Nhat Hanh, Buddhist monk:
“Do not be idolatrous about, or bound to, any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.”
- Aaron B.
- Aaron R.
- About BCC:
- Amri Brown
- BCC Papers
- BCC’s General Conference Portal
- BHodges
- Brad
- Cynthia L.
- Info & Contact
- J. Nelson-Seawright
- J. Stapley
- Jacob
- John C.
- John F.
- John Hamer
- Karen H.
- Kathryn Lynard Soper
- Kevin Barney
- Kristine
- Kyle M
- M Miles
- M. Norbert Kilmer
- Margaret Blair Young
- Mark Brown
- Matt Page
- Natalie B.
- Rebecca J.
- RJH
- Russell Arben Fox
- Sam MB
- Scott B.
- Steve Evans
- Steve P.
- Sunny Smart
- The Emeriti
- Tracy M.
- W. V. Smith
About
Sideblog- Mormons: what we actually do (meme)
- Paul Reeve on Mitt and alleged Mormon racism.
- I lurve you
- Bowman in Slate.
- Contribute to the crowdsourcing project: Addressing the Temple “Issue”, Period.
- Old Skool Pokemon
- 100% pure Mariolatry
- Book Giveaway for Steve P.'s excellent A Short Stay In Hell
- I'm thinking this isn't really the Official Cat Fancy Twitter Feed.
- Best dog photos ever?
Your Monday poll #4
October 1, 2007 — RJH53 Responses to “Your Monday poll #4”
- LDS Headlines
- Elie Wiesel criticizes Romney for keeping mum on Mormon posthumous baptism of Jews - Haaretz
- 'Book of Mormon' comes to San Francisco - San Jose Mercury News
- LDS official: Don't let trust blind you to scams - Salt Lake Tribune
- Mormon Economics and the GOP - Truthdig
- LDS recording artist to perform - Agoura Hills Acorn
- Hindus concerned at proxy baptism of Jews by Mormon Church - Baltic Review
- Old LDS Church Gets New Life As Apartments - LocalNews8.com
- French Mormons find a less hospitable 'Mormon moment' - Washington Post (blog)
- Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel - NPR (blog)
- Mormon Church apologizes for posthumous baptisms - Los Angeles Times
- Authors Elsewhere
- Two and a half hours is just not a lot of time madhousewife
- What can I say? madhousewife
- Floating to the Surface Tracy M
- Contention! “You might as well argue with the wind.” WVS
- Gratitude Tracy M
- Some new stuff on Wednesday madhousewife
- And She’s Down… No, wait… Maybe not…Holy Crap Tracy M
- Jonathan Edwards, Freedom, Henry Tappan, Joseph Smith and Foreknowledge WVS
The BCC Zeitcast
Subscribe in iTunes
Meta
October 1, 2007 at 7:04 am
Sorry Nhat, but there really are some absolute truths. God really does exist and is really our Father. There are no ifs ands or buts about that one.
October 1, 2007 at 7:23 am
Did he run that statement past his stake president?
October 1, 2007 at 7:42 am
I think he got the point right, and I think he has understood the second of the ten commandments.
Attachment to our notions and ideas of God or Truth or Whatever is much more a function of our attachment than it is of God or Truth or Whatever.
For those inclined to defend that which needs no defense, think of it this way: no matter how marvelous my conceptions of God have been in my life, every experience I have of God has beggared my prior notions of God. If, in the face of such experiences, I nonetheless cling to my notions, I’m not clinging to God. I’m clinging to my idol of God.
IMO, the most important thing that Joseph Smith has taught us is not the substantive answers he offered, but to trust the process he followed — one that allowed God to teach him whatever God wanted, notwithstanding Joseph’s particular interests, beliefs, predilections, or idols.
October 1, 2007 at 7:44 am
Just think about how many “absolute truths” have turned out to be not-so-absolute. I know I’ve encountered many of those. For some people, for example, it was an “absolute truth” that men of African descent would never hold the priesthood until the millenium—oops. For some, it was an “absolute truth” that men would never travel to the Moon (okay, some think it still hasn’t really happened). I think with age and wisdom, we find there are very few “absolute truths.” In fact, I’d suggest that Joseph Smith’s discussion of “setting up stakes” was a warning about getting too caught up in what we think to be “absolute truth,” lest we cut off further light and knowledge.
October 1, 2007 at 7:49 am
To be good Mormon pirates we must realize that the code and its associated rules were meant to be understood more like guidelines anyway.
October 1, 2007 at 7:52 am
Nick,
I think there really are “some” absolute truths out there. But they are very few in nature. Beyond these few things, one of which I stated, we do not know nearly enough to state explicitly one way or another on may of the other aspects of the world around us.
October 1, 2007 at 8:13 am
This is something like the “prophet is only a prophet when acting as such” ideology.
You see, we then ask “was the prophet acting as such when he made that statement?”
Here we ask ourselves, “Should I then not be bound to this ideology of not being bound to ideologies?”
I can agree though, that any system of thought available to us currently is only a guiding mean, and is not yet absolute truth. However, I do still believe in absolute truth. We just aren’t there yet.
October 1, 2007 at 8:16 am
Everything eternal eventually changes. Is it our understanding that changes, or the reality? Does it matter? How would we ever be able to tell the difference?
October 1, 2007 at 8:18 am
Dan: I understand what you are saying, but the way I understand the existence of God and his fathership has changed dramatically over time. This has the same spirit as Paul does: ‘For now we see through a glass, darkly.’
October 1, 2007 at 8:22 am
Dan, note that I didn’t say there were zero “absolute truths,” but rather that they were very few. I’d go even further, to say that where there are “absolute truths,” our human understanding of those “absolute truths” is almost guaranteed to include some “absolute falsehoods.”
October 1, 2007 at 8:46 am
And thus we see the benefit of Mormonism’s scarcity of dogma. We lay claim to everything that is true, regardless of the source. It really is one of our greatest strengths, and one of the most appealing aspects of Mormonism.
October 1, 2007 at 8:47 am
Nick,
Right, I’m totally in agreement then. :)
Norbert,
I think the same way as you about how our perceptions change about any and all, including things we can say absolutely. The way we define our words, through common use, and not a rigid, never-changing structure, makes it hard to define much of anything as absolute. The way we may define certain words, such as “exist” or even “God” changes our perception of those things.
I find this particular passage, from Jacob chapter 4 to be quite enlightening and maddening at the same time:
Two things stand out for me. “let him prophesy to the understanding of men” and “[the Spirit] speaketh of things as they really are“. I think that speaks volumes about the world around us and our perceptions of it. On the one hand, there are things out there that are certain, but in order for us to get even a small understanding of it, the Spirit must speak to us so that we understand, in plain language. I’m quite fascinated by WHY we human beings cannot perceive the world around us as it really is. What is it in our makeup that stops us from “seeing the bigger picture?”
October 1, 2007 at 9:27 am
Yes!! Thank you Mark Brown.
October 1, 2007 at 9:34 am
I voted No on this one, but I felt torn, and could have just as happily voted Yes. I think there are some absolute truths in the Gospel, but I probably accept far fewer as such than many of my LDS brethren and sisters.
At the same time, I am concerned about the fetishization of many doctrines (e.g. Word of Wisdom) and the idolatrous attitude that seems to be growing (?) in the Church towards the GAs.
October 1, 2007 at 9:36 am
Generally speaking, I could get behind this statement. As I can’t agree with the word “all”. I would have to say no. God does have a few absolute truths.
October 1, 2007 at 10:08 am
JA Benson, God has them, but do we?
October 1, 2007 at 10:13 am
The word ‘doctrine’ should be stricken from Mormon discourse. That is the only absolute truth.
October 1, 2007 at 10:13 am
RT, we believe we do, and act accordingly. What else can we do? We are not to be driven by the waves and tossed.
October 1, 2007 at 10:22 am
Steve, I think that’s probably about right. We’re told to act with faith, as if we knew. Although over time we as a people are certainly driven by at least some waves.
October 1, 2007 at 10:33 am
I agree with #18.
There so need to be some absolutes.
Otherwise there is nothing to believe in.
Some would be…
God is our Father
Jesus is our Savior
Etc.
October 1, 2007 at 10:35 am
This is an interesting question. I’m trying to picture how some of the characters in the Book of Mormon would respond to Nhat’s statement.
October 1, 2007 at 10:36 am
Would he be labeled an “anti-Christ”? I’m not sure.
October 1, 2007 at 10:55 am
Costanza 22 – it depends. If he felt strongly enough – which would be really ironic – that he decided to debate Alma the Younger on the topic, he probably would be.
However, if he was talking about the laws of Moses, he would have been right on. Interesting question.
October 1, 2007 at 11:11 am
BTW,
I suggest people wiki Nhat Hanh if they haven’t already. He’s the DB.
Given the situation in Burma/Myanmar, I think Buddhist monks rule.
October 1, 2007 at 11:15 am
I selected choice number 2 because I believe that holding Truth to be above God would be idolatrous. The choice was hard because holding onto my own ideas when God reveals truth by revelation to prophets, sages, or scientists, my refusal to accept such truth because it offends my personal beliefs would also be idolatrous.
October 1, 2007 at 11:17 am
The phrase ‘reveals truth by revelation’ is, in fact, a copyrighted phrase of The Redundancy Co., Inc.
October 1, 2007 at 11:17 am
What is truth?
October 1, 2007 at 11:18 am
‘Tis the fairest gem, Susan.
October 1, 2007 at 11:31 am
#11 & #18 – Amen.
October 1, 2007 at 11:33 am
#16 J. Nelson what bbell and Steve Evans said.
October 1, 2007 at 11:34 am
My philosophy: Pick beliefs that bring you joy, then be willing to alter them with additional light and knowledge – that bring you additional joy. All of us see through a glass darkly, but we need to polish the best we can.
October 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm
bbell, Steve, and JA Benson, I actually agree with you about belief and action. But it’s worth noting that belief and action are fundamentally different in kind from knowledge of absolute truth.
October 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm
And that #32 J. Nelson-Seawright is why I am a big fan:)
October 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I don’t deny the existence of absolute truths, but to identify any particular idea as an “absolute truth” is pretty difficult, in my view.
A few have quoted Paul’s “For now we see through a glass, darkly” line. I would add to it Alma’s definition of faith as not being a perfect knowledge. As imperfect, limited human beings, there’s going to be an element of uncertainty and fallibility inherent in everything we do, say, and think. While we may very strongly adhere to certain notions and believe them to be literal truth, we should keep in mind our own susceptibility to error and the limitations of human cognition. In light of this reality, I’m hesitant to classify any of my beliefs as absolute.
Some have asserted that fundamental statements such as “Christ is the Savior” should be classed as “absolute” truth. But what does “Christ is the Savior” actually mean? It may mean one thing to me and one thing to you, and something else entirely to a Catholic or Lutheran. The atonement could mean something different to each and every Mormon or Christian. Which, if any, of these interpretations represents “absolute” truth? How do we determine which ones are truer than others?
October 1, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I think that what Nhat is saying is simply not to be close-minded. As truth, even bits, is found everywhere, in order to be able to become like God, we must be willing to learn it all.
I also think that what this monk is saying is not to consider all our beliefs as 100% true. As we do not know all things, yet, it is best to approach life with the realization that a good percentage of what we believe is at worst erroneous and at best not the whole truth.
October 1, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Nhat Hanh isn’t saying absolute truth doesn’t exist. He only states that no system of thought has absolute truth. I can agree with that.
October 1, 2007 at 12:28 pm
One more thought: “All systems are guiding means,” says Nhat. Guiding means to what? I believe that he is inferring that they are guiding means to obtain absolute truth, and not absolute truth themselves. They are means to an end, not the end itself. Life eternal is to know God and Jesus, according to the Lord. Until we receive eternal life, we still don’t know God. We know about him and of him, but we need the gospel to guide us to obtain that one, absolute truth (knowing God).
So, taking this view of his statement, I’d have to get behind the monk.
October 1, 2007 at 12:30 pm
A hippie monk calls me an idolater. Awesome. I’ll take it. I am happily idolatrous with regards to the following statement by James E. Faust in April 2000.
October 1, 2007 at 1:00 pm
#31 Ray:
I absolutely concur! If there is any one principle in Mormonism that I accept without further question, it is that “men are that they might have joy.”
October 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm
#38:
Relying on “dead prophets” now, Eric?
October 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm
For most people, this is a destructive teaching. It would lead them to dispair and endless anxiety. They need doctrine, theory and ideology that are considered absolute.
October 1, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Trevor,
Really?
October 1, 2007 at 6:18 pm
My general sense is that Nhat’s view is a little nebulous for a community that asserts with such stridency the objective reality of things like the literal resurrection of Christ, the various visions of Joseph Smith, etc. To test that, I think that someone should volunteer to use Nhat’s approach when asked about the state of their testimonies of various things in the temple recommend interview.
October 1, 2007 at 7:47 pm
SC Taysom,
What makes you think that those of us commenting here have not done so already? If you were to try it, I think you might find greater accommodation of diversity of belief than you suppose.
However, fwiw, I would readily agree that at some remove from 100% certainty, one should consider whether integrity requires one to decline to accept a recommend, even when it is offered.
October 1, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Without any specifics, how many of the TR interview questions ask, “Do you know with 100% certainty?” How many of them give any definitive percentage of certainty as the standard?
October 1, 2007 at 8:44 pm
As comment #36 points out, I think many might be misinterpreting the quote. It seems clear to me that he’s not saying there are no absolute truths, simply that our systems of thought (or the way perceive absolute truths) are not in themselves absolute.
Even if we were to know absolute truth (and I do personally believe in the several candidates for “absolute truth” voiced in the comments), our ability to conceive of it is unavoidably mitigated by the limitations of our minds and also our language.
Consider this article by Scott Abbot from a 1994 Sunstone. Language is made, not bestowed, and all languages have evolved and changed over the decades and centuries. And yet we have no other way of communicating religious ideas between one another except through language, this imperfect, man-made thing.
I agree with the quote. And I hold that there are absolute truths. Probably we don’t truly understand them though, and regardless of whether we do or not, our ability to describe or conceive of them is imperfect. The Holy Ghost can confirm the presence of truth in a statement, but I don’t believe that means we should (or even can) always accept the literal meaning of the statement, let alone dogmatically hold to it.
I’m convinced that much of what Mormondom holds as the “absolute truths” of the day will be revealed one day (or piece by piece, perhaps) as our version of the Law of Moses. I think we’re not giving God enough credit, and playing the same game Christians who only accept the authenticity of the bible, if we consider the Fullness of the Gospel to mean that everything we know now is immutable, and assume that more things are absolute than we should. Even if my lifetime that has proved untenable. Not that the nature of the true Absolute Truths have changed, but that we are given new viewpoints to see and act upon them.
October 1, 2007 at 8:50 pm
greenfrog,
I agree that there is room for a range of beliefs. In fact, the questions themselves are more open to various readings than we might suspect. I suppose one could answer the question “Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” affirmatively, even if one believed in these things as morally helpful myths rather than literal, personal, realities.
October 1, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I voted no on the grounds that the statement is either a doctrine, a theory, or part of a Buddhist ideology, and therefore self-refuting.
October 2, 2007 at 6:16 am
Adam, awesome.
October 2, 2007 at 8:28 am
Adam, that’s what I tried to say in #7.
Why aren’t comments working on the newer posts?
October 2, 2007 at 9:33 am
Yes, please, I have a comment for the composer thread.
October 6, 2007 at 8:14 am
While there are absolute truths they are not the purpose of doctrine or religion. God invented religion (assuming Adam and Eve) for the purpose of guiding and supporting our use of agency to, hopefully, become more righteous–even like Him.
Religion, with its doctrines, practices, ordinances, and even its mythology, is a means not an end. “Inspired,” God-endorsed and supported, but still artificial–and certainly far from absolute truth.
November 13, 2007 at 12:15 am
[...] means; they are not absolute truth.” Do you agree or disagree? And why? (Taken from By Common Consent) __________________ People are of different spiritual temperaments and therefore will approach [...]