Why Is Moroni'S Promise, A Mormon Belief, Considered A Valid Epistemic Test Of Mormon Belief?

[mfbukowski]

Last shot:

Looks like I fibbed a little

If anyone is interested in this approach to theology I want to give my buds in Claremont CA a plug if anyone is interested

http://www.ctr4proce...ourses_Fall.pdf

I certainly don't agree with all they espouse since I am a political conservative- but the ideas are what matter for me- the rest is a little too feely/touchy for my taste, but they are good folks just trying to get by in the world like the rest of us.

But the ideas are where it's at imo.

Edited July 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

Based upon what?? Are you not back to what you are objecting about in the first place?

That the evaluation of their individual merit is to be based on something is my objection. It's not my job to offer that method of evaluation because my contention is that there has yet to be a method of evaluation presented that could resolve certain contradictions. This is why I turn to believers who behave as if the contradiction has been resolved, and request how they have arrived at this conclusion and what justifies their certainty.

Again why should I trust your take? It seems the circle is getting larger in your circular reasoning problem..

You don't have to trust my take. If my method doesn't work, it doesn't make your take any better at addressing the issue I've raised.

Why would that matter? The problem would arise if the answer came from something other than the source in question.

Why would it matter where the method of inquiry and standard of result evaluation came from? Because if it came from the source that method and standard wish to establish, then you are making a elementary error in logic.

Why would an answer come at all if there were no source?

Why would the answer that [X God whose qualities and actions are incompatible with a Mormon God] is the one and only true God be received by a [follower of X God] if there is no [X God]?

I'm surprised you asked such a silly question. Of course, you must believe that there are believers of separate faiths that have arrived at their conclusions because they received an "answer" from a source you believe they have mistaken. Do you not?

Why would you receive an answer if there were no source? As far as trusting that source, that would be difficult to assess without having the answer to evaluate first.

And if you have that answer available for evaluation, by what standard do you evaluate it?

Certainly. You must be exposed to the idea before you can respond to it in some fashion.

Not simply exposed, but convinced.

To be reasonably certain there is an answer? If the answer is uncertain, how then is it an answer?

This is exactly my objection to the "answer" received when applying Moroni's Promise. It falls into uncertainty once the presumptions it depends on are brought into question. The fact that it can't be certain the "answer" you've received is what you think it is... it can't really be an answer. So, why behave as if the opposite is true?

I do if I am the one taking the test. You do if you are the one taking the test.

We each decide what is/is not compelling for ourselves. There is no one size fits all objective sieve through which we each can each filter our questions and answers.

I already understand that your own evaluation determines which standards you develop or accept. I'm asking whether you've developed or acquired the standard independently of the source in question.

I never claimed there was a one size fits all solution. I simply wish to discuss your solution, because you've given every suggestion that you have a solution based on your behavior.

To who??

Now back to what was passed over..

I'm not sure you've justified it properly to anyone. If you would offer your justification, we could work it out.

Neither. I was a casual atheist prior to becoming a mormon.

So, you did not "have good reason to believe in a God that would create a universe in which Moroni's Promise is a valid test for the BOM"?

Then why do you now believe otherwise? This is the same question I've been asking over and over again...

I am suggesting that I had no reason to believe there was a God of any sort. That someone shared a testimony planted the idea that perhaps there could be. That that was a sufficient base upon which to inquire for myself. The result of the inquiry I judged for myself.

And it is evident that the way in which you judged the result has led you to prefer a very specific conclusion over other incompatible conclusions. I would like to consider the merit of this judgement you've made, given that it you must believe it a valid solution to the contradictions I've raised.

Justify to who??

To anyone. Are you certain you've properly justified it to yourself? If you'd like to answer my question, I would like to explain that what I suspect you believe isn't a proper solution. This is the entire point of my thread. I want to discuss justifications. Prove me wrong.

[KevinG]

And not many christian churches are as committed to going door to door to tell people that their religion is the true one (and by implication, everyone else's religion is false) as the LDS church.

Do you have an issue with preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world or the fact that we believe our Church is true? Either of those seem to be pretty fundamental to all Christian religions.

What is it you do if not preaching that the LDS religion is false using a single incident in the Joseph Smith history as justification for your active opposition to the LDS?

At least I'm beginning to see your frame of reference.

[KevinG]

This thread is still mired in a thin caracature of what the LDS testimony is and what the promises of Moroni, James and Alma are. Perhaps a primer in the Gifts of the Spirit would be helpful? Perhaps not?

[shalamabobbi]

That the evaluation of their individual merit is to be based on something is my objection.

If I feel that something is wrong behaviorally, why do I need any justification for that perception? If I can't trust my own perception in the matter how can I trust anyone else's? And if I can't trust anyone else's how can I trust a majority vote on the matter?

Convictions are written inside of us. If I act contrary to those convictions what will I offer as justification for doing so if as you point out the justification is slim to begin with?

Also I have corroboration from the experiences of others concerning bad choices and consequences attending those choices.

My contention is that there has yet to be a method of evaluation presented that could resolve certain contradictions. This is why I turn to believers who behave as if the contradiction has been resolved, and request how they have arrived at this conclusion and what justifies their certainty.

With respect to various extant religions I can investigate them myself to see if the truth claims have any validity. But my perception is my reality in the matter. I can't replace it with someone else's perception. I can't pretend I don't have my perception either. That IS who I am.

Why would it matter where the method of inquiry and standard of result evaluation came from? Because if it came from the source that method and standard wish to establish, then you are making a elementary error in logic.

Ah a conflict of interest. Is that it? Since God is the source of the answer how can I trust Him to tell the truth about Himself?

How can we put God to the test? How can we be certain He is reliable and good?

How indeed? We are back to personal perceptions of the experience and all things associated with it. All I can say is it is the same perception that distinguishes between right and wrong within me to begin with. Again that is all I have. That is what I am.

Why would the answer that [X God whose qualities and actions are incompatible with a Mormon God] is the one and only true God be received by a [follower of X God] if there is no [X God]?

Again I am free to investigate those claims for myself and determine their relative strength and merit. There is also another viewpoint you are ignoring. That is the one where all these other truths are partial but lay in the same direction. If we use the analogy that a mountain represents the truth, then various religions may ascend partway up the slope to varying heights. So rather than the existence of major contradictions we have various degrees of perception of that one reality.

Of course, you must believe that there are believers of separate faiths that have arrived at their conclusions because they received an "answer" from a source you believe they have mistaken. Do you not?

Very few if any that I have personally met. Witness Hughes in this thread denying prayer as the means to where he has gotten himself. So no I don't believe that various answers that are contradictory are being handed out in general.

And if you have that answer available for evaluation, by what standard do you evaluate it?

Again by my perception for that IS who I am. To do otherwise would be to deny everything about my experience as an individual.

Not simply exposed, but convinced.

Not true. Now you are telling me what my experience was??

This is exactly my objection to the "answer" received when applying Moroni's Promise. It falls into uncertainty once the presumptions it depends on are brought into question.

Not quite. The presumptions are nothing of the sort. I never presumed anything at all except to give it a try.

Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose a friend tells you that he knows that a certain one armed bandit in Vegas is ready to payout. Maybe he is someone who participates in the programming of the machines. Really how he claims to know is irrelevant. You decide it is only a buck so what the heck, why not, you give it a shot. You pull the arm and the payout happens as you were told it would. If you find out that the friend was talking out of his arse does it change the reality of the payout? Is not the reality that the machine was about to payout a reality independent of the assumptions if any leading to the pull of the arm?

Likewise the experience obtained when approaching God in prayer is a real experience independent of whatever led you to give it a try.

The fact that it can't be certain the "answer" you've received is what you think it is...

That carries about as much weight as me asserting to you that what you think you did yesterday, you can't be certain of, so why act as though it really happened.

I already understand that your own evaluation determines which standards you develop or accept. I'm asking whether you've developed or acquired the standard independently of the source in question.

Since I have come to accept that my internal sense of what is right and wrong was placed there by God, no the standard is not nor can it be independent from the source in question.

I'm not sure you've justified it properly to anyone. If you would offer your justification, we could work it out.

Could we? How would that work exactly. I trade my perceptions for yours? Or ours together?

So, you did not "have good reason to believe in a God that would create a universe in which Moroni's Promise is a valid test for the BOM"?

Then why do you now believe otherwise? This is the same question I've been asking over and over again...

You are asking for my testimony and experience of 40+ years.

And it is evident that the way in which you judged the result has led you to prefer a very specific conclusion over other incompatible conclusions. I would like to consider the merit of this judgement you've made, given that it you must believe it a valid solution to the contradictions I've raised.

Results over the last 40+ years. It is not a single one time experience I am discussing. And it is over less compatible conclusions rather than incompatible conclusions. I don't believe the contradictions as you've expressed.

[Hughes]

Do you have an issue with preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world or the fact that we believe our Church is true? Either of those seem to be pretty fundamental to all Christian religions.

What is it you do if not preaching that the LDS religion is false using a single incident in the Joseph Smith history as justification for your active opposition to the LDS?

At least I'm beginning to see your frame of reference.

You said:

"DaddyG, on 04 July 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

You have it backwards. LDS did not try to define other peoples view of truth, revelation or knowledge in the OP. It was the other way around. "

I said:

"Hughes, on 04 July 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

If LDS didn't try to define other peoples view of truth, why claim that the evangelical view is apostate? Sounds a lot like telling other people what is true and what isn't."

You said:

"DaddyG, on 04 July 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:

LDS don't try to define truth for anyone else. We offer our own understanding of God's doctrines and invite others to participate. Our view that other denominations are incorrect is an par with every other religion that exists other than perhaps the Unitarians and some liberal Methodists. I don't know many Mormons who hang out on Christian sites and have the gall to tell them they are incorrect using erronious assumptions about their beliefs as evidence."

I said:

"Hughes, on 05 July 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

And not many christian churches are as committed to going door to door to tell people that their religion is the true one (and by implication, everyone else's religion is false) as the LDS church."

First, my only point was your original statement, "LDS did not try to define other peoples view of truth..." is false, because that is exactly the point of going door to door claiming to have the truth.

Second, in reply, no, I don't have an issue with preaching the Gospel. And no I don't think the LDS religion is false based on one incident, there are many things that discredit the LDS faith, in my opinion.

[Honorentheos]

MFB,

Thank you for posting the couple of lengthy explanations. I appreciate the time and thought.

I personally hate when someone tries to respond to a long post in many clips creating an even longer post. I'm also guilty of it myself. So instead I wanted to focus on the single statement that I think speaks to MP's question and mine in order to help the thread move along.

So to answer your question very directly, I do not believe there are "things" in the common-sense view- Dewey would call these "events" which are experiences we all share, and which exist in time. Things literally are our collective experience of them and how we speak of them.

I was wondering how you define these collective experiences? It seems this speaks directly to mine and MP's slightly different questions.

If "things" are defined by collective experience, and MP was direct in saying he didn't feel we could describe things in a platonic way, but that you still needed to account for "things" which it appears is now exactly what you describe above, I think that this deserves more attention.

In my mind, it gets at normalization. In a sense, I think the OP is saying a person who defines the boundary between experiences they will accept to define Mormonism by positive, pro-Mormon definition is not justified in their acceptance of this as defining truth. I'd argue along with that, a person should be obligated to expand their interaction with other's experiences to include the greatest variety of experience possible.

So, how do you define the boundary?

Thanks.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

Also, MFB, you may want to look at this when you say things like the following -

I use arguments from authority perhaps more than I should, but in this world where it seems few are aware of these ideas, I need to reinforce that I am not the only one who believes this, and in fact that most philosophers do think this way, or are at least aware of this point of view are are reacting to it. Those would be the "realists" who are are going "back to the future" in reviving new forms of realism- the mere fact that realism now is a philosophical reaction to the view I am propounding should demonstrate that the view was and is widely held.

Survey Results

External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?

Accept or lean toward: non-skeptical realism 760 / 931 (81.6%)

Other 86 / 931 (9.2%)

Accept or lean toward: skepticism 45 / 931 (4.8%)

Accept or lean toward: idealism 40 / 931 (4.2%)

Something to consider.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited July 6, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

MFB,

Thank you for posting the couple of lengthy explanations. I appreciate the time and thought.

I personally hate when someone tries to respond to a long post in many clips creating an even longer post. I'm also guilty of it myself. So instead I wanted to focus on the single statement that I think speaks to MP's question and mine in order to help the thread move along.

I was wondering how you define these collective experiences? It seems this speaks directly to mine and MP's slightly different questions.

If "things" are defined by collective experience, and MP was direct in saying he didn't feel we could describe things in a platonic way, but that you still needed to account for "things" which it appears is now exactly what you describe above, I think that this deserves more attention.

In my mind, it gets at normalization. In a sense, I think the OP is saying a person who defines the boundary between experiences they will accept to define Mormonism by positive, pro-Mormon definition is not justified in their acceptance of this as defining truth. I'd argue along with that, a person should be obligated to expand their interaction with other's experiences to include the greatest variety of experience possible.

So, how do you define the boundary?

Thanks.

Not really sure what you want here.

You seem to be characterizing a position MP stated about things- perhaps the point would have been better made by him- or perhaps you could quote the post.

"Things" for Dewey do not have "objective existence" in the sense that MP is using the term- I think- maybe I am wrong- since I am not sure of a lot of things MP says- but they literally ARE how they are experienced and used.

A stick is not a stick- it is a lever, a spear, a way of making fire, a pole to hold up a hut. A brick is a weapon, a weight, a part of a house, another thing to grab when you are building a wall, or throw at a demonstration. Their uses are shown through language and passed to others- they are culturally dynamic. Nowadays, sticks power brooms and are handles on rakes, axes and such implements.

The whole notion of "existence" is an abstract throwback to the Greeks- the notion serves no useful purpose in action.

So for Dewey the whole notion of "proving a thing exists" is an absurdity; such a question has no use. Things are as they are experienced- there is no question about a "stick" existing- even thinking that way is a hopeless abstraction. When engaged in action, one does not think about whether or not one's tools "exist" or how this could have any importance whatsoever.

So "things" are experiences and really cannot be said to "exist" somehow independent of their use and utility to us. THAT is not how we experience them. We see them as what we use them for.

A little more about "existence"- can you imagine something which is useful which does not "exist"? It's mere use defines it as "existing". Looking at things this way, there is a way in which unicorns even exist- they are part of the culture- they are symbols of virginity- their images are used in art, and we know one when we see one. Their function is to serve as a symbol of purity and the subject of stories of cultural value.

[mfbukowski]

Something to consider.

Not really, for many reasons. There's no point in discussing this further. I post on that board.

[mfbukowski]

This is another interesting view which fits perfectly with the pov I am putting forth.

We cannot be separated from what is "out there"

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

[Honorentheos]

I'll try a different angle. Simply put, no one here is arguing for platonic forms.

So, previously you said this - "Things literally are our collective experience of them and how we speak of them."

The question being asked stems from an implicit fact about your statement above - the concept "our collective experience" can not be universally inclusive. It has limits. For every person there is a set of people, sources, and subjective experiences that helped to define that thing. And because this set is unique to each individual, each person's definition will be unique, if only very slightly and for the most part in a way that none of us will notice because we don't share the experiences.

So this brings us to MP's question - how can a person have faith in the celestial kingdom if such isn't known to exist? The underlying point is this - in order to believe in a thing called the celestial kingdom, a person must, by definition, have developed this idea through experience defined by a collective of LDS believers. Once a person begins to expand their collective past this group or allows other afterlife ideas into the picture, the collective experience should, again by definition, call the reality of a celestial kingdom into question. It should become more of a belief in a concept rather than an actual thing.

I asked you how you decide where to draw the boundary around the collective that helps define you experiences of Mormon things? Because you have to by your own definition. Your collective can not be universally all-inclusive. Its simply impossible.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Honorentheos

[KevinG]

You said:

"DaddyG, on 04 July 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

You have it backwards. LDS did not try to define other peoples view of truth, revelation or knowledge in the OP. It was the other way around. "

I said:

"Hughes, on 04 July 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

If LDS didn't try to define other peoples view of truth, why claim that the evangelical view is apostate? Sounds a lot like telling other people what is true and what isn't."

You said:

"DaddyG, on 04 July 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:

LDS don't try to define truth for anyone else. We offer our own understanding of God's doctrines and invite others to participate. Our view that other denominations are incorrect is an par with every other religion that exists other than perhaps the Unitarians and some liberal Methodists. I don't know many Mormons who hang out on Christian sites and have the gall to tell them they are incorrect using erronious assumptions about their beliefs as evidence."

I said:

"Hughes, on 05 July 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

And not many christian churches are as committed to going door to door to tell people that their religion is the true one (and by implication, everyone else's religion is false) as the LDS church."

First, my only point was your original statement, "LDS did not try to define other peoples view of truth..." is false, because that is exactly the point of going door to door claiming to have the truth.

Second, in reply, no, I don't have an issue with preaching the Gospel. And no I don't think the LDS religion is false based on one incident, there are many things that discredit the LDS faith, in my opinion.

Show me those anti-evangelical ministries sponsored and paid for by Mormons and your point might stand.

Everyone has people wiling to bash. Justifying anti-mormon ministries based on that is false equivelence.

It seriously blows my mind that a selective use of a single LDS doctrine can justify an all out effort to oppose our missionary work. That takes some serious rationalization. I personally would have no part of that kind of "ministry". There is a far cry from claiming authority (common to most religions) and organized opposition to a specific faith. Very unChristlike IMO.

It does explain why some claiming to be Christians are willing to throw their lot in with Atheism. Hate is not pretty.

Edited July 7, 2011 by DaddyG

[Honorentheos]

Show me those anti-evangelical ministries sponsored and paid for by Mormons and your point might stand.

I was once one. It was called serving a mission. Granted I paid for it myself. But from a non-Mormon view missionary service with the intent of converting people out of other Christian churchs seems to be about the same.

I'm sure you see it differently. But that's to be expected.

[KevinG]

I was once one. It was called serving a mission. Granted I paid for it myself. But from a non-Mormon view missionary service with the intent of converting people out of other Christian churchs seems to be about the same.

I'm sure you see it differently. But that's to be expected.

So missionary work is anti- what exactly?

[Honorentheos]

So missionary work is anti- what exactly?

Did you serve a mission?

[Ares]

So missionary work is anti- what exactly?

This is off topic. Take discussions of missonrary work vs. anti-mormon ministries to another thread.

[KevinG]

Did you serve a mission?

No - I have frequently gone on splits in strong Evangelical and Baptist communities, my son just returned from his mission and I took the lessons from the Missionaries before my conversion. I'm not ignorant of what our missionaries do. Besides basketball in the cultural hall on P-day.

New thread started.

Edited July 7, 2011 by DaddyG

[mfbukowski]

I'll try a different angle. Simply put, no one here is arguing for platonic forms.

No, it was more Aristotle.

So, previously you said this - "Things literally are our collective experience of them and how we speak of them."

Yes, that was one line out of pages and pages and pages I wrote and quoted. But you seem to have fixated on that line.

The question being asked stems from an implicit fact about your statement above - the concept "our collective experience" can not be universally inclusive. It has limits. For every person there is a set of people, sources, and subjective experiences that helped to define that thing. And because this set is unique to each individual, each person's definition will be unique, if only very slightly and for the most part in a way that none of us will notice because we don't share the experiences.

See what you're doing here- because I am sorry that I don't quite know what you are saying. You say that collective experience cannot be "universally inclusive" (not sure what you mean). Then you say we are individuals and unique in interpretation, but only slightly, and besides that doesn't matter.

So this brings us to MP's question - how can a person have faith in the celestial kingdom if such isn't known to exist?

You didn't answer my question in the other post- you persist in asking your questions but answer none of mine. How can something have a function and not exist? How can something be useful and not exist?

You do not understand at all the idea that subjective experiences have a real affect in our lives, so saying that they don't "exist" is absurd. You are stuck in the logical error of misplaced concreteness - after page and page of discussing that, you dismiss it without a reply and simply assert the old paradigm again and again as MP does as well.

The underlying point is this - in order to believe in a thing called the celestial kingdom, a person must, by definition, have developed this idea through experience defined by a collective of LDS believers.

No, as you yourself say in your first few sentences:

And because this set is unique to each individual, each person's definition will be unique,

So which is it, a collective or is it unique to each individual?

Once a person begins to expand their collective past this group or allows other afterlife ideas into the picture, the collective experience should, again by definition, call the reality of a celestial kingdom into question. It should become more of a belief in a concept rather than an actual thing.

Remember how I showed you there were no "actual things"- just experiences? All you do is ignore it all, and repeat the same old question again and again and again and again. Perhaps you see my answers the same way. Good. So be it- let's agree to disagree- again for the billionth time and forget about it.

I asked you how you decide where to draw the boundary around the collective that helps define you experiences of Mormon things? Because you have to by your own definition. Your collective can not be universally all-inclusive. Its simply impossible.

Frankly I am not sure what this means. We are talking about how we speak of things- in a cultural context. I suspect why you are going here is to bring up the old saw that one must be taught how to have LDS prayer experiences - that all LDS are conditioned to see things in an LDS way.

There is of course some truth to this, but that is irrelevant. The truth is- do you think MY personal view of the church is in any way "traditional"? Do you think that my view of reality and truth is in any way your routine LDS view of truth?

No, you see my vocabulary here- you see my understanding of reality in all these posts.

And yet I have had a classic LDS Moroni experience which changed my life. Do you think my "collective" differs from the traditional LDS "collective"?

I honestly would hope we could communicate, but I think that the way each of us speaks and thinks comes from an opposing universe. Genuinely sorry, but its going nowhere.

[mfbukowski]

Honor

If you are saying we LDS speak the language of the pragmatists whereas you speak the language of Aristotelians and Neoplatonists, I would agree completely.

That is our "collective", our vocabulary and our language game.

The restoration, I would argue parallels Dewey's "Reconstruction in Philosophy".

Edit: What I am saying is that we need to alter the LDS vocabulary to speak more clearly in ironist terms, as Rorty would put it.

We are ironists but don't know it. Theistic ironists but ironists nevertheless.

Edited July 7, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

Honor

If you are saying we LDS speak the language of the pragmatists whereas you speak the language of Aristotelians and Neoplatonists, I would agree completely.

No, I'm not saying this. I would be shocked by anyone who would group "we LDS" into a category so specific. Sorry, but that is just a bad comment, MFB. You yourself recognized in this thread that there are LDS who disagree with you. The survey I linked to also shows you are not in a majority (by a long shot I would add) when it comes to philosophy-minded people either. Basically, this is a non sequitur and a diversion from the discussion IMO.

Besides, no one that I see in this thread is trying to counter your point by relying on the language of pure forms. We're taking you at your word and discussing the OP as it relates to your philosophy. I answered all of your questions in the most simple manner possible - I am not making any argument pro-my position. I'm exploring your position.

As to the question you asked earlier,

"You say that collective experience cannot be "universally inclusive" (not sure what you mean). Then you say we are individuals and unique in interpretation, but only slightly, and besides that doesn't matter."

Let's slow down even more then.

Simple question - is your concept of the thing "Cable TV" based on the collective experiences of all humanity through all time, or a smaller set within that possibly infinite set?

Edited July 8, 2011 by Honorentheos

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited July 8, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

No, I'm not saying this. I would be shocked by anyone who would group "we LDS" into a category so specific. Sorry, but that is just a bad comment, MFB. You yourself recognized in this thread that there are LDS who disagree with you. The survey I linked to also shows you are not in a majority (by a long shot I would add) when it comes to philosophy-minded people either. Basically, this is a non sequitur and a diversion from the discussion IMO.

Well frankly I agree with you, with the way this stands. I had even made a smart answer and everything until I went back and saw what I had actually written, and then deleted it.

My recollection was that I had explained this in a further post which I now cannot find. I know I was in a hurry when I typed it and may have hit the wrong button or something- I don't know, but without the further explanation I think your comment is understandable.

First of all I do not want to discuss your survey because that brings another totally irrelevant derail into the discussion- I think that it is a bad sample because it is mostly students who are not that expert on philosophy, and you focused on too narrow a definition of your terms- someone might describe themselves by different variables than the one or two you chose, and besides Pragmatism has a way of becoming unfashionable and then being revived. Remember what I would call Pragmatism, many others would call "postmodernism" but that is another debate in itself. But again, this whole survey thing is an irrelevant question to this thread.

My point though is that I think that LDS theology is, as everyone acknowledges, practically non-existent precisely because it has not been given a "voice" - a "vocabulary" from which it can take flight, because we ourselves have been stuck in the vocabulary of the Platonists- largely because of apologetics. We only fight Neoplatonism with more Neoplatonism which imo is ultimately a mistake. Further, I feel that there are not enough of us educated in Pragmatism to really "get" its potential to define Mormon thought. Certainly there are enough who do- Paulsen is certainly one of those, and others, and I have shown references to Pragmatism and Mormonism before which show conclusively that some do definitely "get" the connection- and I think it is just a matter of time until it becomes fully acknowledged that we are still thinking in Catholic terms, much as the Christians in 180 AD were still thinking in Hebrew terms and just discovering Neoplatonism. After all, we are only 180 years old as a religion, and have not yet found our philosophical/theological voice.

What I said in the "missing post" was that Dewey's "Reconstruction in Philosophy" could very well be seen as a beginning to that vocabulary- that in a sense, his "Reconstruction" indeed parallels the LDS "Restoration".

But that is for another discussion.

Besides, no one that I see in this thread is trying to counter your point by relying on the language of pure forms. We're taking you at your word and discussing the OP as it relates to your philosophy. I answered all of your questions in the most simple manner possible - I am not making any argument pro-my position. I'm exploring your position.

Ok then, I will take you at your word, while waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it has always dropped before......

Let's slow down even more then.

Simple question - is your concept of the thing "Cable TV" based on the collective experiences of all humanity through all time, or a smaller set within that possibly infinite set?

Cable TV? Really?

Well I think that was perhaps a bad choice for you to bring up as a "Thing" since clearly it is a "service" and as such is definitely not something which "exists" in a Neoplatonic way as a "rock" or an "apple", but clearly experiencing it as a service only makes sense for those who have that service.

My personal experience of cable tv is rather limited since I am a skinflint and would never pay money for TV which I nearly never watch- and my kids argue about the channels we already have- so I don't see the utility of it.

But I would say that "cable tv" wouldn't make much sense to someone who was born in 950 BC in New Guinea.

I am supremely curious with where you are taking this, and how it is relevant.

Edit: I am definitely losing it! - just found the "missing post"- post 471 which modified the one you called a "bad post"

Now you have two to answer!

Edited July 8, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Some others who see links with Pragmatism and Mormonism.

http://shaunmiller.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/kant-mormons-and-pragmatism/

http://www.sethpayne.com/?p=824

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_speculative_philosophy/v013/13.2paulsen.html

This was quick- there are many others.

But the best evidence of all is that our own Bill Hamblin's full name is William James Hamblin! This is clearly conclusive proof that all Mormons are followers of William James!!