The Lord’s Truth: Universal but not Objective
The gospel is universal in that all people, be they black or white, bond or free, male or female, Jew or Gentile are to accept it by coming unto Christ. It is not, however, objective.
When we objectify a person, we treat them as an object without a subjectivity of their own that can be instrumentally put to our own subjective ends. This same notion of objectivity is at the very heart of the physical sciences in that the objective knowledge or objective truths that we learn give us information that any person can then instrumentally put to their own subjective ends. Thus, when we try to learn the objective truth regarding some phenomena, we objectify it and try to discover that information that could be useful to any purpose. This is what it means to be “unbiased”. Put slightly differently, in the physical sciences we seek to discover facts that we can treat as objects and we can approach from whatever angle we choose and put to whatever use we see fit.
The gospel is not unbiased nor is it objective. It is information which is specifically geared toward a single, specific purpose that the Lord has for all His children, be they black or white, bond or free, male or female, Jew or Gentile. As such, despite the universality of the gospel, we should not expect the information that God gives to all of His children to be consistent in any way that is objective, unbiased, timeless, acontextual, logical or any other way that does not presuppose a specific end-goal.
I bring this up as a counter-point to several non-issues which have been circulating the bloggernacle as of late:
- Edited prayers.
- Anachronistic translations.
- Reasons for limited Priesthood accessibility.
- Correlation.
- Revision to the 1st vision.
- The unwritten order of things.
I’m sure there are others, but I think you get the idea. In each of these cases the Priesthood leadership presents information to the church that differs, corrects or even contradicts the information that the leadership had previously given the church. In each of these cases the bloggernacle has inferred that at least one of these presentations of information must have been fallible or false. This inference, however, presupposes that gospel truth is objective when it is not.
None of these sets of information were ever intended to become the “object” of scrutiny. Revelation and doctrine were never intended to systematized in any kind of unbiased, timeless or acontextual way. Like the Oracles in The Matrix, the Lord and His servants are much more concerned about telling us what we need to hear in order to accomplish a very specific purpose than they are about telling us what any person might need to hear in order to accomplish any purposes that they might come up with. This is the entire point of continuing revelation.
The truth of the gospel is a living truth which adapts to the understanding and situated-ness of all (wo)men. It is not a dead object like unto a puzzle piece that must square with the other objectified pieces. This, however, does not make the gospel and the truth therein any less universal. We just need to accept that the prophets of the Enlightenment – those prophets that were responsible for the objectivity of truth – were not the prophets of the Lord.
So are you saying that in a gospel context there is no such thing as absolute truth – what we are told by the Lord in either the scriptures or through His prophets is all relative according to our needs? That we have been given anachronistic translations because the Lord specifically thinks it’s in our best interests to have them?
I’ll have to think on this, but suspect I only partially agree. Polygamy I think is a great example of something that might be a principle to be lived at some times – and therefore “true”, and not to be lived at others – and therefore “not true”. And yes I agree that the gospel is adapted to our time and culture to better enable us to come unto Christ.
I also think, though, that even the Lord’s anointed make mistakes and there will be things in our Church history that are as a result of those mistakes rather than as part of the Lord’s design for us – and I would include anachronisms in translations as part of that. Joseph himself continued to improve his inspired translations until he died.
The point, I think, is that what we get from the scriptures and the prophets is sufficient for each of us to take the road back to Him. What we perceive as errors could be either divine design for our own particular needs – as you seem to be suggesting, or mistakes of well-meaning but imperfect mortals: but regardless, what we have is sufficient.
The danger for us lies in spending time on investigating or worrying about such perceived errors. We run the risk of falsely identifying something as mortal error which then leads us away from Christ, or at the very least we spend time and effort on issues which the Lord has at least permitted, rather than on those things that will bring us closer to Him.
Works for me anyway….
Comment by JeffC — October 14, 2014 @ 11:15 pm
Jeff G.
Points for both of us for persistence.
If the prophets of the Enlightenment are of Satan, he sure took his sweet time getting around to it.
You may see be able to find a difference between a subjective message and relative truth. I’m not so able.
I think you are objectively right and subjectively wrong about God’s message.
Comment by Martin James — October 15, 2014 @ 6:56 am
Lol! Jeff G this reminds me of Comical Ali‘s address to the world.
Comment by Howard — October 15, 2014 @ 8:42 am
Jeff,
I think that this is accurate inasmuch as the actual gospel or real revelations from the Lord are concerned. It seems like your premise relies on the given that all nuances of the 6 things you listed (and more) have come by revelation. I whole-heartedly agree with your last paragraph as it relates to the gospel, but not really to all of the nuances of church culture, beliefs, and policies put forth by leadership and members. When questionable or imperfect things are traceable to man, is it not up for scrutiny?
Whether or not scrutiny was intended to be invited, it comes. And with it comes very difficult questions raised by critics and church membership. Attributing things like the priesthood ban to God and using the Oracle example as an explanation is something that even the church recently disavowed because of the problems it has created over the years. So while your explanation works, perhaps, for different versions of the first vision or edited prayers, it doesn’t necessarily work for the ban or the unwritten order of things.
Comment by Pierce — October 15, 2014 @ 9:17 am
But aren’t we supposed to test things? See if they’re good fruit? I’m not saying we should call good evil, but neither should we call evil good. Even if something was good before (polygamy?), it may not be good for us now. Likewise the six things you listed. If they’re no longer or never were good, we can (and should) seek further light and knowledge, and make adjustments accordingly.
Comment by Here Before — October 15, 2014 @ 2:08 pm
Some call it “The Morning Star” and some call it “The Evening Star,” but some might say we are justified in saying that both signify the same thing because both designators are pointing at the same object that truly exists out there in the actual world.
I’m wondering how you think you’re justified talking about “The Lord’s Truth” and acting as though your words are pointing at the same thing that Joseph Smith’s or Jesus’s words were pointing at without some kind of belief there is some fixed truth-object out there. In what sense do you believe in “The Gospel” that Jesus taught if Truth is a river that you can’t step in twice?
Comment by Syphax — October 15, 2014 @ 7:55 pm
In other words, Ship of Theseus. How many pieces of wood can you replace in the ship before it is no longer the same ship?
Comment by Syphax — October 15, 2014 @ 7:56 pm
Sorry about the delay, guys and gals.
JeffC, Why would you insist on equating objective truth with absolute truth as if the latter necessarily entails some kind of timeless, non-adaptive and objectiied deadless-ness? Absolute truth has been around for a long, long time, but objective truth is the relatively recent creation of philosophy.
It was this same bunch of philosophers that suggested that any truth that is not objective must be subjective and relative to each person in some way. Neither one of these is gospel truth. Gospel truth is not relative to each person’s wants and desires, but rather is relative to the wants and desires that the Lord has for them.
“I would include anachronisms in translations as part of that.”
Why? Why is attributing such things to human error and fallibility the automatic go-to? What interests does such an attribution serve? The answer is that this attribution of all things that do not square with objective truth to the fallibility of our leaders is specifically aimed at undermining our discipleship to those leaders. The whole point of objective truth is to undermine all forms of discipleship by equally placing the exact same cognitive tools in everybodies mind in order for them to lead themselves to whatever end they see fit. The posts that highlight those issues that I mentioned in the OP are directly pointed at that particular aim: undermining discipleship.
I’m not necessarily accusing you of trying to undermine such things. Rather, I am pointing out that the purpose to which the tool of objectivity is specifically aimed.
Comment by Jeff G — October 16, 2014 @ 3:43 pm
Martin, “I think you are objectively right and subjectively wrong about God’s message.” Would you mind expanding on this? I’m having a hard time figuring out what would constitute being subjectively wrong.
Howard, If there is no difference in your mind between speech which supports or undermines the Lord and His ordained servants and that which supports of undermines a mortal dictator, then I would suggest that you are in desperate need of praying to the Lord about whether those servants actually are ordained of Him or not.
Like I told JeffC, the whole point of objective truth was to constrain and undermine the authority that Kings and Priests pretended to have over the public. Inasmuch as such people are not actually ordained of God, I am fully on board with so using objective truth. But when we use it to constrain and undermine the leadership of duly ordain messengers of God we are doing little more than kicking against the pricks.
Comment by Jeff G — October 16, 2014 @ 3:50 pm
Pierce, The only way in which somebody priesthood authority can be cancelled out – as far as I can tell – is by way of their unrighteousness. Not their incompetence. Not their fallibility. Not some contrived difference between cultural and doctrinal policies.
Of course, we can always take our issues further up the chain of command by praying to the Lord, but inasmuch as our leaders are duly ordained and worthy servants of God, the default position for us disciples ought to be supportive discipleship.
“Attributing things like the priesthood ban to God and using the Oracle example as an explanation is something that even the church recently disavowed because of the problems it has created over the years.”
First of all, we do not know why they have said what they said on such issues. Your explanation is some thing that you or some other unauthorized person simply made up. Second, the whole point of the post is that now that the church has distanced themselves from such things, we ought to as well. My whole point is that by so doing we should be aligning our selves with the church leaders who have stewardship over us rather than objectively distancing ourselves from church leadership in general. (Howard is a clear example of this latter tendency in that his favorite argument against following the church leaders is that they were (supposedly) wrong about the examples you mention.)
Comment by Jeff G — October 16, 2014 @ 3:57 pm
Herebefore, Of course we are supposed to test things, but why would you ever think that treating things objectively is the only way of so doing? At no point are we told to test gospel truth by way of logical or some other kind of human reasoning. In fact, we have been assured that the gospel will never pass such tests. Instead, we have been told to implement such things in our lives and see if they’re good and/or pray about them.
Sphyax, I’m not follow too well. I don’t see why we should buy into any such essentialism, and even if we should I don’t see how such essentialism is relevant to the gospel. I assume you’re following Plato in assuming that knowledge of truth comes by knowing the unchanging and timeless essence of a thing. Even if I accepted Plato’s definition (I don’t), I find no support for such a definition in the authoritative speech of the prophets.
Comment by Jeff G — October 16, 2014 @ 4:04 pm
What I mean is that if what you call the “Lord’s Truth” in 1830 is a set of {A, B, C}, and what you call the “Lord’s Truth” in 1930 is a set of {B, C, D}, and what you call the “Lord’s Truth” in 2014 is a set of {C, D, E} then in what sense can we say they’re all the “Lord’s Truth?” How do I know that they’re all somehow related or referring to the same thing?
Why can’t I say that from 2014 on, the Lord’s Truth is now {D, E, F}, where D, E, F is defined as the contents of the Manhattan phone book. Why not? There’s nothing essential about any combination of truths that make it the “Lord’s Truth” as evidenced by the fact that it’s a moving target that shifts its contents through history.
Another way to look at the problem is ask how we can know that Joseph Smith was really “restoring” the Primitive Church given that there is this uncertainty about what is the “Lord’s Truth” is at any given time and place. We could say that we know the CoJCoLDS is a “Restoration” of the Primitive Church given that it has temples, priesthood, certain teachings of Jesus, and so forth, that are similar to the Primitive Church. But if God could come along tomorrow and remove those elements from the church (and it is still the church) then there is an inherent, permanent uncertainty in ever determining what present or future organization has continuity with any ancient organization.
Maybe your answer is somehow embedded in this:
So it seems like you do accept at least one thing that must exist in the set of “Lord’s Truth” for it to be the “Lord’s Truth,” and that is the existence of authoritative speech of prophets. But it seems like special pleading to say that the Lord’s truth is not objective except for that one thing that will always be true.
Comment by Syphax — October 16, 2014 @ 8:29 pm
Jeff,
I’m probably one of those guys that agrees with what you’re saying in practice more than I do in principle. Because I do agree that the default should go to leadership. Leaders lead, and it won’t always be the way that I want or expect it.
However, I think that to take the realistic and simple idea of “default goes to leaders,” one need not employ phrases like “the gospel truth.” When it comes to “truth,” as gospel goes, there is only one source from whence it comes–from God by way of revelation. And if a leader is not speaking by way of revelation, or relating to a previous revelation in some way, I hesitate to call it “gospel truth” and bind myself to it. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, and his duly appointed servants are authorized to teach pure doctrine and provide the ordinances belonging to them and bring salvation to mankind. If you are going to use “gospel” and “truth” in a broader sense, you’ll have to start defining terms.
It’s self evident, and there’s no reason for that idea to be offensive. If you read the article, the church addresses this:
Everyone knows it was often past church leadership who propagated these theories. You are quick to defense with “unauthorized” quips, but they said it themselves. Notice how they don’t attribute past utterances to the Lord subtly working his mighty work. Although I agree that people unrighteously exploit the weakness of the ban (leaders were wrong about black so they’re wrong about gays!), there are a LOT of lessons that we learned and should learn from that ordeal. The point of bringing this up is because these things were the “present teachings” to past generations. That it took the institutional church until 2014 to really address and denounce all types of racism and racist theories, doesn’t mean that all members were required to accept those ideas as gospel truth and “follow” it. This issue is compounded by obedience to local leaders (the kind who tell ward members to not have oral sex in their marriage, for example).
I agree with that as a general practice and rule. But when you start justifying that with the tactic of equating policies and utterances as “gospel truth,” it becomes an absolute. And as the past and present shows us–the fact that it is perceived gospel, but really isn’t, often leads to disaffection.
Comment by Pierce — October 17, 2014 @ 8:19 am
Syphax,
For the most part, God hasn’t removed core elements from the church–the core gospel has been mostly the same. The Old Testament was used to prove the New, and the New Testament was used to usher the Restoration. Besides, how well the current church mirrors the ancient one is not the determining factor of what “the Lord’s Truth” is. The Law of Moses probably looked like {D,E,F} and the New Testament gospel looked like {F, D, E}, but they were still guided by the same principles and same God. It’s no different today.
When it comes from the Lord. Personally I suspect that it is man that rearranges those letters sometimes, but I also strongly believe that God does it as well. And while Joseph restored the Primitive Church in a general sense, it seems that the Restoration has multiplied our understanding to an even greater extent.
Comment by Pierce — October 17, 2014 @ 8:53 am
Syphax,
Your comment strongly objectifies truth by framing it in terms of sets and their contents. This is to get it wrong from the start. I’m not sure that I follow anything else in it. What I can say is that an answer to all questions of “how do we know?” is “prayer.”
Comment by Jeff G — October 17, 2014 @ 12:45 pm
Pierce,
“And if a leader is not speaking by way of revelation, or relating to a previous revelation in some way, I hesitate to call it “gospel truth” and bind myself to it.”
This post isn’t directly about following priesthood leadership, but I don’t want to let that slide either. The question of whether they speak by revelation isn’t the only one that matters. A more pressing question is, “Is this a question which they have been authorized to address as the Lord’s representative?” Another question would be, “Has personal unrighteousness voided this leader’s authority to represent the Lord on this matter?” These questions totally shift the burden of proof.
“You are quick to defense with “unauthorized” quips, but they said it themselves. Notice how they don’t attribute past utterances to the Lord subtly working his mighty work.”
Of course they didn’t say that. That is the whole point of my post. Those past leaders were not priesthood stewards over us and thus did not have the gospel truth for us that our current leaders have. The same as how our leaders do not have the gospel truth for those who lived under those past priesthood leaders. The Lord gives His church truth through living prophets. Not dead ones. Not future ones.
Comment by Jeff G — October 17, 2014 @ 12:54 pm
““I think you are objectively right and subjectively wrong about God’s message.”
I mean you misunderstand the words of authority. You are outside the speech community of authority. You’re subjectivity is alien to the mormondom
Comment by Martin James — October 17, 2014 @ 3:09 pm
I do recognize that this isn’t directly about following priesthood leadership–once we get past this I agree with your statement that “Revelation and doctrine were never intended to systematized in any kind of unbiased, timeless or acontextual way.” My issue here is that you simply equate revelation and doctrine with a leadership position, so that the issues you raised aren’t up for scrutiny because you say it comes from the Lord (by virtue of it coming from an apostle, 70, SP, bishop, and so forth). There seems to be no distinction for you when there is a distinction for many people– so using this as a counterpoint for issues that do not stem from revelation is going to continue to be unconvincing.
That is indeed a good question. But are you asking because you think the answer is pretty much always “yes”? I laid out what I think that representatives are really authorized to address absent revelation. What is your standard?
What? They were priesthood stewards over us when they were in that position at the time. So by your standard, they were speaking “gospel truth,” even though it was more like gospel speculation. You’re bending over backwards trying to defend the idea that truth means whatever current leaders think it means. But looking at some past examples shows that can’t be the case. Now we have leadership saying that these once “gospel truths” were actually just theories, and completely omitted the possibility that God was involved. Which is to say, they were never gospel truths (I don’t think God was confused on this subject), despite being opined by leadership. Are you saying that church members during that time period were required to believe those opinions as “truth?”
Comment by Pierce — October 17, 2014 @ 4:18 pm
This reply is a little late now – sorry, I’ve just not had the time….
I’m probably agreeing with Pierce that I suspect I agree with you in practice if not in principle. It is dangerous to use any self-determined assessment of “objective” truth to highlight faults or fallibilities in leaders. The default position should be to follow.
I’m not sure I can agree with the way I am interpreting some of your thesis though (accepting it may be my interpretation of it rather than what you are actually saying).
It seems you are implying some kind of de facto infallibility to leaders, in that even if they make a mistake, that mistake is there by divine design. I just can’t agree with that. Joseph Smith himself stated that the people should not expect him to be perfect, and Moroni (or was it Mormon?) stated that there could well be errors within the record he left on the gold plates, and gave a clear warning not to condemn for those errors – basically “yes there might be errors, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”. President Uchtdorf has also spoken of past mistakes by previous Church leaders. Joseph continually worked on updating and “improving” some of his translations. He never claimed the Book of Mormon was perfect or devoid of errors – he did say that it was the most correct book on the earth and that we’d nearer to God by following its precepts. So I see no problem in accepting there are errors while still accepting it as the word of God, and the record of an actual historical people who lived (somewhere) in the Americas. An anachronism that may have crept in due to a mortal’s fallibility doesn’t change that truth – or alter the importance of following the precepts taught. So I guess it looks to me like you are making a claim that neither the scriptures nor Church leaders are making. Perhaps I have misinterpreted.
I also disagree that we are not to use human reason in our study of the truth – “Let us reason together” is what the Lord tells us. Our worship and service is to include our minds. Of course our own reason can’t trump that of the Lord – whether by His own voice or that of His servants. So the default is to follow, even when I don’t understand and even when my own study doesn’t necessarily come to the same conclusions, because His ways are higher than my ways. That doesn’t preclude the possibility that a leader may be in error – but I have absolute faith that following regardless of my own views will lead me back to the Father’s presence because despite any mortal mistakes that might creep in, the guidance will still be sufficient to get me there, whereas if I oppose the guidance I will most certainly end up on the wrong path. Thus if someone points out an obvious mistake, the natural response is then “So what?”, rather than a crisis of faith.
It also seems to me that what you are suggesting implies that there is no absolute truth – so truth is always relative; making right and wrong relative; making morals relative; etc. While I do believe that the Lord adapts eternal laws, etc to our own understanding (which includes culture, time, etc) – and that there are necessarily some “lies to children” as we are incapable of understanding some things with our finite minds and lack of spiritual understanding, I also believe that the truths we are given are based on unchanging truths. I’m no philosopher so perhaps this is a problem of my understanding of what you are trying to say, but I I would equate eternal truth with objective truth – the problem is that as mortals we are usually unable to see things as they really are to determine what that objective truth is, and end up calling good, evil; and evil, good. That’s not a problem with the truth, so much as it is with us.
As I say, I may be getting the wrong end of the stick….
Comment by JeffC — October 18, 2014 @ 5:42 am
Martin, So basically you’re saying that despite my sincerity, I’m wrong. I can’t tell if your indirect way of saying that is supposed to communicate something more substantial or not.
Pierce,
I do not say that. I think that is a bad question which serves to undermine our loyalty to the Lord’s servants. What I’m saying is that the church leaders have been authorized to represent the Lord and His interests. So whether any given word or sentence comes directly from Him or not is merely a distraction put in place by those who think that the only true authority lies in celestial citations.
Of course the answer is usually “yes”. That’s exactly what these men were ordained, set apart and given the keys to do.
I don’t know how old you are, but I’m fairly certain that you were never in Brigham Young’s stewardship. And even if you were, you aren’t any more.
” So by your standard, they were speaking “gospel truth,” even though it was more like gospel speculation. You’re bending over backwards trying to defend the idea that truth means whatever current leaders think it means.”
Actually, I’m taking the scriptures and church teachings at face value. After all, I don’t see anything in the scriptures about church leaders speculating. Thus, I might accuse you of bending over backwards trying to defend the idea that we should qualify our obedience to our PSR’s.
Comment by Jeff G — October 18, 2014 @ 10:52 am
Jeff C,
I know that you are trying your best to be charitable, but this really is one of my bigger pet peeves in the ‘nacle. What authoritative source has ever made a big deal our of prophetic (in)fallibility? The only people who ever talk about it are more intellectually inclined members (or anti-Mormons) who use it as a tool to qualify our loyalty to our ordained leaders. A focus on fallibility implies so many presuppositions that find zero support in the scriptures. The only thing that cancels a leader’s priesthood authority is unrighteousness. Being unqualified or simply being wrong about something does not.
The question is not whether our leaders are fallible. The question is whether they are uniquely ordained to make decisions for the church. Are they uniquely ordained to represent the Lord at that level of discourse? (In)falliblity never even comes up.
The whole point of the post is that we are to be good and faithful disciples to the Lord and His representatives that He has placed over us regardless of their imperfections (with the obvious exception of moral transgressions). Joseph Smith, Moroni, etc. are not our ordained leaders in the same way that they were to those that they spoke directly to.
““Let us reason together” is what the Lord tells us.”
TO call this human reason is more than a bit of a stretch. Even so, there is nothing wrong with human reason so long as it submits to revelation and divine authority. My formula is
human reason < priesthood authority < personal revelation = private.
Thus, I am not against human reason. Rather, I'm against human reason constraining prophetic and authoritative statements. That's the whole point of the post. Objective truth is the product of human reason and thus ought not be allowed to constrain gospel truth as taught by our ordained PSRs.
Comment by Jeff G — October 18, 2014 @ 11:05 am
Jeff
I am not suggesting that fallibility implies anything about whether or not we should follow our leaders. I agree that called and ordained prophets and apostles should be followed regardless of whether or not they make mistakes. Whether or not they are “right” on any given point is really irrelevant – they are the Lord’s anointed – full stop. In my last comment I tried to make the point that neither prophets nor scriptures make any claim of infallibility (which I think ? your follow-up comment was also saying – so we may be agreeing and just talking at cross-purposes)
The difficulty I have with your post is that you seem to be implying (or at least I am inferring) that even when a leader makes some mortal mistake that the very mistake is somehow the Lord’s will – so it seems to me that *you* are suggesting de facto infallibility (hence my raising the point).
So my question to you is – are you making a claim of de facto infallibility? Can you also clarify – are you stating that there is no such thing as absolute truth in terms of gospel principles taught to us? If not, can you please clarify because that is how your post reads to me?
Btw – I think we’ll disagree on the definition of reason. I think the Lord fully expects us to use our intellects in understanding the gospel and His commandments as He expects us to use every other part of our beings. Surely your own blog would be superfluous if not? ;-)
Comment by JeffC — October 18, 2014 @ 12:39 pm
Jeff C,
You’re right, I did misread you a bit…. Sort of…. I think.
I am implying nothing at all about the (in)falliblity of the PSRs, since I think such a thing is largely beside the point.
Indeed, I think all talk of infalliblity is totally bogus since it presupposes the very thing that this post is arguing against! Essentially all arguments regarding the (in)falliblity of PSR’s are an attempt to measure their words and deeds against a constant and therefore objectified standard. But not only is gospel truth not an objectified standard, secular truth is neither constant nor truly objective either. This is the hypocrisy at the heart of the posts that I was criticizing.
Thus, no I have no interest whatsoever in arguing for the infallibility of PSRs since such a thing would presuppose the very concept (objectivity) that I am arguing against. My post was aimed to dissillusioning people from the idea that their human reason ought to constrain their faithfulness to the Lord’s church and representatives. There are ways of constraining this faithfulness (see my comment 21), but human reason and appeals to objective truth are not it.
“Can you also clarify – are you stating that there is no such thing as absolute truth in terms of gospel principles taught to us?”
I never said that. It is you who is assuming that objective = absolute. But where did you get that idea from? I don’t mean this as a rhetorical question. The idea of equating absolute truth objective truth came from uninspired philosophers – which is exactly why we should hold prophets to such standards.
“I think the Lord fully expects us to use our intellects in understanding the gospel and His commandments as He expects us to use every other part of our beings. Surely your own blog would be superfluous if not?”
To repeat: I am not anti-reason. The only sense in which I am anti-reason is the same sense in that anybody who disagrees with me must (by the exact same logic) be anti-priesthood and/or anti-revelation. When we put it that way, however, it becomes clear how completely biased it is to describe somebody along these terms.
Comment by Jeff G — October 18, 2014 @ 1:29 pm
Jeff C again,
To rephrase, you’re concerned that my rejection of objectivity leaves the door wide open for the infallibility of PSRs since we are no longer allowed to compare their statements against those of other PSRs.
My response is that even though we are not allowed to make that comparison, this does not mean that there are no standards at all against which to compare and measure the PSRs. The primary form involves going higher up the chain of priesthood authority until we are asking the highest link in that chain in the form of personal revelation.
I personally view personal revelation as an appeal to higher authority rather than an appeal to higher reason. But even if you don’t agree with that, you can still believe that an appeal to God’s reason is a standard against which you can measure PSRs.
Here’s a short post that I wrote on the topic a while back.
Comment by Jeff G — October 18, 2014 @ 1:46 pm
Thanks Jeff
I think we’re getting closer to understanding each other, and broadly I think we’re in agreement.
I’m still not entirely sure about there being no objective truth, but that again may come down to semantics. E.g in the Church we talk about Eternal Principles as truths which we are taught and which are unchanging – this is different from acceptable practices which change. For example, there is an eternal principle relating to chastity, but what that means in practice may change – in Abraham’s day both polygamous wives and concubines were apparently fine, but today we’re strictly monogamous. So if you were to say that the objective truth is monogamy you’d be wrong (or else God was commanding Abraham to engage in something objectively wrong), but you’d be equally wrong to say the objective truth is to live polygamy and to have concubines. If commanded by God they both may be in keeping with the Eternal Principle of Chastity (the principle is what I would define as the Objective Truth here), because what that means in practice will be defined by God at any given time. You could make the same case for dietary code, Priesthood access/restrictions, etc. So if you are saying that philosophers/intellectuals/etc seek to frame specific practices in terms of objective truths and that they are wrong to do so then I am totally with you.
In our day we also often will define objectivity in terms of human rationality, which I again agree is a flawed process by which to measure eternal truths. (So if that is the point of your post then I’ve taken along time to get round to arguing a moot point – apologies)
That said, I think when we get to the next life we will see that all of the eternal principles that we live by do, indeed, have a rational and objective basis – just ones that we couldn’t grasp with our mortal limitations. And on that basis I’m happy to equate the two terms.
Comment by JeffC — October 18, 2014 @ 2:46 pm
“So if you are saying that philosophers/intellectuals/etc seek to frame specific practices in terms of objective truths and that they are wrong to do so then I am totally with you.”
Well it sounds like you have the objections that I would expect from a fair reading of my post, then. And a fair reading is all I can really require from my readers, even if I still hope to convince them of a thing or two while we’re at it. :-)
My reply would be that the very idea of objectivity is a product of man-made philosophy and as such should not be applied to the gospel. Thus, I’m not just saying that certain practices should be allowed to change. Instead, I’m saying that the very idea of objectifying any doctrines at all as unchanging objects that can be put to whatever use we see fit is wrong headed.
Thus, I think theology is out the window. Apologetics are typically misguided. All of those critiques that I mention in the OP are wrong-headed. And so on. The whole point of gospel doctrine is to bring us into the proper relationship with the Lord and His fold, not to stand apart from, hold up and examine doctrinal claims as if they were objects of study.
To be clear, I’m not arguing about the eternality or absoluteness of commandments or principles. These things are not in question except to the extent that our (false) views of objectivity have infected them.
Comment by Jeff G — October 18, 2014 @ 3:19 pm
Jeff G,
You’re missing the point of bringing up past apostles. It is not an effort of mine to try to bind everyone to the the teachings of past apostles. The point of bringing them up in a discussion like this is this: at one point, the utterings of past apostles were (what you have deemed) “gospel truth” to the people of those times. Yet, those assumptions are often corrected later on, like the case of the Ban. The “gospel truth” of less valiant spirits, curse of Cain, etc. are now designated as “theories.” Ergo, it was never gospel truth to begin with. And it didn’t take the church’s PR department to establish that fact among many of the Saints.
I really don’t see anything in scriptures that suggest unbending obedience to leaders (I also don’t know how far down the line you go–like do you accept a stake president’s words as gospel truth as well). The scriptures do mention that men sometimes use priesthood in order to exercise control over people. To simply disregard this as an impossibility for our time, or that it is only applicable to some EQP, is a disingenuous reading. So yeah, it behooves me to compare what is being told to me (especially as it is given as any kind of compulsion) and compare it to revelation and doctrine, study it out, pray about it, etc. AND that is also in line with church teachings.
I believe that a person can be inspired to follow a leader’s council about something. I also believe that a person can be inspired to know when another is not teaching pure doctrine or giving council that can be considered but not necessarily supported.
Are you suggesting that church leaders don’t speculate? I’m confused on this point. Joseph felt that a “prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.” But is that the message that we propagate still? It doesn’t seem that way.
“The whole point of gospel doctrine is to bring us into the proper relationship with the Lord and His fold, not to stand apart from, hold up and examine doctrinal claims as if they were objects of study.”
This is a self-defeating statement to me, since it takes examination, studying, the Spirit, etc. to really determine and believe gospel doctrine. I personally believe that anything that can be branded as gospel doctrine has to be traceable to God. Otherwise, a person is not “revealing.” Christ has taught us what it takes to come to a proper relationship with God, and He may reveal more. When someone adds onto that without a revelation, I don’t really consider it to be binding doctrine–it could be something to really consider, or it may be wise council to follow.
Again, not everyone who doesn’t accept the unquestioning obedience/belief shtick is trying to stand apart from the Saints. I am very much part of the Saints and I very much sustain my leaders. It just doesn’t require a pope-ish quasi-worship.
Comment by Pierce — October 20, 2014 @ 10:56 am
“Martin, So basically you’re saying that despite my sincerity, I’m wrong. I can’t tell if your indirect way of saying that is supposed to communicate something more substantial or not.”
What I’m saying is that even conceding that “authority calls the tune” not “the sheet music”, I still think you are singing off key.
One of the paradoxes of your approach is that we have no way of knowing (absent discipline from authority) who is harmonizing with authority and who is off key.
Comment by Martin James — October 20, 2014 @ 11:33 am
Pierce,
This is exactly the connection that this post was aimed at dissolving. You can’t get from the premise “now designated as theories” to the conclusion “never was gospel truth”, without positing some kind of objectified notion of truth. This is why your comment is so tendentious.
Comment by Jeff G — October 20, 2014 @ 2:53 pm
Martin,
Again, this is a bold statement that you are going to have to support with some kind of argument or another if I’m going to take it seriously.
Comment by Jeff G — October 20, 2014 @ 2:55 pm
Jeff,
It’s very possible we’re talking past each other. When you say things like “Thus, I might accuse you of bending over backwards trying to defend the idea that we should qualify our obedience to our PSR’s,” it suggests to me that your view is the opposite, in that there is no qualification necessary for obedience to a statement made by authority– which is to say “unbending obedience.”
Your post rests on the idea that “Revelation and doctrine were never intended to systematized in any kind of unbiased, timeless or acontextual way,” which I actually agree with. Yet you cite examples of criticisms in the bloggosphere that aren’t given by way of revelation or aren’t really doctrines or gospel truths and apply your premise to it– as though God was directly involved. It just seems to me that you are too broad in application, and it doesn’t work as a counterpoint to people who are critically examining certain teachings, doctrines, policies, etc. For that reason I don’t think that this issue is beside the point.
Comment by Pierce — October 20, 2014 @ 3:58 pm
Like I said, we might be talking past each other, and maybe this whole discussion is really an extension of our previous one. If this is the case, and if I’m the only one, I’ll shut up.
Comment by Pierce — October 20, 2014 @ 4:10 pm
Pierce,
You’re right, that sentence of mine – as it stands – does suggest that interpretation. What I meant to say was that you seem bent on allowing something other than revelation or a higher priesthood authority qualify our obedience. Sorry about that, I’m having a rough day today. :-p
Here is the main confusion that I see people in the bloggernacle (intentionally) perpetuating:
“Yet you cite examples of criticisms in the bloggosphere that aren’t given by way of revelation or aren’t really doctrines or gospel truths and apply your premise to it– as though God was directly involved.”
This is the idea that if something is not actively revealed by God then it is not authorized of God. (Any comment or post that brings infalliblity or blind obedience into the discussion, presupposes this faulty equivalence.) All of my posts are aimed to pulling these two things apart, since their equivalence depends upon a modern rejection of appeals to authority (which is very closely related to objective truth). In the gospel, the appeal to proper priesthood authority is NOT a fallacy and this point has huge ramifications.
Once we abandon the idea of objective truth being the sole source of legitimacy, the tension between past and present statement by PSRs simply unravels. And that’s where this post was coming from.
Objective truth as a timeless, acontextual and instrumental object that is totally external to us is not only foreign to the gospel, but I doubt that it exists in any sense at all.
This is not to say that priesthood leaders never makes mistakes. Rather, it is only to say that reversals in positions, etc. shouldn’t bother us all that much.
Comment by Jeff G — October 20, 2014 @ 4:41 pm
Ahhhhh ok. The way you just restated it somehow tied it all together for me. Sorry if I have been slow.
In separating out “revealed” from “authorized,” I think you’ve got the trappings for a whole other discussion (if you haven’t done it yet). Do you feel that a duly appointed leader may simply be authorized to teach and administer the gospel and the ordinances, yet not really be authorized to make statements, suggestions, and speculations outside of that? That an apostle is authorized to speak to the church in general, but exactly what he says may be outside of a revealed gospel truth? I feel there is a separation there, but like I said earlier, it doesn’t affect the idea that I accept others as inspired leaders.
Whether or not objective truth exists as the way you state it is pretty much over my head, but I suspect that there are many things that are “true” and many things that are subjectively true. God seems to be bound by laws, or truths, so I wonder if that is a demonstration of objective truth if God can’t get around it.
Comment by Pierce — October 20, 2014 @ 5:10 pm
No, thank you for having the patience to help me tease out a better way of framing the issue.
To be honest, I don’t have a strong opinion regarding the limits and jurisdiction of topics that a priesthood leader can legitimately speak on. I have pretty strong opinions about which people they can speak to, but as far as topics go, I haven’t given it too much thought.
Comment by Jeff G — October 20, 2014 @ 5:50 pm
The way I see it (and the way we taught investigators,) the very existence of someone who claims to be a prophet is an invitation. It invites us to ask God if He really did call that person as His spokesperson.
Once we ask and the divinity of their calling is revealed to us, they are a continual goad to search, struggle, and better develop our personal relationship with Christ and the Spirit. Without living prophets, seers, and revelators, we are left to interpret scripture to our personal advantage, and assume that whatever we are most passionate about is God’s will.
If we criticize and watch for error rather than humbly turn to God in prayer whenever something they say challenges our assumptions, we might as well have no testimony of the truth of the Church. At that point, Church is reduced to dull meetings, sociality, and just another political platform.
Asking whether or not the prophets, seers, and revelators are making a mistake is very much the wrong question to ask. At that point, you are already wasting your testimony, and are already stepping outside God’s model of authority, which severely limits your capcity to receive your own revelation. Ask, rather, how and if God wants you to apply their words to your life.
I, for one, have been guided away from applying the bulk of General Conference messages the last few times. Far from a good feeling, or giving me a feeling of moral superiority, it leaves me feeling rather stranded.
I submit the notion that if you DO feel superior in understanding: that the prophets are making mistakes, the promptings you receive are not from God. Following the Spirit simply does not operate under that paradigm.
Comment by SilverRain — October 21, 2014 @ 12:25 am
“Again, this is a bold statement that you are going to have to support with some kind of argument or another if I’m going to take it seriously.”
Now, I’m lost. The whole point of the post is that the gospel isn’t objective. What does it even mean to “support” or “argue” non-objectively?
Quoting and parsing the word of authority is “objective”. If I say the words of authority don’t mean what you say they mean, what possible reply of yours could convince me other than through objectivity?
But, out of naivete I will attempt an argument by analogy. I hear through my sense of hearing and propriety when singing is harmonious. I hear through my sense of authority and propriety when your words are harmonious.
You are off key with mormonism. Your words are ugly and therefore not in keeping with authority which recommends that I look for things that are lovely.
Comment by Martin James — October 21, 2014 @ 7:47 am
Without explaining why you think his words are “disharmonious,” you are just being a troll. Almost all persuasive speaking is not objective, that is the whole point. Did you not learn this in 10th grade English?
Not that discussion has to be subjective just because the Gospel doctrines are. You’re not even discussing doctrines, just your opinion of what Jeff is saying.
Are you even trying to discuss, or are you just letting your frustration override your courtesy?
Comment by SilverRain — October 21, 2014 @ 11:25 am
SR is right. Instead of providing any kind of support for your disagreement with me like I asked, you’re just crafting new ways of simply stating that you disagree.
Your objection seems to boil down to your rather extreme belief that truths must either be objective or subjective, either totally external to us as a timeless object that we can each approach instrumentally, or fully internal and private to each person. It also seems to presuppose a correspondence theory of truth.
Neither of these presuppositions are to be found in the scriptures.
Comment by Jeff G — October 21, 2014 @ 1:04 pm
Jeff G.,
Silver Rain is calling me out for being rude, which is understandable, lacking the context of our long-running discussion.
Jeff, on the other hand, is just plain cheating.
What support would you accept that authority is a bad thing? What would you find persuasive?
The whole point is that objectivity is what allows us to argue and support things.
Or to Silver Rains point, I would reply De gustibus non est disputandum. Doesn’t the whole experience show that no once is convinced by anyone’s 10th grade essay? That most people seek those who agree with them and are only rarely converted to another’s opinion.
But I am taking Jeff at his word. He is trying to free people from leaving the church because they have a narrow view of Reason and science.
And I am making the very legitimate point that his method of doing so, roughly “Authority and the process of religious authority” is the type of truth we should care about, does not work because it turns mormonism in a priest-crafterly direction that kills what is sacred about mormonism.
I must admit that I am a troll in the sense that I think the Jews considered Jesus a troll and Socrates a troll to the Athenians, and countless others whose method of persuasion is a combination of convincing people that they are either asking the wrong question, seeking the wrong goal, or altogether unable to define the terms they wished to use.
So, I think it is VERY persuasive to point out to Jeff that since he is not an authority, by his very words, I have no reason to take account of his position.
And, it also seems like a persuasive argument to me that if tells me that he will only be persuaded by the words of authority, I have no way to convince him that he doesn’t understand the words of authority because his moral faculty is inconsistent with their words.
You are both saying that I’m not making an argument and I’m pointing out that three is no possible argument that could persuade you that you have it morally wrong from the beginning.
Now, yes, that means I am basically just registering my belief that he is wrong and not trying to convince him, (but that is consistent with my position that that is the only thing I can do given his standard of only appealing to authority) but yet, he purports (or has in the past purported) to be in the business of convincing others to adopt his solution for better understanding and remaining in the church and I have asked him to show me his converts so I can the success you are having.
As for rudeness, I will only offer a few considerations. The very brevity of my comments was due to the belief that I was repeating an argument that I had made before and that since I felt it unlikely that he would be convinced, but not wanting to give up hope i succinctly registered my belief that he was on the wrong track.
Said philosophically, pragmatism can only be useful personally, it is not very useful for making converts of people who do not share a common understanding of the “cash values” used to be pragmatic about.
Pragmatism is an existential void. Useful to those with no existential doubts, but useless for those looking for existential grounding.
If one wishes to row a subjective liferaft, one is on shaky grounds to ask the person wishing to be saved for his coordinates, when coordinates necessarily entail a shared objectivity.
So, there you go, as a punishment for not offering a persuasive argument, I have offered more words, knowing full well that they won’t be convincing but its at least a peace offering that my objective was to be helpful, rather than merely or solely annoying in my earlier comments.
“Instead of providing any kind of support for your disagreement with me like I asked, you’re just crafting new ways of simply stating that you disagree.”
Well, then its my 10th grade English teachers fault because she gave me an A.
Comment by Martin James — October 21, 2014 @ 3:14 pm
And the whole point of my posts has been that arguing and supporting things in that sense is NOT what the gospel is about. That is exactly why objectivity has no place there.
I have repeatedly asked you to support this claim to no avail.
So you agree that authority does count then? After all, it’s only if you agree that authority counts that you can disregard me on those grounds.
I’ve addressed this so many times. If you agree that reason doesn’t hold sway, then I won before the battle begun. If you do think it holds sway, then you have to consider my reasoned position. Thus, solely saying “you can’t reason that reason isn’t good enough” isn’t good good enough UNLESS you can bring some other objection against it. The accusation of pragmatic contradiction is a weak one at best.
There are two more reasons why this objection doesn’t fly with me. For starters, I’m not even attempting to preach the gospel or share gospel truths. I’m only trying to get our secular theories out of the way for gospel truth. Second, I neither one of us has priesthood authority over the other so there is no sense in which debate between us pits reason against authority. Again, I am not anti-reason, just anti-reason-trumping-priesthood-authority. Would you be willing to accept the label “anti-priesthood” since you think reason can trump it?
This is absurd. For starters, I’m not at all confident that there is no possible argument that could persuade me. Secondly, instead of simply saying that I’m “morally wrong from the beginning” you could actually point out in what sense or where, exactly, I am wrong. That’s what providing support is.
Once again, a very strong assertion is desperate need of support. I have gotten very positive feedback on several of my posts. I told you that the first time you asked me so I don’t understand the point of bringing it up again.
Once again, it is you and nobody else who is equating a rejection of objectivity with subjectivity. You, not I. I have tried to point this out to you to show how your conceptualizing truth in terms of objectivity/subjectivity divide is completely grounded in sources outside the lines of revelation. It’s origin goes back ultimately to Plato and was given a modern re-packaging by Descartes. The overwhelming majority of the people described in the scriptures were totally isolated by space or time from these thinkers and thus did NOT believe in the same thing as you.
I guess the affirmative point that I should be taking from this objection is that I ought to have been more clear in my just as strong rejection of subjectivity as I was about my rejection of objectivity.
I have never denied that you had offered words by way of objecting to my post. What I wanted was support for those objections. And you still haven’t offered any – at least ones that I haven’t already addressed. In your comment I see nothing but a list of repackaged assertions, but zero argumentative support. None.
Comment by Jeff G — October 21, 2014 @ 4:52 pm
Jeff,
You are not addressing my point. I am admitting that authority matters and arguing that you don’t understand authority because you don’t understand what it means for something to be lovely and that this divides the world into those that think your words are lovely and those that think they are not and that no argument can persuade you or convince you that your words are not lovely.
So, be fair, and give me examples of how I could convince you that you don’t understand what it means for something to be lovely.
Comment by Martin James — October 21, 2014 @ 5:29 pm
Also, I may not be presenting it well, but my point is about meaning and not reason. I’m saying that for authority to be useful, we need to understand what the words of authority mean.
I am using “objectivity” as the tests we use to decide that our words mean the same thing.
I do no think it is possible to have authority determine meaning in a non-objective way. We can’t appeal to authority to understand what authority means.
Comment by Martin James — October 21, 2014 @ 5:37 pm
This lovely argument is not just an aside it is central to christianity.
If the first commandment is to love God and the second to love one’s neighbor, it is absolutely fundamental to know what love is.
I am arguing that an understanding of what love is, is fundamentally individual and that is why Satan’s plan for returning everyone to the Father would not work and why seeing the key to the Gospel as authority can not work.
So, how do we know what love is?
Comment by Martin James — October 21, 2014 @ 5:43 pm
Hmmmm….. I find this line you’re pursuing rather bizarre, but that hardly constitutes a legitimate reply.
I have no idea what you are getting at with your appeal to loveliness. I assume that you’re chasing after my claim that if my perspective doesn’t work for you in some pragmatic way, then no biggie. Beliefs are really just mental tools aimed at some purpose (reinforcing or dissolving certain social bonds, etc.). Debate is just one way in which we refine, alter or even junk and replace these tools.
The thing is that we most definitely can discuss and debate whether tools actually are well suited to some purpose or not. It is not at all clear that the same can be said for whether or not something is lovely or not. I also suspect that your attempt to construe my pragmatism in terms of loveliness is specifically aimed at exploiting the incorrigibility that seemingly lies at the heart of loveliness.
I also find your view on the subjectivity of meaning a little strange. Under your view, we have no way whatsoever of comparing the meaning of words such as “pain” “love” or “promptings of the spirit”. Such a strong subjectivity of meaning would surely undermine the idea of personal revelation.
To be sure, I believe in a certain indeterminacy of meaning which allows for the systematic ambiguities and equivocations that I have been attempting to expose. But this indeterminacy boils down to inter-subjectivity, rather than full blown subjectivity.
Within this context, we can also ask who is supposed to have the most bargaining power as we negotiate the meanings that we share? Modern democratic values would suggest that we all have equal opportunity to play a part in the process of nailing down meanings…. although this is far from reality. In reality, those would are in charge of education and media are a hugely disproportionate influence in this process. In contrast to this, however, I would suggest that following the prophets includes allowing them priority in nailing down meanings. This completely follows from my argument, for allowing priesthood leaders to nail down meanings just is to grant them the authority to close down debate regarding that meaning.
It is for this very reason that following the prophets very much includes framing debates how they frame them. After all, the frame of a debate determines its outcome more than any other factor. My three types of society (feudal, consumer and critical) all have different ways of framing debates on the same issues, and these different frames entail different meanings about those same issues.
So, yes, we can appeal to authority to determine meaning. You might not think that we should do so, but that is a different point all together.
“I am using “objectivity” as the tests we use to decide that our words mean the same thing.”
I’m not even sure what this means. I’m guessing you’re referring to platonic ideas. The way in which we test that we all mean the same thing is by interacting and conversing with other people. There is no other way.
“I am arguing that an understanding of what love is, is fundamentally individual and that is why Satan’s plan for returning everyone to the Father would not work and why seeing the key to the Gospel as authority can not work.”
Once again, this is a very bold statement which cries out for support. Why is love fundamentally individual? What does any of this have to do with Satan plan? What do love or Satan’s plan have to do with authority?
Comment by Jeff G — October 21, 2014 @ 6:22 pm
If that is what you mean, Martin, isn’t that an argument of semantics, not objectivity?
You don’t need objectivity to define the meanings of words…in fact, semantics operates wholly based on the assumption that definitions are highly variable from one person to another, and seeks to establish temporary common ground.
I’m actually well aware of the history of your discussions, public ones anyways. I just don’t often chime in because they confuse me.
To try to sum up your points, are you basically claiming that:
1) by appealing to authority, Jeff is going against that authority
2) you don’t (subjectively, I assume) find his words to be “lovely, or of good report” etc., so you don’t find them to be true, and
3) authority is constrained to objectivity to teach truth?
If so, you ought to be able to show where the prophets have taught other than what Jeff is saying. The second point is an expression of testimony, which incidentally proves Jeff’s point that authority is not dependent on objectivity to teach truth. Authority also bears testimony, which works by the power of the Holy Ghost. ONLY ultimately works by that highly subjective influence.
The Lord teaches that revelation comes in the mind and in the heart: by way of reason and by way of subjective emotion.
This is where I think in an attempt to provide counterpoint to the Bloggernaccle, Jeff overstates. Personal revelation can come by way of reason, in which case reason colors your practical application of prophetic counsel.
The problem, I submit, lies in trying to establish a hierarchal chain of rules to determine what trumps what. In divine power, there is no “trumping.” The very idea of overruling presupposes disharmony. God is patient enough to work by persuasion, not hierarchy.
That is the greatest tragedy in our understanding of priesthood power. The moment we perceive it as a chain of authority rather than an encompassing power of trust and love, we sap it of a great deal of its power. That error permeates our doctrine, merely because (I believe) we mortals insist on predictable rules and the pride of comparison. But hints of something greater are threaded through our doctrine as well. Once we grasp them, we will be able to become Zion.
Comment by SilverRain — October 22, 2014 @ 2:03 am
Ok, I think we are getting to where I can start to explain why I am taking the approach I taking.
Anyone who has tried to program a computer to understand natural language knows that the way we learn the meaning of words is bizarre and a mystery.
Now I will grant that it might be possible with sufficient control of education to ensure common meanings, but I think that “appeals” and settling “debates” assume that common meanings are in place.
Certainly, in US law the two main sides feel like the other side is exercising bad faith in determining the meaning of words. I for one, have no clue what “equal” means in a legal context. So, if the legal authority requires me to treat people equally I don’t really know what that means.
On further reflection, I really have two different strands to what is admittedly an intuitive and tentative argument.
Both rely on being sceptical of “compartmentalized” frameworks. Both strands also rely on the centrality of issue of concept definition to any framework.
So, for example, I am distrusting of mathematics and logic because we don’t really know what they are. Since the terms are undefined in axiomatic systems, they are compartmentalized in a way that makes them not real. Yet, there is a strong sense that we find them compelling.
So, in a related sense, I’m totally behind your project of freeing people from enlightenment reason as a factor in leading people away from the church. However, I think it is difficult in the extreme to disentangle Reason from reason, and enlightenment thinking from thinking.
So, let’s take the correspondence theory of truth but twist it a bit and talk about the correspondence theory of a lie.
What definition of a lie do we have that is not a correspondence theory? That a lie is the telling of a statement that doesn’t correspond with what one believes to be true? And furthermore, isn’t the most common strategy for rationalizing or justifying a lie, to establish a compartmentalized framework where the lie is not a lie? Such as a framework where what “is” is is in question?
Isn’t it always compartmentalization that people think of as hypocrisy where two sides differ in what is believed to be an arbitrary versus meaningful distinction in categories, say when a “killing” is a murder or where a lack of disclosure is a fraud?
So, this prong of my position, while not necessarily opposing a move toward, say intersubjectivity, thinks that it is a move away from the best assurance that we are not lying to ourselves or making it easy to lie to each other. Now, I admit also that this is complicated by the distinction between “god’s ways and man’s ways”.
Since, we have no access to God’s ways that are not filtered through man’s ways, you are making the valid point that authority should be given high priority in determining Gods ways and I am saying OK, but that doesn’t mean we need to or should base a theory of truth or a framework, where the words of authority “are” truth. Where it is effectively impossible for authority to lie or to compartmentalize.
I think that what you find “bizarre” is much more tied to implicit enlightenment reason than you want to admit. Yes, it’s bizarre to consider, but isn’t it man’s ways not Gods ways that make us think that God isn’t completely ironic in his commandments?
It is having it both ways to say Gods ways are not mans ways and then still expecting god to be reasonable?
That’s one prong that is the more secular prong, and the weaker claim on my part from a strictly Mormon point of view.
The other claim, which I believe is more consistent with Mormon practices is that the gospel is fundamentally individual and no authoritarian in any way other than an informational one.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you creates an individual standard for righteousness because what you would have done unto you is inherently individual.
Likewise with many of the other commandments such as to hope.
Comment by Martin James — October 22, 2014 @ 7:09 am
Jeff,
You don’t have to respond to this, but per several of our discussions about authority/truth/doctrine, Blake summarized my viewpoint very well in a comment a while back.
here
Comment by Pierce — October 22, 2014 @ 10:08 am
SilverRain,
“You don’t need objectivity to define the meanings of words…in fact, semantics operates wholly based on the assumption that definitions are highly variable from one person to another, and seeks to establish temporary common ground.”
So, explain to me how a non-objective definition of words working in the following way.
Let’s say we an agreement, contract or covenant recorded in words. The is “temporary common ground” when the covenant is entered into but the contract is not intended to be temporary.
So at a later time the two parties have undergone semantic variation with each party now thinking the words mean different things.
What does the covenant mean at that later time? Whose meaning holds in understanding the agreement?
Comment by Martin James — October 22, 2014 @ 11:46 am
SilverRain,
Assuming that you have understood Martin correctly (I definitely think you’ve done been than I have), then I almost completely endorse your responses. If it could be shown that my position is contrary to or undermines the teachings of the church’s leadership, that would be devastating for my case.
Regarding my overstating my case, I’m never entirely sure if we actually agree or not. After all, I would never expect priesthood leaders to articulate or press the points that I make as hard as I do, since their target audience and purpose is very different than mine. I see this as following quite naturally from the points I make.
More to you specific point, however, I define reason as a mechanism for decision making and disagreement resolving that necessarily treats all participants’ standing as equal to each other. I define priesthood authority as a mechanism for doing the same things that necessarily treats some participants’ standing as NOT equal to each other. Thus, when the Lord gives us reasons and support or back up His decisions and positions, this should not be construed as reasoning in the relevant sense, since we are supposed to accept His decisions and positions whether He supports or backs them up or not.
“I am arguing that an understanding of what love is, is fundamentally individual and that is why Satan’s plan for returning everyone to the Father would not work and why seeing the key to the Gospel as authority can not work.”
I do worry about this. Basically, I am taking the way that critical thinkers are taught to frame social institutions (including the church) and turning this frame against those thinkers themselves. Of course the best way would be to never frame the church in that way to begin with – which is exactly why I would never expect the church leaders to articulate my arguments, and why I don’t think my arguments are all that helpful to many members. However, within the bloggernacle there is a strong majority who have already accepted that framework as a legitimate one, whether they know it or not. Thus, my arguments are a lot like chemotherapy – you would never perform it on somebody unless they were already sick with cancer. Intellectualism is the cancer of church membership.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 12:02 pm
Martin, a whole lot of people get paid way too much money to figure that out…subjectively. That is what law is all about. That is why simple contracts often bear remarkable resemblance to War and Peace.
The whole thing is about narrowing down possible definitions before there is a conflict, and hashing out what the majority of people subjectively think the meaning should be afterwards. This is why legal precedence exists, and why legalese is so unwieldy.
Even the dictionary, which purpose is to make definitions as objective as possible, recognizes the need for multiple definitions for each word because people understand them to mean different things in different contexts and with different experiences.
I’m having a hard time believing you truly don’t get that. Are you trolling me, or are you genuinely confused about what semantics are?
Because IF you truly don’t understand the difference between objectivity (which is largely illusion, especially in religion) and subjectivity, it certainly explains why you have such a hard time accepting Jeff’s point that authority need not be objectively consistent to still be true.
Comment by SilverRain — October 22, 2014 @ 12:05 pm
Jeff G, the way you describe is definitely tied to why I suggested you overstate your case here. Sometimes overstatement (such as giving people deadly chemicals in a controlled way in order to kill off a part of their body) is necessary to get your point across.
I think we basically agree, though I wouldn’t formulate it quite the way you have. The only thing I disagree with (while still understanding why you put it this way) is your model of “trumping” authority over personal reason. This isn’t because I don’t often weigh authority over my reason, but because I believe the best way to divine understanding is for there to be an ebb and flow between reason, emotional promptings, and third-party authority. It isn’t so easily defined under the concept of “trumping.” Especially since (“come let us reason together”, and “amen to the authority”) divine authority itself bows to the constraints of mortal limitations if it hopes to not undermine itself.
Perhaps part of divine understanding is accepting natural subjectivity of humankind as divine, even in its imperfection. For that is His work and glory: the immortality and eternal life of man, in all his mortality and spiritual death. His work is, by definition, divine work. Therefore developing imperfect and highly subjective individuals is also divine. Somewhere in there lies the capacity for patience: adapting perfect divine counsel to the understanding of imperfect mortality.
Comment by SilverRain — October 22, 2014 @ 12:16 pm
Martin,
“that doesn’t mean we need to or should base a theory of truth or a framework, where the words of authority “are” truth. Where it is effectively impossible for authority to lie or to compartmentalize.”
I’m not convinced that this is what I am doing at all. I think the only way you could make this accusation stick is by presupposing tendentious definitions of “lie” and “truth” that totally bias the very issues that are at hand. Due to my total rejection of the correspondence theory, I’m having a difficult time seeing the connections that you’re relying upon. For me, lying is simply a manipulative description of the world wherein the speaker attempts to further their own interests at the expense of others’.
“The other claim, which I believe is more consistent with Mormon practices is that the gospel is fundamentally individual and no authoritarian in any way other than an informational one.”
I like the last part of this since it clearly admits to being the target of my criticism. I’m just curious if you have any argument to support that position? From my perspective, the entire point of having a church that administers priesthood ordinances on a weekly basis is that solidarity with the Lord’s representatives cannot be reduced to mere conduits of information.
The origins of the church were within a context that most definitely had an authoritative world view. The scriptures make the most sense when framed from an authoritative perspective. Given these two facts, I find it difficult to even imagine an argument for your informational perspective that did not come from a worldview that was not specifically aimed at undermining religious authority.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 12:21 pm
Pierce,
While I do think that Blake places too much faith in intellectualism (I think that systematic theology or apologetics pervert rather than clarify the gospel), I would definitely applaud the uses to which he puts them. Indeed, I think my views regarding the non-objectivity of gospel truth are very closely related to his views regarding the translation of the BoM.
(On a personal note, Blake made more effort than anybody else to reach out to me and keep me from falling from the church. Sadly, I did not engage his efforts very much at all, nor do I think they would have helped me at the time. What I needed was a much deeper critique of my intellectualism than I think he was prepared to give. Nevertheless, I have never forgotten his Christ-like efforts.)
With specific regards to the comment you linked to, I would suggest that neither Blake nor I think that its all or nothing in scriptures vs modern revelation. He thinks that the main reason why we move away from BY’s adam-god teachings was due to scripture, while I think it was due to the prophets that came after him. (Either way, adam-god never played a major role in LDS teachings.) Blake’s approval of systematic theology and apologetics is closely connected with his preference for the written words of the canon, while my view is very much based in a preference for a kind of oral cannon.
In a lot of ways, Blake and I probably reach very similar positions, but by very different routes.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 12:43 pm
Martin asked, “What does the covenant mean at that later time? Whose meaning holds in understanding the agreement?”
SilverRain answered, “Martin, a whole lot of people get paid way too much money to figure that out…subjectively. That is what law is all about. That is why simple contracts often bear remarkable resemblance to War and Peace. The whole thing is about narrowing down possible definitions before there is a conflict, and hashing out what the majority of people subjectively think the meaning should be afterwards. This is why legal precedence exists, and why legalese is so unwieldy.”
I think this is a fantastic response, if only because it highlights the difference between the perspectives that so often get confused. Systematic theology, etc. try to do the same thing as the lawyers that SR speaks of. We can view them as trying their best to approximate the objective truth of the matter in question.
But the restored gospel of Mormonism is totally antithetical to this. The answer to Martin’s question in a Mormon context is continuing revelation. Systematic theology is an attempt to replace revelation and priesthood with human reason and is the strongest symptom/reason that the other churches of Christendom have fallen away. From an LDS perspective, how the current prophet reads Genesis is far more important than what Moses meant by Genesis…. a move which totally sidelines theology and Biblical studies.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 12:53 pm
SR in 52,
I was trying to get at the idea of the asymmetrical relationship between human reason and priesthood authority as this relationship relates to public debates. I don’t have very strong opinions when it comes to private beliefs, because if they are truly private they will never be subject to interpersonal reason or priesthood authority.
If we are talking about positions and decisions for the group, then only that person with the priesthood keys for that group can receive revelation on those positions and decisions – even if they themselves do not realize it. This is why the position and decision of that priesthood authority must trump the positions and decisions of the other group members – it is the only way that the group can be led by revelation rather than human reason.
This is not to suggest that the priesthood authority should not discuss these things with the people. But the relationship of members to priesthood leader is meant to inform, not legislate or pressure in any way.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 1:04 pm
Jeff—”if they are truly private they will never be subject to interpersonal reason or priesthood authority.”
This is an interesting statement. I completely agree that the relationship of members to priesthood leaders is meant to inform, not to legislate or pressure. But I also think priesthood leaders cannot legislate or pressure and still maintain their priesthood authority. (I take that “amen” verse in D&C very seriously.) The difference is that members can inform leadership of their own personal revelation, situation, and experiences, while leadership has the role of informing the Lord’s will for the group as a whole.
I imagine the dynamics described in general leadership meetings (where all must be unified) as a template for my understanding of how the true priesthood actually works.
So, back to the comment I quoted above, private beliefs very much DO have an impact on public beliefs/debate. Because if we are a Zion people, every individual’s beliefs and place is important to the community. In order to be unified, we must hold others’ experiences and opinions equal in value to our own. And, if we are priesthood leaders, we must maintain respect for each person’s divinity and agency as we lead. It is a leadership of persuasion, not of coercion.
The underlying requirement is for all in that group to be humbly seeking the will of the Lord. If we undertake to justify our opinions, cover our own sins, or gain advantage over our neighbor, we cannot be part of a Zion community. But humbly seeking the will of the Lord does not automatically guarantee that we will be in immediate or easy consensus. Rather, it means that we practice long-suffering, persuasion, charity, and love as we “reason together.” By that process, our sins can be made white as snow and we will be able to speak with one voice. Thus, the idea of “trumping” has no place in a group truly led by priesthood power and authority.
Since we are in a mortal sphere, and we all (leaders and member alike) are learning how to exercise priesthood power and authority, members must exercise a generous dose of patience as priesthood leaders work out their relationship with the Savior. Any spirit of rebellion destroys the chances that “all may be edified and rejoice together.” Conflict does not necessitate rebellion. One can disagree without rebelling against someone, if one develops a spirit of love and remains in tune with the Spirit of God. Even members might be called to “rebuke with harshness,” but that ONLY works if there is an increase of love as well. Otherwise, one is merely operating under garden-variety pride.
I truly appreciate this discussion because I’m currently experiencing a conflict with one of my priesthood leaders, which is paralyzing me. I needed to hash this out, so thank you.
Comment by SilverRain — October 22, 2014 @ 1:38 pm
*harshness = sharpness. I mistyped my intention. I certainly hope we never rebuke with harshness.
Comment by SilverRain — October 22, 2014 @ 1:42 pm
“But I also think priesthood leaders cannot legislate or pressure and still maintain their priesthood authority. (I take that “amen” verse in D&C very seriously.)”
My understanding is that unrighteousness the regards to the commandments of God is the only thing that voids priesthood authority. Not being unqualified, simply wrong or failing to be pc enough. There is a world of difference between unrighteous dominion and irrational dominion.
That said, I think that worthy priesthood leader most definitely can legislate for those within their stewardship. They get to decide what we will teach and do, assuming they do not go beyond their stewardship.
Of course unison is the ideal, but we don’t need reason or authority in cases such as those, nor will revelation be sought all that actively. But for better or for worse, the frequency of unanimity is inversely proportional to the size of the group. The question that these mechanisms are meant to settle is “around whose or which position or decision ought we to unify ourselves?”
“In order to be unified, we must hold others’ experiences and opinions equal in value to our own.”
I’m not so sure on this one. I can easily imagine how holding others’ experiences and opinions as equal in value to all others would further irreconcilable disagreement and division. I think it is this equality that fuels the subjectivity that Martin rightly fears. I would also add that the gospel warns us NOT trust in our own experiences and opinions, let alone those of others.
“And, if we are priesthood leaders, we must maintain respect for each person’s divinity and agency as we lead.”
With this I most definitely do agree. Pretending that other people do not have access to God within their own lives is totally out of bounds. Threats are also out of bounds – although this one does get a bit murky where the boundary between threats and church discipline lies. Without these elements, I see zero coercion in a worthy priesthood leader legislating within his stewardship.
“Rather, it means that we practice long-suffering, persuasion, charity, and love as we “reason together.” ”
I have frequently been baffled when Howard used these phrases against me, since I don’t see how anything I say just is equivalent to unrighteous dominion. Nor do I see how the Lord helping us to understand something (this is how I interpret that one passage about reasoning together) can be equated with a trust in human reasoning and understanding to guide us. But if you also see these same problems in my position then it must be me who is doing something wrong.
“Conflict does not necessitate rebellion. One can disagree without rebelling against someone, if one develops a spirit of love and remains in tune with the Spirit of God.”
The way I read Jesus’ teaching is that, on the one hand, conflict most definitely IS rebellion. On the other hand, disagreement does not necessitate conflict.
Of course, this is all well and good as far as the abstract goes, but it is soooooo difficult to really live and apply my ideas in real life. I too have had to endure what I still struggle to not see as injustices on the part of my priesthood leaders. Sadly, one of these experiences on my mission very much influenced my ideas of prophetic fallibility that would eventually pave the way for me to leave the church. Thus, a big part of my thinking has been to re-conceptualize our relationship to priesthood leaders such that those ideas of fallibility no longer lead people down the wrong path.
For some reason, this article really comes to mind. There is a part where Bruce R. McConkie’s son tells the following story:
Getting back to my own experience, I knew that my mission president was a good man who was trying to do what was best. Even though I definitely disagreed with and was horribly hurt and offended by his actions, that was not a case of unrighteous dominion.
I’m also reminded of this story:
The whole point of being a part of a priesthood organization guided by revelation is that what we think and feel is right, is not necessarily so. Our priesthood leaders are here for the specific purpose of guiding and correcting these thoughts and feelings. It is they who help us see and/or move beyond the effects that positions and decisions have on us as individuals.
If our priesthood leaders are not good and worthy men, it is probably our duty to expose them for what they are. If they are, however, good and worthy men, then it is our duty to sustain and support them, especially when we disagree with them.
Since I’ve already rambled far too much, what’s one more reference? I recently participated in a thread in which we were trying to nail down the difference between progressive and conservative members. (I don’t think anybody is fully satisfied with those labels, but that’s another discussion.) The tendency that I noticed was that progressives tended to believe that conservatives like the status quo within the church while progressives are in some way dissatisfied with it. This, I think, totally misses the conservative objections to progressives. A more conservative way of framing the difference would be that conservatives think that their own (dis)satisfaction with the status quo is largely irrelevant while progressives think it is. This latter distinction is how I’ve come to frame my past interactions with priesthood leaders that I could not agree with.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 2:45 pm
This version of the Brigham story is a bit more relevant:
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 3:00 pm
“a manipulative description of the world”
And how does one tell that something is a manipulative description without some kind of non-manipulated description?
How anyone can not be skeptical of legal semantics given the recent decisions on same sex marriage is beyond me. How exactly should someone in the past who opposed the constitution being interpreted as prohibiting same sex marriage, have drafted it?
This example exactly supports my point. The only way that we knew that the constitutional words meant what they do is by a judicial ruling and similarly the only way that we can judge between Jeff and my interpretations of what authority means is by an authority deciding them.
After all, the losers in the federal courts don’t really believe that the words now mean that, they just believe that the courts have made an error in semantics that the y must live with.
In a very real sense law is losing legitimacy because we can’t agree on definitions. Given more time and polarization the law will not be the law.
I am requesting that you consider that it is likewise very possible that in some areas in religious authority, it is not that people disagree with authority, its that they can’t figure out how the words have non-contradictory meanings.
Hate the sin and love the sinner, just to use one example, sounds to many people like being told to sit in the corner of a round room.
Similarly, the word preside. No one really knows what it means anymore. Its a contested practice with an unreliable meaning.
I’m being something of a hypocrite in trying to make these arguments because I realize its like one of those situations where you are talking to someone who doesn’t speak your language and you think if you say it louder or slower or with an accent it will help. It doesn’t. One either sees semantics as problematic or one doesn’t. I do and you two… not so much.
Likely, were still under the Tower of Babel curse.
Comment by Martin James — October 22, 2014 @ 3:08 pm
You may be right. I am coming from a perspective right now that has invited more unrighteous dominion the more I’ve simply submitted to “rebuke” so to say.
To me, one key aspect of the Joseph Smith/Brigham Young story is that they had already developed a relationship of mutual love and trust. It wasn’t mere submission to Joseph’s word that (I believe) motivated this generally outspoken man to humbly submit, it was trusting Joseph’s concern for him, Brigham, combined with specific influence by the Spirit.
Without a relationship of love, I simply cannot any longer bring myself to be treated as an object to be ordered to do something. I’m tired of constantly struggling to be humble and submit to people who do not know me, and do not care to know me. I cannot believe that to be of God.
Nevertheless, because I believe in the Atonement and the purpose of this life as a time of probation and learning (not only for me, but for those who hurt me,) I am willing to respond with as much patience and charity as I can muster even as I refuse to respond to “legislation” of my actions. I respond to the Spirit, but I cannot simply respond to the position. Not by default, anyways.
I had an experience on my mission that sounds much like yours. Without that experience, I doubt I would have been emotionally weakened to the point where I would accept an abusive man as my husband. But, without that marriage, I would not have my children, nor would I have gone through the valley of darkness which taught me greater compassion for imperfection. I am still broken from it, and I doubt that healing will come in this life (however much I hope for it.)
Perhaps it is merely my weakness, but I agree that submission to authority IS required by the Lord at times while also asserting that sometimes gentle conflict (or disagreement, or whatever word you want to use) is also required. How else are the leadership to learn if I, as a member under their stewardship, am not frank and open with my thoughts, feelings, needs, and capacities?
Reason is merely a tool, and I also agree that it has been elevated past its usefulness, particularly by so-called “intellectuals.” However, I hesitate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There have been times in my life when my emotions were so clouded and entangled that reason was the tool by which the Spirit was able to speak to me. Perhaps the key is not to subject reason to authority without quarter, but to discuss how reason can be used righteously, how sustaining our leadership can be done without discarding our own agency?
Comment by SilverRain — October 22, 2014 @ 3:20 pm
Martin,
“And how does one tell that something is a manipulative description without some kind of non-manipulated description?”
That’s easy, have somebody investigate and find that rather than giving the cooperative description that the listers were expecting, the speaker instead gave a manipulative descriptions in order to further his/her own interests at the expense of his/her listeners. IN many of these cases, the people who investigate the story will find that everything the speaker said was accurate, but he was still lying.
“In a very real sense law is losing legitimacy because we can’t agree on definitions. Given more time and polarization the law will not be the law.”
I fully agree. This is exactly why I have gone to great length to expose the systematicity which underlies the ambiguities which have been intentionally been exploited within the gospel in order to further an intellectual, modern and secular agenda. After all, doesn’t your admission of these ambiguities actually support the availability of my interpretation of the gospel?
“I am requesting that you consider that it is likewise very possible that in some areas in religious authority, it is not that people disagree with authority, its that they can’t figure out how the words have non-contradictory meanings.”
This is exactly what I have been trying to do: show people how to dissolve the contradictions that they have been taught to see. The world and its values have gradually been infiltrating the gospel by exploiting ambiguities and it has been this gradual infiltration that has caused these contradiction to gradually emerge. In other words, intellectualism has not exposed contradictions that were already there within the gospel. Instead, it has gradually been installing contradictions within the gospel in order to delegitimize it.
For the record, I do not see this last comment of yours as simply saying the same thing slower or louder. (Altough, slower wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.) I just have a hard time seeing how you can run the objections from objectivity and semantic ambiguity at the same time.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 3:25 pm
I’m so sorry to hear that SR. For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure that being “frank and open with my thoughts, feelings, needs, and capacities” is exactly what the Lord and those servants of His want from you, even though it might be difficult for them to hear it sometimes. (I should also acknowledge that my interactions with priesthood leaders will likely not match up too well with that of female members who probably tend to be dismissed more often than men.)
Just to reiterate, I am not suggesting a blind and unqualified obedience to our leaders. Instead, I am suggesting that argument and human reasoning are not the ways to qualify this obedience. The right way to do it is by going up the chain of command which (especially) includes consulting the highest authority of all. If you truly feel that the Lord is telling you to do something, then there isn’t much that a priesthood authority can say on the matter outside of argument and human reasoning against He who is higher in authority than him – something that is supposed to be out of bounds. (Of course this all assumes that your disagreements have to do with personal matters rather than something that is calling related.)
I think reason is a very useful tool when it comes to communication and clarity. Unfortunately, it would be myopic to think that that’s all it does when we use it. This, I think, is very likely the weak point in my position. After all, chemotherapy isn’t that good for anybody, it’s just worse for the cancer (ideally).
Again, I’m sorry to hear about the tough times your going through. From what I know of you, I think you have a lot more strength than you give yourself credit for. Hang in there and keeping trusting in the Lord’s strength and guidance. I’ll keep you in my prayers.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 3:47 pm
Jeff,
Remember, I’m not objecting to your point about authority deciding what is correct. I am arguing that you have the wrong semantic understanding of the words of authority.
I am saying that mormon authority defers to an individual understanding of key terms, and the less it does, the less mormon it is.
Now, I think SilverRains interpretation is that if my lawyer and public is bigger than your lawyer and public, then my definition of “mormon” wins and she has standards for what the rules should be but at the end of the day, in her world its a semantic fight one way or the other.
You on the other hand are making a very, very intellectual argument against intellectualism.
Its mainly because we see a different reason for people leaving the church. You see intellectualism and the church being held to the wrong standard of reasonability.
I see the problem as the words of authority being under-determined as to meaning to such an extent as to lack force for people leaving the church.
My interpretation is colored by my experience with family members who are in no way intellectual, but just plain baffled by abstract words, that bear no meaning for her. When she attends church, she can’t make any sense of what people are saying and why they would be saying it. Words like atonement for example. She doesn’t get it. It all strikes her as so much mumbo-jumbo.
And my skepticism of semantics is partly do to the difficulty of trying to explain how people find meaning in those words.
Comment by Martin James — October 22, 2014 @ 3:53 pm
Jeff,
On a side note, the Enlightenment is generally considered to be a 17th and 18th century phenomenon and its targets could not have been religious authority because from a mormon point of view there was no religious authority on Earth at that time.
The timeline is much better for the enlightenment being an inspired precursor to the establishment of the United States and the restoration of the gospel to Joseph Smith in those United States.
Comment by Martin James — October 22, 2014 @ 4:05 pm
Martin—you have vastly mischaracterized my position. I was explaining how semantics operate in order to demonstrate their subjectivity. Not anywhere near was I saying that “my public is bigger than your public” is a good way to determine truth. You were the one arguing semantics.
My point is that semantics and their subjectivity are a feature, not a bug, of religion in that they challenge us to examine our assumptions and invite us to change towards the Lord. When we are commanded by a living prophet differently than past prophets, it is an open invitation to question, learn, and develop a better Spiritual relationship.
Jeff—I think we agree far more than disagree. I think that when we argue for submission to authority, most people assume that means “without question.” That is, perhaps, the fear you awaken that leads some people to fight against your point so assiduously.
I fully agree that argument and human reasoning are not a way to justify disobedience to authority. Rather, I think they ARE good tools for communicating motivations to that authority in order to work out greater harmony. If I simply say “the Lord tells me A against your B,” that leaves (as you say) little room for increased understanding. It’s a bit of a trump card, and (again,) I don’t think trumping is very useful in righteous dominion, whether from a position of authority or from a position of humbly sustaining that authority.
And thank you.
Comment by SilverRain — October 22, 2014 @ 4:15 pm
Martin,
I think we’re making progress here.
I’m still not understanding this. I totally reject the idea of private or totally subjective understandings of words, for such things are really just misunderstandings. Understanding comes with shared, inter-subjective experience within a common social environment. Thus, the more people listen to and study the words of their priesthood leaders, the more understanding they will have of their words.
The main problem I am attacking is with people who have studied how those same words are used in a very different social environment (usually academia). This study and experience has led created within them an understanding that – as measured within the first social envirnoment of the church – is wrong.
Most importantly, I don’t see how my position or its rejection is more or less “Mormon”.
Well, yes and no. I think that intellectualism is the main reason why people within the bloggernacle, or people who’ve been to grad school leave the church. Inasmuch as a member doesn’t fit in this group, I would expect my ideas to do more harm than good. Sort of like giving somebody chemotherapy when they don’t have cancer. This certainly seems to be the case for your family member.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 4:31 pm
Martin,
Just because God didn’t recognize any church authority, does not mean that there wasn’t any church authority at all. Mormonism and Enlightenment both agree that all church authority had become corrupt. Where they disagree is in the solution to this problem. One sought to restore a church authority to the earth that God would recognize while the other sought to do away with all church authority regardless of whether God recognized it or not. This Enlightenment attempt to destroy all church authority most definitely continues today.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 4:34 pm
SR,
In that sense, I think you’re right that “trump” might not be the best word. I don’t think it’s quite as bad as you do, but I do acknowledge that there are many forms of “trumping” that can hardly be seen as a form of long-suffering.
My use of the word was that priesthood leaders are authorized to close public discussion of some topics. Time is not infinite, other needs demand our attention. Thus, a member cannot expect to “innocently inform” their priesthood leader until the latter finally sees things their way. Nor should a priesthood leader be expected to keep or re-open a topic for debate whether any member wants. Again, past a certain point communication most definitely does amount to legislative persuasion, and I would not expect the member to recognize that point any more than the leader. Thus, when open discussion has been closed and the priesthood leader has not agreed to what some member believes to be right and true, it’s a pretty safe bet that that member will think that they didn’t get to be “frank and open” in their “communication”, even though this may not be the case at all.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 4:44 pm
Jeff,
Given your target audience, I think your approach makes sense.
I am much more concerned with how feminism will rip the church apart than I am that scientism will.
The stakes are much higher and harder to escape.
I appreciate your work and responses.
Comment by Martin James — October 22, 2014 @ 5:51 pm
I agree with you on that. I think my approach applies equally well to both scientism (which was the main bloggernacle threat about 10 years ago) and social activists (which is the main threat now). In the terms I’ve been using, these threats correspond to consumer culture intellectuals and critical culture intellectuals. I see both forms as being at odds with feudal membership.
Comment by Jeff G — October 22, 2014 @ 6:00 pm
Why do you prefer feudal to, say patriarchal or tribal as a description of legitimate authority?
Comment by Martin James — October 23, 2014 @ 6:35 am
I don’t know, Jeff. While I see your point, I have a hard time reconciling that with descriptions of how Q12 and FP councils are run. In my limited experience working for the Church, the general intent seems to be the same.
I’m not sure I see how “shutting down public debate” fits into my impression of what the priesthood is.
But, then, I don’t have the pleasure of wielding it myself, so there is that. ;)
Comment by SilverRain — October 23, 2014 @ 8:29 am
Feudal name that I gave it. I don’t see a big difference between feudal and patriarchal. Tribal, on the other hand, doesn’t quite capture the same hierarchical structure that the other two have.
Comment by Jeff G — October 23, 2014 @ 10:16 am
“I’m not sure I see how “shutting down public debate” fits into my impression of what the priesthood is.”
But isn’t that just what making an institutional decision amounts to? The leader makes a decision and expects the group to get behind it without criticism or neigh-saying. The time for doubts and debate have passed.
Comment by Jeff G — October 23, 2014 @ 10:25 am
Yes, that is how an institutional leader makes decisions.
But I don’t think that’s the Lord’s way. Not from what I’ve seen and experienced. It’s not what I hear when I hear Elder Eyring describe what they do. (And he isn’t the only one.)
Comment by SilverRain — October 23, 2014 @ 12:12 pm
At the risk of sounding ad hoc,i was speaking of public debate and discussion.
Comment by Jeff G — October 23, 2014 @ 12:47 pm
Yes, I just wonder if/how the same thing applies.
Because if we’re strictly talking about public, online debate, I completely agree. However, those who continue discussing it after that point are either largely grandstanding/drumming up justification and your point is probably wasted on them, or they’re struggling to work it out. Maybe public debate isn’t the best way to do the latter, but for some people that’s all they have.
But I think the idea becomes very dangerous for those who ARE priesthood leaders. I’ve been overruled more than once simply because I’m a girl and ergo don’t have the priesthood, so I couldn’t possibly be as in-tune with the Spirit as my “priesthood leader.” I wish I could say all such experiences were with those in their early twenties, but alas I’d be lying.
My current situation is dealing with that same expectation: that I’ll simply comply because it was demanded of me by my (female) “priesthood” leader. Part of me wants to comply. It’s certainly easier. Part of me rebels out of stubbornness/pride. But part of me also thinks it would be a disservice to do either. It’s not really priesthood leadership if it has to use a legislative decree. If I comply or rebel, I eliminate the chance for us both to learn how the power of God truly works.
But I’m discussing things beyond your original point, which (as I said,) I largely agree with. Time to probably stop threadjacking. Sorry. :)
Comment by SilverRain — October 23, 2014 @ 1:12 pm
I’m not exactly sure how I feel with regards to private discussions and debates with priesthood leaders.
Comment by Jeff G — October 23, 2014 @ 1:15 pm
OK, I’m back and off topic.
So, I’m interest in the differences in approach of SilverRain and Jeff G. to the following question that will seem like trolling, but I’m quite serious, not just for my self but for my children and grandchildren.
Here is the question. My assessment is that it is not possible to have integrity, to be honest and wholesome, and not believe that heaven refers to a place that we can see with a telescope.
So, I’m interested in how each of you answer the question, can we see heaven, why or why not?
What ties this to the prior conversation is that I think there is no part of our understanding (whether mental or sensual) that is not worldly, so I can’t understand how any words about “transcendent” are defined. Personally, I can’t use transcendent is a sentence and have it mean any thing.
It is not just your replies that I’m interested in(I don’t want to argue with you about them) its the differences in your replies that interests me.
You’ll just have to take my word for it that my interest is worthwhile and not frivolous.
Comment by Martin James — October 24, 2014 @ 4:43 pm
Martin,
I know I’m late to this party but you might be interested in http://www.rogerknecht.com/uploads/2011/12/The_Kolob_Theorem.pdf
Comment by doug — December 1, 2014 @ 7:53 am
Thanks Doug.
This party is still rockin!
Comment by Martin James — December 1, 2014 @ 12:33 pm