LDS Epistemology - What Can We Know? How Can We Know It?

[mfbukowski]

I already allowed that there is a certain sense in which it is an objective fact: it's a fact that a minority of people have such a perception. Are you saying that because they perceive it, it must be real? I really hope not, because that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. If some of my friends and I think your children are all ugly, that means that we think your children are all ugly. It doesn't mean that your children are ugly.

There is a big difference between the judgement call "ugly" and the perception of a color few others see, and you know it.

You seem to believe in a neo platonic notion of "ugliness" that is somehow "out there" that my children represent better than your children. Now THAT is what I would call a "silly" notion. Where is this objective notion of ugliness? Can it be scientifically demonstrated to "exist"?

Besides, they're not THAT ugly!

[mfbukowski]

de gustibus non est disputandum

exacta-mundo!

[jadams_4242]

I thought I could provide some interesting discussion that has nothing to do, directly, with SSM and proposition 8! Not only that but by participating, whether you agree with me or not, you'll be helping me out tremendously.

I'm planning on writing a paper this semester about LDS Epistemology. Specifically, my thesis is this. Mormons are not justified in making knowledge claims if their knowledge claims are based on the association of good feelings with religious activity. As it stands, I believe many Mormons do believe it is right to make such claims on exactly that basis. I would like to show why such claims cannot be made on that basis. Now, I may need to tighten this thesis up in some way. I'm not sure just yet. Hopefully this discussion will help me determine whether or not I need to do that. In the process here, we'll certainly need to define our terms more clearly (i.e. good feelings, to know, etc.).

I should mention that I'm not interested in proving Mormonism false (if such a thing were even possible). I am, in fact, a practicing and believing Mormon. I'm simply interested in a very specific philosophical question about the justification of religious knowledge claims. And I simply question a common justification. Having said that, if you're going to respond, please do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Even if you do believe Mormonism is false, try to avoid, if at all possible, making statements outside the scope of the specific question. Even if we find a powerful and cogent argument for why Mormons can't make knowledge claims on the basis I have sketched that does not mean Mormons have no basis for belief and commitment to Mormonism. To show they (we) don't we would have to raise more questions and provide more arguments which would be outside of the scope of this topic.

I know this is something a lot of us have weighed in on in the past. I have in mind a few very well spoken individuals with whom I've had discussions on this very basis before. Please weigh in again. If you haven't been a part of this discussion before, jump in. Even if you don't feel like you don't have a good argument behind your assertion or belief, express what you can. We'll all go from there and, hopefully, work together.

Finally, notice I have yet to offer any argument for my position. This is for a few reasons. First, I'm running low on time today. Second, I've yet to take the time to sketch things out in a clear way. Getting a clear handle on why I believe my thesis is right is part of the reason for this thread. When I get a chance I'll probably dig up some statements made by myself and others from past threads on this issue and either link or post to them.

Leaving the spiritual "feelings" aside; how are we supposed to ignore or explain away the temporal blessings that come therofe following and living the gospel? {I,m not speaking of financial blessings either}.

[J.S. Mill]

It's a simplistic argument. "Because people don't reach the same conclusions, then xxxxxxxx must be faulty." I disagree.

When scientists are doing their jobs right, but come to different conclusions, it's because they're interpreting evidence differently, not because they follow the same procedures and get different evidence. A close analogy between revelatory epistemology and science would be if two scientists took turns looking into a microscope, and the first always saw a square while the other always saw a circle. Does this happen in science as it does in revelatory epistemology? It doesn't, so the they're not as equivalent as you seem to think.

de gustibus non est disputandum

This is kind of my point, actually. When we talk about things that are green, we can come to agreement on what kinds of things are that color: leaves, lawn chairs, grass, my girlfriend's eyes -- and we kind of assume that the hue I perceive is the same one you do. But there's no real way to determine if it actually is -- it could be that while I see the wavelength bouncing off of grass as 'Mill's green', you see it as 'Mill's purple', which we both know by the name 'green'. As long as we're both consistently applying the common names to the different wavelengths, neither of us would be the wiser to our difference in perception.

[LifeOnaPlate]

When scientists are doing their jobs right, but come to different conclusions, it's because they're interpreting evidence differently, not because they follow the same procedures and get different evidence. A close analogy between revelatory epistemology and science would be if two scientists took turns looking into a microscope, and the first always saw a square while the other always saw a circle. Does this happen in science as it does in revelatory epistemology? It doesn't, so the they're not as equivalent as you seem to think.

When religious folks are doing their worship right, but come to different conclusions, it's because they're interpreting evidence differently, not because they follow the same procedures and get different evidence.

It makes as much sense. Whether it is true or not...

[Billy]

Can you tell a blind man what red looks like or a deaf man what a french horn sounds like and how it is different from a trumpet? Or what the difference is between red and blue?

YES

If you have experienced something, you can tell the other person what that experience is like. With your example above the other person may not understand what you are describing, but this does not limit you in your ability to describe it.

If I heard a song on the radio, I can describe that song to a deaf person via writing or sign language, he may not really understand what I am saying but I still can explain my experience to him and describe the tones, beat, words, and comparison to other types of music that it mostly resembles from my own experience.

[J.S. Mill]

When religious folks are doing their worship right, but come to different conclusions, it's because they're interpreting evidence differently, not because they follow the same procedures and get different evidence.

It makes as much sense. Whether it is true or not...

What about irreligious people, who claim to get no evidence at all? There's definitely a dispute here on the evidence in question, and not just the interpretation of it.

[Sargon]

This is kind of my point, actually. When we talk about things that are green, we can come to agreement on what kinds of things are that color: leaves, lawn chairs, grass, my girlfriend's eyes -- and we kind of assume that the hue I perceive is the same one you do. But there's no real way to determine if it actually is -- it could be that while I see the wavelength bouncing off of grass as 'Mill's green', you see it as 'Mill's purple', which we both know by the name 'green'. As long as we're both consistently applying the common names to the different wavelengths, neither of us would be the wiser to our difference in perception.

I don't think that this really addresses the analogy correctly. If I understand the analogy, it is describing a phenomenon wherein a minority of a population is capable of perceiving a wavelength that the rest of the population is uncapable of perceiving. It isn't a case wherein both perceive and experience the same wavelength differently, instead the majority party simply doesn't experience it at all.

I'm not necessarily sure I buy the analogy yet, but I think it explores some interesting territory. I'd like to see it developed more. Were it illustrative of reality, it might imply that only certain people are hard-wired with the capability for correctly discerningthe Spirit. In the analogy, others may be able to see something that is .000000001 units of wavelength longer or shorter, but they simply do not possess the "hardware" to observe the exact wavelength in question. This leaves room for the appearance of diverse interpretations of the same data, when in reality the data are minutely different.

I would imagine that in such a scenario one would have to leave room for God to be the arbiter of who gains or loses this ability. It could theoretically be gained or lost at any point in one's lifetime.

Does this accurately reflect your thinking on the matter mfbukowski?

It does sound a bit 'elitest', but it might be a sound analogy. It reminds me of McConkies excellent address about our need to "tune in" to the bandwidth on which the Spirit is "broadcasting."

[Bender]

LifeOnaPlate

This seems to operate under the assumption that everyone requires the exact same answer, asks the same questions, etc.. Why operate under that assumption?

I don't make that assumption but many do. Most members would not believe a person can get a No answer to the BoM being true from the Holy Ghost. Everyone should get the same Yes answer to that question if they follow the pattern correctly (Moroni's Promise).What I'm saying is that many people follow similar patterns as Moroni's promise or Alma's experiment, get what they deem as communication from the Divine or positive results in there life as a yes answer to questions they have. Like, Is the BoM true?, was Mohamed a Prophet, etc. Many of the answers are in conflict with other peoples answer such that they all cannot be right. So I think I wouldn't want to come to any certain objective conclusions from my own spiritual experiences because they are to subjective to be relied on.

[J.S. Mill]

I don't think that this really addresses the analogy correctly. If I understand the analogy, it is describing a phenomenon wherein a minority of a population is capable of perceiving a wavelength that the rest of the population is uncapable of perceiving. It isn't a case wherein both perceive and experience the same wavelength differently, instead the majority party simply doesn't experience it at all.

I'm not necessarily sure I buy the analogy yet, but I think it explores some interesting territory. I'd like to see it developed more. Were it illustrative of reality, it might imply that only certain people are hard-wired with the capability for correctly discerningthe Spirit. In the analogy, others may be able to see something that is .000000001 units of wavelength longer or shorter, but they simply do not possess the "hardware" to observe the exact wavelength in question. This leaves room for the appearance of diverse interpretations of the same data, when in reality the data are minutely different.

You're right that I wasn't addressing the analogy specifically. I was making a broader point: that using mental states as sufficient evidence for claims about the outside world just doesn't work.

I would imagine that in such a scenario one would have to leave room for God to be the arbiter of who gains or loses this ability. It could theoretically be gained or lost at any point in one's lifetime.

Does this accurately reflect your thinking on the matter mfbukowski?

It does sound a bit 'elitest', but it might be a sound analogy. It reminds me of McConkies excellent address about our need to "tune in" to the bandwidth on which the Spirit is "broadcasting."

That address sounds a lot to me like "keep asking until you get the right answer".

[Sargon]

You're right that I wasn't addressing the analogy specifically. I was making a broader point: that using mental states as sufficient evidence for claims about the outside world just doesn't work.

But in this case it isn't simply a mental state. It is a real, repeatable scientific observation. Strangely however, it is only available to a minority.

That address sounds a lot to me like "keep asking until you get the right answer".

"The Lord's People Receive Revelation"

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...0004d82620a____

[mfbukowski]

I don't think that this really addresses the analogy correctly. If I understand the analogy, it is describing a phenomenon wherein a minority of a population is capable of perceiving a wavelength that the rest of the population is uncapable of perceiving. It isn't a case wherein both perceive and experience the same wavelength differently, instead the majority party simply doesn't experience it at all.

I'm not necessarily sure I buy the analogy yet, but I think it explores some interesting territory. I'd like to see it developed more. Were it illustrative of reality, it might imply that only certain people are hard-wired with the capability for correctly discerningthe Spirit. In the analogy, others may be able to see something that is .000000001 units of wavelength longer or shorter, but they simply do not possess the "hardware" to observe the exact wavelength in question. This leaves room for the appearance of diverse interpretations of the same data, when in reality the data are minutely different.

I would imagine that in such a scenario one would have to leave room for God to be the arbiter of who gains or loses this ability. It could theoretically be gained or lost at any point in one's lifetime.

Does this accurately reflect your thinking on the matter mfbukowski?

It does sound a bit 'elitest', but it might be a sound analogy. It reminds me of McConkies excellent address about our need to "tune in" to the bandwidth on which the Spirit is "broadcasting."

Yes I think you understand my point.

And this view coheres nicely with the idea that the missionaries are taught to "go out there and find the elect", as well as the notion that we all come here with different talents and abilities from the pre-existence.

I also agree that it is not a politically correct point of view, and does sound elitist. I am sure we could be accused of all kinds of non-democratic things here. But God does not run for office or hold elections.

It may not be politically correct, but what if it is true?

I have always loved the radio analogy as well -- I think that hits the same point as I am trying to make.

If this model works, it could lead us in all kinds of interesting directions. Experience becomes the cornerstone of theology. And if we look at a pragmatic Jamesian model of truth, the statement "I know the church is true" becomes something like "I know that the church works in my life" which is also experientially verifiable. "I have experienced that the church works in my life."

The "bad news" for some is that there is nothing "out there" that is (in principle) unknowable. All we accept "on faith" is in principle verifiable by future experience which has not yet occurred.

And of course THAT fits well with the Alma 32 "experimental model". Faith grows into knowledge by testing and experience. We grow from grace to grace, principle to principle.

I am having another discussion on a Catholic forum with a Catholic ex-mormon who says he has NEVER had a spiritual experience and cannot understand what they are. He has based his decision to join Catholicism on the historic strength which he believes he sees in the Catholic position. To me, it is amazing he is religious at all.

But it is a very frustrating discussion because he really has NO idea what I am talking about when I ask for example -"Well how do you know the bible is true, or that Catholic tradition is true?" His answer will always be some variation of "because it is historical"

It really is as if he is wired differently than I am. The way his mind works is totally alien to the way mine works. He's a nice guy and we are really trying to communicate, but it just is not working. I really thing this is something in the wiring itself.

And when I read the comments here, it is totally different. Most seem to instinctively "get it". It is totally different here than there, and it is more than just doctrinal. We think differently here.

[mfbukowski]

You're right that I wasn't addressing the analogy specifically. I was making a broader point: that using mental states as sufficient evidence for claims about the outside world just doesn't work.

To me, this is very bad epistemology. Of course, as always, it depends on what the terms mean. But it appears to me that you are back into that neo platonic dualism that gripped the western world for 2000 years.

What exactly is a "mental state" and what is the "outside world"? All we have is our experience to even show that there is an "outside world". No I am not a solipsist.

How can you know anything other than your experience? All of us reading this are sitting at a computer of some kind, experiencing that computer through vision and touch. That is our experience. We see it we touch it, we read it.

But aren't these all mental states as well? Our brains are processing and ordering the perceptions of the patterns of light and dark in these letters we are reading, and forming those patches of perception -- those pixels -- into words and concepts and ideas. This is a mental state! It is experience!

We cannot know more about those pixels than what we experience of them. We may be engineers and know exactly how they display on the screen, or we may be dummies like me, in which case it is all a mystery-- and that knowledge affects our perceptions of them.

So how do we perceive anything "out there" which is NOT experience --- NOT a "mental state"? All that you see around you is constructed by your eyes and brain working together to bring all those patterns together.

ALL WE DO, ALL DAY EVERY DAY is "use mental states as sufficient evidence for claims about the outside world". We wouldn't know there was an outside world in the absence of mental states!!! That is called unconsciousness!!

[mfbukowski]

To summarize if a method purports to reveal information on a universal truth. That information should be intersubjective verifiable that is others using the same method should get more or less the same information. If a method is not intersubjective verifiable this is a good reason to doubt the information returned by the given method accurately represents universal truths. The information obtained by spiritual experiences is not intersubjective verifiable therefore this is a good reason to doubt information obtained by internal spiritual experiences accurately represents universal truths.

The problem here is that pesky insistence on "representing universal truth". Truth is a property of propositions, not of the universe. Revelation is communication, and is therefore like discourse -- meant for a specific person at a specific time in their lives.

I challenge you to explain what you mean by anything "representing universal truths", or what it means to "reveal information" on a "universal truth".

The very statement implies that truth exists outside of propositions, that this truth is somehow "universal" whatever that means, and that there exists somehow "information" on this universal truth

So now we have all these entities floating around, truth, information, and a method, all of which are supposedly "universal" but none of which exist.

All we have is experience and propositions. We make propositions about experience. If those propositions are useful in communicating the experience, we call them "true"-- they work- the theory which describes the experience works.

I hear a trumpet. I tell you I heard a trumpet. The proposition communicates useful information. It is "true"

I hear a trumpet. I tell you I heard a french horn. The proposition does not communicate useful information. It is "false"

Einstein predicts that thus and so will occur under these circumstances. Thus and so does not occur. The theory is false

God tells me thus and so will occurr if I live this way. Thus and so occurs. The proposition is true. I know the church is true.

It's really very simple, but 2000 years of neo platonic thinking has clouded our minds. We call that the "apostasy".

Another bugaboo is that everyone will receive the same revelations from God. Not so.

If God really communicates to us individually and knows our circumstances, he will "take us where we are" and lead us in the direction he wants us to go.

This may not be (immediately) to the LDS Church. If I am in siberia and the only church is 25 miles away and is Russian orthodox, would God tell me to become LDS? Possible, but not likely! Probably the best thing for me is to become Russian orthodox for now.

Or if I live in LA and I am addicted and on the street and the only one who finds me and helps me is Baptist, would God tell me to be baptist? I believe he could. It is my best path for now.

Or if I have never had a spiritual experience in my life, but I want to be Catholic, could that be the best thing for me? Possibly.

But if I am "elect" and the Lord needs me right now to become a bishop in his church, will he whap me over the head with a spiritual experience that will turn my skeptical head around pronto? Heck yes!

Or if I am raised in the church and have plenty of time to develop, will he give me many instances of the "still small voice" over years that grows into a quiet powerful testimony? Why not?

Remember, he has eternity to bring to pass our immortality and eternal lives!

So what is "true" for each of us in our eternal quest-- in other words -- what will work for us in our eternal quest - can change according to our circumstances

Truth changes? Of course! It is nothing more than whether or not a sentence communicates something that works. It is a property of propositions, not of the universe.

[Sargon]

The problem here is that pesky insistence on "representing universal truth". Truth is a property of propositions, not of the universe. Revelation is communication, and is therefore like discourse -- meant for a specific person at a specific time in their lives.

I challenge you to explain what you mean by anything "representing universal truths", or what it means to "reveal information" on a "universal truth".

The very statement implies that truth exists outside of propositions, that this truth is somehow "universal" whatever that means, and that there exists somehow "information" on this universal truth

So now we have all these entities floating around, truth, information, and a method, all of which are supposedly "universal" but none of which exist.

All we have is experience and propositions. We make propositions about experience. If those propositions are useful in communicating the experience, we call them "true"-- they work- the theory which describes the experience works.

I hear a trumpet. I tell you I heard a trumpet. The proposition communicates useful information. It is "true"

I hear a trumpet. I tell you I heard a french horn. The proposition does not communicate useful information. It is "false"

Einstein predicts that thus and so will occur under these circumstances. Thus and so does not occur. The theory is false

God tells me thus and so will occurr if I live this way. Thus and so occurs. The proposition is true. I know the church is true.

It's really very simple, but 2000 years of neo platonic thinking has clouded our minds. We call that the "apostasy".

Another bugaboo is that everyone will receive the same revelations from God. Not so.

If God really communicates to us individually and knows our circumstances, he will "take us where we are" and lead us in the direction he wants us to go.

.......

So what is "true" for each of us in our eternal quest-- in other words -- what will work for us in our eternal quest - can change according to our circumstances

Truth changes? Of course! It is nothing more than whether or not a sentence communicates something that works. It is a property of propositions, not of the universe.

mfbukouwski,

Most of us here are not trained philosophers. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say:

"Truth changes? Of course! It is nothing more than whether or not a sentence communicates something that works. It is a property of propositions, not of the universe."

I know you just spend an entire post trying to explain it, but I'm still a bit confused. Perhaps my thinking is 'tainted' by the wrong approach to 'truth'.

You also said this, which I cropped from the above quote:

If God really communicates to us individually and knows our circumstances, he will "take us where we are" and lead us in the direction he wants us to go.

This may not be (immediately) to the LDS Church. If I am in siberia and the only church is 25 miles away and is Russian orthodox, would God tell me to become LDS? Possible, but not likely! Probably the best thing for me is to become Russian orthodox for now.

Or if I live in LA and I am addicted and on the street and the only one who finds me and helps me is Baptist, would God tell me to be baptist? I believe he could. It is my best path for now.

Or if I have never had a spiritual experience in my life, but I want to be Catholic, could that be the best thing for me? Possibly.

But if I am "elect" and the Lord needs me right now to become a bishop in his church, will he whap me over the head with a spiritual experience that will turn my skeptical head around pronto? Heck yes!

Or if I am raised in the church and have plenty of time to develop, will he give me many instances of the "still small voice" over years that grows into a quiet powerful testimony? Why not?

Remember, he has eternity to bring to pass our immortality and eternal lives!

I like this. This sound alot like what Blake Ostler taught in his August 2007 Sunstone presentation.

[Kevin Christensen]

Thank you Kevin. I read your three part essay a few years ago. I need to go back and read it again as you're one of only a handful of Mormons that have seriously treated this topic in philosophical terms. I'm curious, as it's stated do you agree or disagree with my thesis? I get the impression that you might agree with it and go on to state that spiritual experiences of the Holy Ghost are something over and above mere good feelings and that spiritual experiences of the Holy Ghost as something over and above mere good feelings do justify knowledge claims. I'm not convinced of this. Perhaps my thesis would be more controversial if I stated that even if spiritual experiences are defined as something over and above mere good feelings they still don't count toward making a claim to know something and can only count as a good reason to believe something. Any thoughts?

To me your thesis seems reductive. To me, the kinds of experiences that actually support religious faith are more complex than "good feelings," even when the persons involved have not articulated them that way. Individuals are more diverse than that. Sargon mention different preferences in the Myers-Briggs type indicator, which includes the differences between T and F decision making, and could also include the differences between S and N information gathering. I could have brought up different levels of cognitive growth suggested by the Parry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

So I see a wider range of experiences behind a faith commitment. Mormonism is inconvenient, and expensive, not only with respect to time and money, but in its relationship with the outside cultures, something made obvious to me even while I grew up in Utah. Numinous, mystical, moral pull, awe at the creation, reorientation and reconciliation (that is, thinking and feeling changes in response to experience) with respect to questions about the purpose of life, the existence of moral and natural evils, acceptance of death, key historical events, social experiences, ritual and mythic experiences, etc. I see individuals giving different emphasis to different based on personality type, and developmental growth. Before deciding that any individual was basing his faith on "mere good feelings", I'd walk them through my essay, and ask them to reflect a bit further on what they had experienced.

My mother, for example, has said that for her Mormonism is a happy way to live. But I know enough about my Mom's spiritual life to know that I cannot reduce her faith to that statement. Rather, I can expand my perception of her through it.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[LifeOnaPlate]

Like, Is the BoM true?, was Mohamed a Prophet, etc. Many of the answers are in conflict with other peoples answer such that they all cannot be right. So I think I wouldn't want to come to any certain objective conclusions from my own spiritual experiences because they are to subjective to be relied on.

I've never seen or heard of a Muslim making a claim that they know Mohammad is a prophet through the Spirit. Where can I see an example of this?

You're right that I wasn't addressing the analogy specifically. I was making a broader point: that using mental states as sufficient evidence for claims about the outside world just doesn't work.

You assume there is another way to find "sufficient evidence" than through our minds. I'd be interested in what that other way is.

[wenglund]

I think you misunderstand, to think that atheists or agnostics represent to low end and you the high end. It entails you thinking you are correct and they incorrect which I don't think you really know that. Just my opinion They can have just as high expectations but maybe in different things. Your expectations or beliefs may be way off.

Ironically, you are mistaken. My comment spoke mearly to where we each set the bar of expectation and did not suggest who may be correct or incorrect. Where we place that bar is unavoidably contingient upon our respective beliefs regardless of who may be correct or incorrect or "way off' or not. For atheist/agnostics the bar is at best set at ideal humanism, whereas with LDS it is set at godliness. Really, this is simple, straightforward, and uncontroversial, so I am not sure why you are struggling with it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bender]

LifeOnaPlate Posted Today, 09:01 AM

I've never seen or heard of a Muslim making a claim that they know Mohammad is a prophet through the Spirit. Where can I see an example of this?

Thanks for quoting part of the response.

What I'm saying is that many people follow similar patterns as Moroni's promise or Alma's experiment, get what they deem as communication from the Divine or positive results in there life as a yes answer to questions they have. Like, Is the BoM true?, was Mohamed a Prophet, etc. Many of the answers are in conflict with other peoples answer such that they all cannot be right. So I think I wouldn't want to come to any certain objective conclusions from my own spiritual experiences because they are to subjective to be relied on.

I said similar patterns to both Moroni's promise and Alma's experiment to answer certain objective questions that they may have. I'm not trying to say that all religions have a set type of pray to find out if their religion is true, but I do see similar patterns to the LDS model. Muslims are not admonished to pray and ask god if he exists and Mohamed is his Prophet to my knowledge, but I do see similarities in how many of them and LDS gain faith or belief that their religion is true. I think if you get to know enough Muslims that will find that they do experience the spiritual. They may not use the same words and phrases that the Christian uses to describe them. It's these types of experiences as well as the positive results (Alma's experiment) that give people in many religions, and yes even for Muslims, what they would view as proof that their particular religion or beliefs are true.

[mfbukowski]

To me your thesis seems reductive. To me, the kinds of experiences that actually support religious faith are more complex than "good feelings," even when the persons involved have not articulated them that way. ....

My mother, for example, has said that for her Mormonism is a happy way to live. But I know enough about my Mom's spiritual life to know that I cannot reduce her faith to that statement. Rather, I can expand my perception of her through it.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

This is precisely the point I was trying to make as well. On one hand the extraordinary impact that spiritual experiences can make in one's life could never be reduced to a phrase like "good feelings", but on the other, such experiences transcend the ability to communicate them to others. One cannot even communicate simple experiences to those who have not experienced them themselves - as I have said before, if you don't believe that, trying explaining the color red to a blind person.

So we grope around linguistically trying to put together something that at least communicates part of that richness we know inside. The problems occur when we get hung up in that language and forget about the worlds contained in the few words we express.

[Bender]

jadams 4040

Leaving the spiritual "feelings" aside; how are we supposed to ignore or explain away the temporal blessings that come therofe following and living the gospel? {I,m not speaking of financial blessings either}.

I still get lots of temporal blessings as one who no longer believes

[Bender]

wenglund Posted Today, 09:37 AM

Ironically, you are mistaken. My comment spoke mearly to where we each set the bar of expectation and did not suggest who may be correct or incorrect. Where we place that bar is unavoidably contingient upon our respective beliefs regardless of who may be correct or incorrect or "way off' or not. For atheist/agnostics the bar is at best set at ideal humanism, whereas with LDS it is set at godliness. Really, this is simple, straightforward, and uncontroversial, so I am not sure why you are struggling with it.

Ah but you wrote your response for a reason. To me it was to say that your expectations were superior to others. I don't think expectations will really matter in this life or the next. Its what we do here and now that matters.

[Bat-Man]

The problem here is that pesky insistence on "representing universal truth". Truth is a property of propositions, not of the universe. Revelation is communication, and is therefore like discourse -- meant for a specific person at a specific time in their lives.

What you say is true, but "truth" is also universal in the sense that what is true is true, all the time, even though someone may not realize those truths at a particular moment in time.

Example: Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and the Book of Mormon is true.

That is a true statement when seen in the light of truth, or intelligence, even though someone may not realize that truth at a particular moment in time.

I challenge you to explain what you mean by anything "representing universal truths", or what it means to "reveal information" on a "universal truth".

I'm not the one who said it, but I think I understand what he meant, and I hope that what I have said above is enough of an explanation for you, for now.

The very statement implies that truth exists outside of propositions, that this truth is somehow "universal" whatever that means, and that there exists somehow "information" on this universal truth.

Let's try dropping the word "universal" and just consider truth to be truth, even though someone may not realize that truth at a particular moment in time.

Does that work for you now?

So now we have all these entities floating around, truth, information, and a method, all of which are supposedly "universal" but none of which exist.

Truth exists independently in the sphere in which God has placed it.

Does that statement sound familiar to you?

I understand the part of that statement which refers to "sphere in which God has placed it" as a reference to time and place, with time consisting of past, present and future.

The first part of that statement comes across very clear to me, in my perspective.

Truth is indpendent in the sense that it doesn't require someone to know about it or to believe it for it to be truth. Truth is true, regardless of whether or not anyone knows about it or believes it.

All we have is experience and propositions.

Yes, but we also have "we". Let's not skim over that thought, for even a moment.

It's not as if we only have experience and propositions. We also have each other, as well as others, including our Father in heaven, our Lord, the Holy Ghost, etc, etc, etc.

We, as people, are the most important assets we have, and the most important of us are the most advanced of us, which are the ones we should be learning from.

We make propositions about experience.

Yes, that is true, but let's take note of the fact that there is a lot which can be conveyed through that statement than some of us may not realize at this moment.

If those propositions are useful in communicating the experience, we call them "true"-- they work- the theory which describes the experience works.

Yes, but it isn't the fact that we "call them" true which makes them true.

Truth is true whether some of us know it or not.

I hear a trumpet. I tell you I heard a trumpet. The proposition communicates useful information. It is "true"

Yes, and while it is true that you are saying that you hear a trumpet, you may not actually be hearing a trumpet. Perhaps you are hearing a french horn while believing it is a trumpet, or perhaps you only think you are telling me what you hear... ie, the fact that you are saying something you intend for me to hear doesn't necessary mean that I am hearing what you are saying, thus, you aren't really telling me anything even though you are really trying to do that.

I hear a trumpet. I tell you I heard a french horn. The proposition does not communicate useful information. It is "false"

Actually, in truth, your proposition does communicate useful information, whether or not what you are saying is true, and whether or not I can really hear you. You are still expressing what you hear, and that is useful information whether or not I am using the information.

Einstein predicts that thus and so will occur under these circumstances. Thus and so does not occur. The theory is false.

Who is to say that it didn't occur, though?

What if someone tried the experiment and didn't do it quite right, while believing he did?

Hark, someone close by shouts:

I did what you told me to do!

... when, actually, in truth, they either didn't do it right while believing they did it right, or it actually did happen right there in front of their eyes or between their ears and they simply missed it for (whatever) reason... perhaps because they weren't really paying attention, or because they didn't quite understand what they should be looking for, in terms of results.

God tells me thus and so will occurr if I live this way. Thus and so occurs. The proposition is true. I know the church is true.

I agree that it can work that way, but there is a lot that can be said about the "thus and so" that may not be conveyed through your particular statement at this moment in time to a particular individual.

It's really very simple, but 2000 years of neo platonic thinking has clouded our minds. We call that the "apostasy".

Yes, and yet the apostasy involves a lot more than that.

Another bugaboo is that everyone will receive the same revelations from God. Not so.

If God really communicates to us individually and knows our circumstances, he will "take us where we are" and lead us in the direction he wants us to go.

That is true, and I know that is true because I know that God has told me that, personally.

This may not be (immediately) to the LDS Church. If I am in siberia and the only church is 25 miles away and is Russian orthodox, would God tell me to become LDS? Possible, but not likely! Probably the best thing for me is to become Russian orthodox for now.

Or if I live in LA and I am addicted and on the street and the only one who finds me and helps me is Baptist, would God tell me to be baptist? I believe he could. It is my best path for now.

Or if I have never had a spiritual experience in my life, but I want to be Catholic, could that be the best thing for me? Possibly.

I think I can see what you are saying here, and I agree with you while believing that what you are saying is true.

I was a member of another church before I really found out about our Lord's true Church, and I did learn a lot of truth while I was a member of that other church, which I think helped to prepare me to learn a lot more from the true Church of Jesus Christ.

But if I am "elect" and the Lord needs me right now to become a bishop in his church, will he whap me over the head with a spiritual experience that will turn my skeptical head around pronto? Heck yes!

You think so, huh. Hmm. Very interesting.

In my perspective, and in my experience, God's promptings come as a still small voice which we must be still to hear while wanting to know who is God and what He wants from us, rather than a proverbial whack on the head.

I sometimes wish God would give me a big whack to wake me up and cause me to hear him, but it hasn't happened for me, personally, yet.

Or if I am raised in the church and have plenty of time to develop, will he give me many instances of the "still small voice" over years that grows into a quiet powerful testimony? Why not?

That's how it worked and works for me now, except that I wasn't raised in the Church.

Remember, he has eternity to bring to pass our immortality and eternal lives!

Hmm. Well, maybe, but rather than take all of eternity He has alloted only a certain number of years before the final judgment, before which time we will have heard the message and chosen whether or not to believe it.

So what is "true" for each of us in our eternal quest-- in other words -- what will work for us in our eternal quest - can change according to our circumstances

What works, works, though... whether or not we will do the works that it takes to earn the big prize.

Truth changes? Of course!

Actually, No. Truth is eternal, even though it is segregated into past, present, and future situations, or spheres.

Our Lord actually gave His life in obedience to the will of our Father to bring about His eternal purposes, and that will be true forever, even though at this point in time we would say that happened about 2000 years ago while at other times we would say the moment that happened was different.

It is nothing more than whether or not a sentence communicates something that works. It is a property of propositions, not of the universe.

Actually, it is all of that, and more.

Whether or not it works for you, or someone else, is not what makes it true.

What is true, is true, and will always be true, regardless of who knows it and even if they never find out.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for quoting part of the response.

I said similar patterns to both Moroni's promise and Alma's experiment to answer certain objective questions that they may have. I'm not trying to say that all religions have a set type of pray to find out if their religion is true, but I do see similar patterns to the LDS model. Muslims are not admonished to pray and ask god if he exists and Mohamed is his Prophet to my knowledge, but I do see similarities in how many of them and LDS gain faith or belief that their religion is true. I think if you get to know enough Muslims that will find that they do experience the spiritual. They may not use the same words and phrases that the Christian uses to describe them. It's these types of experiences as well as the positive results (Alma's experiment) that give people in many religions, and yes even for Muslims, what they would view as proof that their particular religion or beliefs are true.

I wouldn't deny spirituality to them. Indeed, my own holy book prohibits doing such and in fact explicitly states otherwise. Again, I feel as though you are trying to call into question the nature of spiritual inquiry in regards to various religions, but so far you haven't yet said anything that would effectively question Mormon teachings.

[wenglund]

I was making a broader point: that using mental states as sufficient evidence for claims about the outside world just doesn't work.

Spiritual experiences may not "work" for certain epistemologists in qualifying as a means for deriving 'knowledge" (as they define the term).

However, spiritual experiences do "work" in changing peoples lives for the better and greatly improving the human condition--and isn't that what we are all striving for, including in our pursuit of "truth" and "knowledge".

Think about it. If we are looking for justification for something, wherein lay the far greater value to mankind: philosophers quibbling fruitlessly over the word "know", or people who have had spiritual experiences acting on those experiences and on balance doing much good?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-