Man's Search For Truth

[HiJolly]

I first learned experential truth (like, if I cry too hard I can't breath or, if I lose my balance I fall, and falling might hurt.). Then, I learned religious truth (God is real, Jesus is my savior). Then I learned logical truth (cats are furry; Spanky is a cat; Therefore Spanky is furry). Then I learned mathematical truth ( if I take 3 from 2 I get -1). Then I learned philosophical truth (I think; therefore I am). Then I learned scientific method and how it can be used to establish or debunk claimed truths.

Later I discovered blends of the above methods, such as mathematical logic (wow was that a fun class!) and so forth. Each of these methods has its limits. I think if any of these is primary, or foundational, it is experential truth. We are the sum of our experiences, right? Any thoughts?

[MorningStar]

Did you have a cat named Spanky?

[HiJolly]

Did you have a cat named Spanky?

Hmmm... did I miss deductive truth?

Yes, I did. She was great.

HiJolly

[Jeny]

I first learned experential truth (like, if I cry too hard I can't breath or, if I lose my balance I fall, and falling might hurt.). Then, I learned religious truth (God is real, Jesus is my savior). Then I learned logical truth (cats are furry; Spanky is a cat; Therefore Spanky is furry). Then I learned mathematical truth ( if I take 3 from 2 I get -1). Then I learned philosophical truth (I think; therefore I am). Then I learned scientific method and how it can be used to establish or debunk claimed truths.

Later I discovered blends of the above methods, such as mathematical logic (wow was that a fun class!) and so forth. Each of these methods has its limits. I think if any of these is primary, or foundational, it is experential truth. We are the sum of our experiences, right? Any thoughts?

Very interesting!! Can you expound more on these thoughts? I never went to collage...well, I didn't stay...I should say...

[HiJolly]

Very interesting!! Can you expound more on these thoughts? I never went to collage...well, I didn't stay...I should say...

OK. Why don't we start with the relationship between knowledge and truth.

We learn in the D&C that truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to be. However, if you look at the section (93) where this is found, you will see that the context is very, ah, spiritual (ie, other-worldly). So unless you have been introduced to the mysteries, I would say lets let that be, for the time being. We can return to it at some point if you'd like. It is the very meat of the Gospel, and maybe really tough meat at that.

In the world, truth is often seen as something unknowable, some ideal that is sadly unreachable. Pontius Pilate's comment "What is Truth?" is so right, from a worldly perspective.

Thanks to section 93 of the D&C, we can think of truth as 'what is real', or 'the way things really are'. God, on the other hand, sees truth as 'what is' inclusive of all time, or, from His/Her perspective, *outside* of time. But I said I wouldn't get into that...

Knowledge is seen in different ways. It always seems to be related to what *we* know of "what is". So, it is a personal window to truth. Sometimes we can find ways to spread this knowledge beyond the personal. Let me explain my views on this.

In the Greek, there are two kinds of knowledge, Gnosis and Episteme. Gnosis means to know, to think, to judge "what is x"; and Episteme means the aquisition of a skill, understanding "how is x".

Or we could say, that Gnosis is the religious perspective which is generally personal, and Episteme is the scientific, or public, view. As I have heard some LDS folks say, the scriptures tell us the WHY of existence, and science tells us HOW. If we start to think that the scriptures are telling us 'how' things in the world are, then we should have warning alarms, bells and whistles going off, telling us we are in danger of misunderstanding the scriptures, for they are concerned with gnosis, not episteme. IMO.

This is sometimes called the nonoverlapping magesteria or NOMA(see an excellent presentation here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html ) That basically says that science will find truth in the natural world, where conditions can be objectively measured and analyzed, and religion will find truth in transcendent reality, or in the spiritual realms.

Some think that Mormonism blends the two, with things like Moroni's promise: A formulaic recipe for a repeatable, global spritual experience. I agree in general, except for the rather obvious fact that the answer to the promise must, and always will be, personal. Therefore subjective, not objective.

I also think that there are those that never receive a recognizable response. They may receive many small spritual promptings (and fail to recognize them for what they are), but not the 'burning in the bosom' that is unmistakable. Obviously *some* people miss the witness, or are never given it. I do not dismiss this as 'unfaithful' or 'contrary to scripture'. I myself have never received a direct 'burning' answer to this specific prayer, though I know it is true from innumerable small and yet undeniable witnesses to that effect.

I think it's interesting that I've had some really major experiences, but none were witnesses of the Book of Mormon, per se. It doesn't trouble me, really. I still know the Church is true. Note the word 'know'. But you see, it IS personal. Fifteen LDS members can get up at Fast & Testimony meeting, all say "The Church is true", and every one of them mean it a little differently. Isn't that wonderful?

HiJolly

[Sheelah]

Obviously *some* people miss the witness, or are never given it. I do not dismiss this as 'unfaithful' or 'contrary to scripture'.

Why do you think some would never be given it. If Moroni says "if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." how can they not be given it? I can understand maybe missing it by hoping for that full on burning, but never at all? I mean short of not having one of the listed requirements, how could they not get it? Is Moroni's promise conditional on something more than what he says?

I'm sorry if this is off topic. I'm not really sure how to respond to your logic comments.. they all sounded logical to me :)

[HiJolly]

Why do you think some would never be given it. If Moroni says "if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." how can they not be given it? I can understand maybe missing it by hoping for that full on burning, but never at all? I mean short of not having one of the listed requirements, how could they not get it? Is Moroni's promise conditional on something more than what he says?

I said "*some* people miss the witness, or are never given it". The problem is that I don't like telling people that they missed the witness. Unless the Spirit tells me, I don't know.

My experience is that after many years of talking with people that are distraught because they absolutely believe they did not get an answer to their prayer, it is really hard for me to say to them, "well, you're just not qualified. Which is it, your faith, your intent, or your heart that is missing?" Have you ever heard, as I have, someone say "Well, you must have some sin you haven't repented of. Can't you repent?" I don't know about you, but my experience has been that this approach really hurts people. The other alternative seems to be that they are not patient enough for the answer to come "in the Lord's due time". If they're talking to me, then they already ran out of patience.

So, I find that it is best to say "I don't know" why the witness was not received, when people ask me. Yes, it certainly could be that they are not listening. I know that God deals with each person on an individual basis, and if He doesn't fill me in through discernment (he has upon occasion), then I don't know why, and I've found that guessing only hurts people, and telling them that they are insensitive or "out of tune" doesn't really seem to help either, and telling them that they must be more patient - well, we all know that's true, but I certainly can't say WHY they must.

Overall, to dismiss someone's complaint with .... what reason? What would you tell them? For me, I find it best to just tell them I don't know why they haven't received an answer, and to keep trying, and I'll pray for them.

I'm sorry if this is off topic. I'm not really sure how to respond to your logic comments.. they all sounded logical to me :)

Not a problem. I just put some thoughts down, but they got a little long, I'm afraid most folks don't have patience to wade through it all. Thanks for your response.

HiJolly

[Jeny]

OK. Why don't we start with the relationship between knowledge and truth.

We learn in the D&C that truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to be. However, if you look at the section (93) where this is found, you will see that the context is very, ah, spiritual (ie, other-worldly). So unless you have been introduced to the mysteries, I would say lets let that be, for the time being. We can return to it at some point if you'd like. It is the very meat of the Gospel, and maybe really tough meat at that.

In the world, truth is often seen as something unknowable, some ideal that is sadly unreachable. Pontius Pilate's comment "What is Truth?" is so right, from a worldly perspective.

Thanks to section 93 of the D&C, we can think of truth as 'what is real', or 'the way things really are'. God, on the other hand, sees truth as 'what is' inclusive of all time, or, from His/Her perspective, *outside* of time. But I said I wouldn't get into that...

Knowledge is seen in different ways. It always seems to be related to what *we* know of "what is". So, it is a personal window to truth. Sometimes we can find ways to spread this knowledge beyond the personal. Let me explain my views on this.

In the Greek, there are two kinds of knowledge, Gnosis and Episteme. Gnosis means to know, to think, to judge "what is x"; and Episteme means the aquisition of a skill, understanding "how is x".

Or we could say, that Gnosis is the religious perspective which is generally personal, and Episteme is the scientific, or public, view. As I have heard some LDS folks say, the scriptures tell us the WHY of existence, and science tells us HOW. If we start to think that the scriptures are telling us 'how' things in the world are, then we should have warning alarms, bells and whistles going off, telling us we are in danger of misunderstanding the scriptures, for they are concerned with gnosis, not episteme. IMO.

This is sometimes called the nonoverlapping magesteria or NOMA(see an excellent presentation here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html ) That basically says that science will find truth in the natural world, where conditions can be objectively measured and analyzed, and religion will find truth in transcendent reality, or in the spiritual realms.

Some think that Mormonism blends the two, with things like Moroni's promise: A formulaic recipe for a repeatable, global spritual experience. I agree in general, except for the rather obvious fact that the answer to the promise must, and always will be, personal. Therefore subjective, not objective.

I also think that there are those that never receive a recognizable response. They may receive many small spritual promptings (and fail to recognize them for what they are), but not the 'burning in the bosom' that is unmistakable. Obviously *some* people miss the witness, or are never given it. I do not dismiss this as 'unfaithful' or 'contrary to scripture'. I myself have never received a direct 'burning' answer to this specific prayer, though I know it is true from innumerable small and yet undeniable witnesses to that effect.

I think it's interesting that I've had some really major experiences, but none were witnesses of the Book of Mormon, per se. It doesn't trouble me, really. I still know the Church is true. Note the word 'know'. But you see, it IS personal. Fifteen LDS members can get up at Fast & Testimony meeting, all say "The Church is true", and every one of them mean it a little differently. Isn't that wonderful?

HiJolly

Yes, that is wonderfull! I did not get a burning in my bosom...I got a Spiritual experience in the Temple...long story, but the Bishop basically sent me to the Temple even though I admitted to him that I did not as yet have a testimony...I felt the very thinness of the veil and I cannot expound further, but I DID recieve my testimony the very first time I went to the Temple...(The Palmyra Temple, I might add!)

[Pa Pa]

Then I learned scientific method and how it can be used to establish or debunk claimed truths.

Careful there...Scientists just figured out that Pluto is not a planet and that Carbon 14 testing was a few million years off.

Pa Pa

[HiJolly]

Careful there...Scientists just figured out that Pluto is not a planet and that Carbon 14 testing was a few million years off.

Pa Pa

Yes indeed (though I hadn't heard about the Carbon-14 thing - got a reference?) in science, there is no FINAL word, only the latest word. Everything is up for review, all the time. If it can't be objectively measured or independently repeated, then it's not science.

HiJolly