NOM

I have an open-minded mormon friend who I talk with about church stuff all the time. One of the only IRL people I can be open with, a life saver for me. He shares the mindset I sometimes see ascribed to the Givens' and some other mormon authors, that mormonism is basically whatever you want it to be. He often says that no one really believes the exact same things about God, or the atonement, or the word of wisdom, or a host of other things, but they are still all 100% mormon and that is great. He sees it as a good thing about the church.

But, if something is not defined it cannot be true. It also makes it very difficult to build a case that it is false, because the goalposts are so easy to move. A favorite testimony in fast and testimony meeting is "I know this church is true.", but if "this church" is not well defined then it cannot be true. It's like asking what's 2 + 2? and getting "3, leaf, hairy, you don't need to know" as the response. It makes no sense. But TBMs have been indoctrinated to build themselves a doctrinal spider web coated in emotional nerves to keep themselves from getting out.

This is often used against skeptics, ironically. Often the believers and apologists in our lives are annoyed when we take doctrine literally. It seems that certain amount of undefined nuance is required. The problem with "undefined" is writ large.

My waistline is not well defined (it seems to grow and contract on a daily basis) and yet it most definitely exists. Maybe there is something more to truth than an exacting definition. This line of thought gets even murkier when we talk about subjective truths. What is true for a penguin may not be true for an emu or tapir (especially a tapir with aspirations of being a palomino).

I have a similar friend and coworker who is very wishy washy about a very specifically defined Mormonism. In his case, he has essentially redefined "true" as meaning "a place where I culturally belong and feel good".

I've always been irritated by the phrase "I know the Church is true". The Church is an administrative unit while the gospel is a belief system. The beauty of the collective faith people express in the church is that the church has defined faith as evidence of things not seen. Therefore people do not expect proof of their beliefs. Consumers have more protection than believers.

moksha wrote:My waistline is not well defined (it seems to grow and contract on a daily basis) and yet it most definitely exists. Maybe there is something more to truth than an exacting definition. This line of thought gets even murkier when we talk about subjective truths. What is true for a penguin may not be true for an emu or tapir (especially a tapir with aspirations of being a palomino).

But what is your true pants size? If the facts that it is based on is constantly changing, then you cannot have a true size, only one that works for a moment. Can you have truth if the basis for it is always in flux?

Corsair wrote:This is often used against skeptics, ironically. Often the believers and apologists in our lives are annoyed when we take doctrine literally. It seems that certain amount of undefined nuance is required. The problem with "undefined" is writ large.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

Linked wrote:

Corsair wrote:This is often used against skeptics, ironically. Often the believers and apologists in our lives are annoyed when we take doctrine literally. It seems that certain amount of undefined nuance is required. The problem with "undefined" is writ large.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

This is a proxy tactic to the "definition of doctrine/speaking as a man/speaking as a prophet" issue that regularly comes up. It's a tactic that many apologists and family members will use when you bring up church issues. Here's a short, fictional dialog showing the problem.

Apostate: Elder McConkie stated that there was no death before the fall and that organic evolution is false.

Believer: There are ways to understand what he said. You can still believe in evolution and don't have to take this literally.

Apostate: Can I decide what to take literally or figuratively from the prophets?

Believer: You have to pray and follow the spirit.

Apostate: I feel spiritually comfortable in drinking coffee.

Believer: You must follow that commandment literally

Apostate: I think I should marry a second wife

Believer: Do not take that commandment literally

Apostate: Brigham Young preached the Adam God doctrine in the temple.

Believer: Don't take that literally either.

Apostate: What about Heber J. Grant calling the priesthood ban "doctrine" in his letters to Nelson Lowry?

Believer: You are understanding this incorrectly.

Apostate: Should I take President Grant literally in this situation?

Believer: No, you should not

Apostate: Was President Grant wrong in declaring the priesthood ban to be doctrine?

Believer: You are taking too many things literally

Apostate: I would like to drink alcohol like Joseph Smith did

Believer: No, you must take the Word of Wisdom literally

Apostate: So, we will stop eating meat in the winter

Believer: The prophets are not talking about that so we don't have to take that literally.

Apostate: Can you list all the doctrines that are literal and those that are figurative?

Believer: I literally cannot

That. Is. Brilliant. To. The. Point. That. Each. Word. Must. Be. A. Sentence.

I really like this.

It's sort of like the loose vs. tight translation issue. One method is convenient until it's not, and then you just switch to the other method, until it's not convenient, and then you switch again. Fun times.

moksha wrote:My waistline is not well defined (it seems to grow and contract on a daily basis) and yet it most definitely exists. Maybe there is something more to truth than an exacting definition. This line of thought gets even murkier when we talk about subjective truths. What is true for a penguin may not be true for an emu or tapir (especially a tapir with aspirations of being a palomino).

I have always thought that truth = reality, so I have a hard time with subjective truths, because there is only one reality, only one "This is exactly what happened and why" (yes, I am an engineer, why do you ask?). I freely admit it is a simplistic view, but it has served me well. I have recently found that some people don't mean reality when they say truth, and I am working on adjusting my worldview to accommodate that, but I am still struggling to understand.*


*Side note - I served a mission in Japan, and something I learned while learning Japanese relates. In America someone might say, "It's cold in here." asserting that it is objectively cold, and that is understood. In Japan if you say the same thing, "Koko wa samui desu." it would be understood that you feel cold subjectively. I am a fan of the objective understanding, and if you have an actual temperature measurement to back it up then that's even better! An interesting distinction for my 19 year old self. At least that's what the MTC teacher told me...

Linked wrote:But, if something is not defined it cannot be true. It also makes it very difficult to build a case that it is false, because the goalposts are so easy to move.

If something cannot be defined as either true or false, what it be defined as?

Corsair wrote:Apostate: Can you list all the doctrines that are literal and those that are figurative?

Believer: I literally cannot

Thanks for elaborating, great examples. You have a really good grip on the non-TBM view of the church, I appreciate all your comments!

wtfluff wrote:

Linked wrote:But, if something is not defined it cannot be true. It also makes it very difficult to build a case that it is false, because the goalposts are so easy to move.

If something cannot be defined as either true or false, what it be defined as?

Religion

But seriously, that is a great question. Most of the stuff we deal with every day falls into that category. With regard to God there is no way to be 100% sure what is right, so it is not known what is true or false, though reality still exists. For other things they are simply more complex than a true or false label, but many can be broken down into pieces that can be defined as true or false. For example, when I say "I love you" to my son, that is too complex to be true or false because the definition of love is too complex. But I can break it down into true and false pieces, like "I will provide for you until you can take care of yourself" and "I will teach you how to live in this world the best I know how" and "I always want to be around you".

Linked wrote:

wtfluff wrote:

Linked wrote:But, if something is not defined it cannot be true. It also makes it very difficult to build a case that it is false, because the goalposts are so easy to move.

If something cannot be defined as either true or false, what it be defined as?

Religion

But seriously, that is a great question. Most of the stuff we deal with every day falls into that category. With regard to God there is no way to be 100% sure what is right, so it is not known what is true or false, though reality still exists. For other things they are simply more complex than a true or false label, but many can be broken down into pieces that can be defined as true or false. For example, when I say "I love you" to my son, that is too complex to be true or false because the definition of love is too complex. But I can break it down into true and false pieces, like "I will provide for you until you can take care of yourself" and "I will teach you how to live in this world the best I know how" and "I always want to be around you".

"Like"

Between the time I hit submit, and the time I read your reply, I came up with my own answer:

Something that cannot be defined as true or false, can be defined as: Something. [/theend]

Linked wrote:He shares the mindset I sometimes see ascribed to the Givens' and some other mormon authors, that mormonism is basically whatever you want it to be.

That's fine for the Givens to believe that, but it stops working the minute your fantasy world Mormonism collides with real life Mormonism in a Court of Love. I can dream all day long about the Church not being oppressive, but that doesn't stop them from hounding me about tithing settlement and keeping me out of the temple if I don't pay up, right?

The Givens are selling a pipe dream. The Church is what it is, not what we dream of it being, and it will do what it can to break you if you cross it.