Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
"Revealed truth," where truth is objective, depends entirely on hindsight; and thus, is a ridiculous claim.
I could accept the possibility of line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept, but not where subsequent lines and precepts contradict earlier ones.
I should add that no part of a "revelation" can include information that is provably false or morally wrong. Leastwise, that is my expectation for any communication from a legitimately omnipotent being worthy of my worship.
Facsimile 3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I should add that no part of a "revelation" can
> include information that is provably false or
> morally wrong. Leastwise, that is my expectation
> for any communication from a legitimately
> omnipotent being worthy of my worship.
Why is morally wrong a constraint on truth? That implies in my opinion a nature of the being revealing their truth.
You have made requirements for God in your mental evaluation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I should add that no part of a "revelation" can
> include information that is provably false or
> morally wrong. Leastwise, that is my expectation
> for any communication from a legitimately
> omnipotent being worthy of my worship.
Why is morally wrong a constraint on truth? That implies in my opinion a nature of the being revealing their truth.
You have made requirements for God in your mental evaluation.
Correct. I recognize that any putative god could be immoral, evil, etc. That is why I added the qualifier "worthy of my worship". This qualifier is essential, in my view, since an omnipotent trickster god could deliberately reveal false information or demand that his followers commit terrible deeds.
In other words, omnipotent + worthy of my worship should yield revelations that are 100% true and good.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2014 01:43PM by Facsimile 3.
In other words, omnipotent + worthy of my worship should yield revelations that are 100% true and good.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2014 01:43PM by Facsimile 3.
I'm assuming you are referring to revelation from God himself.
If someone wants to claim it, they should be able to produce evidence that they speak for God. In fact, it would seem that GOD would regularly make a public statement this this person is their representative or have some other way to show that person as the authority to speak in His behalf.
The idea that someone could presume to speak for the creator of the universe, and tell you themselves that they speak for God, and that God himself would remain silent for thousands of years is beyond ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that this power could be passed from one person to another in an orderly and seamless manner, and never be abused, is also ridiculous.
Also, a person claiming to speak "revealed truth" should speak the truth. If they don't, then you have to assume that they don't speak for God, or that God himself doesn't know what's going on.
Claiming "revealed truth" is merely an attempt to trump facts or free thought.
If someone wants to claim it, they should be able to produce evidence that they speak for God. In fact, it would seem that GOD would regularly make a public statement this this person is their representative or have some other way to show that person as the authority to speak in His behalf.
The idea that someone could presume to speak for the creator of the universe, and tell you themselves that they speak for God, and that God himself would remain silent for thousands of years is beyond ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that this power could be passed from one person to another in an orderly and seamless manner, and never be abused, is also ridiculous.
Also, a person claiming to speak "revealed truth" should speak the truth. If they don't, then you have to assume that they don't speak for God, or that God himself doesn't know what's going on.
Claiming "revealed truth" is merely an attempt to trump facts or free thought.
imaworkinonit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm assuming you are referring to revelation from
> God himself.
You assume right.
My thinking presently is that what people claim as truth from God is all or nothing. I'm interested in other interpretation. I've had this feeling for a long time and it has colored my thoughts in regards to people like John Dehlin.
Colloquilly lots of metaphors come up. Sh|t or get off the pot. Do it or don't. Black or white.
But I believe things are grey, much undefined, and individual. Mormon reps (Lord's Anointed) have reiterated their Absolutist postitions time and again and continue to do it. Think of Holland's Book of Mormon Crawl.
So I'm very interested in a way to see grey what people Mormon or former Mormon find in take aways from God's "revealed truths" that are not all or nothing. And I'm not talking about stuff like The Word or Wisdom or The Law of Chastity. I'm talking about "The Restoration" and "The Book of Mormon."
I don't know how cultural Mormons like Dehlin can live in the faith and not be of it? I've read the justification for retaining a belief in Mormonism and the appeal to a cultural perspective. I just think Mormonism is mutally exclusive for it even if it can tolerate it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm assuming you are referring to revelation from
> God himself.
You assume right.
My thinking presently is that what people claim as truth from God is all or nothing. I'm interested in other interpretation. I've had this feeling for a long time and it has colored my thoughts in regards to people like John Dehlin.
Colloquilly lots of metaphors come up. Sh|t or get off the pot. Do it or don't. Black or white.
But I believe things are grey, much undefined, and individual. Mormon reps (Lord's Anointed) have reiterated their Absolutist postitions time and again and continue to do it. Think of Holland's Book of Mormon Crawl.
So I'm very interested in a way to see grey what people Mormon or former Mormon find in take aways from God's "revealed truths" that are not all or nothing. And I'm not talking about stuff like The Word or Wisdom or The Law of Chastity. I'm talking about "The Restoration" and "The Book of Mormon."
I don't know how cultural Mormons like Dehlin can live in the faith and not be of it? I've read the justification for retaining a belief in Mormonism and the appeal to a cultural perspective. I just think Mormonism is mutally exclusive for it even if it can tolerate it.
I put zero credibility in "revealed truths," since there's no evidence they were "revealed," or that there's a "god" to do any "revealing."
That's not "grey" for me, it's simple rationality and honesty: claims made without supporting evidence are worthless. They might possibly be right, they could just as well be wrong; without evidence, there's no way to tell. So they're worthless.
Things that are "true" can be *shown* true by reliable, verifiable evidence. Claims to "true" without that kind of evidence are worthless. If and when evidence shows them "true," then they may have some value. Until then, they have none.
That's not "grey" for me, it's simple rationality and honesty: claims made without supporting evidence are worthless. They might possibly be right, they could just as well be wrong; without evidence, there's no way to tell. So they're worthless.
Things that are "true" can be *shown* true by reliable, verifiable evidence. Claims to "true" without that kind of evidence are worthless. If and when evidence shows them "true," then they may have some value. Until then, they have none.