What is the object, if it is an object,

[Archaea]

something I deny, "spirituality"?

The reason I bring it up is to discover how Mormons view original or absolute truth.

We tend not to see it as a process of learning with our senses, but some type of sixth sense. Mormons speak of their convictions as knowledge in a manner which is truly outside of traditional means of acquiring information and knowledge.

What is interesting is our desire to extend the claim of authority and legitimacy to manner fields and arenas. Knowledge of stars. Oh Sure. Knowledge of how everyone should rear children. Sure. Knowledge of all right and wrong? Certainly.

We do not limit it to its sphere. Yes I'm aware of BY's quotes about the Gospel containing all truth, but that doesn't mean he religious leaders have control and access to it, only that a proper viewing of the Gospel will encompass of all things pertaining to this Creation.

Thoughts?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

something I deny, "spirituality"?

The reason I bring it up is to discover how Mormons view original or absolute truth.

We tend not to see it as a process of learning with our senses, but some type of sixth sense. Mormons speak of their convictions as knowledge in a manner which is truly outside of traditional means of acquiring information and knowledge.

What is interesting is our desire to extend the claim of authority and legitimacy to manner fields and arenas. Knowledge of stars. Oh Sure. Knowledge of how everyone should rear children. Sure. Knowledge of all right and wrong? Certainly.

We do not limit it to its sphere. Yes I'm aware of BY's quotes about the Gospel containing all truth, but that doesn't mean he religious leaders have control and access to it, only that a proper viewing of the Gospel will encompass of all things pertaining to this Creation.

Thoughts?

What did you think of Elder Scott's talk?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

What did you think of Elder Scott's talk?

I missed his talk but will read it, as I usually find his talks soothing.

My observation is that we seem to be willing by virtue of the authority we claim, to be experts on everything. I am comforted when I see the Church step back and state, "we really don't know" or "we'll let others decide."

Religion seems best when it teaches kindness, compassion, good morals, and moral traditions.

When we become experts on parenting, medicine, law and science, we seem to step outside of the arena for which God will provide insight to religious leaders. Not saying God couldn't provide those insights, but God seems to follow natural processes, providing the insights to the experts as they seek them. Religious insight, or how to worship God, are provided to the Religious and Scientific to the scientists.

We seem to mess up the lines of demarcation believing we know everything about everything because we're "God's annointed."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I missed his talk but will read it, as I usually find his talks soothing.

My observation is that we seem to be willing by virtue of the authority we claim, to be experts on everything. I am comforted when I see the Church step back and state, "we really don't know" or "we'll let others decide."

I guess my perspective is, he disputed that notion. He talked about two ways of finding truth: via the scientific method, and via spiritual means. He talked at length about the wonderful truths discovered via science, and also about some of the problems that method has.

Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more play here. Lost in the wake of the Mormon-mother hysteria, I suppose.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more play here. Lost in the wake of the Mormon-mother hysteria, I suppose.

His topic grabbed my attention but I want to read it to see what there is to take out of it. It was actually one of the two or three talks to which I paid most attention.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess my perspective is, he disputed that notion. He talked about two ways of finding truth: via the scientific method, and via spiritual means. He talked at length about the wonderful truths discovered via science, and also about some of the problems that method has.

With the caveat that I need to read it again, I am not sure this is what he said. The examples he gave of the respective types of knowledge were all knowledge from the respective areas, as I recall, sort of along the lines of what Archaea is suggesting. I am not sure if his talk ever actually suggested or stated that knowledge about the natural world (as a general matter as oppposed to some sort of psecific instance where knowledge might be needed to accomplish a speciric assigned task) can be fully or accurately obtianed by purely spiritual means. He did, as you point out, discuss some limitations of the scientific mehtod.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am not sure if his talk ever actually suggested or stated that knowledge about the natural world (as a general matter as oppposed to some sort of psecific instance where knowledge might be needed to accomplish a speciric assigned task) can be fully or accurately obtianed by purely spiritual means.

I don't think he did. That's my point. I saw his talk as a tacit acknowledgement that we can learn truth from means other than spiritual.

Of course, we could also get into semantics and say that the intellect is a gift from God; that scientific discovery is just another face of the same spiritual die. Scott somewhat alluded to this interpretation as well.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think he did. That's my point. I saw his talk as a tacit acknowledgement that we can learn truth from means other than spiritual.

Of course, we could also get into semantics and say that the intellect is a gift from God; that scientific discovery is just another face of the same spiritual die. Scott somewhat alluded to this interpretation as well.

That is why I want to read it when it comes out. I was actually hoping for some insight on this issue and I was not sure he gave much in a constructive as opposed to descriptive way. OTOH, my danged Brother in law just wouldn't be quiet . . .

[Archaea]

I heard that talk as I was driving, and liked what I heard of it, as he discussed the immensity of space and smallness of quarts.

I heard his distinction and don't believe it contradicts what I am positing but need to read it to be certain.