| |
|
|
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists. The register and login section is at the top right. You can also register or login here.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 06/16/2006 7:21 PM |
|
I have been pondering now for many days as to where we should get truth from. I believe that it was John Locke who thought that we must start with the most basics of truth and use logic to build our way up from there. Of course this would take a lifetime to even get started. I have come to a different conclusion. The only source of truth is God. He knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Our minds our puny and despite spending a lifetime trying to learn, without His help we can accomplish nothing meaningful. So what does this mean? How does God transfer His knowledge to us? First of all I think that He reveals truth to each of us and to others.
But how do we know which others to trust? Of all those people claiming to be a mouthpeice of God who really is or is their even one. I believe that God has and does call prophets to act as a mouthpiece for God. Once we figure out who those prophets are then we can use what they tell us to find more knowledge. If someone believes that President Hinckley is a mouthpiece for God then by logic all the preeceding LDS prophets are also mouthpieces of God. We must first ask God who His prophets are and follow the steps He gives us in order to find out.
So, how does this help us to be educated and what knowledge is important? I believe that the glory of God is intelligence and God wants us to know things. I believe that other prophets have taught that we must learn line upon line and precept upon precept. I think that we should ask God what he wants us to learn. But I think that God has already told us what we should learn. As a member of the LDS church I have been asked to study the Book of Mormon as it is the most correct book. We were challenged last year to read it and to continue studying it. We have also been given scriptures to study for Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society.
This is a start to learning. I also believe that we should seek learning out of good books. What are good books? How should we determine these? Are they books sold at Deseret Book? I think that this depends on who we are and what we need to learn. I would suggest that this is a personal matter and we should expend our efforts to find good books but also seek personal revelation as what we should spend our time learning.
|
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 1:46 PM |
|
Here are some links that I give out to people who ask similar questions:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/va...sic-extrinsic/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/ |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:46
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 7:24 PM |
|
I appreciate your sentiments, mulhollandj. An interesting and related question is how do we best transfer this concept into public policy? If all truth does come from God (or is at least "independent in that sphere in which God has placed it"), then a few important questions follow:
1. How do we get people to discover this truth? Obviously we can't force them to. It seems to me that the best way to do this is to protect the freedom of speech and assembly as laid out in the Constitution. By allowing all different ideas to be expressed, we ensure that the truth is not censored from the public debate and we maximize people's opportunities to discover it.
2. If there is truth to be found in all aspects of life, should the Constitution's protection of speech extend to other areas as well? If there is truth in art, does it make sense to limit art more than speech? Personally, I don't think so. It seems to me that the principles underlying the Constitution's protection of speech extend that protection to all areas of expression as truth may be expressed in more than one way (or sometimes only in ways other than speech).
3. If there is anything that detracts from people's ability to recognize objective truth, can it be identified? And if so, can it be limited? This is probably the hardest question of all. I don't really have a definitive answer, but my gut says that although I can identify it personally, I don't trust most other people's ability to do so. My worry is that if we start to allow too many limitations on things that the majority (or even a minority) thinks detract from the ability to recognize objective truth, that we pave the way for more and more limitations until only one version of truth is allowed access to the public sphere. Pardon my cynicism, but I don't have enough faith in the general public to be able to limit the dialogue to only objective truth. Therefore, I think there should be as few limitations on speech as reasonably possible. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 8:27 PM |
|
How do people discover truth? I think that they first humble themselves to accept new ideas and then actively seek for it. Government should allow free speech and discussion of ideas. I do no think that it is their role to facilitate it though.
Are art and stories speech? That depends. I do not feel that pornography is protected under free speech. I think this is up to local governments to regulate and censor as they see fit. They can establish standards as to what they will and won't allow. They should have every right to say that they do not want strip clubs in their cities.
I think that the current education system is largely destroying people's ability to objectively think and decide about issues. This is enhanced by our mass media and popular culture. The grade level that the average newspaper is written to is steadily diminishing. Rick Koerber calls it the 'brain-off' conspiracy. If you look at the responses to my letter to the editor most are at a 3rd grade level. People appeared to not have the ability to really consider another position besides their own and most didn't even bother to read further clarifications to my position. They confused me being against tax dollars being used to feed kids during the summer as me being against feeding kids.
I think that allowing local communities to set their own standards, within reason ( a vague term ), is the only way it can be done effectively. If you let anything go then those who are predators destroy people. |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:46
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 10:31 PM |
|
I agree that some standards may be set. My worry is that the unfortunate truth that "within reason" is "a vague term". Without some kind of limit on the power of government to censor speech, there is no end to what might happen (think McCarthyism). What I am arguing is that the limit should be set very far back so that the government has very little control over what is said.
You are correct in stating that city governments can regulate strip clubs. In fact, this is the exact kind of case that tested this idea (the actual case involved a pornographic theater, but the outcome would be the same here). The Supreme Court has said that the secondary effects of speech can be regulated carte blanche. In the case of strip clubs, there are all sorts of other problems that go along with them (i.e. public drunkeness, prostitution, molestation, sexual assault) so the city can simply prevent the problems by preventing the clubs. However, that does not necessarily limit the speech as people are free to assemble in their homes to engage in this sort of behavior.
My argument is that absent some kind of causal link between the speech to be regulated and the harm to be prevented, the regulation should be invalid. For example, many credible studies have shown that certain kinds of pornography lead to sexually deviant behavior. Therefore, the city should be able to limit that kind of speech. (I also think that credible studies have shown the opposite, and a city should be free to consider that as well - again, it's a weighing of the values). However, if the city simply wants to totally ban pornography because it offends the members of the city council, I believe that such a law should be invalid. The city may limit the time, place and manner where it is displayed, but I do not believe that a total ban is appropriate. This is because if there is objective truth, even if a person must humble themselves to get it, they must be exposed to it to accept it. That exposure takes place by participation in the marketplace of ideas, both as a listener and as a speaker. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/06/2007 12:44 AM |
|
Posted By mulhollandj on 05/05/2007 8:27 PM
If you look at the responses to my letter to the editor most are at a 3rd grade level. People appeared to not have the ability to really consider another position besides their own and most didn't even bother to read further clarifications to my position. They confused me being against tax dollars being used to feed kids during the summer as me being against feeding kids.
Your comments here show exactly what was wrong with your letter to the editor. You refused to consider any position other than your own, even when people made reasonable, insightful comments in response to your position. Also, let's not forget that while you were motivated by a desire to curb socialism, your letter was, in fact, stating that you are against feeding kids.
Sorry, I digress.
One of the dangers that we face in the pseudo-homogenous culture in this state is that we tend to forget that many people do not share the prevailing beliefs of the culture (Debator mentioned this earlier, but I'm revisiting the idea). While it may carry significant weight among many Latter-Day Saints when you invoke scriptural or apostolic authority in a debate or discussion, it carries no weight with people who do not already accept your basic belief system. In short, you are literally "preaching to the choir."
What's worse is that when you try to use doctrine as an argument in a debate, you discredit your entire platform. It immediately becomes clear to a non-believer that you are not motivated by a desire to do what is best for the people (by whatever semi-neutral standard that may be measured), but that you are motivated by an (essentially) arbitrary creed. It does not matter that you believe your position to be backed by divine powers because no independent observer can universally verify its validity.
Even among faithful, devout Latter-Day Saints, appeals to authority may not work. This is especially true when you cite an apostle speaking at a civic function decades ago who's position is flatly contradicted by official church statements and conference addresses of apostles in the last five years. Latter-Day Saints disagree frequenly about issues that are not within the established doctrines of the church. This is not an indication of apostasy nor ignorance, but rather a reflection of the fact that some issues may validly belong outside the current sphere of Truth (at least as revealed to us) and that compulsion is not a part of our faith. Indeed, it is not meet that we should be commanded in all things, and it is possible for people who flatly disagree with you politically to bring about much righteousness.
In short, please, please, please stop trying to beat us up with doctrine.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/08/2007 11:41 AM |
|
I agree with you Debator. Both on your arguments and that people need to hear both sides of the issue. They also need to understand the other argument. I would say that some arguments have more of an entertainment value than an intellectual one, think Hannity and Rocky.
Fiery Darts, I am not saying that this is the way you must think or believe. I state in this thread how I got to my position. In this thread I mention the sayings of LDS leaders as this was a big part of me finding my current position. All my positions can be backed up by non-church authority as truth is truth. I agree that LDS people disagree just as Christian churches do but isn't there only one truth? I do not think that there are any official church statements which flatly contradict what I say. If there are then please let me know. I do feel that the church can reject truth and so it is no longer emphasized but it is still out there for those who search for it. Many feel that it is too late to effectively fight things such as socialism. I do believe that there is still hope though.
I hope that people do not discredit my argument because I include a source they do not like or do not think is valid. I hope that they are able to use critical thinking skills and determine if the argument is correct or not.
I have been challenged for not understanding my opponents position and I subsequently explained it back to him to his satisfaction. I understand the opposition because I used to think that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|