According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[CV75]

Thanks for the reply. While the idea of truth being able to “act” based D&C 93:30 appears to have some justification, the idea of light being “acted upon” based on the scriptures cited does not.

Here’s some additional scripture for post #s 129 and 136:

Moses 2: 3-5, “And I, God, said: Let there be light (see D&C 88:11 and related verses); and there was light. And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness. And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake; and the evening and the morning were the first day.”

D&C 88:11, “And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings.”

Edited December 6, 2012 by CV75

[mathonihah]

Here’s some additional scripture for post #s 129 and 136:

Moses 2: 3-5, “And I, God, said: Let there be light (see D&C 88:11 and related verses); and there was light. And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness. And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake; and the evening and the morning were the first day.”

D&C 88:11, “And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings.”

Thank you. It seems to me that the scriptures speak of light, truth, and Spirit as equivalents. Here is an example:

"For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ."

(D&C 84:45).

If truth and light are equivalents, then whatever can happen to truth can also happen to light. If one can act, then the other also can act; and if the other can be acted upon, then the other can also be acted upon.

I think you also need to explain what you mean by "act upon". If I have a piece of information, and use that information to accomplish something (build a computer for example), would you say that that information was being "acted upon"? I don't think that I would use the phrase "act upon" in that sense. I would say that the components that I used to build the computer were being "acted upon," but I wouldn't say that the knowledge I was using to build it was being "acted upon". I used that knowledge to act upon something else, but that knowledge itself was not being acted upon. It seems to me that you are using the phrase "act upon" in that sense, which I don't think is what the scriptures mean when they talk about "things to be acted upon" (2 Nephi 2:13-14).

[CV75]

Thank you. It seems to me that the scriptures speak of light, truth, and Spirit as equivalents.

I agree. The rub has been that I hold that the scriptures also speak of them as different things, and my more recent posts are largely about showing how they are not the same thing.The scriptures speak of them as both equivalents and as different things, depending on several factors. This is why I believe the Scriptures support both views that have been debated, in that objective and subjective truth forms a compound in one.

If we need to continue, I'll ask you to review my prior posts so we don't have to rehash old posts, or I will be happy to consolidate my posts if so requested.

[CV75]

I think you also need to explain what you mean by "act upon". If I have a piece of information, and use that information to accomplish something (build a computer for example), would you say that that information was being "acted upon"? I don't think that I would use the phrase "act upon" in that sense. I would say that the components that I used to build the computer were being "acted upon," but I wouldn't say that the knowledge I was using to build it was being "acted upon". I used that knowledge to act upon something else, but that knowledge itself was not being acted upon. It seems to me that you are using the phrase "act upon" in that sense, which I don't think is what the scriptures mean when they talk about "things to be acted upon" (2 Nephi 2:13-14).

it means both. Sometimes "act upon" means using information or faith, and sometimes it means organizing materials. The same person can do both.

In separating light from darkness, God acted upon materials. In assigning the function of His Son as the Light, He acted upon His faith.

Edited December 6, 2012 by CV75

[mathonihah]

I agree. The rub has been that I hold that the scriptures also speak of them as different things, and my more recent posts are largely about showing how they are not the same thing.The scriptures speak of them as both equivalents and as different things, depending on several factors. This is why I believe the Scriptures support both views that have been debated, in that objective and subjective truth forms a compound in one.

If we need to continue, I'll ask you to review my prior posts so we don't have to rehash old posts, or I will be happy to consolidate my posts if so requested.

Thank you. This sounds like might be a complicated discussion. Not sure if I want to go down that rout.

it means both. Sometimes "act upon" means using information or faith, and sometimes it means organizing materials. The same person can do both.

In separating light from darkness, God acted upon materials. In assigning the function of His Son as the Light, He acted upon His faith.

In English language, to “act upon” can have two completely different meanings. One meaning is to dominate, to control, to rule over. The other meaning is to follow, to obey, to put into action in one’s life.

Using materials to construct an edifice, or exercising dominion to control to govern the lives of others (in righteousness or unrighteousness), are examples of the first meaning. Acquiring valuable knowledge, and then obeying it to reap the rewards (like obeying the word of wisdom for example), is an example of the second meaning. Then I am “acting upon” that piece of information. That means that I am obeying it. I am putting into action in my life. These are two completely different and unrelated meanings of to “act upon”.

In Genesis, when God commands Adam to rule over the beasts of the field etc., it means that he is placed in a privileged position to “act upon” his environment—the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms. He has dominion over them, but they don’t have dominion over him. That is according to the first definition of to “act upon”. But when I am given a valuable piece of information, such as knowledge of the blessings of the temple for example; and I decide to incorporate that piece of information into my life so as to qualify for those blessings; then I can be said to be “acting upon” that information I have received. These are vastly different meanings.

I believe that when the scriptures talk of “things to be acted upon,” they refer exclusively to the first definition of to “act upon”. It means to rule over, to exercise control or dominion over. It is a quirk of the English language that that phrase has acquired these two completely different meanings. It does not follow that when the scriptures speak of “things to be acted upon,” that they have both definitions in mind. I think that only the first definition is to be had in mind.

[mfbukowski]

Elder Bednar gave a talk on this recently (April?)

His basic notion was the difference between being an agent and being acted on by others. No time to look it up at the moment.

[CV75]

I believe that when the scriptures talk of “things to be acted upon,” they refer exclusively to the first definition of to “act upon”. It means to rule over, to exercise control or dominion over. It is a quirk of the English language that that phrase has acquired these two completely different meanings. It does not follow that when the scriptures speak of “things to be acted upon,” that they have both definitions in mind. I think that only the first definition is to be had in mind.

And agents rule over thngs as well as other agents. The Father rules over light (a thing) and Spirit (Christ, who is an Agent who is called the Light).

Edited December 7, 2012 by CV75

[brainburn]

Mfb,

I know you realize how absurd it is to insist that to show realism in LDS sources, I must find the term "realism". I never suggested that. It'd be like suggesting that in order to show pragmatism in LDS sources, I must find the term "pragmatism".

And papa, I know you've been asking for my view of revelation. I have one, but it's not relevant to this thread. I started this thread to figure out what ideas concerning revelation have support in authoritative sources. I'm interested in defining revelation according to LDSism, not according to my agnostic perspective. There's no bait and switch game going on in this thread. My agnostic views are for another day. I'm just trying to understand what scripture and authorities are really trying to say about truth, according to them, not me.

So after finding some useful articles on lds.org and remembering my experiences in the church, I've concluded that realism is clearly integrated into the LDS view of revelation, as well as knowledge and truth. Pragmatic interpretations are definitely included; I don't deny that. It's simply evident that pragmatism is not the only meaningful interpretation of revelation used in LDS sources. A purely pragmatic interpretation fails to make sense of certain quotes and passages. I realized that the easiest way to show this is not to find the word "realism" but instead, the word "reality" and "absolute truth".

After doing some searching for "reality" and "truth", "knowledge", "testimony", etc... it's evident that it's possible to put true knowledge into two categories:

1. True knowledge of personal value. (Pragmatic value)

2. True knowledge of reality or absolute truth. (What mfb, an anti-realist, seems to deny)

Even if we don't call it a correspondence theory of truth, true knowledge of reality or absolute truth requires an implied or maybe "lay" correspondence theory of truth in order to make any sense. It's implicit that if we refer to knowledge of reality as true, we mean that we have knowledge which corresponds to absolute truth. No anti-realist interpretation seems to make sense of this, only realism.

Realism is required if we accept that we can know the scriptures correspond to true events of the past and future. We know the plan of salvation corresponds to past and future events. We have knowledge of the Godhead's true nature and structure of the universe which correspond to true things, plus more.

It's undeniable (and quite understandable) that there is a Mormon model of reality. We know this because God has revealed certain things about the way the universe works, independent of any ideas concerning it. The Mormon model of reality concerns what exists or things as they really are. That's realism. It's clearly described. Much of it is outside of our immediate experience. Much of it includes internal and external realities.

According to these articles, it's clear that we can have true knowledge of many details of this model of reality. Mfb, this is a challenge: Anti-realist interpretation doesn't apply to true knowledge or revelations of reality. If anti-realism denies that we can know some statement corresponds to true reality, then it denies the only sensible interpretation of following quotes:

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

Personal revelation is the way we know for ourselves the most important truths of our existence.

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

The foreverness of this kingdom and the revelations which it brought into existence are absolute realities.

https://www.lds.org/...vision?lang=eng

The Spirit of God comforted my soul at this young age with an assurance of the reality of this sacred moment which resulted in the beginning of a worldwide movement destined to “roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth” (D&C 65:2). I believed Joseph Smith’s testimony of that glorious experience in the Sacred Grove then, and I know it now.

https://www.lds.org/...egiver?lang=eng

A picture of the Savior or His words may not be evident, but you know a testimony of the reality and value of His Atonement has been felt in that hour as it has been this evening.

This quote is special, I think, because it distinguishes between a testimony of reality and value, like I pointed out above.

And here is the only article I really need to prove my point:

https://www.lds.org/...-truth?lang=eng

This true way of life is not just an opinion. There are absolute truths and relative truths.

There are relative truths, and there are also absolute truths which are the same yesterday, today, and forever—never changing. These absolute truths are not altered by the opinions of men.

...whereas revealed facts give us certain absolute truths as a beginning point so we may come to understand the nature of man and the purpose of his life.

We learn about these absolute truths by being taught by the Spirit. These truths are “independent” in their spiritual sphere and are to be discovered spiritually, though they may be confirmed by experience and intellect (see D&C 93:30). The great prophet Jacob said that “the Spirit speaketh the truth … Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be.” (Jacob 4:13.)

God, our Heavenly Father—Elohim—lives. That is an absolute truth. All four billion of the children of men on the earth might be ignorant of him and his attributes and his powers, but he still lives. All the people on the earth might deny him and disbelieve, but he lives in spite of them. They may have their own opinions, but he still lives, and his form, powers, and attributes do not change according to men’s opinions. In short, opinion alone has no power concerning an absolute truth. He still lives. And Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Almighty, the Creator, the Master of the only true way of life—the gospel of Jesus Christ. The intellectual may rationalize him out of existence and the unbeliever may scoff, but Christ still lives and guides the destinies of his people. That is an absolute truth; there is no denying it.

The Gods organized the earth of materials at hand, over which they had control and power. This truth is absolute.

The Gods organized and gave life to man and placed him on the earth. This is absolute. It cannot be disproved.

But I give you these things, not as my opinion—I give them to you as divine truths which are absolute.

Then you may know of these truths just as surely, or more surely, than the scientist knows the metals, or the acids, or other elements.

A few more important facts...

Adam and Eve transgressed a law and were responsible for a change that came to all their posterity, that of mortality.

But the spirit, which is supreme in the spirit and body of man, transcends the body. It does not decompose but proceeds to the spirit world for further experience, with the assurance that after sufficient preparation there a reunion will take place where the spirit will be housed eternally in a remodeled body of flesh and bones. This time the union will never be dissolved, since there will be no blood to disintegrate and cause trouble. A finer substance will give life to the body and will make it immortal.

He actually gave his life and literally took it up again and so will every soul that has ever lived.

This is an absolute truth. It cannot be disproved. It is as true as the near-spherical shape of the earth, and as gravity; as true as the shining of the sun—as positive as the truth that we live. Most of the world disbelieve it, ministers attempt to disprove it, intellectuals think to rationalize it out of existence; but when all the people of the world are dead, and the ministers and priests are ashes, and the highly trained are moldering in their graves, the truth will go forward—the Church will continue triumphant and the gospel will still be true.

Powerful stuff. Notice also claims about what has happened and will happen to everyone. What will happen in the future is undeniably something outside of our experience, yet we can know it is an absolute truth through the spirit of God.

And here is simple and undeniable proof of my point, mfb:

He has given the key. You may know. You need not be in doubt. Follow the prescribed procedures, and you may have an absolute knowledge that these things are absolute truths. The necessary procedure is: study, think, pray, and obey his commandments and teachings. Revelation is the key.

These innumerable promises are epitomized by Moroni in the following: “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moro. 10:5).

Absolute knowledge of absolute truths. All things, including those things outside of our experience. Realism.

And some more very clear claims of absolutely true knowledge of things outside of our immediate experience...

https://www.lds.org/...elieve?lang=eng

“It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God” (History of the Church, 6:305).

All know of the reality of death when the body dies, and each of us also knows that the spirit lives on as an individual entity and that at some time, under the divine plan made possible by the sacrifice of the Son of God, there will be a reunion of spirit and body.

The Holy Ghost is the Testifier of Truth, who can teach men things they cannot teach one another.

I bear witness of these great, transcendent truths. I do so by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ.

https://www.lds.org/...-lives?lang=eng

The Savior’s Atonement made the resurrection a reality and eternal life a possibility for all.

...Prophet Joseph Smith, who said, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Eternal life is a possibility for all. Another reference to knowledge of an objective reality. If we know it's for everyone, how can we interpret this without realism?

Also, in these quote:

https://www.lds.org/...-ghost?lang=eng

I testify that our Savior lives. He is the Only Begotten of the Father, and He will come again on this earth to reign. He is Jesus Christ, the Holy One of Israel, “full of grace, and mercy, and truth. … It is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.” 20 He is the literal Son of God, who rose from the dead on the third day, bringing the reality of resurrection to all who will come to earth. I also testify that God our Eternal Father lives and loves each of us, for we are His children.

https://www.lds.org/...oughts?lang=eng

The Resurrection becomes a reality for all.

https://www.lds.org/...-truth?lang=eng

Divine truth is absolute reality.•“It is vital to know that there really is a God, that there really is a Savior, Jesus Christ, that there really is impending immortality for all men, that there really will be a judgment with genuine personal accountability, and that there really is purpose in life and a divine plan of happiness for man.“When we know such basic truths as these, then we know what really matters, how to approach life and how to view man in the universe. There is great power in perspective. Therefore, the adverb ‘really,’ as used by Jacob [Jacob 4:13], is deeply significant” (Neal A. Maxwell, Things As They Really Are, 4).

Again, can we experience that the resurrection is a reality for all, or just ourselves?

How can we "know" something in the future? How can we know "how to view man in the universe"?

The answer only makes sense if true knowledge of objective reality is possible. An inherently realist idea.

https://www.lds.org/...untain?lang=eng

You and I are faced with the stark question of accepting the truth of the First Vision and that which followed it. On the question of its reality lies the very validity of this Church.

The question of its reality is most important, not pragmatic value.

And some more...

https://www.lds.org/...ly-are?lang=eng

I long have been impressed with the simple and clear definition of truth set forth in the Book of Mormon: “The Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls” (Jacob 4:13; see also D&C 93:24).

We will focus upon the first major element of truth identified in this verse: “things as they really are.” We first will review several key elements of our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness as the doctrinal foundation for knowing and understanding things as they really are.

And in this dispensation the Lord revealed that “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (D&C 88:15). A truth that really is and always will be is that the body and the spirit constitute our reality and identity.

Obedience opens the door to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. And the spiritual gifts and abilities activated by the power of the Holy Ghost enable us to avoid deception—and to see, to feel, to know, to understand, and to remember things as they really are.

And again, how can we deny that things the Spirit tells us actually correspond to a reality the Spirit perfectly perceives and we can't? Is this fact that the Spirit can't lie not clearly an infallible correspondence bridge?

These aren't explicit endorsement of the philosophical definition of the correspondence theory of truth and realism, but that doesn't matter. You can't know of something that will truly come to pass unless your accept that knowledge corresponds to something outside of your immediate experience. Period. There's no getting around it. Prophecy and revelations of reality are realist and must include correspondence to make sense. You can't take an anti-realist position on these matters.

At least, that's what these quotes have taught me. Is there any other way to interpret them that makes sense?

[brainburn]

And mfb,

Claiming the philosophies of men are false is most definitely taking a position on philosophies of men.

[mfbukowski]

Mfb,

I know you realize how absurd it is to insist that to show realism in LDS sources, I must find the term "realism". I never suggested that. It'd be like suggesting that in order to show pragmatism in LDS sources, I must find the term "pragmatism".

And papa, I know you've been asking for my view of revelation. I have one, but it's not relevant to this thread. I started this thread to figure out what ideas concerning revelation have support in authoritative sources. I'm interested in defining revelation according to LDSism, not according to my agnostic perspective. There's no bait and switch game going on in this thread. My agnostic views are for another day. I'm just trying to understand what scripture and authorities are really trying to say about truth, according to them, not me.

So after finding some useful articles on lds.org and remembering my experiences in the church, I've concluded that realism is clearly integrated into the LDS view of revelation, as well as knowledge and truth. Pragmatic interpretations are definitely included; I don't deny that. It's simply evident that pragmatism is not the only meaningful interpretation of revelation used in LDS sources. A purely pragmatic interpretation fails to make sense of certain quotes and passages. I realized that the easiest way to show this is not to find the word "realism" but instead, the word "reality" and "absolute truth".

After doing some searching for "reality" and "truth", "knowledge", "testimony", etc... it's evident that it's possible to put true knowledge into two categories:

1. True knowledge of personal value. (Pragmatic value)

2. True knowledge of reality or absolute truth. (What mfb, an anti-realist, seems to deny)

Even if we don't call it a correspondence theory of truth, true knowledge of reality or absolute truth requires an implied or maybe "lay" correspondence theory of truth in order to make any sense. It's implicit that if we refer to knowledge of reality as true, we mean that we have knowledge which corresponds to absolute truth. No anti-realist interpretation seems to make sense of this, only realism.

Realism is required if we accept that we can know the scriptures correspond to true events of the past and future. We know the plan of salvation corresponds to past and future events. We have knowledge of the Godhead's true nature and structure of the universe which correspond to true things, plus more.

It's undeniable (and quite understandable) that there is a Mormon model of reality. We know this because God has revealed certain things about the way the universe works, independent of any ideas concerning it. The Mormon model of reality concerns what exists or things as they really are. That's realism. It's clearly described. Much of it is outside of our immediate experience. Much of it includes internal and external realities.

According to these articles, it's clear that we can have true knowledge of many details of this model of reality. Mfb, this is a challenge: Anti-realist interpretation doesn't apply to true knowledge or revelations of reality. If anti-realism denies that we can know some statement corresponds to true reality, then it denies the only sensible interpretation of following quotes:

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...vision?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...egiver?lang=eng

This quote is special, I think, because it distinguishes between a testimony of reality and value, like I pointed out above.

And here is the only article I really need to prove my point:

https://www.lds.org/...-truth?lang=eng

Powerful stuff. Notice also claims about what has happened and will happen to everyone. What will happen in the future is undeniably something outside of our experience, yet we can know it is an absolute truth through the spirit of God.

And here is simple and undeniable proof of my point, mfb:

Absolute knowledge of absolute truths. All things, including those things outside of our experience. Realism.

And some more very clear claims of absolutely true knowledge of things outside of our immediate experience...

https://www.lds.org/...elieve?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...-lives?lang=eng

Eternal life is a possibility for all. Another reference to knowledge of an objective reality. If we know it's for everyone, how can we interpret this without realism?

Also, in these quote:

https://www.lds.org/...-ghost?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...oughts?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...-truth?lang=eng

Again, can we experience that the resurrection is a reality for all, or just ourselves?

How can we "know" something in the future? How can we know "how to view man in the universe"?

The answer only makes sense if true knowledge of objective reality is possible. An inherently realist idea.

https://www.lds.org/...untain?lang=eng

The question of its reality is most important, not pragmatic value.

And some more...

https://www.lds.org/...ly-are?lang=eng

And again, how can we deny that things the Spirit tells us actually correspond to a reality the Spirit perfectly perceives and we can't? Is this fact that the Spirit can't lie not clearly an infallible correspondence bridge?

These aren't explicit endorsement of the philosophical definition of the correspondence theory of truth and realism, but that doesn't matter. You can't know of something that will truly come to pass unless your accept that knowledge corresponds to something outside of your immediate experience. Period. There's no getting around it. Prophecy and revelations of reality are realist and must include correspondence to make sense. You can't take an anti-realist position on these matters.

At least, that's what these quotes have taught me. Is there any other way to interpret them that makes sense?

Well I quite honestly appreciate all your work in putting this together, I really really do- in fact I gave you a rep point for your complete answer, and I will let you "off the hook" for your CFR because of all your research and your earnest seeking for understanding of this issue. I also retract any implications I made that you were trolling or any such thing. The effort you put into this post truly demonstrates an interest in understanding these issues. And if that sounds pompous or condescending- I even apologize for that. I think it is clear you are earnestly seeking to understand my position, and for that I am grateful that you would care.

I also appreciate you finally coming clean about you being an "agnostic" which was pretty clear to me from the beginning though you really tried (I think) to sound like a believing Mormon. But that is neither here nor there.

I wish we could sit down somewhere over a cup of your favorite beverage (on me) and kick this around because it still seems though that we have a misunderstanding here.

Please note that my position was never that there is no "absolute truth" nor was it that it is impossible to understand things "as they are" or that we cannot understand "reality". These are all linguistic misunderstandings of what is being said.

I will do my very best to explain my position directly and clearly and hope for the best. After all the effort you have put in, I feel I owe you that, but with our track history I am not optimistic about coming to some understanding.

This is my position as clearly as I can state it in a few words: What I call "reality" is WHAT WE EXPERIENCE SUBJECTIVELY AND/OR COLLECTIVELY. Perhaps I should use the word "collective experience" instead of "objective reality" and that may be illuminating I hope. Hopefully the mere equating of the term "collective experience" with "objective reality" will help.

What I call "collective experience" are things we can experience together- chairs and tables and a glass of root beer, red trucks and Antarctica even though I have never been to Antarctica - because I have read about Antarctica and Ursa Major and Abraham Lincoln and Hammurabi. All these are part of the collective experience of humanity - seen, felt, walked around, seen through telescopes and microscopes and whatso-meters in cyclotrons. All these things- HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING EXPERIENCED BY SOMEONE SOMETIME SOMEWHERE.

WE EXPERIENCE REALITY DIRECTLY- IN FACT REALITY IS WHAT WE EXPERIENCE. I could put an equals sign there - it works both ways- what we experience is real and what is real is what we experience. I experience a "red truck" and I experience God and they are both equally real. I see one and I feel the other in my heart - or however you want to say it- but they are both experience and they are both "real". I experience beauty, I experience fear, I experience trees and houses etc etc- and they are all experience and they are all "real" equally.

I have beliefs about such things as trees and houses and God. Such beliefs are justified and termed "true" because they have been proven- in experience- to be so. My experience of God is true because He has spoken to my heart and I have no doubt whatsoever that He IS. He is my friend, I speak to him and he communicates back- sometimes in nearly audible "words" and sometimes in feelings, sometimes in thoughts streaming into my mind that I know are not "from me"- they are from a Being outside of my self. I have a certainty about such things- I cannot doubt them because I have experienced them directly. I term such experiences "revelations" because I know they do not come from me, but from God.

When I see a red truck, I know it is a red truck. It is "true" and a certain fact that red trucks exist.

There are certain truths which are always true- absolutely. The mathematical laws and postulates like "A=A" is absolutely and always true. They are so because they literally cannot be "false" because they are defined to be "true". What it MEANS to be A is that A EQUALS A. That is what the terms mean. As long as non-contradiction is a rule of reason, such things will be "true"

There are moral facts which are similar- it will always be wrong to kill innocents for example- always absolutely true, and never false. This is true for all of morality rests on such assumptions- all morality itself as a system defines such acts as "immoral" and so it is always and absolutely wrong to kill innocents. To deny that would be to deny that anything is right or wrong. The same with the 10 commandments and many other moral truths. These are like A=A; to have morality and for humanity to survive these principles MUST ALWAYS be followed and are termed "good" precisely for that reason. They are always and absolutely "good".

But guess what.

NONE of these things "correspond" to some world out there BEYOND WHAT WE CAN EXPERIENCE, and there is no way to get outside our experience to see how they "correspond" to anything which supposedly "exists" out there beyond experience.

I don't really care if you call such a position realism or anti-realism, those are just words.

But that is what I think

In my next post to you I will look at some of your specific quotes- at least in spirit though I might do so generically.

[mfbukowski]

And mfb,

Claiming the philosophies of men are false is most definitely taking a position on philosophies of men.

And is therefore contradictory because such a claim was made by someone human, and is indeed a "philosophy of men" itself

Edited December 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

In my next post to you I will look at some of your specific quotes- at least in spirit though I might do so generically.

Better yet- let's do this.

I went through those quotes and could not find a single one I did not agree with or which I felt contradicted my position. So if you still think there are some, please pick out ONE or TWO so I can address them without repeating everything.

For all I know you already understand my position.

(but I suspect not.... )

[mathonihah]

In my next post to you I will look at some of your specific quotes- at least in spirit though I might do so generically.

Better yet- let's do this.

I went through those quotes and could not find a single one I did not agree with or which I felt contradicted my position. So if you still think there are some, please pick out ONE or TWO so I can address them without repeating everything.

I think that before asking him that, you need to clarify your position more clearly. In your previous post, you restated your position as follows (bold mine):

NONE of these things "correspond" to some world out there BEYOND WHAT WE CAN EXPERIENCE, and there is no way to get outside our experience to see how they "correspond" to anything which supposedly "exists" out there beyond experience.

I don't really care if you call such a position realism or anti-realism, those are just words.

But that is what I think

That sounds a bit vague to be honest. None of what things "correspond to some world out there beyond what we can experience"? And what "world out there beyond what we can experience" are you referring to? And how is that relevant to anything anyway? And why do we need to "get outside our experience to see how they "correspond" to anything which supposedly "exists" out there beyond experience"? And what has any of this to do with anything?

The central question seems to me to have been whether truth and reality has an objective existence or not; truth having been defined in scripture as: "knowledge of things as they are, and they were, and as they are to come". Is that a correct definition of truth? Does truth as defined in the above expression exists? If it does, can we know it, and can we be certain of it? Those are the questions around which this discussion seems to have been revolving. Your (bolded) statement in the above post seems more like an attempt to dodge the issue, or to get out of a difficult situation rather than address it.

[mfbukowski]

I thought I would post this here as well as where I originally posted it- it seems relevant to this thread as well.

This wasn't addressed to me but I want to comment on it as if it was.

My testimony IS "me". I could no more deny my testimony than deny that I am "me". I would not know what it means to lose knowing that I am me, and repent of it.

My testimony is part of who I am and I cannot lose it. There is nothing that can take it away from me- I know that God is and that He is part of me and I am part of him.

As for the path of Mormonism to reaching Christ/God, I cannot imagine "losing" that either because it is the perfect description of what I feel about God- what He has revealed to me about Himself.

Now there may at some time be a greater and better description which I might learn, but it would incorporate all I know now as well. In fact, I think that is what is meant by "eternal progression"- an eternal growth in understanding of God, incorporating all we already know, not unlike the way Einstein does not "replace" Newton- but adds to the greater picture. Newtonian physics is still "true" but it is now part of something bigger.

That is the only sense in which I could imagine changing my understanding of Mormonism- if it were to be replaced by something larger, but incorporating what I already know.

And I am sure that will happen some day. Perhaps not in this life, though it would be possible for that to happen in this life, I think.

Is my knowledge "perfect" in the sense of complete? Of course not. Is my certainty perfect in the sense of knowing beyond a doubt? Yes it is.

[mfbukowski]

The central question seems to me to have been whether truth and reality has an objective existence or not; truth having been defined in scripture as: "knowledge of things as they are, and they were, and as they are to come". Is that a correct definition of truth? Does truth as defined in the above expression exists? If it does, can we know it, and can we be certain of it? Those are the questions around which this discussion seems to have been revolving. Your (bolded) statement in the above post seems more like an attempt to dodge the issue, or to get out of a difficult situation rather than address it.

If you are not familiar with philosophical theories of truth including the correspondence view as opposed to coherence or Pragmatism or other views, it is not relevant at all.

For purposes of this thread, truth is definitely knowledge of things as they are, as we experience them. Additional info: http://plato.stanfor...s/truth/#CorThe

Edited December 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

The central question seems to me to have been whether truth and reality has an objective existence or not; truth having been defined in scripture as: "knowledge of things as they are, and they were, and as they are to come". Is that a correct definition of truth? Does truth as defined in the above expression exists? If it does, can we know it, and can we be certain of it? Those are the questions around which this discussion seems to have been revolving. Your (bolded) statement in the above post seems more like an attempt to dodge the issue, or to get out of a difficult situation rather than address it.

This has to do with post #232 where I replied to you by saying that agents rule over things as well as over other agents. The Father rules over light (a thing) and Light (Christ, the Light, an Agent). It does have to do with the scriptures speaking of light, truth, and Spirit as equivalents and as different things, which may not be convenient but is germane to your questions here.

Of course D&C 93:24 (and Jacob 4:13) is a correct definition of truth. But Ether 4:12 and John 14: 6 are also correct definitions. The Spirit “speaketh the truth” and “God also spake the truth.” The Spirit also bears witness of the Father and the Son, also known as the Truth. God and the Son really are, and really will be. We have both subjective and objective elements in the term “truth.”

From the perspective that truth is one’s own knowledge and experience, it is subjective. From the perspective that God is Truth, it is His subjective reality. But from the perspective of observing someone else’ or God’s first-hand knowledge or experience, on one hand it is a second-hand witness of the evidence and on the other hand, the witness of the Spirit is not second-hand. Second-hand evidence might be considered objective, but the observation is itself subjective, and second-hand evidence is not what the Lord provides us.

So I think it boils down to whether the Spirit’s witness is a first-hand or second-hand experience of truth and/or Truth to the recipient of the witness. D&C 88:32 indicates that when we are willing to receive, the witness is of the subjective truth, and when we are not willing to receive, the witness is of that which remains with someone else to actually know. It is the difference between knowing Christ and knowing about Christ; believing Christ and believing in Christ; being like Christ and knowing Christ; ad being one with Christ and like Christ.

[mfbukowski]

The common sense view of how we get to know things is that there are things out there in the world which we can sense, and discover things about, and then somehow make linguistic pictures of those things which we then pass around to each other so that language is a mirror of nature and of reality. Propositions correspond to the way things are in the world- if they correspond, they are called "true" and if they do not correspond to "reality" they are termed "false".

This is called the "correspondence theory of truth" and is extremely simple to understand- if the statement corresponds to reality, the statement is true. This is the way the Greeks saw the world, and the way we have traditionally understood things as the "man in the street" understands them.

But there arises a problem. Do we actually see things as they "really are" or is what we see a construction put together by our brains?

We know that light enters our eyes, for example, and that light is something like a wave and also something like a particle, which in some sense "vibrates" at a certain frequency and is reflected into our retinas, causing specific nerve cells to respond to these vibrations and then firing, and stimulating the optic nerve, which then transmits the signal to the visual cortex of our brains, and then because our brains are constructed as they are, we then experience what we in language abstract to be a "color" and we again abstract that impulse, connecting to verbal centers and we call or define that particular stimulus with the word "red".

But is that object "actually" red, or is it just reflecting light of a certain wavelength which our brain defines with the word we have learned to use which is associated with that brain state? In other words, is that thing "out there" actually "red" or is it just a label our brain affixes to the EXPERIENCE of what is called (defined to be) "red"?

And what is the relationship between that experience called "red" and the word "red"? Do each of us experience "red" the same or not? Color blind people do not experience certain colors the way the rest of us do- we know that because sometimes they cannot tell the difference between different colors. That is the only way we surmise they see things differently than we do because we have an experience, which perhaps we call "aquamarine" which they apparently do not have, since they cannot perhaps distinguish it from what we call "blue" and what we call "green"

So what is reality? Is it what is out there or is it what we experience as out there?

This problem has been one discussed by philosophers for the last two thousand years. Perhaps you have seen it in the form of "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a "sound"? It is essentially the same problem. We presume that sounds are vibrations in the air which our ears sense, and we call that process "hearing". But the problem becomes, if a tree falls and creates such vibrations in the air, should such vibrations be defined by the word "sound"- a word which connotes that someone actually sensed those vibrations and "heard" them- or is such a use of the word inappropriate in such a case?

Well it doesn't take too long before one ends up saying "Who cares? What difference does it make if we call it a "sound" or not? Did the tree really "fall" in a humanly understood sense, and did it make a "sound" in a humanly understood sense. Was that even "real"?

But honestly, who cares if we call such an event as "real" or not?

Isn't that about the way you are feeling right now?

At this instant, if you are feeling that way, you are what we call an "Epistemological Pragmatist" which is a fancy way of saying that you understand that we are now quibbling about definitions and in the geneneral course of things, it really doesn't matter what one calls "real" anyway. Is it "true" that the falling tree made a sound or not? After all, it must be one or the other, right?

Not really. It is a matter of definitions. If you want to interpret the question one way, it is "true" or you can interpret it another way and it is "false".

In cases like these, truth or falsity doesn't really matter much- it just depends on how we somewhat arbitrarily decide to look at it.

I am sure you have seen pictures which you can look at and see either as, say, a rabbit or a duck, or an old lady or a young lady or a staircase going up or going down. Such pictures are designed specifically to be perceived in an ambiguous way, and it all depends on your interpretation of what you see.

These are some of the central problems with the correspondence theory of truth. What is "real" in this way of seeing things? Does it matter how we define what is "real"? How can propositions "correspond" to what is "real" if we cannot define what reality is, or what that correspondence could possibly mean if it is all a matter of our perceptions and how we define them?

These are the issues philosophers have grappled with.

The Pragmatist is one who sees all of the world differently than those who see true statements as "corresponding to reality", so they effectively avoid all the issues such a viewpoint raises. The Pragmatist sees these issues pragmatically- true propositions do not "correspond" to a "reality" beyond what we can see feel and touch with our senses or our emotions- for all practical purposes there is no separation between what is real and what we experience- experience IS reality.

Since experience IS reality- there is, practically speaking, no difference between appearance and reality.

Truth becomes a property of propositions and linguistic statements- it is not a property of reality because we cannot "get down" to a reality beyond our experiences of it. We know how to use the word "true" and "false" and those meanings depend on linguistic contexts- not on any state of some un-perceivable "reality" which only exists in our imaginations.

Truth is always based on some practical use for a particular proposition. "The car is red" is not about a state of the world, but is about our linguistic statement of some experience we have. The car is red because we perceive it as what we call, or define as the color "red".

The practical use of such a statement might be to distinguish a red car from a green one etc.

The practical use of a scientific description would be the fact that such a statement works better in achieving a practical result than some other statement. (Copernicus works better than Ptolemy, Einstein works better than Newton)

Such scientific understandings change from time to time in paradigm shifts which change our definitions and understandings of our collective experience. Copernicus did not change the observational "data" just its interpretation.

Similarly, moral propositions are "true" because they work better socially- societies which do not sanction murder for example are more desirable to live in that those who might oppose those ideas.

So what does this have to do with religion?

Like all other propositions, religious beliefs have nothing to do with some abstract "reality" we cannot see or feel- they are judged by how they function in our lives in giving our lives meaning and peace.

Statements about God, like the statements about the "red car" are about out perceptions and experiences, not about anything else. Religious statements are subjective in the sense that the difference they make is within us- in personal experience, and are not verifiable by others.

But all of the most important decisions or ideas we have as human beings are subjective as well- we decide whom to marry, what is right or wrong, whether or not we should do something perceived as "wrong" or not, based on subjective feelings. There is no objective scientific way to decide what is right or wrong in our lives- whether or not abortion is wrong, which political party to vote for, which church to join, whether or not the historic person Jesus was the Son of God and our redeemer, or not.

[CV75]

The common sense view of how we get to know things is that there are things out there in the world which we can sense, and discover things about, and then somehow make linguistic pictures of those things which we then pass around to each other so that language is a mirror of nature and of reality. Propositions correspond to the way things are in the world- if they correspond, they are called "true" and if they do not correspond to "reality" they are termed "false".

This is called the "correspondence theory of truth" and is extremely simple to understand- if the statement corresponds to reality, the statement is true. This is the way the Greeks saw the world, and the way we have traditionally understood things as the "man in the street" understands them.

But there arises a problem. Do we actually see things as they "really are" or is what we see a construction put together by our brains?

We know that light enters our eyes, for example, and that light is something like a wave and also something like a particle, which in some sense "vibrates" at a certain frequency and is reflected into our retinas, causing specific nerve cells to respond to these vibrations and then firing, and stimulating the optic nerve, which then transmits the signal to the visual cortex of our brains, and then because our brains are constructed as they are, we then experience what we in language abstract to be a "color" and we again abstract that impulse, connecting to verbal centers and we call or define that particular stimulus with the word "red".

But is that object "actually" red, or is it just reflecting light of a certain wavelength which our brain defines with the word we have learned to use which is associated with that brain state? In other words, is that thing "out there" actually "red" or is it just a label our brain affixes to the EXPERIENCE of what is called (defined to be) "red"?

And what is the relationship between that experience called "red" and the word "red"? Do each of us experience "red" the same or not? Color blind people do not experience certain colors the way the rest of us do- we know that because sometimes they cannot tell the difference between different colors. That is the only way we surmise they see things differently than we do because we have an experience, which perhaps we call "aquamarine" which they apparently do not have, since they cannot perhaps distinguish it from what we call "blue" and what we call "green"

So what is reality? Is it what is out there or is it what we experience as out there?

This problem has been one discussed by philosophers for the last two thousand years. Perhaps you have seen it in the form of "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a "sound"? It is essentially the same problem. We presume that sounds are vibrations in the air which our ears sense, and we call that process "hearing". But the problem becomes, if a tree falls and creates such vibrations in the air, should such vibrations be defined by the word "sound"- a word which connotes that someone actually sensed those vibrations and "heard" them- or is such a use of the word inappropriate in such a case?

Well it doesn't take too long before one ends up saying "Who cares? What difference does it make if we call it a "sound" or not? Did the tree really "fall" in a humanly understood sense, and did it make a "sound" in a humanly understood sense. Was that even "real"?

But honestly, who cares if we call such an event as "real" or not?

Isn't that about the way you are feeling right now?

At this instant, if you are feeling that way, you are what we call an "Epistemological Pragmatist" which is a fancy way of saying that you understand that we are now quibbling about definitions and in the geneneral course of things, it really doesn't matter what one calls "real" anyway. Is it "true" that the falling tree made a sound or not? After all, it must be one or the other, right?

Not really. It is a matter of definitions. If you want to interpret the question one way, it is "true" or you can interpret it another way and it is "false".

In cases like these, truth or falsity doesn't really matter much- it just depends on how we somewhat arbitrarily decide to look at it.

I am sure you have seen pictures which you can look at and see either as, say, a rabbit or a duck, or an old lady or a young lady or a staircase going up or going down. Such pictures are designed specifically to be perceived in an ambiguous way, and it all depends on your interpretation of what you see.

These are some of the central problems with the correspondence theory of truth. What is "real" in this way of seeing things? Does it matter how we define what is "real"? How can propositions "correspond" to what is "real" if we cannot define what reality is, or what that correspondence could possibly mean if it is all a matter of our perceptions and how we define them?

These are the issues philosophers have grappled with.

The Pragmatist is one who sees all of the world differently than those who see true statements as "corresponding to reality", so they effectively avoid all the issues such a viewpoint raises. The Pragmatist sees these issues pragmatically- true propositions do not "correspond" to a "reality" beyond what we can see feel and touch with our senses or our emotions- for all practical purposes there is no separation between what is real and what we experience- experience IS reality.

Since experience IS reality- there is, practically speaking, no difference between appearance and reality.

Truth becomes a property of propositions and linguistic statements- it is not a property of reality because we cannot "get down" to a reality beyond our experiences of it. We know how to use the word "true" and "false" and those meanings depend on linguistic contexts- not on any state of some un-perceivable "reality" which only exists in our imaginations.

Truth is always based on some practical use for a particular proposition. "The car is red" is not about a state of the world, but is about our linguistic statement of some experience we have. The car is red because we perceive it as what we call, or define as the color "red".

The practical use of such a statement might be to distinguish a red car from a green one etc.

The practical use of a scientific description would be the fact that such a statement works better in achieving a practical result than some other statement. (Copernicus works better than Ptolemy, Einstein works better than Newton)

Such scientific understandings change from time to time in paradigm shifts which change our definitions and understandings of our collective experience. Copernicus did not change the observational "data" just its interpretation.

Similarly, moral propositions are "true" because they work better socially- societies which do not sanction murder for example are more desirable to live in that those who might oppose those ideas.

So what does this have to do with religion?

Like all other propositions, religious beliefs have nothing to do with some abstract "reality" we cannot see or feel- they are judged by how they function in our lives in giving our lives meaning and peace.

Statements about God, like the statements about the "red car" are about out perceptions and experiences, not about anything else. Religious statements are subjective in the sense that the difference they make is within us- in personal experience, and are not verifiable by others.

But all of the most important decisions or ideas we have as human beings are subjective as well- we decide whom to marry, what is right or wrong, whether or not we should do something perceived as "wrong" or not, based on subjective feelings. There is no objective scientific way to decide what is right or wrong in our lives- whether or not abortion is wrong, which political party to vote for, which church to join, whether or not the historic person Jesus was the Son of God and our redeemer, or not.

This all makes perfect sense to me. How does understanding how something is true and how the same thing is false (the falling tree's vibtrations are a sound but is also not; the car is red in one way but just reflecting a certain wavelength in another) fit into this? It must have something to do with what what one wants to do with the specific point of understanding.

[mfbukowski]

This all makes perfect sense to me. How does understanding how something is true and how the same thing is false (the falling tree's vibtrations are a sound but is also not; the car is red in one way but just reflecting a certain wavelength in another) fit into this? It must have something to do with what what one wants to do with the specific point of understanding.

That's exactly it. The equations to shoot a rocket to the moon are "true" because they work

Alma 32 says that one can know truth because it grows "sweet" to you- in other words, it "works" and achieves the purpose you want.

[CV75]

That's exactly it. The equations to shoot a rocket to the moon are "true" because they work

Alma 32 says that one can know truth because it grows "sweet" to you- in other words, it "works" and achieves the purpose you want.

Great--so the defintions of truth in D&C 93:24 and Jacob 4:13 and in Ether 4:12 and John 14: 6 work for their respective purposes (which seems to be obvious anyway).

[mfbukowski]

Great--so the defintions of truth in D&C 93:24 and Jacob 4:13 and in Ether 4:12 and John 14: 6 work for their respective purposes (which seems to be obvious anyway).

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

Exactly. The way "things are" is the way we see/feel/experience them. There IS no other "reality" we can know or talk about. There is no other "objective" reality beyond the way we see/feel/experience anything- including God's revelations to us.

If there "is" in some sense, it is irrelevant to our lives and the way we live them. It is beyond "knowledge". It might as well be tales of Zykar of the planet Krantz and how saved the universe. Perhaps he did but that is irrelevant to us and is, and presumably will stay, forever unknown.

So when it says "truth is knowledge"- the ASSUMPTION from the beginning is that what is being called "truth" IS knowable.

And the only way we can know anything is through out experience of it. So God speaking to our hearts becomes as "valid" as seeing a red truck. You can know you see a red truck and have no doubt about it. Absolute certainty! You can get in the thing and drive it around without any doubts whatsoever.

And you can also have God speak to your heart and you be just as certain. Both are "knowledge of the way things are".

Now proving that to others is another matter. But notice that "proof to others" requires that others have an experience verifying it to THEM. Maybe there is a picture of you driving the truck. Maybe there is a mileage log which shows an additional 50 miles. Perhaps it would show in finger prints, tire wear, gas burned etc- in other words "objective evidence". Those very words MEAN something you can share with others. That is what we use the word "objective" for- objective experience is experience we can share with others so they also can feel taste and touch the "same" experience.

That doesn't mean that there is some kind of "objective reality" independent of the human mind- just that we can share experiences with other humans with pictures, words, or by repeating an experience with them. Shared experience is what we call "objective reality". But if you think about it- all you are doing is sharing your experience and allowing them to replicate it.

So you can "prove" shared experiences, but you cannot prove subjective experiences you feel inside you because you cannot share them

You cannot share a pain in your toe- but only you know it is there. You cannot share how you feel about a loved one- but you know that "I love Susie" is true. You cannot "prove" it because it is not a sharable experience. No one else can know how your toe hurts or how you love Susie unless you communicate it in language.

But it is just as true that you love Susie as it is that you have driven the red truck or felt God speak to your heart as it is that a scientist saw the whatsis-meter spike at time x showing value y- which confirms that indeed the particle in the cyclotron supposedly "did whatever it did"

Some experiences can be shared, some cannot, but all is still human experience. That is all we can know.

So the importance of all this is that God is just as "real" as anything else humans can know and experience.

Edited December 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And here is the only article I really need to prove my point:

https://www.lds.org/...-truth?lang=eng

I am finally getting to go over these quotes. I love the irony.

The spiritual realm, which is just as absolute as is the physical, cannot be understood by the laws of the physical. You do not learn to make electric generators in a seminary. Neither do you learn certain truths about spiritual things in a physics laboratory. You must go to the spiritual laboratory, use the facilities available there, and comply with the governing rules. Then you may know of these truths just as surely, or more surely, than the scientist knows the metals, or the acids, or other elements. It matters little whether one is a plumber, or a banker, or a farmer, for these occupations are secondary; what is most important is what one knows and believes concerning his past and his future and what he does about it.

This is about the best statement of Pragmatism I have ever seen given by a prophet of the Lord. It is a fantastic quote.

What does it say? The spiritual realm has nothing to do with physical laws.

Each is a "tool" in its own right- you don't learn about spiritual matters in a physics lab nor do you learn physics in seminary.

That is because religious knowledge is subjective in nature while physical knowledge is objective, yet both types of knowledge serve their important purposes in our lives.

Note the reliance on the idea that types of knowledge have "purposes"- that knowledge is instrumental. You use one type of knowledge for one purpose and another type for another purpose! Pure Pragmatism! In fact this is called "Instrumentalism"

You can know spiritual matters with as much certainty as physical matters. I absolutely agree with that and have said so dozens of times on this board. In fact, in the post above, I said

But it is just as true that you love Susie as it is that you have driven the red truck or felt God speak to your heart as it is that a scientist saw the whatsis-meter spike at time x showing value y- which confirms that indeed the particle in the cyclotron supposedly "did whatever it did."

And that last sentence- how great is that? It doesn't matter how you earn a living- it is a matter of personal preference- but what is important in life is what we learn about our purpose in life and how we act on it.

Pure Pragmatism!

Edited December 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mathonihah]

This is about the best statement of Pragmatism I have ever seen given by a prophet of the Lord. It is a fantastic quote.

What does it say? The spiritual realm has nothing to do with physical laws.

Each is a "tool" in its own right- you don't learn about spiritual matters in a physics lab nor do you learn physics in seminary.

That is because religious knowledge is subjective in nature while physical knowledge is objective, yet both types of knowledge serve their important purposes in our lives.

I didn't follow that. Just because they are two different types of knowledge, one must be subjective and the other objective? How? I can't learn chemistry in business school, and I can't learn business in a chemistry lab. That means that chemistry is is subjective and business is objective? How?

[Nathair/|\]

I am finally getting to go over these quotes. I love the irony.

This is about the best statement of Pragmatism I have ever seen given by a prophet of the Lord. It is a fantastic quote.

What does it say? The spiritual realm has nothing to do with physical laws.

Each is a "tool" in its own right- you don't learn about spiritual matters in a physics lab nor do you learn physics in seminary.

That is because religious knowledge is subjective in nature while physical knowledge is objective, yet both types of knowledge serve their important purposes in our lives.

Note the reliance on the idea that types of knowledge have "purposes"- that knowledge is instrumental. You use one type of knowledge for one purpose and another type for another purpose! Pure Pragmatism! In fact this is called "Instrumentalism"

You can know spiritual matters with as much certainty as physical matters. I absolutely agree with that and have said so dozens of times on this board. In fact, in the post above, I said

And that last sentence- how great is that? It doesn't matter how you earn a living- it is a matter of personal preference- but what is important in life is what we learn about our purpose in life and how we act on it.

Pure Pragmatism!

Regarding this line you quoted:

Neither do you learn certain truths about spiritual things in a physics laboratory.

What about Alchemy?

[mathonihah]

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

Exactly. The way "things are" is the way we see/feel/experience them. There IS no other "reality" we can know or talk about. There is no other "objective" reality beyond the way we see/feel/experience anything- including God's revelations to us.

That is not how I read that verse. Things "as they are" means ultimately as they exist in God's knowledge. Objective reality is whatever exists in God's knowledge, which he chooses to reveal to us.

The problem with the remainder of your post is that it erases the distinction between truth and falsehood. The important thing about the definition of truth given in the scriptures is that it also defines falsehood. If truth is knowledge of things as they are, then falsehood is knowledge of things as they are not—in other words, incorrect knowledge or information. If your car is red, and someone tells me that it is blue, then he is giving me incorrect information; and if I believe him, then what I "know" is not true. It is irrelevant that some people with defective vision may see red as blue. It is even irrelevant that the person giving me that incorrect information may have had defective vision and therefore seen it as blue. The truth is that four billion inhabitants of the planet without defective vision see it as red; and if God spoke to me one day and told me to drive my red car to work rather than the yellow car, I would know what he was talking about.

In scripture God speaks of truth as good, and of falsehood as evil. Your pragmatic theory of truth makes it impossible to know for sure which is which.

Edited December 8, 2012 by mathonihah