Happy to go blind

[_moksha]

If someone came to you and said that your particular country (USA, in my case) was an evil country hell bent on taking over the world, but if you knew this, you would be exiled, would you want to know?

What are those Republicans up to now....

[_wenglund]

I, personally, prefer to pursue both truth and workability. However, I tend to favor pursuing the later more than the former because, to me, while neither can be assertained with absolute certainty, the latter is more easily self-evident. Also, I find that the latter is often evidence in favor of the former. That is the lesson I take away from Alma 42 as well as Mt 7:17-20. So, by pursuing workability, I am thereby pursuig truth. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

I, personally, prefer to pursue both truth and workability. However, I tend to favor pursuing the later more than the former because, to me, while neither can be assertained with absolute certainty, the latter is more easily self-evident. Also, I find that the latter is often evidence in favor of the former. That is the lesson I take away from Alma 42 as well as Mt 7:17-20. So, by pursuing workability, I am thereby pursuig truth. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, that doesn't really follow:

- A person can take a placebo, and feel better from it, but it's not true that it had any medicinal value at all.
- Kids think their parents are gods and infallible in order to survive.
- The human mind has a powerful denial mechanism for the specific purpose of hiding certain unworkable truths from a person's consciousness.

Workable certainly does not equal truth.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think we're all familiar with Tal Bachman's two questions to ask members of the LDS church:

If it weren't true, would you want to know?

If you did want to know, how would you determine if it wasn't true?

Having always been someone who is interested in truth and in learning more, those questions were important to me. Obviously, people differ as to the ultimate outcome of that search for truth. For me, it became painfully obvious that the church was not what it claims to be. But I don't begrudge anyone's coming to a different conclusion. You aren't me, and I'm not you.

But what I have found interesting is the number of people who don't want to know if it's true or not, or who aren't interested in determining it one way or another. I've mentioned before a relative who said that she and her husband purposely avoid studying church history because there is "stuff in there we know we can't handle." Similarly, my mission president said that he was interested in faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, so he didn't have time to worry about anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.

Maybe I've been too judgmental, but I have criticized this approach as being nothing more than hiding one's head in the sand, sort of like the song from U2 that says we spend our time staring at the sun because we're afraid of what we'll find if we look inside ourselves. But, to steal a phrase from Wade, I'm beginning to think that's an uncharitable way of looking at things.

I've come to believe that most of us in life are just trying to get through each day and hopefully become a little better as we go along. For me, part of that process of self-improvement has been following truth, wherever it leads. However, most people are too busy living in the here and now to step back and look for that higher truth. It's enough to have commandments and prophetic counsel and try to follow that. So, yes, a lot of people miss out on connecting with truth, but then who's to say that the mere act of trying each day to follow the commandments isn't a higher truth for them?

I have often been puzzled by a hide your head in the sand approach. Certainly church leaders have often said the the Church should and could withstand scrutiny. I recently discussed this with my uncle who has this attitude. He knows I have had some concerns. But he said he just loves the gospel, has a testimony and does not want to know anything that might upset that apple cart. I think my wife it the same to a certain extent. They both are focused on what they feel the church has done to benefit their lives in a practical sense. Orthopraxy is their main concern, not orthodoxy. The core basis teachings are enough for them. My wife says "Well if this Church is not true there is no true church and this one is best for me anyway."

So while this is s frustrating approach for me and for others I think I am coming to understand it. Life is hard. Some take drugs, dome drink to much and some find other ways to cope with life. For many religion is a tool to help with life. Like it or not they find great peace in it and ya know if it works for them great. And for me, even with the concerns I have, as I have noted before, faith is important to me. The LDS Church still many needs in my life and thus I continue to participate.

[_wenglund]

I, personally, prefer to pursue both truth and workability. However, I tend to favor pursuing the later more than the former because, to me, while neither can be assertained with absolute certainty, the latter is more easily self-evident. Also, I find that the latter is often evidence in favor of the former. That is the lesson I take away from Alma 42 as well as Mt 7:17-20. So, by pursuing workability, I am thereby pursuig truth. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, that doesn't really follow:

- A person can take a placebo, and feel better from it, but it's not true that it had any medicinal value at all.
- Kids think their parents are gods and infallible in order to survive.
- The human mind has a powerful denial mechanism for the specific purpose of hiding certain unworkable truths from a person's consciousness.

Workable certainly does not equal truth.

Nothing I said can in any reasonable way be interpreted as me suggesting that "workable equals truth". In fact, to the careful and comprehending reader, my words "often evidence in favor" would suggest something less than "equal". I am not speaking in universal absolutes, but on average.

Also, the careful reader will note that I was speaking in reference to truths the verity of which cannot be assertain with absolute certainty--i.e. things we cannot know for certain whether they are true. In such cases, workability may often (please note this important qualifier) act as evidence for building confidence, inductively, that the thing is true, or not.

For example, one may believe the Golden Rule is "true", though one cannot know for certain that it is. But, by applying its precepts, and seeing that for the most part it produces favorable results for all parties concerned (i.e. it "works"), one may grow in confidence that it is true. Whereas, were one to think it true that bad breath will endear one to the opposite sex, the lack of workability of that proposition may decrease one's confidence that it is true.

I am a bit puzzled that I am having to explain this to you. It seems to me like such a basic, obvious, and uncontroversial principle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I have often been puzzled by a hide your head in the sand approach. Certainly church leaders have often said the the Church should and could withstand scrutiny. I recently discussed this with my uncle who has this attitude. He knows I have had some concerns. But he said he just loves the gospel, has a testimony and does not want to know anything that might upset that apple cart. I think my wife it the same to a certain extent. They both are focused on what they feel the church has done to benefit their lives in a practical sense. Orthopraxy is their main concern, not orthodoxy. The core basis teachings are enough for them. My wife says "Well if this Church is not true there is no true church and this one is best for me anyway."

So while this is s frustrating approach for me and for others I think I am coming to understand it. Life is hard. Some take drugs, dome drink to much and some find other ways to cope with life. For many religion is a tool to help with life. Like it or not they find great peace in it and ya know if it works for them great. And for me, even with the concerns I have, as I have noted before, faith is important to me. The LDS Church still many needs in my life and thus I continue to participate.

I wonder if you may be confusing pragmatism and differing perspectives with "head-in-the sand".

Think of it this way: suppose the Church is a home where you and you family now live. Let say its a house that your wife grew up in and one that she loves and which she believes suites her and her family perfectly. She loves the way it looks, the layout, the roomy kitchen and family area, all the wonderful memories she has had there, and the hopes and wishes she looks forward to having there for some time to come, and so on and so forth. It is her dream home. To her, the house is "true".

You, on the other hand, have taken out your magnifying glass and tape measure and found what you believe to be cracks in the foundation, paint chippings, plumbing problems, walls that aren't square and in disrepair, insulation missing from the attic, floors that irritatingly creek, and on and on. And, in spite of some of the good times you have had there, the house is no longer your dream home, but a place you might just as soon want to leave for something else. To you, the house is not "true".

Since you see it that way, you want to show your wife the things you have found in hopes that she may see it the same way as you. But, she isn't interested, not because she wishes to hide her head in the sand, but because she looks at the house differently than you and with different priorities and objective than you. She has no reason to go looking for negative things in her dream home, and many reasons not to. The foundation and walls and attic and what all are great to her just the way they are. She is fine with the big picture, and not bothered by what to her may be minor flaws at the microscopic level. She has been in various other homes, and they don't compare to what she believes she has. Besides, she has kids to feed, family activities to plan, neighbors to invite over for a visit, etc. etc. She doesn't have the time or the inclination to fuss with closely examining this and that. For her, the issue was settled in her mind long ago, and she has no reason to revisit it. She is perfectly content with living and building a life in her dream home just the way things are.

Am I wrong about this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I wonder if you may be confusing pragmatism and differing perspectives with "head-in-the sand".

Think of it this way: suppose the Church is a home where you and you family now live. Let say its a house that your wife grew up in and one that she loves and which she believes suites her and her family perfectly. She loves the way it looks, the layout, the roomy kitchen and family area, all the wonderful memories she has had there, and the hopes and wishes she looks forward to having there for some time to come, and so on and so forth. It is her dream home. To her, the house is "true".

You, on the other hand, have taken out your magnifying glass and tape measure and found what you believe to be cracks in the foundation, paint chippings, plumbing problems, walls that aren't square and in disrepair, insulation missing from the attic, floors that irritatingly creek, and on and on. And, in spite of some of the good times you have had there, the house is no longer your dream home, but a place you might just as soon want to leave for something else. To you, the house is not "true".

Since you see it that way, you want to show your wife the things you have found in hopes that she may see it the same way as you. But, she isn't interested, not because she wishes to hide her head in the sand, but because she looks at the house differently than you and with different priorities and objective than you. She has no reason to go looking for negative things in her dream home, and many reasons not to. The foundation and walls and attic and what all are great to her just the way they are. She is fine with the big picture, and not bothered by what to her may be minor flaws at the microscopic level. She has been in various other homes, and they don't compare to what she believes she has. Besides, she has kids to feed, family activities to plan, neighbors to invite over for a visit, etc. etc. She doesn't have the time or the inclination to fuss with closely examining this and that. For her, the issue was settled in her mind long ago, and she has no reason to revisit it. She is perfectly content with living and building a life in her dream home just the way things are.

Am I wrong about this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, Wade, you are completely wrong. Continuing your "house" analogy, we're not talking about trivial flaws in the house. Imagine that, even without taking out a tape measure and magnifying glass, you discovered that the house was dangerous, that lead paint in the walls was dangerous to your family's health, that the load-bearing beams were cracked and in danger of collapsing at any moment, and the central heating unit was pouring carbon monoxide into your children's bedrooms. And you find out that the realtor knew about these problems and did not disclose them. But, no matter, your wife is too busy to "fuss with closely examining this and that."

[_wenglund]

I wonder if you may be confusing pragmatism and differing perspectives with "head-in-the sand".

Think of it this way: suppose the Church is a home where you and you family now live. Let say its a house that your wife grew up in and one that she loves and which she believes suites her and her family perfectly. She loves the way it looks, the layout, the roomy kitchen and family area, all the wonderful memories she has had there, and the hopes and wishes she looks forward to having there for some time to come, and so on and so forth. It is her dream home. To her, the house is "true".

You, on the other hand, have taken out your magnifying glass and tape measure and found what you believe to be cracks in the foundation, paint chippings, plumbing problems, walls that aren't square and in disrepair, insulation missing from the attic, floors that irritatingly creek, and on and on. And, in spite of some of the good times you have had there, the house is no longer your dream home, but a place you might just as soon want to leave for something else. To you, the house is not "true".

Since you see it that way, you want to show your wife the things you have found in hopes that she may see it the same way as you. But, she isn't interested, not because she wishes to hide her head in the sand, but because she looks at the house differently than you and with different priorities and objective than you. She has no reason to go looking for negative things in her dream home, and many reasons not to. The foundation and walls and attic and what all are great to her just the way they are. She is fine with the big picture, and not bothered by what to her may be minor flaws at the microscopic level. She has been in various other homes, and they don't compare to what she believes she has. Besides, she has kids to feed, family activities to plan, neighbors to invite over for a visit, etc. etc. She doesn't have the time or the inclination to fuss with closely examining this and that. For her, the issue was settled in her mind long ago, and she has no reason to revisit it. She is perfectly content with living and building a life in her dream home just the way things are.

Am I wrong about this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, Wade, you are completely wrong. Continuing your "house" analogy, we're not talking about trivial flaws in the house. Imagine that, even without taking out a tape measure and magnifying glass, you discovered that the house was dangerous, that lead paint in the walls was dangerous to your family's health, that the load-bearing beams were cracked and in danger of collapsing at any moment, and the central heating unit was pouring carbon monoxide into your children's bedrooms. And you find out that the realtor knew about these problems and did not disclose them. But, no matter, your wife is too busy to "fuss with closely examining this and that."

I think it helpful to remember that individual perceptions (including yours) are not fact. Whether the supposed flaws of the house are trivial or monumental is a matter of perception. Each of the things you mentioned about the house, are a matter of individual perception. Two reasonable people can come to entirely different conclusions about each of those things, and about the house in general.

I think it also helpful to remember that I was attempting to explain things from the wife's perspective, not yours or Bond's. While your shared perspectives may explain why you and Bond may have concerns about living in the house and may wish the wife would investigate further, your shared perspectives likely do not explain why the wife (who evidently has a different perspective) has declined investigating further. Since it is the wife's actions and intents that are in question, then it is her perspective, and not your's and Bonds, that is pertinent. I am just suggesting that by investigating her perspective, it seems reasonable to suggest that her disinclination to investigate further may not be because she wishes to bury her head in the sand, but because may have found little or no cause to investigate further, and may even have rational reasons and priorities not to. In other words, her disinclination isn't for want to hide from the supposed "truth", but because she believes she has already found it, and wishes to proceed accordingly. I am trying to respectfully give her and other family members the benefit of the doubt and credit for behaving rationally.

Now, I am open to being wrong about the wife and other family members. After all, Bond knows them far better than I do (all I know about them comes from what little Bond has said about them in the previous post). It's just that I see value in exploring alternative explanation for their actions, and testing the innitial accusation. If I am wrong, so be it. But, I think it should take more to viably demonstrating that than you and others asserting your biased perspectives. It would take learning the intents from the wife and family. If Bond correctly conveyed his wife's explanation, I am willing to take her at her word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

I, personally, prefer to pursue both truth and workability. However, I tend to favor pursuing the later more than the former because, to me, while neither can be assertained with absolute certainty, the latter is more easily self-evident. Also, I find that the latter is often evidence in favor of the former. That is the lesson I take away from Alma 42 as well as Mt 7:17-20. So, by pursuing workability, I am thereby pursuig truth. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, that doesn't really follow:

- A person can take a placebo, and feel better from it, but it's not true that it had any medicinal value at all.
- Kids think their parents are gods and infallible in order to survive.
- The human mind has a powerful denial mechanism for the specific purpose of hiding certain unworkable truths from a person's consciousness.

Workable certainly does not equal truth.

Nothing I said can in any reasonable way be interpreted as me suggesting that "workable equals truth". In fact, to the careful and comprehending reader, my words "often evidence in favor" would suggest something less than "equal". I am not speaking in universal absolutes, but on average.

Also, the careful reader will note that I was speaking in reference to truths the verity of which cannot be assertain with absolute certainty--I.e. things we cannot know for certain whether they are true. In such cases, workability may often (please note this important qualifier) act as evidence for building confidence, inductively, that the thing is true, or not.

For example, one may believe the Golden Rule is "true", though one cannot know for certain that it is. But, by applying its precepts, and seeing that for the most part it produces favorable results for all parties concerned (I.e. it "works"), one may grow in confidence that it is true. Whereas, were one to think it true that bad breath will endear one to the opposite sex, the lack of workability of that proposition may decrease one's confidence that it is true.

I am a bit puzzled that I am having to explain this to you. It seems to me like such a basic, obvious, and uncontroversial principle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The careful reader can reasonably assume from the statement "by pursuing workability, I am thereby pursuig [sic] truth" that you somehow equate the two. I am a bit puzzled that I am having to explain this to you. It seems to me like such a basic, obvious, and uncontroversial principle.

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

[_ozemc]

But what I have found interesting is the number of people who don't want to know if it's true or not, or who aren't interested in determining it one way or another. I've mentioned before a relative who said that she and her husband purposely avoid studying church history because there is "stuff in there we know we can't handle." Similarly, my mission president said that he was interested in faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, so he didn't have time to worry about anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.

I have a friend who is very interested in Biblical archeology, and the like, who had a paster once tell him that "You don't want to look too deeply and take the mystery out of it."