Click Here to Read My Ongoing Interview with Wade Englund

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Wade

Yes, I agree with you that there is no moral obligation to just blab the truth in every single case. I was just wondering about you and Mormonism.

You mentioned in an above post something very interesting, and I'd like to pick it up here. You said something to the effect that you appreciated questions which asked whether someone could find particular beliefs "reasonable", even if he did not necessarily share them. At least I think that's what it was.

So I wonder, do you think it is reasonable to believe that Mormon belief has more to do with the human psyche, than with communications from the creator of the universe that the Utah branch of the church founded by Joseph Smith is the only true religion? Why or why not?

Here is a related question:

You have expressed eloquently how deeply certain you feel about your religious convictions. You mentioned that those convictions are the result of your spiritual experiences. Like you, I have no reason to doubt that those experiences were very real. My question, however, is this: do you think it is possible - even remotely so - that while your spiritual experiences might have been very real, that the particular interpretation you placed upon them may not have been warranted? In other words, do you think it is possible - even remotely so - that you could be wrong that Mormonism is all it claims? Yes or no?

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade

Yes, I agree with you that there is no moral obligation to just blab the truth in every single case. I was just wondering about you and Mormonism.

Hi Tal,

Just to clarify (since my words are now being misused agasint me by the likes of Beastie), epistemically in terms of the CoJCoLDS, the truth is what is important to me.

You mentioned in an above post something very interesting, and I'd like to pick it up here. You said something to the effect that you appreciated questions which asked whether someone could find particular beliefs "reasonable", even if he did not necessarily share them. At least I think that's what it was.

So I wonder, do you think it is reasonable to believe that Mormon belief has more to do with the human psyche, than with communications from the creator of the universe that the Utah branch of the church founded by Joseph Smith is the only true religion? Why or why not?

Yes, I think it reasonable in terms of the paradigm underlaying it. I don't happen to believe some of the fundamental precepts upon which that conclusion is based, and so I don't agree with the conclusion. But, I respect that others who do accept those precepts may reasonable come to that conclusion.

Here is a related question:

You have expressed eloquently how deeply certain you feel about your religious convictions. You mentioned that those convictions are the result of your spiritual experiences. Like you, I have no reason to doubt that those experiences were very real. My question, however, is this: do you think it is possible - even remotely so - that while your spiritual experiences might have been very real, that the particular interpretation you placed upon them may not have been warranted? In other words, do you think it is possible - even remotely so - that you could be wrong that Mormonism is all it claims? Yes or no?

Yes. However, as my confidence has grown, naturally I view it as increasingly less possible, or more improbable.

The same is true of my secular epistemology. I believe it is possible that the interpretation of my physical experiences may not be warranted, or in other words, the things I learned in physics and other science classes, is not all that they claim. It is possible that there is no physical reality, and that the sensations I have experienced could be the product of neurological stimulation of my brain by the Matrix. But, as my confidence has grown, naturally I view it as increasingly less possible, and more improbable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Wade

1.) I don't know what Beastie is saying about you, but I just wanted to clarify for my own understanding: you write that "epistemically in terms of the CoJCoLDS, the truth is what is important to me". I am not certain I know what you mean here. Here's why.

There is in my opinion a completely obnoxious (though no less popular for that - or else, maybe it's popular precisely because of that) idea out there, that truth in effect can only ever exist in quotation marks; that it is the product of a particular "paradigm", a sort of bubble resulting from psychological commitments no longer scrutinized and a community based on them. Your initial qualifier "in terms of the CoJCoLDS" might strike some as betraying your acceptance of the idea just described above. Does it? Or do you think of the truth rather as something independent of "paradigms" (not their product) which can to varying degrees be discovered on its own terms?

What I mean is, are you saying that you are interested in the "truth" as it may exist as a product of "the paradigm of Mormonism", or are you saying that you believe truth exists independently of our ability or lack thereof to perceive it, and that if it were true that Joseph Smith invented his stories, that you would simply want to know that fact?

2.) Regarding your final comments: Surely you don't mean to say that the question of whether Joseph Smith told the truth or not, in your mind is analogous to the question of whether there is any such thing as physical reality...?

[_wenglund]

Wade

1.) I don't know what Beastie is saying about you, but I just wanted to clarify for my own understanding: you write that "epistemically in terms of the CoJCoLDS, the truth is what is important to me". I am not certain I know what you mean here. Here's why.

There is in my opinion a completely obnoxious (though no less popular for that - or else, maybe it's popular precisely because of that) idea out there, that truth in effect can only ever exist in quotation marks; that it is the product of a particular "paradigm", a sort of bubble resulting from psychological commitments no longer scrutinized and a community based on them. Your initial qualifier "in terms of the CoJCoLDS" might strike some as betraying your acceptance of the idea just described above. Does it? Or do you think of the truth rather as something independent of "paradigms" (not their product) which can to varying degrees be discovered on its own terms?

What I mean is, are you saying that you are interested in the "truth" as it may exist as a product of "the paradigm of Mormonism", or are you saying that you believe truth exists independently of our ability or lack thereof to perceive it, and that if it were true that Joseph Smith invented his stories, that you would simply want to know that fact?

Regardless of whether truths or realities are independant or not (I believe there are absolute truths which may very well be independant, as well as relative truths that may or may not be independant), in order for them to be discovered or viewed as truth, they must invariably be passed through the imperfect, finite, interpretive filter and lense of our human minds. There is no getting around it--at least to my knowledge (perhaps you may be aware of ways to get around it?).

And, given that the filter and lense of the human mind is influenced by, and/or comprised to a significant degree of, one's paradigm/epistemology, I don't see how one's view of the truth, or the way one sees and understands the truth, won't invariably be shaped by the filter and lense. (Kant explains this "phenomena" in his book on "The Limits of Pure Reason".)

This is all the more applicable as one moves from truths like simple physical sensations (such as the burning sensation of a fiery ember) to truths or realities regarding very complex conceptual constructs (such as whether I am in love with so and so). For that reason, I think it perfectly appropriate and reasonable to put quote marks around 'the truth".

How do you see it differently, and in a way that you don't think is "obnoxious"?

2.) Regarding your final comments: Surely you don't mean to say that the question of whether Joseph Smith told the truth or not, in your mind is analogous to the question of whether there is any such thing as physical reality...?

In principle (in terms of the limits of human epistemologies in achieving absolute certainty and absolute knowledge) I think they are reasonably analogous. In terms of the level of achievable certainty, and the nature and abundance of evidence upon which the certainty is based, there is some disparity. My analogy was intended to convey the former, not the latter. I hope that helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[NorthboundZax]

Hi Wade

You wrote: "I think it perfectly appropriate and reasonable to put quote marks around 'the truth'".

Do you not see anything irreconcilable between your statement, and fast and testimony meeting professions like "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the church is true", or Moroni 10:3-5? (There it says that one can not only know the truth (no quotation marks there), but know the truth of "all things".)

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade

You wrote: "I think it perfectly appropriate and reasonable to put quote marks around 'the truth'".

Do you not see anything irreconcilable between your statement, and fast and testimony meeting professions like "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the church is true", or Moroni 10:3-5? (There it says that by one can not only know the truth (no quotation marks there), but know the truth of "all things".)

No, I don't see anything irreconcilable because these statements, PRINCIPLY speaking, are as easily reconcilable as were a witness to a crime to say: "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that person X did such and such crime, and my witness is true", or were someone to say, "the scientific method is the way to learn the truth of all things".

Please recall what I said earlier about the spectrum from blind faith to absolute knowledge, and the appropriateness of saying "I know" when the level of confidence is sufficient in relation to what is perceived to be the truth (or "the truth").

Also, I said it was appropriate and reasonable to put quote marks around "the truth". I didn't say it was necessary. For my part, whether intended by the author or translator or not, I interpret the statements above as though "the truth" is in quotation marks--at least in terms of this life (after this life, it is uncertain whether the interpretive lense of the mind comes into play or not, and if so, to what degree, so I can't speak to whether in terms of "the truth" of all things there needs to be quote marks or not).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Wade

Isn't the problem with your view that there is an ineradicable "interpretive lens of the mind", that it all but trumpets that what you think is the particular "knowledge" that you and all Mormons claim to have (that is, that "Mormonism is the only true religion") itself is very likely (or perhaps unavoidably, given your statement) largely or entirely attributable to that very lens, rather than an inherently "un-misunderstandable" communication from God?

[_wenglund]

Wade

Isn't the problem with your view that there is an ineradicable "interpretive lens of the mind", that it all but trumpets that what you think is the particular "knowledge" that you and all Mormons claim to have (that is, that "Mormonism is the only true religion") itself is very likely (or perhaps unavoidably, given your statement) largely or entirely attributable to that very lens, rather than an inherently "un-misunderstandable" communication from God?

In PRINCIPLE, it is the same problem (if you want to call it that) that we all have with the "knowledge" we claim to have of the physical reality, rather than "un-misunderstandable" empirical evidence. We have no way of knowing for certain the extent (whether nominally, or largely, or entirelly) to which our "knowledge" of the physical or spiritual realities are attributable to our respective lenses or the realities themselves.

To understand this point, try smudging a pair of glasses and look through them as if through a glass darkly. Absent any prior knowledge of the things you are now looking at, it would be uncertain to what extent the images you see through that glass are a function of the glass itself, or reality.

For practical purposes, though, we have our respective epistemologies that helps us to grow in confidence that what we are seeing throught the glass darkly is reality, or a close enough approximation to reality to suffice in considering it "knowledge" or "the truth".

Such is the nature of humanity.

In other words, it is the same "problem" that you have in every cognitive aspect of your life, regardless of where your paradigm may shift to, and regardless of whether you recognize it as such or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Wade

I'm glad we're talking about this, because it's been floating round on the internet forever, and no matter what anyone seems to say, including the illustrious Dr. Shades, no member who ever relies on this "defense" of the Mormon testimony ever seems to be able to understand how impossible it is to reconcile with the church's doctrinal claims about "testimonies". Not even you seem able. The best apparently that can be done is to start labeling anyone who points out the obvious a "fundamentalist". But pointing out the obvious is not the product of "fundamentalism" at all - only the product of common sense. When Johnny says "black is, and can only be, black", but then says, "also, black can sometimes be orange", pointing out the incompatibility of these two statements isn't "fundamentalism". So barking out "fundamentalist" is no response at all.

Why do you think that members cannot see the inherent irreconcilability, Wade? Not one single thing you said in your last reply could be construed to describe "knowledge". Nothing. It is only by assaulting the only meaning of the word knowledge there is, so that "knowledge" becomes "my paradigm" or "my best guess given all I've experienced" or something, that you can say such things. What I'm saying is, you, in the very act of defending the concept of the Mormon testimony in this way, give away that that very concept is a FRAUD. After all, if the "knowledge" that Mormonism is the world's only true religion cannot be defended without distorting the meaning of the word "knowledge", then it cannot be defended at all. And you yourself just proved it.

So, why do you think you can you not recognize that?

[_wenglund]

Wade

I'm glad we're talking about this, because it's been floating round on the internet forever, and no matter what anyone seems to say, including the illustrious Dr. Shades, no member who ever relies on this "defense" of the Mormon testimony ever seems to be able to understand how impossible it is to reconcile with the church's doctrinal claims about "testimonies". Not even you seem able. The best apparently that can be done is to start labeling anyone who points out the obvious a "fundamentalist". But pointing out the obvious is not the product of "fundamentalism" at all - only the product of common sense. When Johnny says "black is, and can only be, black", but then says, "also, black can sometimes be orange", pointing out the incompatibility of these two statements isn't "fundamentalism". So barking out "fundamentalist" is no response at all.

Why do you think that members cannot see the inherent irreconcilability, Wade? Not one single thing you said in your last reply could be construed to describe "knowledge". Nothing. It is only by assaulting the only meaning of the word knowledge there is, so that "knowledge" becomes "my paradigm" or "my best guess given all I've experienced" or something, that you can say such things. What I'm saying is, you, in the very act of defending the concept of the Mormon testimony in this way, give away that that very concept is a FRAUD. After all, if the "knowledge" that Mormonism is the world's only true religion cannot be defended without distorting the meaning of the word "knowledge", then it cannot be defended at all. And you yourself just proved it.

So, why do you think you can you not recognize that?

Your question is based on a number of stated premises that I am confident are demonstrably false--at least to the reasonably minded (which may or may not exclude fundamentalistic thinkers). So, it can't logically be answered.

Furthermore, your question is based on what YOU believe and perceive about me. And, since you and I believe differently, it will do little in helping you to better understand me and my beliefs (assuming that was your real an genuine intent behind this interview to begin with), though it very well may reveal much about you and your beliefs (which seem more and more to me to be the real and genuine intent behind your so-called interview).

If I am correct about your real intents, then let's dispense with the charade and start to really explore YOUR beliefs and thinking.

Let's begin by asking you if there is anything (whether secular or religious, physical or spiritual) that you would say you "know" and/or think is "true"? In other words, is there anything in your mind that you would consider as "knowledge" and/or "truth"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-