hear ye all church-bashers and nay-sayers
|
It seems that a number of blogs on this website have made attacks on the LDS church, which I have avoided the temptation this far to comment on, but I think I know now what I would like to say on the subject. I have no intention of convincing anyone to believe anything, but I'd like to get a little philisophical if you all don't mind. If you think about it, every bit of information that our ears hear or that our eyes read has been written or spoken by other human beings, either in the English language or another language that has been translated into English by yet another human being. Some things are universally accepted as fact. I know Mount Everest exists, even though I have never been there in person. I know the holocaust happened, even though the events transpired before I was born and I was not in Europe to see these events with my own eyes. I believe what the biology textbooks tell me about the human body, without having to dissect an actual body. Why? Because these things are accepted by the masses as truth, and really there is no other reason. Yet, when it comes to religion, there is too much debate. How reliable are the sources of both anti-mormon and pro-mormon accounts of church history? And how complete is this information? We are depending on the accounts of others, which allows for deception, omission of pertinant pieces of information, or just plain misunderstanding. For this very same reason, I would not expect someone just to accept the Book of Mormon as truth, or the doctrine of the church. Some time ago Rick posted a quote from Albert Einstein which I wholeheartedly agree with. Moral behaviour does not require religion and ideally should not be motivated solely by guilt or fear of punishment. This is a sign of an underdeveloped personality. But what I am addressing in this particular posting is the pursuit of truth and wisdom (by which our behaviour is likewise affected). I am sure that whatever one's beliefs are concerning metaphysics, the pursuit of that which is good and true can be considered a worthy motivation to accept, or reject, a religion. But the decision to accept or reject a religion depends simply on what devices one chooses to use as a measuring tool, with which to ascertain truth. Science is a good choice, yet science can have it's limitations, and has proven to be wrong many times as new discoveries have been made. Thus we can be reasonably sure about what science tells us....... but not 100% sure. History books can be a good resource, but again, accounts made by other people from a long time ago. Again not a 100% foolproof resource. Aside from witnessing an event in person, can we really be sure of anything (and didn't Aristotle propose that perhaps nothing else even exists but our own self, and that every experience and perception is a product of our own mind?). And so much information is subject to individual interpretation. My point is that most of what we believe or don't believe depends solely on what we deem as the most plausible information, or information that comes from what we consider the most trustworthy sources. This is the best we can do right? Is that good enough for you? OR.......can we consider the possibility of receiving spiritual communication from God? And can we trust these feelings, or do people just get themselves psyched up and start imagining things? Perhaps. But.... can we absolutely rule out the possibility that sometimes these feelings are legitimate. Can we really rule out the possibility that someone who tells you that they KNOW what they felt, may indeed have an absolute sure knowledge of something real? And if, hypothetically speaking, God exists and it were possible to experience this type of spiritual communication first hand, (and assuming God is smarter than we are by virtue of the fact that he is our creator), would this not be a more reliable source of truth and knowledge than any other known source? And I do not assume that only Mormons are eligible for this experience, nor should any other Mormon, for this would be a false assumption. I believe the only requirement is a degree of spiritual receptiveness. Indeed, it is likely that many of these feelings of intuition, inspiration, love, peace, or actual words that people claim to have heard either with their ears or minds, are merely based on superstitions, hopes, or strong desires. Perhaps the accuracy, (and ability to determine that accuracy), would depend on one's state of mind, openess, faith, receptiveness and preparedness. That is why we can only trust in ourselves to discern whether or not what we feel is real. But if we doubt in ourselves too much, then I suppose this method in the pursuit of truth would not be helpful. So who do you trust more? Yourself? God? Scientists? News reporters? Historians? Literature? Teachers? Friends? I do not profess to be a spiritual master, who receives regular revelation and who is always sure of what I feel or believe. As a matter of fact, I too, have experienced my share of confusion, frustration and anger with the church, and with God. I have experienced times when I have felt prepared to leave the church, curse the church, curse God or denounce the very existance of God. But.............. there have been the very rare times in my life when I have witnessed, firsthand, the power of the preisthood, and the power of God, with my own eyes and ears. If I were to deny these events, or try to explain them away it would make me a liar. So, for the sake of integrity, I feel it is my moral obligation to at least try to utilize this method, wherever mortal methods fall short, in the pursuit of truth, knowledge and wisdom. For this reason, I feel no need to address all the disconcerting anti-mormon historical accounts, or concern myself with how the church spends tithing money. The debate will only go in circles, because although I may not always trust all my feelings, there have been some experiences I cannot discount, lest I betray my own self. It would be arrogant to assume that we can understand everything we need to understand, even by the time we die of old age. I say this because as I get older, I can look back and realize that there were things that I really didn't understand when I was younger. Based on this pattern, it's reasonable to assume that as I continue to get older, my understanding of many things in this world will continue to increase. Things that I am sure of now may turn out to be miguided ideas. Things that don't make sense now, might make perfect sense later. I could go into detail, but I think we can all relate on this. Thus I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with having faith in a religion that we may never fully understand in this lifetime. And along this same line of logic I could argue that completely rejecting something before you can fully understand the big picture could seem just as unreasonable. We all choose our own truth-measuring devices, and we all do the best we can. Just don't assume that all people who trust in their personal feelings and experiences are all frail-minded, deceived and exploited. If you think about it, one could argue quite the contrary, and around and around the argument would go. Anyhow, I feel it is possible to address concerns and differing opinions while maintaining an understanding and respectful attitude towards your friends. I have tried my best to do so, and simply ask on behalf of myself and all other blogger lurkers who relate to my comments, to have the same courtesy extended in return. P.S. Rick, I meant to comment on something you said a long time ago about the Book of Mormon being sold on amazon. My understanding is that the church is NOT selling the Book of Mormon on Amazon, rather a publishing company not affiliated with the church is the actual marketer. Apparently this company approached the church for permission to do so. And don't forget that copies of the Book of Mormon are available for free to anyone and their dog (funded by....tithing). It's just if you want a nice leather cover or hard-cover edition that purchasing is required. |
||
6 Comments:
I’ve chosen to respond to this posting, and I hope everyone will take my comments in the “open discussion among friends” way in which they were meant. I’ve done my best to keep things civil and not personal, so please don’t take any personal offense from my comments. Absolutely no offense is intended.
Nermal said: ”If you think about it, every bit of information that our ears hear or that our eyes read has been written or spoken by other human beings ...”
No, not every bit has been written or spoken. I know it is day because it is bright, I know it is raining because I hear the rain.
Nermal said: “Some things are universally accepted as fact ... Why? Because these things are accepted by the masses as truth, and really there is no other reason.”
No, these items are called facts not because of the acceptance of the masses. These statements are facts because, given the time and motivation, any person of reasonable intellect could come to the same conclusions, given the same level of technology.
Nermal said: “How reliable are the sources of both anti-mormon and pro-mormon accounts of church history? And how complete is this information? We are depending on the accounts of others, which allows for deception, omission of pertinent pieces of information, or just plain misunderstanding ...”
Here's a crazy idea. Maybe there is something out there that is neither pro nor anti mormon. I believe it's called the truth. The truth does not, in itself, have a bias. The truth just is. If some of these truths end up supporting a particular viewpoint, then so be it; but this does not mean it is not true. If we do not have enough information to reveal truth on a subject, we may offer a best guess. Given this best guess scenario we should also admit to anyone who asks us about the information, that this is just a best guess and not a truth. Truth does not change. Truth does not evolve. One and one are always two.
Nermal said: “... the pursuit of that which is good and true can be considered a worthy motivation to accept, or reject, a religion.”
This is just word play. It is far more common that a person has their own beliefs, or belongs to a religious organization and in time develops a set of underlying rationalizations why their beliefs are the most truthful and good.
Nermal said: “... the decision to accept or reject a religion depends simply on what devices one chooses to use as a measuring tool, with which to ascertain truth ... My point is that most of what we believe or don't believe depends solely on what we deem as the most plausible information, or information that comes from what we consider the most trustworthy sources.”
Once again this is simple wordplay. Most of what people believe or do not believe is rooted in indoctrination and access to information. The decision to accept or reject an ideology is much less dependent on a vigorous examination of the facts (however you decide they are facts) and much more to do with the social and personal pressures one must face given one's decision. How often in history have we seen mankind sticking to its’ collective guns in the face of overwhelming evidence, because it would be to cataclysmic to accept the truth? Galileo, anyone? It is precisely this type of social pressure which cause people to round the corners on their square-peg discoveries in order to maintain that all the world is round-holed. Proponents of either sides of a debate will spin, distort or contradict evidences because they are unwilling to accept that the other viewpoint could be correct; or worse yet, they both may be wrong.
Nermal said: “This is the best we can do right?”
This is not the best we can do. The best thing we can do is remove ourselves from preconceived mind-sets, place ourselves in a non-judgmental non-partisan peer group and have access to as much information as possible. Given these three conditions, a competent, rational individual could make a decision that would stand a good chance of being right for them.
Nermal said: “... can we consider the possibility of receiving spiritual communication from God? ... can we absolutely rule out the possibility that sometimes these feelings are legitimate.”
I can, for a fact, rule out the possibility of communication from gods through feelings. Feelings are not truth detectors. If one is going to live in a world where truth is equivalent to 'feeling good' about something, then they must also accept the fact that if they 'feel bad' about something - or worse yet 'feel ambivalent' about something, that those are also good indicators of truthfulness, or lack thereof. The legitimacy of these feelings is void. Just because these feelings occasionally correlate with the world does not mean they are a source of truth. An eight year old at the racetrack may occasionally pick a winning horse, but would you go to this person for advice on the next race? Of course not.
Nermal said: “Can we really rule out the possibility that someone who tells you that they KNOW what they felt, may indeed have an absolute sure knowledge of something real? And if, hypothetically speaking, God exists and it were possible to experience this type of spiritual communication first hand, (and assuming God is smarter than we are by virtue of the fact that he is our creator), would this not be a more reliable source of truth and knowledge than any other known source?"
Yes, we can rule out the possibility that people's feelings are giving them correct answers of truth ( or real-ness). No one ideology has a monopoly on truth. When one organization comes out with its' version of the absolute way of all things, it does not take long to find another organization who has an equally compelling feeling that it knows the first organization's way is not correct. Truth offers us no contradictions. Things are, or they are not true. Since one’s belief in the existence of a creator being has precisely zero effect on the truthfulness or untruthfulness of any given assertation (not involving the creator being itself), then I see little reason to posit on the intelligence of such a being. I know mankind has a form of intelligence such that, given proper exertion, man can come to conclusions which closely predict and describe the world around us. This form of intelligence is as reliable source as I require.
Nermal said: “I believe the only requirement is a degree of spiritual receptiveness ... Perhaps the accuracy, (and ability to determine that accuracy), would depend on one's state of mind, openess, faith, receptiveness and preparedness.”
Mothers often 'feel' they know the sex of their baby. Given the number of choices they are often correct. This is not God speaking to the woman. This is a guess. It is no more accurate when correct about the sex than when it is incorrect. It is a one in two crap shoot. Feelings are a biological 'best guess'. When we have more information about a situation our cognitive brain can override this best guess and evaluate a situation better. For instance, I know it is dark and I am afraid - but I know the likelihood of something jumping out of my closet is, in actuality, very low so I will continue to walk across the room. Feelings are the, not always rational, biological safeguard that try to prevent us from doing harm to ourselves in the absence of knowledge. Once we have access to information, process and evaluate it, and eventually come to a knowledgeable decision, our feelings are irrelevant.
Nermal said: “I have experienced times when I have felt prepared to leave the church, curse the church, curse God or denounce the very existence of God. But, there have been the very rare times in my life when I have witnessed, firsthand, the power of the priesthood, and the power of God, with my own eyes and ears. If I were to deny these events, or try to explain them away it would make me a liar.”
Personal testimonials aside, denying what you are feeling is not necessarily a bad thing. Feelings exist, and are actually felt by people. It's okay to be mad, or afraid and there's nothing wrong with that. The correlation of these feelings to events is where the problem arises. I know for a fact that some people get a great feeling of comfort from burning things. I know that many people only feel good about themselves when they are benefiting through the exploitation of others. It is the naive belief that good feelings only come from good acts that is the culprit here.
Nermal said: “I feel it is my moral obligation to at least try to utilize this method, wherever mortal methods fall short, in the pursuit of truth, knowledge and wisdom. For this reason, I feel no need to address all the disconcerting anti-mormon historical accounts, or concern myself with how the church spends tithing money... although I may not always trust all my feelings, there have been some experiences I cannot discount, lest I betray my own self.”
Utilizing an inner search for truth in the absence of information is one thing, but to turn one's back on information in lieu of a 'good feeling' is the greatest form of self betrayal.
Nermal said: "It would be arrogant to assume that we can understand everything we need to understand, even by the time we die of old age ... Thus I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with having faith in a religion that we may never fully understand ... rejecting something before you can fully understand the big picture could seem just as unreasonable.”
My question is, what is 'everything we need to understand"? Who says I need to understand anything, and if I do, who exactly is setting this benchmark? Hidden within this line of reasoning lies one of the oldest logical fallacies; that being I believe there is a god because the bible tells me so and I know the bible is true because it is the word of god. Perhaps, in truth, there is no bar to reach. Perhaps we are here because we are here. We will go through life making decisions and forming opinions as best we can and in our own self interest. Selfish, perhaps yes; but with a loftier goal of advancing mankind as a group and making the world incrementally better for our children. Do some people choose to associate in organizations to further their own aims and morals? Of course they do, because it’s been proven as a successful way of getting what you want. Should we judge these people? I have no problem judging which breakfast cereal I like, or which television shows have merit, so why would I suspend judgment on organizations that may, or may not, have an effect on me? I would argue that if we are waiting for a complete understanding of all things before we reject or accept them, following the above line of logic will inevitably lead to no one being a member of any larger ideological group, and the suspension of belief by the uneducated masses of all things not inside their realm of knowledge and experience. This sort of a mindset does sound extremely unreasonable.
I think it would be unfair to assume that all people who decide to use their feelings to make decisions should be classified as mentally ill or in some way less able than others. Neither should those who do make decisions based on feelings, be viewed as enlightened any more than those people who choose to ignore their personal feelings in favour of evidence that runs contrary to those feelings. I think it’s fair to say that we all do the best we can with the information with which we are presented. Some of us put more weight on specific types of evidences than others. It is my opinion that undue influence is often put on LDS members who question too much. It is often better to ‘shelf it’ than discuss it - whatever the ‘it’ might be - in order to avoid upsetting peoples good feelings about the church. If people choose to remain steadfast in their beliefs after reading all the information and being given a coercion-free environment to make their decision, it’s not any of my business what they choose to believe. I just don’t think that the average member is afforded the luxury of complete disclosure by the church, nor are members encouraged to make decisions on their own. Then again that is just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
-Rick
p.s. Nermal, the Book of Mormon is indeed being sold on Amazon with the blessings of the church. It has been published by Doubleday, a subsidiary of Random House and all the details of distribution were negotiated in good faith between the two parties. The company did not approach the church about publishing the BOM, per se, rather they had been discussing possibly sharing some titles and the BOM was one of the titles considered. Both parties are engaged in profit taking from the venture as spelled out in an agreement signed before the whole project was begun.
The point I wished to raise in regard to this peculiar decision was related to its’ blatant attempt at proselytizing by slipping the book into the mainstream media rather than its’ previously, completely private, method of TV commercials print ads and door knocking. I also thought it was interesting that Joseph Smith Jr. is listed as translator in the BOM, but that in press releases Doubleday chose to use (and the Amazon.com advertisement) the words author and translator interchangeably.
The last thing I found to be really odd was a quote from Michelle Rapkin in the church’s press release stating “The Mormon faith has become one of the largest in America”. This is not true. Mormons represent about 2% of christians in the US, and at one time about 85% of americans self identify as christians. This would mean that Mormons account for about 1.7% of all americans. Given the fact that well over 50% of all christians also identified themselves as protestants alone, it seems verily impossible that the Mormons are ‘one of the largest’ since there are well over 10 separate types of protestantism, and sliced any way this 42.5% is going to result in several groups that are quite a bit larger that the LDS. For full details you can check out the press release at:
[Click Here for the full press release]
Rick, Thankyou for your EXCELLENT response! I very much enjoyed it! You have some extremely good points, and I do agree with a lot of what you have said.
On your first response I say, good point, I think this can be simply added on to my point. Yes, we also rely on our own five senses.
Second response: do you really have this time, motivation and technology to investigate every bit of information yourself? If not, then how do you really know this?
Third response: Agreed. I was simply narrowing down the subject of debate to a more specific issue.
Fourth response: I wasn't arguing about what is common human behaviour, nor was I arguing about the definition of what is true and good. However, your points on this are valid, I suppose this can be a matter of semantics. But supposing someone has a genuine opinion on their definition of what is good and true, then would the pursuit of that not be a worthy motivation for any decision or action? That is the point I was trying to make.
5th response: Very good point. Ah how I relish a delightfully well thought out response like this one. First, I appreciate that you acknowledge that the term "fact" must be used loosely here.
You are right that throughout history, emotion and social pressures have often been more compelling in the power of persuasion than logic and facts. I should have clarified that I was specifically referring to the case in which a person is indeed interested in conducting a "vigorous examination of the facts".
6th response: Ok Rick, you're right. BUT, ultimately the point I was trying to make has been summed up by your own words "stand a good chance". My question was basically, is standing "a good chance" good enough?
7th response: I guess we have another problem with semantics when we talk about "feelings". I guess we should decide if these feelings are just thoughts, or are they physical tangeable sensations (which could also be brought on by thoughts). And are these feelings percieved as an absolute message from God, or just a "hunch". I agree that most people go around having hunches, then when these hunches occasionally correlate they try to attribute it to God. But how often do people claim that they know God spoke to them? This is the kind of "feeling" I am trying to refer to.
Indeed, most people who claim to be guided by feelings (mormon or otherwise), are probably full of crap. But notice I use the word "probably" because we can't judge that they are ALL full of crap. And yes, coincidences happen, and NO, of course you would not go to the eight year old who picked the winning horse for advice on the next race, because you can only rely on you OWN feelings. I only bring up the possibility of other people's feelings being legit to open our minds to the possibility of some feelings being legit in general, not to condone the practice of relying on other people's feeling
8th response:
OK, we have established that feelings can be unreliable, and that we are not going to base our belief's on what other people claim. Indeed "no one idealogy has a monopoly on truth" (and the mormon church does not have a monoply on truth either). But you yourself stated that "truth just is" and "truth does not change". Truth may not offer contradictions, BUT that which is false will inevitably contradict with the truth.
Indeed, perhaps the mere belief of the existance of a creator has "zero effect" on ascertaining truth. But I was only bringing up the hypothetical scenerio in which there was indeed a creator. Then, exclusively within that hypothetical scenerio,this creator would have to be smarter than us, and therefore be a superior resource of truth than mortal men.
Certainly if you do not believe in such a being, then you truly do have no reason to "posit on the intelligence" of such a being.
But again, you only further illustrate my point about your method of determining truth with statements such as "conclusion which closely predict and describe the world around us" and that basically, this is good enough for you.
9th response: I think I have already addressed these comments at this point.
10th point: It's true that what brings comfort and good feelings for one person can be considered wrong by others, such as burning things, cutting one's self, exploiting others etc. I guess I am not just talking about the comfort that comes from following compulsions or selfish ambitions. Usually the same people who are participating in these things also suffer from a great deal of inner conflict, which then drives them to continue these behaviors over and over again in the pursuit of comfort and good feelings. I doubt they would claim that their behaviour is based on internalized moral values that they percieve as good and true. Whereas, people who make choices based on their morals, which they have deemed to be good and true, such as helping others in need and being kind, will report a more stable form of comfort and feelings of love and peace.
Anyhow, personal testimonials should not be meant for others to just buy into and believe. And we have already talked alot about feelings. I guess when I made this statement I should have clarified that I am not just talking about feelings. Rather I am referring to actual events that cannot be explained by logic, facts, or coincidence. One example being that I received a preisthood blessing as a 6-year old child, and not knowing what was going on or what a preisthood blessing even is, I recieved instant relief and healing from something that was acutely tormenting my young mind in the middle of the night. It was only when I got older that I recognized that I had even received a blessing, so I can't write it off as psychological.
10th response: Agreed. I would not condone turning your back on information in lieu of a "good feeling". I have listened intently to a lot of info that sheds a negative light on the church. I don't negate that this information could be legit, but I also don't negate the fact that this information could also be incomplete, altered, or simply has a good explanation. Especially since I can only rely on that info "standing a good chance" of being right or wrong, at best.
Response # 11: Interesting point, but I guess I should not have used the words "need to understand" and should have said "desire to understand" instead. That would have saved us some time. I only maintain that suspending judgement, due to lack of a full understanding can be logical on a personal basis only, and only if you genuinely believe that you have witnessed direct evidence of a more intelligent creator.
You are right that some decisions can and must be made with having to know everything concerning the issue. But what if Christopher Columbus concluded like everybody else that the world was flat, just because his sensory perceptions told him it was flat. People thought he was crazy, but he waited until he had the opportunity to see the evidence that the world could be round before deciding it must be flat. So suspending belief while awaiting more data is not always illogical.
As for your concluding paragraph, I actually agree with you on every single word. I also agree that those mormons who are not afforded the luxury of complete disclosure or given the opportunity to question the doctrine are people who have been victoms of social pressure from peers, church leaders or parents. But I would hold those peers, church leaders, or parents as being the one's at fault, not the religious doctrine itself.
Also, humans, including mormon leaders and prophets do mistakes. Nobody claims that anyone is perfect aside from Jesus Christ. Obviously this Michelle Rapkin made a mistake, or was miquoted (perhaps she meant "fastest growing church, but I'm not sure if that is the case either, just thought I heard something to that effect once.) Also, I don't see anything sinister in this "blatent attempt at proselytizing" if church members percieve the BOM to be good information. Furthermore, I see no evidence that any particular church leaders are living extravagently off of money that comes into the church, in fact some general authorities take a pay cut from their previous jobs as surgeons or attornies to do their work. I see no evidence that this money is being used sneakily or fraudulently in any way. What individual or group of individuals do you suppose are financially benifiting from the church's money? I guess I don't see anything wrong with profiting from a completely honest business deal.
Just realized that I may not have addressed the issue of "understanding what we need to understand" correctly. You stated "who says we need to understand anything?" Would you not agree that it is beneficial for our welfare to understand such things as gravity (don't jump off the cliff), momentum (drive carefully), basic math to handle your finances, child psychology in raising your children, politics, nutrition etc? Is it then not possible that as we progress through our existance, that there is more out there to understand that could be potentially beneficial to our welfare? Just suggesting that its possible is all.
Also, just wanted to add that I don't see why people are compelled to sling mud at a religion whose bottom-line doctrine preaches love, peace, kindness, charity, good will towards others, humility and to "judge not" others. Go ahead and spew venom in the direction of those individual members who misrepresent these preachings, I'll join in with you. But I see no productive reason to attack the actual religion itself.
Anyhow, I didn't write this posting to defend the church or persuade anyone to believe in it. Just wanted to point out that many Mormons do question their religion, as well they should, before coming to any personal conclusions. And not all mormons regurgitate "stock answers". So just don't lump everyone into one big stereo-typed entity, is all I'm saying.
I don't criticize or think less of anyone for preferring hard evidence over less tangeable sensory perceptions. But I think that as long as a person is open to listen to and explore all information, it's also perfectly respectable to attempt to seek out spiritual evidences in combination with the processing of the other types of evidences around us.
I think you summed it up very well when you said "I think that we all do the best we can with the information with which we are presented. Some of us put more weight on specific types of evidences than others." That is a totally fair statement. Might I add that if we are going to criticize others, better to consider the primary motivation behind their beliefs or actions. If you think someone's motivations are self-serving and destructive to others, complain away. But if you can determine that a person's motivations are to make the world a better place for everyone, then just agree to disagree in a friendly manner.
Dang it, I can't seem to figure out how to edit a comment (just original postings). Any suggestions? I noticed an error I made in one of my sentances. It's the one right before mentioning Christopher Columbus. I meant to say that "some decisions can and must be made withOUT having to know everything concerning the issue" Oops.
Also, forgot to mention FREE WILL as another fundamental aspect of Mormon doctrine in the second paragraph of the following blog.
Anyhow, thought these clarifications were important
Here I am again...just reviewed the press release on the publishing of the BOM. It states "the project became a reality after Doubleday APPROACHED Church-owned Deseret Book.......the matter was referred to the first Presidency...for consideration.
Also "the church had authorized the new publication, feeling that this would allow the sacred volume to be more readily obtainable by the general public". Is there something morally wrong with that?
Lastly, this Michelle Rapkin is an employee of Doubleday, not a church representative. It's not the Church's fault she made an incorrect statement at a press release.
Well that's what I harvested out of this link.
Hey, I think it's great that we're talking about some interesting issues here.
I've read over the previous few comments, and I'll try to be brief in my responses.
I don't know many things, nor do I have the time or inclination to research every topic that would be required in order to go through my life with a working knowledge of the world around me. What I do know is that there are sources that I am willing to accept as being knowledgeable in particular topics, and I trust that knowledge passed to me from these sources, on those topics, will be better than the knowledge I currently have. The reason I trust these sources is because they have been shown to follow all the standard practices required of someone who goes through a process of due diligence when researching topics. That said, there are very few things that I wouldn't be willing to amend my opinion on, when shown evidence contradicting my current viewpoint. This is the distinction, in my mind, between the intellectual pursuit of knowledge and dogma. Science has never claimed to possess absolute truths, but mystics have done so.
Is the pursuit of truth and good an acceptable reason for making decisions? Sure. I don't see why not. The caveat that I offer is that my 'good' is not always the world's 'good'. This is the single most motivating factor in the history of conquest and warfare since civilizations began. I don't think that good intentions are reason enough to be the primary motivating factor behind one's actions. At some point you have to lift up your eyes and see how your beliefs are affecting your environment, socially and physically. Are my actions causing hurt or harm to the society in which I live? Would changing my actions better the world around me? This ties in indirectly with tithing. The act of giving 10% of your advance (gross advance if you're one of the good members) is seen as being a good thing by the general populace of the LDS organization. The paying of tithing will result in 'blessings' and we all want 'blessings' now don't we? Blessings are good nad I want good for myself and my family. But the question is, how can we as a society ask someone who makes $800 a month to give up $80 to a multi-billion dollar organization, when in truth that $80 is probably over 50% of their net income each month? It's many times more of a sacrifice for the person previously described than for someone bringing in $80,000 a year, who has considerably more room to wiggle before sacrificing the necessities of life.
In regard to determining if 'standing a good chance' is good enough, I'd say that it is not science which has claimed to be absolutely correct with no room for error. That would be the realm of dogma. Any researcher you talk to will tell you, "This is what we currently believe based on the evidence we have." With a possible exception being some of the esoteric schools of mysticism (oddly enough one being the Kaballah, the flavour d'jour of religions these days), you will scarcely find any religious organization that does not claim absolute irrefutable truth in regard to some portion of their dogma. I have no problem living in a world of best guesses because I am willing to accept that we do not know everything. Many do not feel as comfortable in such an environment. Some wish to be told, "Everything is all right. We know what is going on, and we will tell you what to do so you don't feel lost." .
I'm not sure exactly how you can distinguish feelings from hunches and hunches from messages from gods, but I'd be willing to bet that for every person who felt like they had received a message from a higher being, there is a person who claims to have spoken to a completely different higher being with an equal amount of sincerity. What if these feelings contradict each other? Then what's up? I would say that given the infinitesimally small chance that these feelings are correct, we'd be just as well off not relying solely on anyone's feelings in any decision making procedure.
"Truth may not offer contradictions, but that which is false will inevitably contradict the truth."
This is simply not true. Let me offer an extremely simplified example:
Premises:
all fish are swimmers
all dolphins are swimmers.
Conclusion:
All dolphins are fish.
This conclusion is false, yet it does not contradict the premises. Oh, but wait rick! You should note that given an additional fact, that being that dolphins are not fish, the contradiction will be exposed. This would be true, but we've previously asserted that we do not live in a world where we are able to figure everything out. We don't have access to all the truths of the world, and thus it is highly likely that conclusions we draw from the facts we have will be false, without contradicting any of our known truths.
Let us for a moment assume that the creator hypothesis is true. There is a higher being who created the Universe. This does not necessarily mean they have a higher intelligence. I can build a computer, but am I as good as a computer as figuring out the cube-root of 2097152? No, I'm not. (It's 128 incidentally.) So, it's not unheard of for the created to outshine its' creators abilities. That said, even if the creator being is more intelligent than us, there is no obvious conduit for communications between this entity and ourselves. We've already discussed that feelings can trick us, or we can interpret them incorrectly. If our creator being is capable of direct communication with us, there would be a much higher rate of actual irrefutable communiqués than we have now. At the most, we have a few highly improbable anecdotal evidences of such a communication which are sketchy at best.
I agree that a 'desire to understand' is a requirement for those of us who a curious about the world around us. Many members of organizations claim to be desirous of understanding, but are in truth really looking for justifications of their own world view. Many other people are simply not curious, and would simply like to be told how they should live. There's nothing wrong with a mindset like that, I suppose, as long as they don't mind dealing with the consequences resulting from their lack of personal investigation.
As a side note, let's not kid ourselves about Columbus. He wasn't out to prove the world was round, he was out to make a buck. The suspension of his belief of the flat-world theory was predicated on a risk-reward analysis.
When discussing the shortcomings of the LDS church, I have often heard the argument that it is the members/leaders at fault and not the church (doctrine) itself. The fundamental flaw in this argument is the fact that the members are the organization. The member's leaders interpret the doctrine. If leaders were indeed thought to be infallible and had a conduit to the highest intelligence, these interpretations would not change, the membership certainly wouldn't be required to vote to sustain anything - the leadership would never require this type of check and balance. If on the other hand the leaders are just imperfect human being like the rest of us, what has distinguished these particular people so that they are deserving of a leadership position? Why don't we just let everyone make their best guess as they go? If all members are capable as these imperfect leaders, then why rely on these particular leaders at all?
You bring up a good point in regard to mud-slinging. I think that it's fair comment that many people will, without regard to an organizations founding moral principles, attack and denigrate groups out of a desire to bully, insult, embarrass or marginalize. It's also equally important to be open to exchanges of ideas without pre-judging, or being offended by the questioner. Often, independent observations are viewed as derogatory and insulting to members, when in fact they are legitimate observations. i.e. "You get baptized for dead people, that's weird." It's evident in many smaller groups because of a persecution complex or an us vs. them mindset. Both perhaps required during the founding days of the organization, but now just a vestigial remnant that continues to affect relations with the greater populace. It would be a much better climate for discussion if all parties would consider what the other is really saying, assuming good intent and asking for clarification when needed. And when we disagree, we just carry on; knowing that everyone is not going to be in absolute agreement on all topics.
Selling the BOM was definitely a good idea for the church. Effort-free distribution into markets, residual income, and an increase in legitimacy were all part of the deal. I never thought there was anything morally wrong with the move, I was really just interested in the change-of-tack; or more precisely the decision of the church to allow the BOM to go places without the discussions following shortly thereafter (no mishies in tow). True enough, this Rapkin lady was mistaken; but I have little doubt where she got the information in the first place. Church members frequently say 'fasting growing church' and 'largest in america' without offering any proof whatsoever, when in truth both statements are false. I don't have a problem with her being wrong, but it's disingenuous for the church to put that kind of misleading information into its' own press release.
This comment is getting pretty long so I guess we can talk about the renumerations afforded to the general authorities another time.
Post a Comment
<< Home