations”. You can accpet things you don’t understand as being “real” but unprovable.

For myself, I have had enough experiences that really are beyond my intellectual understanding that I simply can’t reject them as not being “real” in important and valuable and powerful ways. I have come to accept that I – as in MYSELF – as an independent “intelligence clothed in mortal form” – can make of my own vision whatever I really want to make of it, constrained only, perhaps, by my inate foundational paradigm.

Taking off the blinders is not an easy process – or it would be common and relatively meaningless and valueless. It’s a wonderful process, however – and it starts with truly understanding and accepting that we see through a glass, darkly – and that such a condtion really is ok. In fact, it really is quite liberating to realize that it’s ok.

[Anonymous]

Roy, I take it by your careful wording that you no longer hold to this absolutist position? With you, I see the value (and also danger and offense) of such a position, though I no longer hold to it.

And really, such an exclusivist position isn’t that satisfying. I prefer to see the Church as the “best system out there”… I can imagine God giving all people as much truth as they will handle, and that is why all religions and cultures have differing mixes of edifying, transformative teachings.

With Brian, I have to strongly agree that it comes down to what kind of truth you are looking for. Remember, for most of the world’s history people didn’t concern themselves with “what really happened.” Most people don’t even now, not really. How many people are aware that we constantly edit and spin our own memories?!

I agree with your main point and find that my academic and intellectual training and thinking often leads me one way, and my heart leads me another. I think that is appropriate. Ideas can be theologically true and historically false. I think much of this bible falls into this category.

I wrote up my thoughts on this elsewhere:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/07/the-hierarchy-of-truth/

Great discussion point!I think the bottom line is that with the flavors of truth out there, whenever we find evidence of a truth we can ask ourselves, “What type of truth is this witness testifying to?” I would submit that most often it resonates with us on a spiritual/emotional level, and that rarely are we really seeking what really happened historically (if any of you have spiritual experiences to that effect, I would love to hear them!).

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

I personally find resolution to this dilemma when I look around a bit and notice all 7 billion of my brothers and sisters with their richness and power. Suddenly in that light my LDS heritage becomes very small and personal, and not so globally important.

As you gain exposure to the extra-Mormon materials that surface now and again in our discussions, the blinders that force this dissonance gradually melt away. Here’s another list (I love to make them):

Other worship practices (church services (Unitarian Universalist is one many of us enjoy) and spiritual exercises (many enjoy Buddhism))

Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth

Other sacred texts (Conversations With God, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene)

Other inspirational reading and films (Walden, A New Earth, Ghandi, Saint Francis)

Near death experience accounts

Non-LDS charities (soup kitchens, thrift stores, Open Source Software projects)

Modern spiritual teachers on Youtube (Mooji, Jon Kabbat Zin, Adyashanti, Eckhart Tolle)

Great list (even if I don’t agree with every example – universalism has long struck me as pointless). I would add a few more

[*] Art, music, gardening etc

[*] Nature, trekking/hiking etc

[*] Positive relationships in family etc (note the positive part – negative is all too common)

[*] Transcedental experiences – possibly psychological in origin, but important none the less.

Some people even claim their Romantic/sexual experiences help them spiritually. I’ve always felt that’s a bit trite, but I mention it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

You keep bringing this topic up, Cadence, so it obviously is very important to you. I really can’t add anything I haven’t said previously, and I really can’t add much to what already has been said in this thread. Perhaps all I can add is this:

Your right I keep bringing it up because I am frustrated with my inability to reconcile the two. But lately I am thinking there will never be any kind of answers about the church on factual evidence. It just does not work that way.

[Anonymous]

Enoch wrote:

Roy, I take it by your careful wording that you no longer hold to this absolutist position? With you, I see the value (and also danger and offense) of such a position, though I no longer hold to it. And really, such an exclusivist position isn’t that satisfying.

I read your referenced blog posting and found it compelling. I think that the “fullness of truth” is a major strength (draw) for the church and is at the heart of the restoration message. I also think this emphasis on the literal reinforces the faith of many.

I might agree that this “exclusivist position isn’t that satisfying” but (as this site can attest) the loss of that position is anything but satisfying. The initial freefall from the all or nothing mentality is terrifying. There are often real consequences for our relationships to real people. After the initial shock, some move forward and struggle to adapt with varying degrees of success. If the safety of being a traditional believer isn’t truly satisfying, what is? And perhaps more important, can we get there from here :

Enoch wrote:

I prefer to see the Church as the “best system out there”

I too have thought this, but then I wonder- is it really? How would I know? What metrics am I using for comparison? If being a TBM isn’t fully satisfying and being a NOM isn’t fully satisfying, is there a better way? In the end, for me, it is just a mental exercise. Even if I had access to raw accurate data from different systems and I could trust myself to rate them objectively… the barriers to exit from my current system are just too high.

So in the end, I come back to doing the best I can with what I have and a feeling that most others are doing the same.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Enoch wrote:

I prefer to see the Church as the “best system out there”

I too have thought this, but then I wonder- is it really? How would I know?

I don’t really see a difference between ‘the one true church’ and ‘the best system out there’. The closest I can get is ‘the best system out there for me personally that I am currently aware of’.

Quote:

So in the end, I come back to doing the best I can with what I have and a feeling that most others are doing the same.

I like that.

[Author]

Posts