MAD's Most Insightful Comment Ever.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

He left with a holy harrumph.

[_Maksutov]

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45817&p=1050234#p1050234

[_cinepro]

When I saw the thread title I thought "Oh, that sounds interesting. I wonder what I've missed over there!" Didn't expect that.

I was obviously disappointed but not surprised at Scott's response, because I don't think he understood the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't saying that everyone has "their own truth." A more valid response would be to argue that it's more like the blind men and the elephant; that we are all interpreting the same thing different ways based on our experience, but that doesn't change the nature of the "thing" itself.

But I would respond that in the case of the Church, there is no "elephant" (or objective, physical creature that is a different observable entity than the blind men). Instead of an elephant, it would be a creature that is constantly shifting and changing in response to the thoughts, words and actions of the blind men themselves. And if the blind men stopped thinking about the creature, it would cease to exist entirely (shades of Forbidden Planet?).

I understand the comfort in the idea that the Church is a "rock", or a "body", with an organization and doctrine that is somehow objectively discoverable. Certainly, that idea keeps most LDS sane, and gives deeper purpose to the endeavor to understand the gospel and be a part of something bigger than ourselves (and ultimately receive exaltation).

But ultimately I don't think that is a useful idea. And a lot of the trauma that people feel in a "faith crisis" is the sudden and drastic discovery that while they thought they were part of a Church that somehow existed as an objective entity with "eternal doctrines", they really just had one view and experience that was their own and doesn't match the views and experiences of so many other people. In the end, a lot of people are leaving the Church not because they find it isn't "true", but because it is no longer "useful" to help understand and succeed in the their lives.

As I said, I choose to look at the Church and its members this way not because I think it is "my truth" or more "true" than any other paradigm, but because I find it much more useful in explaining and understanding the experience everyone else is having, from President Nelson down to the person sitting next to me in Sacrament Meeting.

[_Darth J]

Ah, a variation on the "my truth" vs. "your truth" nonsense.

I didn't read further because I fundamentally reject this notion. As Ben Shapiro has said, there's no such thing as "my truth." There is only THE truth and opinion.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/701 ... ve/?page=3

Where was Zarahemla, Scott?

[_Gadianton]

I wasn't saying that everyone has "their own truth."

I don't see why you shouldn't. Isn't this the primary lesson over at one of his favorite blogs? Science and religion have their own non-overlapping truths?

Don't they teach prophets aren't perfect, and each prophet is "feeling the elephant" as it were?

Lately, this blog has been on a roll quoting Keith Ward, the idealist. Idealism denies there is an elephant in the room, and affirms only everyone's own elephant-like impressions. So Scott should be the first guy to stand and agree with you.

[Guest]

Ah, a variation on the "my truth" vs. "your truth" nonsense.

I didn't read further because I fundamentally reject this notion. As Ben Shapiro has said, there's no such thing as "my truth." There is only THE truth and opinion.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/701 ... ve/?page=3

Where was Zarahemla, Scott?

What is THE truth about how the Book of Mormon was translated?
What about THE truth about the priesthood ban?
What is THE truth about where the Book of Abraham came from?

The more Scott speaks, the more obvious it is that no thinking has been done.

[_Meadowchik]

When I saw the thread title I thought "Oh, that sounds interesting. I wonder what I've missed over there!" Didn't expect that.

I was obviously disappointed but not surprised at Scott's response, because I don't think he understood the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't saying that everyone has "their own truth." A more valid response would be to argue that it's more like the blind men and the elephant; that we are all interpreting the same thing different ways based on our experience, but that doesn't change the nature of the "thing" itself.

But I would respond that in the case of the Church, there is no "elephant" (or objective, physical creature that is a different observable entity than the blind men). Instead of an elephant, it would be a creature that is constantly shifting and changing in response to the thoughts, words and actions of the blind men themselves. And if the blind men stopped thinking about the creature, it would cease to exist entirely (shades of Forbidden Planet?).

I understand the comfort in the idea that the Church is a "rock", or a "body", with an organization and doctrine that is somehow objectively discoverable. Certainly, that idea keeps most LDS sane, and gives deeper purpose to the endeavor to understand the gospel and be a part of something bigger than ourselves (and ultimately receive exaltation).

But ultimately I don't think that is a useful idea. And a lot of the trauma that people feel in a "faith crisis" is the sudden and drastic discovery that while they thought they were part of a Church that somehow existed as an objective entity with "eternal doctrines", they really just had one view and experience that was their own and doesn't match the views and experiences of so many other people. In the end, a lot of people are leaving the Church not because they find it isn't "true", but because it is no longer "useful" to help understand and succeed in the their lives.

As I said, I choose to look at the Church and its members this way not because I think it is "my truth" or more "true" than any other paradigm, but because I find it much more useful in explaining and understanding the experience everyone else is having, from President Nelson down to the person sitting next to me in Sacrament Meeting.

Thanks for elaborating, I can really appreciate your analysis. Mine is similar, the church is like a superorganism that benefits the organisms comprising it, which then perpetuate it.