LDS, 1830-2016, and Positivism, for mfb

[3DOP]

Mark,

We know that you and I are philosophically opposed. No big deal. However, I have found much to agree with among LDS of the past and even present who think that reality is objective and knowable and who deplore what we think of as relativism.That would be positivism according to how you are using the word?

It appears that I am in philosophical agreement with Mormon historians of the 50's and 60's you mention elsewhere. But what would be more remarkable would be if I am in philosophical agreement with most of the present Quorum of Apostles as well as those who preceded them. If I were LDS, I would be concerned about a philosophy that to this point has not been adopted by the leaders of the Church. I am not qualified to argue whether or not Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and their successors were also positivists. But it seems very plausible to me that like me, Joseph and Brigham, and your Mormon fathers in the faith were unknowingly, according to a description you gave in another thread, positivists: "[unknowingly] advocating that revelations and visions cannot possibly be 'true'.  Belief in general that 'truth vs error' can be clearly established, is positivism."

I am asking your opinion in particular and others here in general as to whether you think that, along with Rory (not to be confused with Rorty, heh.), and BYU historians of the 50's and 60's, the founders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might have been hampered in their apostolic works by a "positivism" which you seem to see as incompatible or at least harmful to Mormonism? I would also be interested in any opinions that say that "positivism" in the sense described above has been helpful to Mormonism. Thanks for all thoughtful replies.

Regards,

Rory

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark,

We know that you and I are philosophically opposed. No big deal. However, I have found much to agree with among LDS of the past and even present who think that reality is objective and knowable and who deplore what we think of as relativism.That would be positivism according to how you are using the word?

It appears that I am in philosophical agreement with Mormon historians of the 50's and 60's you mention elsewhere. But what would be more remarkable would be if I am in philosophical agreement with most of the present Quorum of Apostles as well as those who preceded them. If I were LDS, I would be concerned about a philosophy that to this point has not been adopted by the leaders of the Church. I am not qualified to argue whether or not Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and their successors were also positivists. But it seems very plausible to me that like me, Joseph and Brigham, and your Mormon fathers in the faith were unknowingly, according to a description you gave in another thread, positivists: "[unknowingly] advocating that revelations and visions cannot possibly be 'true'.  Belief in general that 'truth vs error' can be clearly established, is positivism."

I am asking your opinion in particular and others here in general as to whether you think that, along with Rory (not to be confused with Rorty, heh.), and BYU historians of the 50's and 60's, the founders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might have been hampered in their apostolic works by a "positivism" which you seem to see as incompatible or at least harmful to Mormonism? I would also be interested in any opinions that say that "positivism" in the sense described above has been helpful to Mormonism. Thanks for all thoughtful replies.

Regards,

Rory

What follows are the opening paragraphs of section 6 of the once very influential LDS theological and soteriological catechism known as the 'Lectures on Faith.' This 6th section of these lectures is titled "The Law of Sacrifice," and it contains a very good summation of the early LDS understanding of the requirements that need to be met in order for an individual to obtain the fullness of salvation. 

Whatever it is arcane philosophical constructs have to say about the impossibloty of imperfect mortals to truly understand pure, unalloyed truth, the fact of the matter is the LDS leaders who produced the Lectures on Faith believed fallen mortals, aided by the revelatory inspiration of God, could understand the essential nature of God's truth well enough to enable those so inspired to dispel all doubt and replace that doubt with an unconquerable faith; a faith that is much more than a mere belief; a faith that can only issue forth from an understanding of truth that's accurate and comprehensive enough to spiritually transform fallen mortals into saints and save them eternally in the celestial kingdom of God. And if one's umderstandimg of truth is accurate and comprehensive enough to enable him to obtain the eternal fullness of salvation, it seems to me any revelation of truth beyond what's needed to save is, at least while we sojourn in mortality, not critically important to know.

Having treated, in the preceding lectures, of the ideas of the character, perfections and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of the knowledge which persons must have, that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation.

2 This knowledge supplies an important place in revealed religion; for it was by reason of it that the ancients were enabled to endure as seeing him who is invisible. An actual knowledge to any person that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God, without which no person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the ancient saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions, and to take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing, (not believing merely,) that they had a more enduring substance (Hebrews 10:34).

3 Having the assurance that they were pursuing a course which was agreeable to the will of God, they were enabled to take, not only the spoiling of their goods, and the wasting of their substance, joyfully, but also to suffer death in its most horrid forms; knowing, (not merely believing,) that when this earthly house of their tabernacle was dissolved, they had a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens (2 Corinthians 5:1).

4 Such was and always will be the situation of the saints of God, that unless they have an actual knowledge that the course that they are pursuing is according to the will of God, they will grow weary in their minds and faint; for such has been and always will be the opposition in the hearts of unbelievers and those that know not God, against the pure and unadulterated religion of heaven, (the only thing which ensures eternal life,) that they will persecute, to the uttermost, all that worship God according to his revelations, receive the truth in the love of it, and submit themselves to be guided and directed by his will, and drive them to such extremities that nothing short of an actual knowledge of their being the favorites of heaven, and of their having embraced that order of things which God has established for the redemption of man, will enable them to exercise that confidence in him necessary for them to overcome the world, and obtain that crown of glory which is laid up for them that fear God.

5 For a man to lay down his all, his character and reputation, his honor and applause, his good name among men, his houses, his lands, his brothers and sisters, his wife and children, and even his own life also, counting all things but filth and dross for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, requires more than mere belief, or supposition that he is doing the will of God, but actual knowledge: realizing, that when these sufferings are ended he will enter into eternal rest; and be a partaker of the glory of God.

6 For unless a person does know that he is walking according to the will of God, it would be offering an insult to the dignity of the Creator, were he to say that he would be a partaker of his glory when he should be done with the things of this life. But when he has this knowledge, and most assuredly knows that he is doing the will of God, his confidence can be equally strong that he will be a partaker of the glory of God.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[3DOP]

Hi bobbie...

Thanks for the reply. You wrote: "...the LDS leaders who produced the Lectures on Faith believed fallen mortals, aided by the revelatory inspiration of God, could understand the essential nature of God's truth well enough to enable those so inspired to dispel all doubt and replace that doubt with an unconquerable faith; a faith that is much more than a mere belief; a faith that can only issue forth from an understanding of truth that's accurate and comprehensive enough to..." (bold mine)

Do you think that the authors of the Lectures on Faith believed "in general that 'truth vs error' can be clearly established..."? Maybe I am reaching, but I seem to detect overtones of what has been described as "positivism", both in your own remarks and those of the authors you quoted. Would you agree?

Edited August 29, 2016 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

What follows are the opening paragraphs of section 6 of the once very influential LDS theological and soteriological catechism known as the 'Lectures on Faith.' This  6th section of these lectures is this titled "The Law of Sacrifice," and it contains a very good summation of the early LDS umderstanding of the requirements that need to be met in order for an individual to obtain the fullness of salvation. 

Whatever it is arcane philosophical constructs have to say about the impossibloty of imperfect mortals to truly understand pure, unalloyed truth, the fact of the matter is the LDS leaders who produced the Lectures on Faith believed fallen mortals, aided by the revelatory inspiration of God, could understand the essential nature of God's truth well enough to enable those so inspired to dispel all doubt and replace that doubt with an unconquerable faith; a faith that is much more than a mere belief; a faith that can only issue forth from an understanding of truth that's accurate and comprehensive enough to spiritually transform fallen mortals into saints and save them eternally in the celestial kingdom of God. And if one's umderstandimg of truth is accurate and comprehensive enough to enable him to obtain the eternal fullness of salvation, it seems to me any revelation of truth beyond what's needed to save is, at least while we sojourn in mortality, not critically important to know.

Having treated, in the preceding lectures, of the ideas of the character, perfections and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of the knowledge which persons must have, that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation.

2 This knowledge supplies an important place in revealed religion; for it was by reason of it that the ancients were enabled to endure as seeing him who is invisible. An actual knowledge to any person that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God, without which no person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the ancient saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions, and to take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing, (not believing merely,) that they had a more enduring substance (Hebrews 10:34).

3 Having the assurance that they were pursuing a course which was agreeable to the will of God, they were enabled to take, not only the spoiling of their goods, and the wasting of their substance, joyfully, but also to suffer death in its most horrid forms; knowing, (not merely believing,) that when this earthly house of their tabernacle was dissolved, they had a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens (2 Corinthians 5:1).

4 Such was and always will be the situation of the saints of God, that unless they have an actual knowledge that the course that they are pursuing is according to the will of God, they will grow weary in their minds and faint; for such has been and always will be the opposition in the hearts of unbelievers and those that know not God, against the pure and unadulterated religion of heaven, (the only thing which ensures eternal life,) that they will persecute, to the uttermost, all that worship God according to his revelations, receive the truth in the love of it, and submit themselves to be guided and directed by his will, and drive them to such extremities that nothing short of an actual knowledge of their being the favorites of heaven, and of their having embraced that order of things which God has established for the redemption of man, will enable them to exercise that confidence in him necessary for them to overcome the world, and obtain that crown of glory which is laid up for them that fear God.

5 For a man to lay down his all, his character and reputation, his honor and applause, his good name among men, his houses, his lands, his brothers and sisters, his wife and children, and even his own life also, counting all things but filth and dross for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, requires more than mere belief, or supposition that he is doing the will of God, but actual knowledge: realizing, that when these sufferings are ended he will enter into eternal rest; and be a partaker of the glory of God.

6 For unless a person does know that he is walking according to the will of God, it would be offering an insult to the dignity of the Creator, were he to say that he would be a partaker of his glory when he should be done with the things of this life. But when he has this knowledge, and most assuredly knows that he is doing the will of God, his confidence can be equally strong that he will be a partaker of the glory of God.

Yep

Notice it does not say anything about scientific verification of truth as being the only way to know truth

THAT is positivism

Let's start with the dictionary.

Quote

 

pos·i·tiv·ism

ˈpäzətivˌizəm/

noun

PHILOSOPHY

1.

a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism.

2.

the theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid because they are enacted by authority or derive logically from existing decisions, and that ideal or moral considerations (e.g., that a rule is unjust) should not limit the scope or operation of the law.

 

 

 

Those who seek objective evidence for matters of faith are positivists.

"Things as they are" are as we experience them- full of emotional and spiritual content.   Positivism strips away "reality" and concentrates only on scientific empirical verifiability and strips away all possibility of spiritual content.

It is an atheistic way of viewing the world.   It has been debunked as I said in the other thread.  It is an enemy to any theistic position, because God cannot be scientifically verified, at least not at present, if you want to see it that way.

Alma teaches that truth is what is "sweet" in your life.  THAT is not scientifically verifiable.  D&C 93 says that truth exists in it's "sphere" according to topic.  The truths of science are not the truths of the spirit.

This talk by Pres Kimball says the same thing: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

EDIT

Mormon leaders do not endorse ANY "philosophy of men", which is as it should be.   Many times however as human beings they reflect the culture in which they were raised which may include positivist understandings about "truth" which do not stand up to close philosophical deconstruction.

That's good, they are not supposed to!   We eschew "systematic theology" precisely because it denies the role of personal revelation in our lives. 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mark,

We know that you and I are philosophically opposed. No big deal. However, I have found much to agree with among LDS of the past and even present who think that reality is objective and knowable and who deplore what we think of as relativism.That would be positivism according to how you are using the word?

It appears that I am in philosophical agreement with Mormon historians of the 50's and 60's you mention elsewhere. But what would be more remarkable would be if I am in philosophical agreement with most of the present Quorum of Apostles as well as those who preceded them. If I were LDS, I would be concerned about a philosophy that to this point has not been adopted by the leaders of the Church. I am not qualified to argue whether or not Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and their successors were also positivists. But it seems very plausible to me that like me, Joseph and Brigham, and your Mormon fathers in the faith were unknowingly, according to a description you gave in another thread, positivists: "[unknowingly] advocating that revelations and visions cannot possibly be 'true'.  Belief in general that 'truth vs error' can be clearly established, is positivism."

I am asking your opinion in particular and others here in general as to whether you think that, along with Rory (not to be confused with Rorty, heh.), and BYU historians of the 50's and 60's, the founders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might have been hampered in their apostolic works by a "positivism" which you seem to see as incompatible or at least harmful to Mormonism? I would also be interested in any opinions that say that "positivism" in the sense described above has been helpful to Mormonism. Thanks for all thoughtful replies.

Regards,

Rory

That quote is out of context- in that thread we were talking about "truth and error" in a positivistic, empirical sense

I would like to see that quote in its context.

To make that same statement in THIS context I would have said " Belief in general that 'truth vs error' can ONLY be clearly established SCIENTIFICALLY is positivism."

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep

Notice it does not say anything about scientific verification of truth as being the only way to know truth

THAT is positivism

Let's start with the dictionary.

Those who seek objective evidence for matters of faith are positivists.

"Things as they are" are as we experience them- full of emotional and spiritual content.   Positivism strips away "reality" and concentrates only on scientific empirical verifiability and strips away all possibility of spiritual content.

It is an atheistic way of viewing the world.   It has been debunked as I said in the other thread.  It is an enemy to any theistic position, because God cannot be scientifically verified, at least not at present, if you want to see it that way.

Alma teaches that truth is what is "sweet" in your life.  THAT is not scientifically verifiable.  D&C 93 says that truth exists in it's "sphere" according to topic.  The truths of science are not the truths of the spirit.

This talk by Pres Kimball says the same thing: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

 

I'm trying to learn, thats why I'm responding to you here, because I do feel way over my head discussing such topics, but here goes.  

It seems to my puny mind, that while science likely cannot prove that God does or does not exist.  It does seem to me that science can be used to eliminate many theological propositions about the nature of God, or the way that God interacts with the world.  For example, a particular religion teaches that whenever lightning strikes, God is showing his anger to the world, and science discovers mechanisms that explain how lightning occurs.  

Science can enlighten our views about how the world around us works.  But it seems to me that science will never be able to completely confirm the existence of a God, or completely disprove that existence either.  However, I don't think this invalidates the use to science to describe our world and the way things work, or to let this understanding inform our religious beliefs.    

I find that scientific discovery over the past few centuries to be phenomenal, and I think unquestionably the greatest source for good in the history of mankind on earth to date.  So I'm questioning why you are finding the need to make these distinctions, and why you'd say its an enemy to theism.  I've read many who don't find the two (scientific methods and religion) to be incompatible at all.  Why do you, or I may be misunderstanding your point.  

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hi bobbie...

Thanks for the reply. You wrote: "...the LDS leaders who produced the Lectures on Faith believed fallen mortals, aided by the revelatory inspiration of God, could understand the essential nature of God's truth well enough to enable those so inspired to dispel all doubt and replace that doubt with an unconquerable faith; a faith that is much more than a mere belief; a faith that can only issue forth from an understanding of truth that's accurate and comprehensive enough to..." (bold mine)

Do you think that the authors of the Lectures on Faith believed "in general that 'truth vs error' can be clearly established..."? Maybe I am reaching, but I seem to detect overtones of what has been described as "positivism", both in your own remarks and those of the authors you quoted. Would you agree?

Absolutely so. The thing to keep in mind is nowhere in the LDS canon does one find somethimg like the following, "... and by the power of the Holy Ghost ye shall know the truth of all things, but always retain in remembrance the so-called "truth" the Holy Ghost reveals to you is not really truth in it's purest form, but just a paltry shadow of the truth as it is known and fully comprehended by God." I believe God has enough confidence in his children's ability to discern and know saving truth that he doesn't think he needs to throw absurd qualifiers (such as the extraneous stuff I just threw into the famous verse from Moroni 10 I just massacred) into the scriptures. While God does make it clear he is much more intelligent than we are, he never belittles nor minimizes our ability to comprehend as much of his truth as it is needed for us to grow in his grace and knowledge and be saved.

And even if Mark is right, if an average non-philosophically-oriented human being can comprehend enough truth in order to be saved, what does it matter if that man doesn't have God's perfect understanding of all truth in the here and now? Perfectly understanding truth, as God does, will come for most of us in the hereaftere; but while we are here in mortality the Lord testifies there is even very real virtue in a child's most rudimentary ability to understand truth. But when you get right down to it, I believe Mark is probably correct in his own way, but the problem is that thus far I have not been able to to clearly comprehend what is so obviously clear and  true to him. He probably gets frustrated when non-philosophers, such as I, can't see his philosophical point of view is in perfect harmony with the scriptures. Maybe some day I'll "get it."

Edited August 29, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

error

Edited August 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Absolutely so. The thing to keep in mind is nowhere in the LDS canon does one find somethimg like the following, "... and by the power of the Holy Ghost ye shall know the truth of all things, but always retain in remembrance the so-called "truth" the Holy Ghost reveals to you is not really truth in it's purest form, but just a paltry shadow of the truth as it is known and fully comprehended by God." I believe God has enough confidence in his children's ability to discern and know saving truth that he doesn't think he needs to throw absurd qualifiers (such as the extraneous stuff I just threw into the famous verse from Moroni 10 I just massacred) into the scriptures. While God does make it clear he is much more intelligent than we are, he never belittles nor minimizes our ability to comprehend as much of his truth as it is needed for us to grow in his grace and knowledge and be saved.

And even if Mark is right, if an average non-philosophically-oriented human being can comprehend enough truth in order to be saved, what does it matter if that man doesn't have God's perfect understanding of all truth in the here and now? Perfectly understanding truth, as God does, will come for most of us in the hereaftere; but while we are here in mortality the Lord testifies there is even very real virtue in a child's most rudimentary ability to understand truth. But when you get right down to it, I believe Mark is probably correct in his own way, but the problem is that thus far I have not been able to to clearly comprehend what is so obviously clear and  true to him. He probably gets frustrated when non-philosophers, such as I, can't see his philosophical point of view is in perfect harmony with the scriptures. Maybe some day I'll "get it."

You have it backwards.

Quote

, "... and by the power of the Holy Ghost ye shall know the truth of all things, but always retain in remembrance the so-called "truth" the Holy Ghost reveals to you is not really truth in it's purest form, but just a paltry shadow of the truth as it is known and fully comprehended by God." 

 

But not me.  I don't know how you could get this from what I say. That is the opposite of what I say.  We directly apprehend reality which is human experience.  Science strips away human experience and invents what it calls "evidence"- only what we can all agree on.

I say that through direct perception and prayer we know things "as they are" without scientific evidence for them.  Science cannot prove God because of what it strips away from evidence- it strips away spirituality

Science is great for making space vehicles and artificial hearts but not for telling us anything important about life.  It is essentially glorified mechanics which gives us theories of how things work, not why they are here or what is important about them.

I don't know where you get this stuff- I would appreciate quotes so that I can set the record straight if I need to.   Don't characterize what you THINK I am saying- give me a quote so I can tell you what I am saying if it is not clear

Obviously it doesn't take philosophy to be saved.  That is the most absurd idea I never said or thought in my life.  My view proves that visions are real.  Can science do that?

What you feel in your heart IS "reality" not the stripped down "empirical evidence" science demands.

I don't know how you could get it so 180 degrees off

[mfbukowski]

oops too many windows open 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That quote is out of context- in that thread we were talking about "truth and error" in a positivistic, empirical sense

I would like to see that quote in its context.

To make that same statement in THIS context I would have said " Belief in general that 'truth vs error' can ONLY be clearly established SCIENTIFICALLY is positivism."

Hey Mark, here is your entire quote:

"I suggest you read Alan Goff's article in Interpreter quoted by Kevin, above.   Yes there are many Mormon theorists who also unfortunately are positivists or who ignore the issue entirely.  There have been famous debates between Mormon theorists advocating positivism without even being aware that they were.

I always find it curious when Mormons advocate positivism because without knowing it, they are advocating that revelations and visions cannot possibly be "true".  Belief in general that "truth vs error" can be clearly established, is positivism.

Goff's article is long and somewhat technical but it is right on the money.  It could be shorter but he nails it."

---That was from page 5 of the DCP thread. They don't number our posts anymore I guess.

-----------------------

But I concede on your more precise definition. That isn't important to the question I am asking. I am using "positivism" however you meant it when you spoke of BYU historians who were "positivist".

So you would be confident in dismissing my suspicions? I am thinking that if BYU historians of the mid-twentieth century were somewhat contaminated by positivism, I would be surprised if it ends there. I would expect that it goes forward, perhaps even into the present day among LDS apologists and Apostles. If LDS positivism died out with the BYU historians, may it be traced backwards to many of your fathers in the faith, if not the very founders?  You are comfortable with limiting LDS positivism to mid twentieth century BYU historians?  

 

1

•  

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

You have it backwards.

But not me.  I don't know how you could get this from what I say. That is the opposite of what I say.  We directly apprehend reality which is human experience.  Science strips away human experience and invents what it calls "evidence"- only what we can all agree on.

I say that through direct perception and prayer we know things "as they are" without scientific evidence for them.  Science cannot prove God because of what it strips away from evidence- it strips away spirituality

Science is great for making space vehicles and artificial hearts but not for telling us anything important about life.  It is essentially glorified mechanics which gives us theories of how things work, not why they are here or what is important about them.

I don't know where you get this stuff- I would appreciate quotes so that I can set the record straight if I need to.   Don't characterize what you THINK I am saying- give me a quote so I can tell you what I am saying if it is not clear

Obviously it doesn't take philosophy to be saved.  That is the most absurd idea I never said or thought in my life.  My view proves that visions are real.  Can science do that?

What you feel in your heart IS "reality" not the stripped down "empirical evidence" science demands.

I don't know how you could get it so 180 degrees off

I'm pleased you say I'm 180 degrees off because it seems to indicate my ideas are at least logical, just not an accurate reflection of your point of view. Now if you had said I was 90 degrees off, I'd be worried. 

Just in case you missed it, in my second post I said It's likely you're the one who's right but that the problem is I just don't understand where you're coming from at times. For example (and this point may have nothing whatsoever to do with the positivist debate) I seem to remember you saying we can never really know truth through human language because human language is too imperfect a vehicle to clearly convey truth to the human mind. First of all, is what I just said an accurate rendition of what I've heard you say previously on this board? Secondly, if my rendition is accurate, does such an idea have anything to do with the positivist debate?

You ask how I could I could be 180 degrees off. Well I took my cue from Rory who said the following:

"We know that you and I are philosophically opposed. No big deal. However, I have found much to agree with among LDS of the past and even present who think that reality is objective and knowable and who deplore what we think of as relativism.That would be positivism according to how you are using the word?"

So what I wrote was in response to the idea that some believe reality is not objective and knowable.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

So what I wrote was in response to the idea that some believe reality is not objective and knowable.

I get the confusion.   The problem is that every one of those words in the above sentence have so many meanings!  I will try to clarify it soon.

[Bobbieaware]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I get the confusion.   The problem is that every one of those words in the above sentence have so many meanings!  I will try to clarify it soon.

Don't put yourself out too much, Mark. Keep it simple bevause I'd like to finally like to get it right so I can avoid further embarrassment.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hey Mark, here is your entire quote:

"I suggest you read Alan Goff's article in Interpreter quoted by Kevin, above.   Yes there are many Mormon theorists who also unfortunately are positivists or who ignore the issue entirely.  There have been famous debates between Mormon theorists advocating positivism without even being aware that they were.

I always find it curious when Mormons advocate positivism because without knowing it, they are advocating that revelations and visions cannot possibly be "true".  Belief in general that "truth vs error" can be clearly established, is positivism.

Goff's article is long and somewhat technical but it is right on the money.  It could be shorter but he nails it."

---That was from page 5 of the DCP thread. They don't number our posts anymore I guess.

-----------------------

But I concede on your more precise definition. That isn't important to the question I am asking. I am using "positivism" however you meant it when you spoke of BYU historians who were "positivist".

So you would be confident in dismissing my suspicions? I am thinking that if BYU historians of the mid-twentieth century were somewhat contaminated by positivism, I would be surprised if it ends there. I would expect that it goes forward, perhaps even into the present day among LDS apologists and Apostles. If LDS positivism died out with the BYU historians, may it be traced backwards to many of your fathers in the faith, if not the very founders?  You are comfortable with limiting LDS positivism to mid twentieth century BYU historians?  

 

1

•  

 

I wrote most of this on another device then the battery died.   So I had to cut and paste here

The formatting got a little weird- sorry

No the issue is much deeper than that.  Positivism has its roots in the correspondence theory of truth which says that it is possible for language to "correspond" to a "reality" which exists independent of human experience.

 

But that is a circular argument.   All we can know and speak about MUST be filtered though human experience- or else we cannot know it.

 

The idea that there is "more" to reality than we can in principle perceive is the problem.   So let's take the Catholic model for God.  

 

Can any statement about God be "true" in that it "corresponds to what God really is".   The answer must be "NO" because human language cannot possibly contain all that God is.  You cannot accurately describe the beatific vision.  THAT should communicate well to you.   But what about a chair- is that different than God?  Yes but in a way it is similar epistemologically.  What can we know about the "ultimate reality" of a chair?  Can you describe what a chair is independent of your experience of the chair?   What IS a "chair"?   Is it a collection of quarks or quantum particles or a thing to sit in?  Well it is both.  But what are quarks and quantum particles/waves.  What about string theory?

 

All these are "theories of men" which are revised from time to time by science.  In a sense NONE OF THEM is "true" in the sense of "corresponding to truth independent of human experience".  We do not experience quarks or strings.  These are human constructions we use, based on "evidence" yes- but we do not experience that reality - it is a construct of what we think might be.  So what IS a "chair"- is it a thing to sit on - a functional truth- or is it a collection of- what?  Strings of quarks or whatever?

 

Both statements can be said to be "true"

 

THAT is really the beef here.   There are MANY ways we use the word "truth".   Sometimes we just mean "I agree with you" when in a discussion we might say "that's true" or "That's true but..."

 

As I have said before and will say again, the WORD "truth" is so muddled in meaning that it is practically useless.

 

The average man in the street typically doesn't understand these distinctions because for ordinary life they are totally useless!  You could live your whole life, get married, get a job, have kids without ever worrying about what "truth" means  UNTIL someone attacks your religion and says "How could it be true that the communion wafer is the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ?"

 

Well I am about to show you how to protect Catholicism, as a proxy for any religion, as being "true"

 

Guys like James and Rorty have shown how religious belief can be "justified" (ie: made rational and possibly "true by at least one definition) even for one who is personally an atheist.

It is the view that reality is reality AS WE EXPERIENCE IT.  There is no difference between "appearances" and "reality" for this view.  Yes sometimes we get caught by an optical illusion or see a mirage.  Are mirages "real"?   This is a semantic confusion based in language.  The word "mirage" presumes that they are NOT real from the definition.The same with the word "hallucination". That implies that what is seen is "not real". But it IS a real experience unless the person is lying. So is a real experience- a real hallucination- "real" or not? At some point these words become meaningless they are so vague. It all depends on what you mean by the word, and MEANING IS IN THE CONTEXT, just as is truth.

 

On this view, reality AS WE KNOW IT as individuals is subjective.  You know your own life and what you have experienced personally to be "true" by living it.  Similarly you have had experiences of "knowing God" as you have experienced him.  You have partaken of the Eucharist and probably have had spiritual experiences confirming to you that somehow "God is with you" in that experience (you might of course use different words)

 

So is that experience less "real" because there is no scientific evidence for how it is possible that you could feel in your heart the nearness of the Savior when you take the Eucharist?   What would science show about a consecrated host?   Well we won't go there- we know it would not be kind.

 

It's the same thing for Mormons with their testimony experience.   How do you know the Eucharist is Christ? Because you feel it, but also because you have 2000 years of theology explaining it.  BUT none of those explanations are "scientific" or based on scientific evidence- they could not be! How do we know the Book of Mormon is "true"? through personal spiritual revelation/experience which we interpret as "true"

 

But what is reality "as it is" but the explanation or interpretation of the evidence we see and feel?  You see the Eucharist and know it is Christ, present to you now. THAT IS WHAT IT IS FOR YOU IN THAT MOMENT IN YOUR LIFE.  That is as "real" as anything gets to you in your life. Same for the Book of Mormon in a revelatory experience

 

So now we look up Aquinas and see what he says.   We won't go there- we know where that leads.  He speaks about "substance" and all kinds of interpretations and explanations of words.

Does science verify those words?  No.  But are those words "true"??

 

For you at that moment, they are as true as anything can be. These are, to you, WORDS THAT EXPLAIN YOUR EXPERIENCE which will communicate to other Catholics. You talk to Bukowski though, and he is coming from another context and that old Bukowski will give you a hard time because your context does not agree with his.

 

So today these branches of philosophy including what is called a point of view known as "hermeneutics" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/ would find YOUR experience of the "truth" of the reality of that experience is perfectly valid.  That is an old word put to new use, but what it means now philosophically is that there is, because of our lack of ability to define truth, no definition which works for every situation, the INTERPRETATION of a text is what counts in making it "valid" for the individual

 

We get the famous dictum that there "are no facts, just interpretations"   This can be a very useful phrase for religionists.

 

This way of thinking is sometimes also called "postmodernism".

 

 In general it is the idea that language is vague and definitions are vague and do not and cannot correspond to "reality" because reality is NOT made of STATEMENTS and only statements can be justified, or "true" or "false". The world is not true or false, only statements are true or false   (Again the Rorty quote below fits right here)

 

To make a very long story very short, this view is that since truth is relative, to a context, there are ways of seeing both scientific AND religious statements "TRUE" if we just separate them into different areas of inquiry.   So yes, science true- for science, and religion is true for religion- but they are different subjects each with their own rules of "verification" or "justification" depending on the community in which the statement is made

 

Positivists deny this, and say statements can only be true insofar as they can be scientifically verified by empirical and objective evidence.

 

So for a positivist, your Eucharist experience is a fantasy and delusion because your experience cannot be scientifically verified.  Bread is bread. It's "reality" is its chemical formula, nothing more nothing less, no matter what it MEANS to you as a person, or how useful that experience is in your life in determining how you see yourself in the universe. Of course science is useless in looking at this question because it denies purpose or importance for ANYTHING, including morals.

 

Science says that if it cannot be verified, it cannot be "true" in any context and some have taken it to mean that the words themselves are meaningless jibberish.  So speaking of Christ at all much less that he can be experienced directly would be "jibberish" to some positivists- it would be no better than a monkey playing with a keyboard when you write your deepest religious feelings or experiences.

 

Positivism ignores your "subjective" feeling for what is there and affirms only what everyone else in the world would see or feel in looking at the "piece of bread", without the presence of the sacred, which your experience brings to your personal reality.  Only the chemical formulas for the bread are "real" to the positivist.

 

So this is probably where the confusion on my statement comes in. Let's revisit that.

Quote

"I suggest you read Alan Goff's article in Interpreter quoted by Kevin, above.   Yes there are many Mormon theorists who also unfortunately are positivists or who ignore the issue entirely.  There have been famous debates between Mormon theorists advocating positivism without even being aware that they were.

I always find it curious when Mormons advocate positivism because without knowing it, they are advocating that revelations and visions cannot possibly be "true".  Belief in general that "truth vs error" can be clearly established, is positivism.

Goff's article is long and somewhat technical but it is right on the money.  It could be shorter but he nails it."

 

The Mormon theorists who I call "positivists" are not really positivists.  That was inaccurate and sloppy language on my part.  But there ARE Mormons who believe in a unified "truth" which is non-contextual and "out there" in the world to which language "corresponds"

 

I really should have said "Mormons who believe in the correspondence theory"   Goff makes the point that he also believes that the correspondence theory is the problem.

It is the idea that there is a "reality" to which appearances either correspond or do not and to which statements correspond or do not, and that correspondence makes them true or false.  So if a statement is true, then it corresponds to reality, false if it does not

 

The only problem is an epistemological one.  How does one get "outside" of appearances to see "reality" independent of human experience to check to see if "reality" really corresponds to any statement?   Impossible.   We all wear the "colored glasses" of human experience because we have human sense organs.  How do we take off those permanent glasses to check what "color" reality "REALLY IS?"   We can never take off those glasses and see "reality". We can never see reality as it is, UNLESS we understand "Reality" differently!

 

So what is reality as it is? Let's just drop all the jargon, all the distinctions and see it simply. Reality is things as we see them- really see them loaded with spirituality and emotion. Reality is what you see when you are about to take the Eucharist- THAT is reality as we experience it. We do not experience anything "objectively" as others may see it- science has stripped reality away from experience to only speak about one aspect of reality- the objective. But we need to understand that all that is important to us- whom we love and why, how we understand our children, the basis on which we make decisions like whom to marry, what school to attend, our career path, what religion if any to join, what makes us happy, our personal preferences, our morality, our politics, our sense of beauty and everything that makes us human instead of a robot, is totally subjective. THAT is where reality for the individual lies.

 

What is more important in your life- your choice of a mate or what makes your car go? THAT is the difference between the subjective and objective in terms of importance.

 

How can the subjective be "true"? Alma 32 James 1, etc. How do we know reality and truth are contextual? D&C 93 and many others.

 

And amazingly by studying many atheist philosophers like Rorty and Nagel who affirm just these same points!

 

So if Mormons hold the view that "reality" is "out there" somewhere beyond human experience they are usually setting themselves up for attacks on their views on visions and their reality if they realize it or not. If they affirm that science discovers "reality as it is" - as many here do- then dreams and visions cannot be "real". Personal revelation cannot be "real" if the only path to knowing reality is through science.

 

If science is seen as anything more than paradigms which change which provide useful ways of seeing the world which work- until they don't work anymore due to more "evidence" then they are tacitly denying dreams and visions and personal revelation as "real" because behind that assumption is the idea that science is capable of discovering "reality as it is". Statements like "science shows us that in reality....." are wrong simply on their face- science does not show us "reality", it shows us a paradigm that seems to work for now

 

But religion is in a similar boat as well when it comes to the objective. I pray and get a Mormon testimony and Rory gets a Catholic testimony. How can that be?

 

The only answer which we can postulate IF we want to believe that there IS one reality for all (and I do not necessarily take that position) is that God teaches us all individually and both spiritual experiences are customized "paradigms" for each of us in our little worlds.

 

When we discuss it between us, Rory, the proper attitude for you I would think, would be that I must believe Mormonism for now until I return to Catholicism and get close to the truth, and I must believe that you must now be Catholic until YOU get "closer to the truth".

 

So that probably doesn't answer much but that is MORE THAN enough for now.

[halconero]

I think where this falters is that positivism largely requires empiricism as its base to function. Mormonism is decidedly non-empirical in the traditional sense. Yes, it holds its truths to be self-evident, but perhaps only discerned through the revelatory spirit, which operates on higher planes of order.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

...............................................

Having treated, in the preceding lectures, of the ideas of the character, perfections and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of the knowledge which persons must have, that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation.

2 This knowledge supplies an important place in revealed religion; for it was by reason of it that the ancients were enabled to endure as seeing him who is invisible. An actual knowledge to any person that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God, without which no person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the ancient saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions, and to take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing, (not believing merely,) that they had a more enduring substance (Hebrews 10:34).

3 Having the assurance that they were pursuing a course which was agreeable to the will of God, they were enabled to take, not only the spoiling of their goods, and the wasting of their substance, joyfully, but also to suffer death in its most horrid forms; knowing, (not merely believing,) that when this earthly house of their tabernacle was dissolved, they had a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens (2 Corinthians 5:1).

.....................................................................

The lecture material you provide (likely from Sidney Rigdon) does not say how one comes by such knowledge, and does not cite Alma 32.  However, even if the method discussed in Alma 32 were followed, would that be more than a pragmatic approach such as we find in William James on The Varieties of Religious Experience?

Logical positivism is a far more rigorous process, and it makes certain assumptions about epistemology which many Mormons might regard as flawed -- placing their confidence in the Holy Spirit, rather than in secular means of acquiring knowledge, or of being sure of anything by such means.  This goes back to the nature of our human senses and to our ability to obtain an objective knowledge about anything.  As Paul says, we see as through a glass darkly, but only after we have been glorified will we be able to see everything clearly.

[halconero]

It should also be noted that the discerning of divine truth (already a revelatory experience rather than empirically derived in Mormonism) is different from the obtaining of truth. Mormonism both in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries teaches that the truths of God are learned over the course of pre mortal, mortal, and post mortal periods. They are learned via the rituals and covenants of priesthood ordinances, obedience to the same, experiences in life, and revelation. I think that adds a later of non-positivist thinking to the matter.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The lecture material you provide (likely from Sidney Rigdon) does not say how one comes by such knowledge, and does not cite Alma 32.  However, even if the method discussed in Alma 32 were followed, would that be more than a pragmatic approach such as we find in William James on The Varieties of Religious Experience?

Logical positivism is a far more rigorous process, and it makes certain assumptions about epistemology which many Mormons might regard as flawed -- placing their confidence in the Holy Spirit, rather than in secular means of acquiring knowledge, or of being sure of anything by such means.  This goes back to the nature of our human senses and to our ability to obtain an objective knowledge about anything.  As Paul says, we see as through a glass darkly, but only after we have been glorified will we be able to see everything clearly.

Good points

I have never put much stock in Lectures on Faith they seem philosophically confused to me- not at all like D&C or the BOM or the Book of Abraham or Moses

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The lecture material you provide (likely from Sidney Rigdon) does not say how one comes by such knowledge, and does not cite Alma 32.  However, even if the method discussed in Alma 32 were followed, would that be more than a pragmatic approach such as we find in William James on The Varieties of Religious Experience?

Logical positivism is a far more rigorous process, and it makes certain assumptions about epistemology which many Mormons might regard as flawed -- placing their confidence in the Holy Spirit, rather than in secular means of acquiring knowledge, or of being sure of anything by such means.  This goes back to the nature of our human senses and to our ability to obtain an objective knowledge about anything.  As Paul says, we see as through a glass darkly, but only after we have been glorified will we be able to see everything clearly.

As I plainly asserted in other posts on this thread, we will surely have a much greater and clearer knowledge of the truth after we are glorified. But this doesn't change the fact that the Spirit of revelation, when truly and powerfully received, opens the door to an understanding of divine truth that is sufficient, in an of itself, to lead the children of men safely home to heaven and eternal life. Revelation from God is the one overridingly important and essential ingredient needed for one to learn AND UNDERSTAND all the truth he needs to know in order for him to lay hold on eternal life and never let go. 

I do not turn my nose down on other forms and means of coming to know and understand truth (I often make use of them myself), but there is no other way of coming to know the truth that can substitute or compensate for divine revelation, a holy principle of the Gospel of Christ taught plainly and repeatedly in the Book of Mormon. Could it be that whomever it was that produced section 6 of the Lectures on Faith that he (they?), at least in part, learned ot those holy principles by the testimony of the prophet Alma who set forth the very same principles of truth presented in the lectures? One thing is for sure, both presentations sound similar...

43 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should hear me, for I speak in the energy of my soul; for behold, I have spoken unto you plainly that ye cannot err, or have spoken according to the commandments of God.

 44 For I am called to speak after this manner, according to the holy order of God, which is in Christ Jesus; yea, I am commanded to stand and testify unto this people the things which have been spoken by our fathers concerning the things which are to come.

 45 And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety?

 46 Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me.

 47 And moreover, I say unto you that it has thus been revealed unto me, that the words which have been spoken by our fathers are true, even so according to the spirit of prophecy which is in me, which is also by the manifestation of the Spirit of God.

 48 I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name. (Alma 5)

Notice how there is not even the slightest bit of equivocation nor verbal pulling of punches in the testimony of the prophet, for he makes it perfectly clear that he is speaking nothing other than pure, unalloyed, understandable, and reliable diamond truth. And so  (I borrow from the phrasing of David O  McKay),  "there is no other means of gaining a knowledge of divine truth that can substitute or compensate for the absence -- or the dearth -- of the Spirit of revelation. So said Alma, and I must say I heartily concur. 

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[halconero]

It should also be noted that the discerning of divine truth (already a revelatory experience rather than empirically derived in Mormonism) is different from the obtaining of truth. Mormonism both in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries teaches that the truths of God are learned over the course of pre mortal, mortal, and post mortal periods. They are learned via the rituals and covenants of priesthood ordinances, obedience to the same, experiences in life, and revelation. I think that adds a later of non-positivist thinking to the matter.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Good points

I have never put much stock in Lectures on Faith they seem philosophically confused to me- not at all like D&C or the BOM or the Book of Abraham or Moses

How about B. H. Roberts' The Seventy’s Course in Theology, 5 vols. (SLC: Deseret News Press, 1907)?  Online at http://archive.org/details/seventyscoursein00robe .  How do you feel about that?

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm trying to learn, thats why I'm responding to you here, because I do feel way over my head discussing such topics, but here goes.  

It seems to my puny mind, that while science likely cannot prove that God does or does not exist.  It does seem to me that science can be used to eliminate many theological propositions about the nature of God, or the way that God interacts with the world.  For example, a particular religion teaches that whenever lightning strikes, God is showing his anger to the world, and science discovers mechanisms that explain how lightning occurs.  

Science can enlighten our views about how the world around us works.  But it seems to me that science will never be able to completely confirm the existence of a God, or completely disprove that existence either.  However, I don't think this invalidates the use to science to describe our world and the way things work, or to let this understanding inform our religious beliefs.    

I find that scientific discovery over the past few centuries to be phenomenal, and I think unquestionably the greatest source for good in the history of mankind on earth to date.  So I'm questioning why you are finding the need to make these distinctions, and why you'd say its an enemy to theism.  I've read many who don't find the two (scientific methods and religion) to be incompatible at all.  Why do you, or I may be misunderstanding your point.  

YOu can think "scientific discovery over the past few centuries to be phenomenal" and still reject positivism as a philosophy.  One can both see the good and usefulness of science and still find positivism unworkable. 

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

YOu can think "scientific discovery over the past few centuries to be phenomenal" and still reject positivism as a philosophy.  One can both see the good and usefulness of science and still find positivism unworkable. 

Does rejecting positivism mean that I also should consider science an enemy to theism?  I'm thinking of the Henry Eyring approach of accepting truth no matter what source it comes from, the earth, religion, science, if its true we accept it.  He didn't seem to believe the two ideas, science and religion, were in conflict with one another.  MFB seems to be saying that they are, but I might not be grasping the argument well.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Does rejecting positivism mean that I also should consider science an enemy to theism?  I'm thinking of the Henry Eyring approach of accepting truth no matter what source it comes from, the earth, religion, science, if its true we accept it.  He didn't seem to believe the two ideas, science and religion, were in conflict with one another.  MFB seems to be saying that they are, but I might not be grasping the argument well.  

Well I"ll let MFB chime in then.  I didn't read him suggesting that, but I may be a little late to the conversation here and may be missing plenty.