This is one of those gems from Boyd Packer. You remember, of course, the obviously fictional story he made up about being on a plane and someone challenging his belief in a god.

Boyd comes back with "What does salt taste like?" and the guys says it's not sweet, not bitter, etc. Boyd responds with "you're describing what it doesn't taste like. I want you to describe what it tastes like" and then tries to make the point that god is salt or something.

I always thought it was stupid because salt has no intrinsic flavor in and of itself. The whole point of salt is that it enhances the flavor of whatever you put it on.

In a real life conversation the guy would have said "salt has no flavor" and Boyd would have had to change his depends.

If he said it tasted like an elephant, I wouldn't use that as evidence that salt is an elephant.

Salt, in and of itself, is just two elements ionically bonded. It dissolves quickly in water, making it diffuse in the mouth, enriching the ultimate flavor. Many taste buds are tailored to recognize salt when it comes in contact with them, and sends electro-chemical signals to the brain, which then interpret the sensation. The human brain has evolved to enjoy the taste of salt, since the elements in it are important for bodily processes, and since it has historically been hard to come by for humans. Attaching psychological meaning to the flavor has also been a helpful tool in motivating people to seek it out to improve their health. Of course in today's society salt is no longer hard to come by at all, and in fact we typically suffer from too much of it, but those old flavors and meanings have not yet evolved away.

There is a little bit of truth to this.

TBMs often cite that they follow and believe their religion because it makes them happy.

However, just like salt they don't know what not believing their religion is like. So they can't know if believing it makes them relatively happy.

That was a bit of a mind f*ck..

Even as a little kid I was puzzled about the thing in the bible about 'salt loses its savor.' My Mom knew a bunch of chemistry (pharmacist) and had taught me a bunch of simple chemistry. I knew that kitchen salt was made from chlorine (deadlyand sodium (also deadly) and could be disassociated with electricity, but it wasn't going do "spoil" and lose its savior (taste).

I would have loved to be asked that question and answered, with a glint in my eye: "Salt? It tastes a lot like...blood."

The point you're missing, Boyd, is the experience persons have tasting salt can be understood in detail by science and repeatable to extreme confident levels. Experiencing god, as Packer would describe, is entirely subjective and without understanding by science or even boyd himself.

I would have handed him some salt and said, "here, taste it for yourself...it's right here. Now show me god."

to know Boyd KKK Packer is full of it.

Mormons often use this analogy when asked to justify how they KNOW that Mormonism is true. It is a handy argument, since because I cannot describe in words the taste of salt, they are not required (they think) to describe the basis of their testimony. And since we all know that salt exists (even though we can't describe its taste), the implication is that the basis of their testimony also exists.

The analogy, however, is false.

First, although I may not be able to describe the taste of salt, I can take you into my kitchen and within two minutes I can demonstrate it to you and to anyone else with normal taste buds. A Mormon testimony, however, is not like that. Although the Mormons will claim to be able to provide you with the same experience that has given them their testimony, it is a long process, requiring the adjustment of one's mental state to become more susceptible to suggestion, preferably with fasting and prayer, and by no means does the process always has the intended result, or even any result at all.

Second, a testimony should be based primarily on facts. In the legal system, that is the fundamental requirement of testimony. And facts should be subject to checking and verification. Even where the facts are personal events, they can at least be described. If a testimony is based on a vision, or a voice, or a visit from an angel, where no witnesses were present, that experience can be described in words. Joseph Smith certainly was able to describe in considerable detail many of his alleged visions and his heavenly messengers. He did not refuse to describe them by challenging others to describe the taste of salt.

One must suspect that those who use the "salt" challenge are simply admitting that the basis of their testimony would not sound very convincing if it were described. It would appear to be simply a "feeling."

This becomes even more apparent when Mormons use another favorite analogy: "Can you describe love? Of course not!" Love, of course, is an emotion, a feeling. Those who have never experienced it may have difficulty in understanding what it feels like, but when it happens to them, they will understand. "Well," say the Mormons, "that's just like my testimony!"

That's all well and good, but there is a serious problem: feelings like love are certainly genuine, and perhaps indescribable, but they are just feelings. (They obviously overlook the implied admission that their testimony is also just a feeling.) Feelings are not a reliable test of truth. One can have very strong feelings of love for someone who is actually a scoundrel, a no-good. And a feeling that a particular religion is true is no indication that the religion is not, in fact, false.

One other analogy sometimes used by Mormons is the challenge, "Could you describe the color red to a person who has been born blind? Of course not!" This is also a false analogy, since such a blind person cannot possibly experience the color red, and any description would be meaningless anyway. But the Mormons are claiming that a testimony like theirs IS within the realm of possibility for any normal person.

Any of these false analogies are simply attempts to avoid the admission that a testimony of Mormonism is rarely based on demonstrable facts, but is rather just a nice, warm feeling.

A testimony that Mormonism is false, however, can be based on solid, reliable, verifiable facts.

You're explanation is the best yet. But I'll add my two bits.

The key to the salt issue is in understanding any description. Any description is based on experience. To describe the chair I'm sitting on I may use words like legs and wood. By common experience we know what these words mean. But salt is one of the four fundamental tastes. So there can be no analogy. But you I and I can sample a pinch of salt and agree on the taste. The agreement is based on common experience. This is how you learned as a child what salt or the color red is.

But the analogy collapses when he tries to explain god. He can't show us his experience. It is only subjective. Or more bluntly his opinion. So would he equally believe a Hindu who claimed to experience Shiva?

In a real life situation we could get salt and sugar and 100 people at random and have them each taste and see if they all agree which is salt and which is sugar.

Now let's repeat that experiment with religion. Will they all agree on which religion is true? Will they all agree on which holy book is inspired of God?

If Boyd wants to bring up reality he has to be ready to deal with reality.

But, of course, this was a made-up conversation that he had. It's the corollary of "somethings that are true are not useful."

Ancient salt, unlike our modern, refined table salt, does lose its flavor.

Anciently, salt wasn't pure sodium chloride, but mixed with other rock and mineral matter.

If it was allowed to get moist, the sodium chloride would dissolve out and leave behind a pile of tasteless dirt.

Thus, in order for the salt to preserve its savor, “the world” had to be kept out of it.

Matthew 5:13 ~ “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt has lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”

ziller

I never got these sorts of argumets to describe faith.

What difference does it make if you can/cannot describe an empirical experience, like the taste of salt or the feeling of joy, hope or love?

If I believe or don't believe something to be true (religiously or scientifically) it is just as much if not more based on an intellectual, cognitive understanding of truth as some ill-defined feeling.

In some sense, people who know they believe something that is provably false resort to these "taste of salt" arguments, like a tongue-twister for the mind.

Have Boyd Packer explain this: What happens when the unstoppable train hits the unmovable rock.

Or to add a religious dimension: Can an omnipotent God create a stone so heavy that He Himself could not lift it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

politicaljunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Have Boyd Packer explain this: What happens when
> the unstoppable train hits the unmovable rock.

An inconceivable crash?

Salt tastes like sodium and chlorine mixed together.

Hmm, so what does God taste like?

Ha-ha-ha-ha! There ya go!

Salt has a flavor it is SALTY. It is also bitter.

It sounds obvious, but salt does have a distinct flavor.

Boyd defeated a straw man with a straw argument. In fact, there are so many straws there that it's a cinch to see what he's grasping at.

You all miss the point, as is always the case with all half-learned people among atheists or theists, gnostics or agnostics. The meaning of the example of how salt tastes is about communication of primary knowledge.

When a person has experienced God he aqcuires a very unique primary knowledge (as opposed to ones who have not yet experienced God). Then, he tries to commumicate that knowledge but how can he do it if the knowledge is primary and never existed among the community? So there are no known means or descriptors to use. Other than imperfect ones like the example with salt which is of course only an approximation.

All you can do to achieve the level of spiritual development to percieve God is to dispossess your arrogance and look inside your soul. But even this may not lead you to God because it is ultimately up to God to guide your soul towards God or away from God.

A good read for both atheists and all others on Primary Knowledge is here

http://www.al-islam.org/our-philosophy-falsafatuna-ayatullah-sayyid-muhammad-baqir-sadr/chapter-one-primary-source-knowledge

Unless this post is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, it's rather condescending.

/Sean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You all miss the point, as is always the case with
> all half-learned people among atheists or theists,
> gnostics or agnostics. The meaning of the example
> of how salt tastes is about communication of
> primary knowledge.
>
> When a person has experienced God he aqcuires a
> very unique primary knowledge (as opposed to ones
> who have not yet experienced God). Then, he tries
> to commumicate that knowledge but how can he do it
> if the knowledge is primary and never existed
> among the community? So there are no known means
> or descriptors to use. Other than imperfect ones
> like the example with salt which is of course only
> an approximation.
>
> All you can do to achieve the level of spiritual
> development to percieve God is to dispossess your
> arrogance and look inside your soul. But even this
> may not lead you to God because it is ultimately
> up to God to guide your soul towards God or away
> from God.
>
> A good read for both atheists and all others on
> Primary Knowledge is here
>
> http://www.al-islam.org/our-philosophy-falsafatuna
> -ayatullah-sayyid-muhammad-baqir-sadr/chapter-one-
> primary-source-knowledge

It is condescending indeed - thank you for pointing out. But what can you contribute to the discussion? What are your ideas? What can you say in essence?

Sean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is condescending indeed - thank you for
> pointing out. But what can you contribute to the
> discussion? What are your ideas? What can you say
> in essence?

If I must contribute more to the discussion in order to have the right to suggest that another post is condescending ("You all miss the point, as is always the case with all half-learned people among atheists or theists . . . " is a pretentious-to-the-point-of-rudeness comment in my opinion)I'll simply add the following.

To me salt has a taste, which is "salty." There isn't another perfect word to describe the taste, although it falls along the lines of "savory." Another poster described the taste as being bitter. I don't perceive the taste of salt as such, but it presumably varies depending upon the type of salt -- sea salt vs. kosher salt vs, iodized salt. None of this in any way has relevance in terms of proving or disproving anything other than the taste of salt, which is largely a matter of perception, anyway.

I doubt my response passes muster, as I would be considered among the half-learned here at best.

I second Sean's assertion that the post is condescending.

For the most part the posters in this thread did not miss the point of Elder Packer's story. They disagreed with the conclusions that are supposed to be drawn from it.

Elder Packer's point, as more or less accurately paraphrased by you, is there is some sort of equivalence between the experience of tasting salt and the experience of God/testimony because both experiences are ineffable. I think most posters would agree that this is the point that Packer makes.

The conclusion we are invited to draw is that person A's knowledge of God is just as valid as person B's knowledge of salt. Both, we are expected to infer, are equally defensible (or indefensible as the case may be) and therefore equally valid.

However, the criticisms contained in this thread are aimed primarily at the fact the salt/God analogy is in fact a bad analogy.

In a nutshell, here is my take on why it is a false analogy.

My experience of love for my kids or the taste of salt, etc are internal, subjective, qualitative, and ineffable.
My experience of God is likewise internal, subjective, qualitative, and ineffable. Good so fR.

In the first case, my knowledge of the taste of salt can be used as evidence that I have knowledge of the taste of salt. It doesn't count as evidence for the existence of salt because the existence of salt is not internal, subjective, qualitative, or ineffible. My experience of the taste of salt is evidence for my knowledge of the taste of salt, and nothing more. The same can be said for the experience of loving my kids.

But when you or I or Elder Packer point to our testimony or our experience of God, we intend it be more than simply evidence of our testimony or God-experience. It is intended to be evidence for the existence of God.

Our salt experience only points inward, and is only intended to point inward, our God experiences only points inward, but is supposed to be interpreted as pointing outward.

It is consequently a false equivalence, a faulty analogy.

What does sh!t taste like?

Same way your question tastes. Cheers!

It's like trying to describe red to my colour blind brother. Salt tastes like salt. If you can't taste salt, then there's no way to describe it to you.

What exactly is his analogy concerning God though? Is he trying to say that if you don't know what it's like to feel God, then there's no way to describe it to you?

The inability to describe the taste of salt is a perfectly good analogy for explaining that humans are capable of having personal, subjective experiences that are difficult or impossible to communicate. I have no problem accepting that people have had such experiences. The problem is when I am then just supposed to believe and accept their conclusions. That's where the analogy fails.

People can't convert other people in a faith or out of faith. The "believe/not believe switch" is in God's hands, not in people's.

But enough of that nonsense ... did you know that the Universe is a hologram? Well-known physiscists from MIT (David Suskind) theorizes so.

That salt thing is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. BKP is so very full of it. Eheres my shovel?

I lived in Hawaii for several years. One weekend I went camping on the Kona side. I waded among the rocks and came upon some beautiful flaky layers of salt clinging to the largest formations.

Tasting the clean ocean flavor of the salt was truly eye-opening. It had a depth of flavor I had never tasted in any type of salt before ... and being a curious cook I have tried many varieties of salt.

Tasting the salt was akin to a "spiritual" experience, paired with walking along the Hawaiian shore in the dawn hours and camping and enjoying my time among friends.

I spent over 50 years searching for God, always searching, going from Mormonism to many different religions ... but God was always silent to me.

Salt was not bitter. It did not taste of Iodine. It was the solidified ocean - the mana that Hawaiians speak of.

Better than any Mormon God I never knew.

If I had a box of salt and a box of sugar, and I set them out for
people to tell me which was which all they'd have to do is taste
it. There would be 100% agreement on which was salt and which
was sugar.

Notice how that is totally different than with religion.

In addition there would be chemical tests I could do. Salt and
sugar burn differently in a flame etc.

Notice how that's the opposite of Mormonism where they say you
CAN'T know by "scholarship" or "science."

Boyd K. Packer's analogy should be taken with a grain of . . .
er . . . well, you know.