Correspondence View Of Truth In D&C 93:24?

[Rob Bowman]

D&C 93:24 says, "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." Would it be accurate to conclude from this statement that LDS scripture teaches what philosophers commonly call the correspondence theory or view of truth (i.e., true statements are those that correspond to reality)? This would be as distinct from, say, the coherence theory of truth (truth is a coherent system of thought) or pragmatic theories of truth (truth is a workable or utilitarian set of beliefs).

Just to make my own perspective explicit, I hold to the correspondence view of truth.

[mfbukowski]

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

The question is what does the phrase "things as they are" mean, and more importantly, the epistemological question of how we KNOW "what is".

Please tell me what "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" corresponds to?

Or would you say it is not "true"?

Edited December 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

How can you know anything independent of how you experience it?

How can you express what you experience independent of language?

Everything we speak about is a symbol. Of what? Of the images our brains have put together. There is no way out if it. We cannot know what is "out there" independent of our observations/constructions/interpretations of experience.

There is no way out of it.

[mfbukowski]

Another thought: certainly D&C would not rule out spiritual experience and visions etc as ways of knowing "what is". Certainly those are mental phenomena "known" exclusively to the person who receives the experience.

So clearly D&C could NOT be referring to the correspondence theory as it is generally known today. Though James does espouse a variation of the correspondence theory- it is not really a correspondence theory at all- it is more of a constructivist theory in today's terms. But being a pioneer, that idea did not exist in James time

To what did the visions of the book of Revelation correspond? How can we verify their "truth"?

[blackstrap]

Was God's reality different from our reality when we were is His presence in the pre-mortal existence? Will it ever be the same for us and Him?

[zerinus]

D&C 93:24 says, "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." Would it be accurate to conclude from this statement that LDS scripture teaches what philosophers commonly call the correspondence theory or view of truth (i.e., true statements are those that correspond to reality)? This would be as distinct from, say, the coherence theory of truth (truth is a coherent system of thought) or pragmatic theories of truth (truth is a workable or utilitarian set of beliefs).

Just to make my own perspective explicit, I hold to the correspondence view of truth.

I would be reluctant to equate a revelatory declaration with a statement of philosophical formulation, because the latter may include connotations and implications not supported by, or included in, the former; however, assuming that the two are equivalent, the answer would be yes. I am not at all sure though that the two are necessarily equivalent.

[mfbukowski]

Was God's reality different from our reality when we were is His presence in the pre-mortal existence? Will it ever be the same for us and Him?

Not sure quite what you mean.

I am not saying there is no "reality", just that we cannot know what exactly that means. It is a rather useless concept. If I had my way we would be speaking about observations we can agree on that we all have and observations that are subjective to us and their differences and similarities.

When something strange happens- we might often ask "did you see that?"

The purpose of such a question is often to ask if the other person can "verify" that our eyes are not deceiving us. If they saw it too, we suppose it was an "objective" observation.

On the other hand, subjective observations about emotions and our own personal mental states, can be just as "true" but not objectively verifiable.

[zerinus]

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

The question is what does the phrase "things as they are" mean, . . .

Well, what do you think it means?

. . . and more importantly, the epistemological question of how we KNOW "what is".

In Mormon theology, truth is an eternal constant, and is known or knowable by the Spirit of truth only.

Please tell me what "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" corresponds to?

That is a commandment. A commandment can be neither true of false. The origin of it, however, can be either a true or a false statement. For example, if I said that that is a commandment from God, that could be a true or false statement, depending whether it corresponds with the reality of it having originated from God or not.

Or would you say it is not "true"?

See above.

How can you know anything independent of how you experience it?

How can you express what you experience independent of language?

Everything we speak about is a symbol. Of what? Of the images our brains have put together. There is no way out if it. We cannot know what is "out there" independent of our observations/constructions/interpretations of experience.

There is no way out of it.

In Mormon theology, truth is communicated by the Spirit of truth in a way that is independent of our personal "experience" of it:

D&C 93:

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

Another thought: certainly D&C would not rule out spiritual experience and visions etc as ways of knowing "what is". Certainly those are mental phenomena "known" exclusively to the person who receives the experience.

"Visions" and other "spiritual experiences" notwithstanding, truth is communicated to the recipient by the Spirit of Truth in a manner that is independent of the "experience".

To what did the visions of the book of Revelation correspond? How can we verify their "truth"?

They are truths if John saw them as he claimed he did; and false if he didn't.

[mfbukowski]

Well, what do you think it means?

In Mormon theology, truth is an eternal constant, and is known or knowable by the Spirit of truth only.

I think it is the truth as revealed, just as you do.

Unfortunately, that is not the correspondence theory of truth as it is usually understood.

Honestly, I am on your side. You don't have to argue with me just to argue. I would suggest you read this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

[zerinus]

I think it is the truth as revealed, just as you do.

You think what is "the truth as revealed"?

Unfortunately, that is not the correspondence theory of truth as it is usually understood.

Perhaps; but I among the various philosophical definitions of truth, the "correspondence" theory comes closest to the revelatory one.

Honestly, I am on your side. You don't have to argue with me just to argue.

I am not arguing with anybody. I am merely responding to a post that needed responding to.

I would suggest you read this:

http://plato.stanfor...correspondence/

Why would you suggest that I should read this article?

Edited December 27, 2011 by zerinus

[Storm Rider]

D&C 93:24 says, "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." Would it be accurate to conclude from this statement that LDS scripture teaches what philosophers commonly call the correspondence theory or view of truth (i.e., true statements are those that correspond to reality)? This would be as distinct from, say, the coherence theory of truth (truth is a coherent system of thought) or pragmatic theories of truth (truth is a workable or utilitarian set of beliefs).

Just to make my own perspective explicit, I hold to the correspondence view of truth.

Truth is Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and all that God teaches. Reality, i.e. what happens or what is believed or thought in mortality may not be truth or a reflection of it. In fact, it can be quite contrary to truth.

Our responsibility as children of God is to search for truth, to come to know all truth, and to live by those truths. Truth exists outside of man; it is self-existent and is not dependent upon man's belief to exist.

It may be a system, but only in as much as it is God's way of thinking and doing. However, that type of definition causes me discomfort because it sounds dependent upon man.

[mfbukowski]

Why would you suggest that I should read this article?

So that you will have an understanding of the different philosophical theories of truth.

Philosophy is limited in what it can do; nevertheless, the question asked in the OP was a philosophical one, so I answered it in a philosophical context.

The common understanding of the correspondence theory and its continuing quest for objective evidence is what has lead to scientism. It is a sectarian, pagan Greek notion which the Restoration should have eliminated, but unfortunately it hasn't.

Edited December 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Truth is Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and all that God teaches. Reality, i.e. what happens or what is believed or thought in mortality may not be truth or a reflection of it. In fact, it can be quite contrary to truth.

Our responsibility as children of God is to search for truth, to come to know all truth, and to live by those truths. Truth exists outside of man; it is self-existent and is not dependent upon man's belief to exist.

It may be a system, but only in as much as it is God's way of thinking and doing. However, that type of definition causes me discomfort because it sounds dependent upon man.

The major problem as I see it with the correspondence theory of truth is that it presupposes somehow that we are able to get outside of ourselves, see reality "as it is" and then look at a sentence, look at "reality" and say "Yep- that corresponds"!

How does the word "moon" correspond to that beautiful bright orb we see in what we call the sky? It has nothing to do with the "reality" of the moon- it is a word, a symbol, a stand in, a thought of that observation we all make and CALL "the moon". It isn't the moon, nor does it "represent" it in any real way.

[LeSellers]

As Korzybski said: "The map is not the territory." (I have not read Korzybski for at least four decades, so please don't ask me to expound on this. I'm two-thirds surprised I remembered his name well enough to risk typing it in public.)

Any symbol, word, photo, icon, whatever, is just that, a symbol. "Dog" is not a dog, nor is a drawing of a dog, a photo of a dog, a sculpture of a dog, a dog. Only a dog is a dog, and you cannot tell me what a dog is because your description would be nothing more than your impression of a dog. Even that is transmitted to me by symbols of symbols. We are terribly far removed from reality, and only reality is "truth".

We frequently use the "taste of salt" or "the color red" as an explanation of how faith is both real and inexplicable. I cannot tell you how salt tastes to me, nor how red looks. We assume it to be the same in all (or most) cases, but this assumption is not substantiated by any fact (which, would, itself be unverifiable).

As far as I am concerned, truth can only be understood by celestial beings, by Gods. Part of that will be because, with our Urim and Thummim, we will not use symbols to communicate: our very thoughts will be transmitted directly, mind to mind, and the reality of existence will enter our thoughts without going through experience. At that point, we will "see" the universe and the elements of it that make up our experiences.

Lehi

Edited December 27, 2011 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

So that you will have an understanding of the different philosophical theories of truth.

Well, since you have already done that, why don't you give us the benefit of your experience, and tell us which one of the philosophical theories of truth comes closest to the scriptural explanation, as expressed in D&C 93:24, and why?

Philosophy is limited in what it can do; nevertheless, the question asked in the OP was a philosophical one, so I answered it in a philosophical context.

The OP was trying to see how the LDS definition of truth compares with a philosophical one, which is what I am asking.

The common understanding of the correspondence theory and its continuing quest for objective evidence is what has lead to scientism.

That doesn't stop us from exploring to see which one of them comes closest to scriptural definition, though.

It is a sectarian, pagan Greek notion which the Restoration should have eliminated, but unfortunately it hasn't.

Not sure what that means, you need to explain.

[Rivers]

While I think D&C 93:24 is referring the correspondence theory of truth. I think the coherence theory describes the way many Latter-Day Saints believe in the gospel. Alma 32:21 states that faith is not having a "perfect knowledge." We have faith by first desiring to believe and we nurture our metaphorical seed but praying, reading scriptures, paying tithing, etc. When we do things we receive spiritual experiences and our faith grows. The conclusion that the gospel or the church is true then fits in within a coherent framework of propositions (I receive answers to prayer, I received blessings from paying tithing, and I feel good when I read the scriptures). We make the conclusion that the church is true based on these experience even though we don't necessarily have that "perfect knowledge."

[mfbukowski]

While I think D&C 93:24 is referring the correspondence theory of truth. I think the coherence theory describes the way many Latter-Day Saints believe in the gospel. Alma 32:21 states that faith is not having a "perfect knowledge." We have faith by first desiring to believe and we nurture our metaphorical seed but praying, reading scriptures, paying tithing, etc. When we do things we receive spiritual experiences and our faith grows. The conclusion that the gospel or the church is true then fits in within a coherent framework of propositions (I receive answers to prayer, I received blessings from paying tithing, and I feel good when I read the scriptures). We make the conclusion that the church is true based on these experience even though we don't necessarily have that "perfect knowledge."

A pragmatic theory of truth sees language as an instrument used for specific purposes, so there is a scientific context for speaking about things, a religious context for speaking about things etc. Alma 32 reflects a pragmatic theory of truth and is indeed a pretty good explanation of it. When we exercise faith, or try a principle, we get back "feedback", find out that the principle works for us, and become "justified" in believing the principles we have tried.

The church teaches a coherent context within which one tries different principles, receives blessings, receives spiritual "verification" through experiences and grows from principle to principle. So I would say that although coherence is important, what we believe is more of a pragmatic theory of justification.

Pragmatism allows for the justification of beliefs because the principles are tried and true, so moral principles for example, are proven as "true" because their "proof is in the pudding". Yes, God has given us the golden rule through revelation, but it is just plain clear from living it, that it "works".

So it is true because it is revealed- that is expressing the idea in a religious context, and it is also true because it "works" and has shown itself over the ages to be a principle, if lived, that leads to peace and happiness.

The problem is that in the correspondence theory, there is no way to justify belief in moral principles in a way which is coherent with other methods of justification of belief, so more than one theory of justification is necessary for the correspondence theory of truth.

On the other hand, with a pragmatic theory of justification, the idea that the earth rotates around the sun is true because it "works"- meaning that using it as a theory, we can do useful things like send space vehicles to mars, etc. Based on our experience, without worrying about what mysterious forces may underlie our experience, we can make observations, send a missile to Mars or Saturn, etc and do all sorts of things, without worrying about the "nature of reality". Belief in the theory is justified because it has been shown to "work".

The "nature of reality" becomes irrelevant; all we can really know is that we do something, and it either works or fails to do what we set out to do. If the calculations fail to put the missile in the right spot, there was something wrong with our theory- our explanation, our interpretation, of the data. That's all we have to worry about.

Similarly, in morals, if our goal is peace and happiness for all, if following the golden rule produced chaos and made everyone miserable, it would not "work"; it would not produce the desired results, and so it would be "false".

So there we have one theory, not two or more, about how to justify beliefs which applies equally to science and morals.

Similarly, if we have an experience of a spiritual nature which changes our lives, gives them meaning, and puts us in tune with what we call "God", it gives us peace and gives us a productive life; it could be said that in our lives, those principles we learn, "work". We get what we desire from living those principles- and our lives are changed.

On the other hand, such truths "correspond" to nothing verifiable to anyone but ourselves. For a pragmatist, there is no problem with calling such ideas "justified".

On the other hand, for many correspondence theorists, moral assertions cannot be seen to be "true" because there is no data or evidence to which they "correspond", therefore they cannot be said to be "true"

Hume was famous for making the dichotomy between statements about what "is" and statements about what we "ought" to do.

These are brief oversimplifications because each philosopher comes up with his own blend of how to see these matters, but I think it is a fairly valid description of the strengths of pragmatism as I see them.

[mfbukowski]

As Korzybski said: "The map is not the territory." (I have not read Korzybski for at least four decades, so please don't ask me to expound on this. I'm two-thirds surprised I remembered his name well enough to risk typing it in public.)

Any symbol, word, photo, icon, whatever, is just that, a symbol. "Dog" is not a dog, nor is a drawing of a dog, a photo of a dog, a sculpture of a dog, a dog. Only a dog is a dog, and you cannot tell me what a dog is because your description would be nothing more than your impression of a dog. Even that is transmitted to me by symbols of symbols.

Yep, that nails it. Think of all the nuances of being in a place like Paris- the sights, sounds, smells, feelings, the immersion in all of that and then saying that a map could "represent" all that richness- obviously it can't.

Every word, every sentence, every proposition is a schematic- a distortion of our experiences- which captures only what is necessary for solving a given problem at hand, as a map can only get you from here to there. For me experience IS "reality" even how a particular red Chevy is not just a car, but a reminder of our first car and the trips we made in it, and we are suddenly transformed to being 16 again. None of that can be reflected in a description "a red Chevy".

We are terribly far removed from reality, and only reality is "truth".

I would make some distinctions there linguistically for clarity. In my view, "reality" is that full experience of Paris, or the red Chevy which brings back all the memories etc which cannot ever be fully exhausted by linguistic symbols. On the other hand, linguistic expressions, sentences, propositions, assertions etc or statements of belief are the kind of things which can be "true" or "false". There is no "true Chevy"; but the statement that "That Chevy is red" may or may not be true.

My belief that the Chevy is red can be justified or not- maybe we are seeing the Chevy at 3 AM and think it might be red but can't really tell. Or maybe it is "Maroon" - is maroon really "red"? Or is "rust" color the same as "red"? Is "aquamarine" blue or is it green?

It really doesn't matter unless we are, say, trying to match the paint, or the description of the stolen car says "rust" or "maroon" instead of "red". We go the the paint guy and he says- "Oh- maroon number 7534- sure- I can match it!" At that point, we have shown the proposition "The car is red" is false, and the belief that the car is red is no longer justified, as proven in a practical way that makes a difference. If it doesn't make a difference what we call it, it doesn't matter if it's true or false- such notions don't even really apply until we have a problem- in this case, matching the paint, or verifying that this is indeed the stolen car.

So the truth is not the CAR, it is what is said about the car, and whether or not what is said about the car makes any difference to anyone. If it doesn't make any difference, "maroon" is just as good for our purposes as "red".

We frequently use the "taste of salt" or "the color red" as an explanation of how faith is both real and inexplicable. I cannot tell you how salt tastes to me, nor how red looks. We assume it to be the same in all (or most) cases, but this assumption is not substantiated by any fact (which, would, itself be unverifiable).

Agreed.

And on this next paragraph, let me make one small change so that I can agree fully with it:

As far as I am concerned, truth (what "is") can only be understood by celestial beings, by Gods. Part of that will be because, with our Urim and Thummim, we will not use symbols to communicate: our very thoughts will be transmitted directly, mind to mind, and the reality of existence will enter our thoughts without going through experience. At that point, we will "see" the universe and the elements of it that make up our experiences.

Now THAT is what I would agree with. In fact, I think maybe that it is God's experience which organizes reality for us, similarly to the way our eyes organize what appears to be "real" to us within our limited experience. We cannot "see" radio waves, or "hear" the information they might contain, but I suppose celestial beings could. Just as our mortal eyes organize a very limited spectrum of light into pictures and images, I think God perhaps can "see" all those things beyond that spectrum and use all his senses in an unlimited way. That's pretty speculative, but I think there's something to that idea.

Edited December 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

D&C 93:24 says, "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." Would it be accurate to conclude from this statement that LDS scripture teaches what philosophers commonly call the correspondence theory or view of truth (i.e., true statements are those that correspond to reality)? This would be as distinct from, say, the coherence theory of truth (truth is a coherent system of thought) or pragmatic theories of truth (truth is a workable or utilitarian set of beliefs).

Just to make my own perspective explicit, I hold to the correspondence view of truth.

Joseph Smith could not have been advocating the correspondence theory of truth, because that theory was not invented (in other words, distinguished from alternate theories such as coherence, pragmatism, relativism, etc.) until the 20th century. Correspondence theory is an artifact of modernism, and it would be anachronistic to assign it to Joseph Smith. Smith's view of truth was informed by pre-modern gnostic hermeticism. According to Smith, truth is knowledge, transmitted through the "light of Christ," which is linked to a premordial "intelligence" which is coeternal with God. D&C 93:24 and its surrounding verses place emphasis on the word "knowledge," rather than "things." Truth is a "light" which cannot be created, but can be "received" or transmitted. God happens to have "received" all of it, and he transmits it to his initiates.

As to whether prominent 20th century Mormons have read D&C 93:24 in support of the correspondence theory, I don't know of any examples of this. The prominent modernist Mormon theologians--James E. Talmage, B.H. Roberts, John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Bruce R. McConkie-- were not modernist philosophers. In 1992, a Mormon philosophy professor from BYU named C. Terry Warner wrote an article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Truth) which seems to argue that Mormon "truth" is somehow special and different from all other varieties of truth, including "correspondent," "coherent," "pragmatic," and "relativist" truth. But this view appears to be his own invention, and I don't see any evidence that his view has taken hold as some kind of dominant view within Mormonism. According to Warner, Mormon truth is "an entire way of life--specifically, the way of life exemplified, prescribed, and guided by Jesus Christ." Thus, it seems that Warner is claiming that truth is, by definition, Mormonism, and vice versa. However, he is careful to argue, based on a statement by John Taylor, that Mormonism will assimilate all (non-"gospel") truth discovered by non-Mormons. So Warner's view seems to be philosophically pre-modern, and even anti-modern. Mormons do not need to worry about truth, because once they have melded with Mormon culture, Jesus will guide them and no further critical thought is required, other than to assimilate non-"gospel" truth discovered by non-Mormons.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[zerinus]

While I think D&C 93:24 is referring the correspondence theory of truth. I think the coherence theory describes the way many Latter-Day Saints believe in the gospel. Alma 32:21 states that faith is not having a "perfect knowledge." We have faith by first desiring to believe and we nurture our metaphorical seed but praying, reading scriptures, paying tithing, etc. When we do things we receive spiritual experiences and our faith grows. The conclusion that the gospel or the church is true then fits in within a coherent framework of propositions (I receive answers to prayer, I received blessings from paying tithing, and I feel good when I read the scriptures). We make the conclusion that the church is true based on these experience even though we don't necessarily have that "perfect knowledge."

The Correspondence Theory of Truth is defined in that article which mfb had linked to as follows:

The Correspondence Theory of Truth

Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to a fact—a view that was advocated by Russell and Moore early in the 20th century. But the label is usually applied much more broadly to any view explicitly embracing the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). This basic idea has been expressed in many ways, giving rise to an extended family of theories and, more often, theory sketches. Members of the family employ various concepts for the relevant relation (correspondence, conformity, congruence, agreement, accordance, copying, picturing, signification, representation, reference, satisfaction) and/or various concepts for the relevant portion of reality (facts, states of affairs, conditions, situations, events, objects, sequences of objects, sets, properties, tropes). The resulting multiplicity of versions and reformulations of the theory is due to a blend of substantive and terminological differences.

According to this description, the LDS answer to the question of “what is truth” undoubtedly falls within the “correspondence” family of definitions—but with one vital difference: it is formulated differently from any of the traditional formulations described above, which makes all the difference between it them. According to the same article quoted above, the most fundamental philosophical objection to the “correspondence theory” that has been advanced is that, according to any of the traditional formulations of the theory, truth becomes essentially unknowable:

9.2 No Independent Access to Reality

The objection that may well have been the most effective in causing discontent with the correspondence theory is based on an epistemological concern. In a nutshell, the objection is that a correspondence theory of truth must inevitably lead into skepticism about the external world because the required correspondence between our thoughts and reality is not ascertainable. Ever since Berkeley's attack on the representational theory of the mind, objections of this sort have enjoyed considerable popularity. It is typically pointed out that we cannot step outside our own minds to compare our thoughts with mind-independent reality. Yet—so the objection continues—on the correspondence theory of truth, this is precisely what we would have to do to gain knowledge. We would have to access reality as it is in itself, independently of our cognition of it, and determine whether our thoughts correspond to it. Since this is impossible, since all our access to the world is mediated by our cognition, the correspondence theory makes knowledge impossible (cf. Kant 1800, intro vii). Assuming that the resulting skepticism is unacceptable, the correspondence theory has to be rejected, and some other account of truth, an epistemic (anti-realist) account of some sort, has to be put in its place (Cf., e.g., Blanshard 1941.)

It appears that the Lord was aware of this philosophical objection, and in His revelation to the Church has formulated the doctrine so as to circumvent that objection:

D&C 93:

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

That is, truth is defined in revelation as knowledge. In other words, truth and knowledge are inseparable. Truth doesn’t exist outside the ability of someone to know it. If something is inherently unknown or unknowable, then it is not truth and does not or cannot exist. The ultimate source of that knowledge is God, and we can only know it by His permission, and His willingness to reveal it to us. This is expressed in revelation by the Lord as follows:

D&C 93:

23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

37 Light and truth forsake that evil one.

39 And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.

Thus according to what God has revealed truth is a universal and eternal constant known eternally to God, who is able to make it known to man, through Whom all truth can be known fully and comprehended, to the point that man can become as omniscient as God is, and know “all things”. The philosophers of the “correspondence theory” have not been able to defend their theory against its most serious criticisms because they have not been aware of the deeper implications of their theory, which could have only been known by revelation, and which necessitates the introduction a divine element into their formulations which they have been unaware of. Through revelation Joseph Smith has been able to supply that missing element which would enable philosophers of the “correspondence camp” to defend their theory against its most serious criticism, provided they could believe and apply that added ingredient to their philosophical formulations.

[Cobalt-70]

Thus according to what God has revealed truth is a universal and eternal constant known eternally to God, who is able to make it known to man, through Whom all truth can be known fully and comprehended, to the point that man can become as omniscient as God is, and know “all things”. The philosophers of the “correspondence theory” have not been able to defend their theory against its most serious criticisms because they have not been aware of the deeper implications of their theory, which could have only been known by revelation, and which necessitates the introduction a divine element into their formulations which they have been unaware of. Through revelation Joseph Smith has been able to supply that missing element which would enable philosophers of the “correspondence camp” to defend their theory against its most serious criticism, provided they could believe and apply that added ingredient to their philosophical formulations.

To suggest that Joseph Smith revealed the "missing ingredient" that would allow "correspondence theory" philosophers to defend themselves is deeply anachronistic. "Correspondence" truth was invented after Joseph Smith, so Smith certainly could not have "revealed" or invented the "missing ingredient" to a theory which did not yet exist.

[mfbukowski]

The Correspondence Theory of Truth is defined in that article which mfb had linked to as follows:

According to this description, the LDS answer to the question of “what is truth” undoubtedly falls within the “correspondence” family of definitions—but with one vital difference: it is formulated differently from any of the traditional formulations described above, which makes all the difference between it them. According to the same article quoted above, the most fundamental philosophical objection to the “correspondence theory” that has been advanced is that, according to any of the traditional formulations of the theory, truth becomes essentially unknowable:

It appears that the Lord was aware of this philosophical objection, and in His revelation to the Church has formulated the doctrine so as to circumvent that objection:

D&C 93:

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

That is, truth is defined in revelation as knowledge. In other words, truth and knowledge are inseparable. Truth doesn’t exist outside the ability of someone to know it. If something is inherently unknown or unknowable, then it is not truth and does not or cannot exist. The ultimate source of that knowledge is God, and we can only know it by His permission, and His willingness to reveal it to us. This is expressed in revelation by the Lord as follows:

D&C 93:

23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

37 Light and truth forsake that evil one.

39 And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.

Thus according to what God has revealed truth is a universal and eternal constant known eternally to God, who is able to make it known to man, through Whom all truth can be known fully and comprehended, to the point that man can become as omniscient as God is, and know “all things”. The philosophers of the “correspondence theory” have not been able to defend their theory against its most serious criticisms because they have not been aware of the deeper implications of their theory, which could have only been known by revelation, and which necessitates the introduction a divine element into their formulations which they have been unaware of. Through revelation Joseph Smith has been able to supply that missing element which would enable philosophers of the “correspondence camp” to defend their theory against its most serious criticism, provided they could believe and apply that added ingredient to their philosophical formulations.

I would like to see a longer formulation of this, and would maybe change some of the words, but, incredibly, I think we agree on many points.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Great discussion!

[mfbukowski]

To suggest that Joseph Smith revealed the "missing ingredient" that would allow "correspondence theory" philosophers to defend themselves is deeply anachronistic. "Correspondence" truth was invented after Joseph Smith, so Smith certainly could not have "revealed" or invented the "missing ingredient" to a theory which did not yet exist.

Well I think that is an arguable point at best.

http://plato.stanfor...rrespondence/#1

1. History of the Correspondence Theory

The correspondence theory is often traced back to Aristotle's well-known definition of truth (Metaphysics 1011b25): “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”—but virtually identical formulations can be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b).

I think it is a tad older than you think it is.

Edited December 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

To suggest that Joseph Smith revealed the "missing ingredient" that would allow "correspondence theory" philosophers to defend themselves is deeply anachronistic. "Correspondence" truth was invented after Joseph Smith, so Smith certainly could not have "revealed" or invented the "missing ingredient" to a theory which did not yet exist.

I take it to mean more that he sees correspondence as inadequate and that the implicit theory of truth Joseph was advocating- which arguably is similar to the Swedenborgian view also propounded by William James- both of which affirm that in certain ways, revelation is a "valid" way of knowing certain kinds of truths, that this implicit theory was what correspondence was missing as a theory of truth.

Phew. That was a long sentence. In other words, correspondence does not allow a mechanism for revelation to be rationally justifiable, but Joseph's view, Swedenborg's view, and James' view correct this central flaw in correspondence.

What Zerinus does not say is that when all that is said and done, the theory of truth left after that correction to allow personal "revelation" to be a justified mechanism to achieve what can be called "knowledge" is no longer a correspondence theory, but I think he implies that.

At least that was my understanding of what he said.