President/Prophet Boyd K Packer

[Bo Diddley]

I have no idea what you're saying.
What "culture" is NS part of that is painful to believers?

It goes along the lines of parents' pains for their wayward children. Or in this case, children's pains for their wayward parents.

[ERCougar]

It goes along the lines of parents' pains for their wayward children. Or in this case, children's pains for their wayward parents.

So it pains people that he doesn't believe, not that he is part of the culture? Your wording was confusing.

[Bo Diddley]

Can you give me an example of knowledge you've obtained this way? I'm not trolling or being argumentative here.

Feeling the power of the Holy Ghost in my life. Having my mind opened in ways that I had never before considered.

[ERCougar]

Feeling the power of the Holy Ghost in my life. Having my mind opened in ways that I had never before considered.

Like?
You don't have to share if you don't want--I'm just curious.
I've had the experience of my mind being opened at church. Also, at school. Also, at work. Also, when just living life. Also, when reading Nietzche. I'm not sure I can tell a difference, and Nietzsche seems to imply that the Holy Ghost doesn't have a lot to do with it, but maybe we don't understand these things as well as we think. I'm guessing NS has had similar experiences, so would similarly believe in the Holy Ghost, although he probably has a different name for it.
Next question, also sincere and not trolling, but one that I've wondered a lot about: what specific things has a prophet helped you learn? No JS or early church leaders allowed--that's too easy and contentious. Let's say...SWK onward (the prophets in my lifetime).

[Bo Diddley]

Like?
You don't have to share if you don't want--I'm just curious.
I've had the experience of my mind being opened at church. Also, at school. Also, at work. Also, when just living life. Also, when reading Nietzche. I'm not sure I can tell a difference, and Nietzsche seems to imply that the Holy Ghost doesn't have a lot to do with it, but maybe we don't understand these things as well as we think. I'm guessing NS has had similar experiences, so would similarly believe in the Holy Ghost, although he probably has a different name for it.
Next question, also sincere and not trolling, but one that I've wondered a lot about: what specific things has a prophet helped you learn? No JS or early church leaders allowed--that's too easy and contentious. Let's say...SWK onward (the prophets in my lifetime).

Many things are too personal to share, especially in a forum like this.

Many of the modern day prophets have taught principles in ways that are easy for me to understand. The Gospel is nothing new, but their way of teaching me has opened up my mind to understand them.

Administration is also important. I think particularly of programs that they have administered like the Perpetual Education Fund, and the building of many new temples throughout the world to make them available to the membership at large.

[Applejack]

Could be. It looks like a turf war is broiling between SCOTUS and the DC Circuit, especially after the Court remanded the case the first time and told them to issue an opinion that conformed with Prometheus. Rather than take the hint, the DC Circuit made the same ruling and sent it back.

I'm only a little surprised that they ignored the standing issues. Standing seems not to bother the Court as much as it used to.

I think you meant the Federal Circuit.

[LA Ute]

Can you give me an example of knowledge you've obtained this way? I'm not trolling or being argumentative here.

In another thread I posted a link to this piece by Darin Ragozzine, a Mormon astrophysicist with an impressive C.V. Here's an excerpt that addresses your question. It's long, but interesting; and I recommend the entire piece.

The hard sciences have a rule of identifying hypotheses that are objectively testable by experimentation of cause and effect (e.g., Popperian falsifiability). We use statistics and control groups to identify correlations and make them unique, respectively. However, even in very controlled and apparently clear-cut circumstances it is sometimes difficult to rigorously prove hypotheses with much certainty (and actually it is usually only technically possible to disprove alternate hypotheses). Despite the zeal of those who have fully embraced science as the only way to interact with the world, strict objective methodology is not possible in most aspects of real life. I agree that it is used less often than it should be (especially by the media, which care more about hype than reality or truth), but there are countless everyday circumstances where scientific methods are inconclusive at best and inapplicable in general. This is because, among other things, 1) there is no “control group” for most problems, 2) many systems are chaotic in the scientific sense of the word, i.e., they have literally unpredictable outcomes, and 3) humans are irrational and emotional and predicting deductively their behavior is a fruitless exercise. There’s no mathematical treatise on how a specific friendship will develop (some suggestions maybe, but certainly not the rigor we require in physics). There’s no predicting the details of the stock market. You can’t set up a scientific experiment to test different geopolitical policy options. There’s no equation that can identify who you should marry. And on and on. Science cannot do it all (though it should be consulted when possible).

(In fact, most non-scientists are often shocked when they learn how much of scientific progress is actually governed by emotion, intuition, and irrational feelings, even in the most objective problems. While good scientists have a mindset of self-skepticism to make sure their work is more than simply a reflection of their own biases, in the end scientists are people and are governed by subjective thoughts and experiences, even in their most objective endeavors.)

Therefore, to augment our intellectual interaction with the world around us, we need something more than science. About that, there should be no question. And, frankly, hard science gives us very little insight on how we are to fill this gap. How do we manage? Well, we draw upon our personal knowledge and experience: how we were raised, our own insights into how things work, cultural values and expectations, the expertise of those whom we respect, etc. I’ll call this personal knowledge “subjective,” meaning it is based on individual knowledge that cannot generally be transferred to another person. Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about what I call “experiential” knowledge, knowledge gained by experiencing something that goes beyond the facts encountered; this is one form of subjective understanding that can lead to truth. Ideally, we would test these assumptions in the most objective way possible, but usually we just do the best we can and figure things out (for ourselves personally) as we go along.

He develops the point further, in what I think is a very science-friendly and faith-friendly way.

[All-American]

I think you meant the Federal Circuit.

I did, yes.

[UtahDan]

He develops the point further, in what I think is a very science-friendly and faith-friendly way.

Hmm, I don't see him as making any more convincing an effort to turn a special pleading fallacy into some different class of knowledge or evidence than the probably thousands of others who have attempted it. I think the truth is that we all make the best decisions we can based on the evidence and logic we have available to us, which is what scientific method is. Social animals that we are, however, we a very powerfully influenced by our socialization, the people around us, culture, etc. That has been a very useful adaptation in that you probably can't have the collective effort that moved us beyond being hunter/gatherer's without it. It is strong enough to override reason in a variety of settings. So human beings wind up being forced to grapple with which one is "right." To me, they just serve different functions.

[LA Ute]

Hmm, I don't see him as making any more convincing an effort to turn a special pleading fallacy into some different class of knowledge or evidence than the probably thousands of others who have attempted it.

I hear you, but I don't think that was his goal. He's just testifying by articulating the way he, a scientist, sees matters of faith and how he defines knowledge.

[UtahDan]

I hear you, but I don't think that was his goal. He's just testifying by articulating the way he, a scientist, sees matters of faith and how he defines knowledge.

I thought that saying there is certain knowledge that is nontransferable and not explainable, but nevertheless reliable was special pleading. I understand that is how he sees faith. I just don't think he or anyone can say why it is different beyond feeling like it is or should be. Choose to believe on that sort of evidence, fine. Hold it up as a special category and in the same breath talk about the limitations of scientific method and IMO the faith discussion trespasses into a realm where it is going to get subjected to, well, scientific method.

[LA Ute]

I thought that saying there is certain knowledge that is nontransferable and not explainable, but nevertheless reliable was special pleading. I understand that is how he sees faith. I just don't think he or anyone can say why it is different beyond feeling like it is or should be. Choose to believe on that sort of evidence, fine. Hold it up as a special category and in the same breath talk about the limitations of scientific method and IMO the faith discussion trespasses into a realm where it is going to get subjected to, well, scientific method.

I think you are just attaching to faith a name that denigrates it needlessly and condescendingly, but we'll save that fight for another time. Meanwhile I'll work on my right cross.

[grapevine]

An intersting thing is what if Marion outlived Ezra, Did not happen as Marion was unable to function during the latter part of Spencers tenure. Mentally Boyd seems all there. I doubt he will outlive Tom. Morbid guessing peoples longevity. Don"t know if L Tom or Russ will be president or not.

The lord is in charge though thank goodness.

[SoonerCoug]

An intersting thing is what if Marion outlived Ezra, Did not happen as Marion was unable to function during the latter part of Spencers tenure. Mentally Boyd seems all there. I doubt he will outlive Tom. Morbid guessing peoples longevity. Don"t know if L Tom or Russ will be president or not.

The lord is in charge though thank goodness.

You are one of my favorite posters, Grapevine, but I am going to have to respectfully disagree on Boyd being all there mentally.

[byu71]

You are one of my favorite posters, Grapevine, but I am going to have to respectfully disagree on Boyd being all there mentally.

I doubt you ever thought he was all there.

I think he is all there, just not in a way some would like.