According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[CV75]

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.

Alma 32 is all about what we experience and then know. The description of what we can do and expect to experience as real and/or true points us to truth and/or knowledge. If one does not experience these things (arouse faculties, experiment, desire to believe, exercise a particle of faith, belief, work, give place, compare, feel, swell, sprout, grow, enlarge, feel, enlighten, taste, increase, strengthen, try, plant, not cast away, bring forth likeness, expand, discern, nourish, bring forth fruit, diligence, faith, patience, looking forward, behold, spring up, reap) he is pointed in the wrong direction.

[volgadon]

What about Alchemy?

Going on a tangent, a certain Moroccan king in the last decades of the 19th century spent considerable efforts and resources in an alchemical venture to destroy the French. Beyond a few accidental explosions and some nasty smells, nothing ever came of it.

Edited December 8, 2012 by volgadon

[mfbukowski]

What about Alchemy?

Because I know you, I will assume this is a serious question regarding magic. Alchemy requires belief in "substance" which is pretty purely Neoplatonic theory which I find philosophically unsubstantiated (pun intended) and scientifically unsubstantiated.

But faith is a powerful thing and how it works- I certainly don't know. So if alchemy works for you, who am I to say it doesn't? It certainly doesn't work for me!

Alchemy is related to transubstantiation- in fact it is kind of a corollary of it. It implies a pretty Catholic view of the world, which is not surprising considering its medieval origins.

[mfbukowski]

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?

I guess I can so how that might be confusing- I was speaking about two variables at once, the difference between types of knowledge and the difference between subjective and objective- all at the same time.

It means something only you know that others do not know, including feelings inside you, pains, thoughts, perceptions, plans you are making and decisions you are about to make. Perhaps you have decided to move to another state but haven't told anyone yet. You "know" you have made that decision but that is subjective knowledge. I regard testimony as "subjective" because no one can tell if you have one or not, but you.

Objective knowledge is knowledge known by others or by all which they can verify for themselves. So it would include the History of the Civil War, the distance to Mars, the composition of the star Ursa Major and whether or not your computer is on a desk or table or your lap. All of those things are verifiable by others and so they are "objective"

The point I was making was that religious knowledge - which can only be subjectively verified- was different than objective knowledge, which can be verified by others. I suppose it was confusing because you also learn other things in seminary besides "having a testimony"- you learn church doctrine etc which in some sense includes "objective" knowledge of what constitutes Mormon Doctrine.

So the proposition "Mormons believe that the Godhead consists of three separate persons unified in purpose" is an objective proposition. Anyone can look up what Mormons believe, go on the website etc and see for themselves what Mormons believe.

But the personal testimony that indeed the Godhead does consist of three persons unified in purpose, known by personal revelation inside of mathonihah, say, is subjectively known to mathonihah only.

For all I know you could be an imposter and not have a testimony at all- that is not verifiable to me. I might be able in principle to look up your membership records and know if you are a member of the church or not- objectively, right there for all to see that you were baptized on such and such a date- but I cannot verify that you have a testimony.

[mfbukowski]

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.

No it doesn't. In fact your example proves it. The fact that four billion inhabitants of the planet without defective vision experience that color as "red" proves that indeed in the languages of the world, it is true that "that car is 'red'", and false that it is blue and thinking that it is blue is "incorrect". That seems blatantly obvious. Your objection does not stand.

But I don't discount that God organizes the larger world- and universes- in His mind and we organize our own little worlds in our minds. It is just that it is not necessary to postulate that idea for the theory to work. One could take that on faith as indeed I do. I like the symmetry of that idea that we as God's children are even now "organizing worlds" without number as each of us live our lives and organize our lives and make something of them which we take with us to the other side, and that we continue doing so into the eternities. To me that is what Mormonism IS and is the unique view which explains all this in that way!

In fact I see chapters like Abraham 4 where repeatedly the gods "call" (define) night at day, and other things into existence. Their very act of defining the words organizes reality. Reality is ultimately socio-linguistic, I believe and that is born out by the scriptures. Remember, ALL that IS was made by "The Word" in John 1- by Jehovah, the personification of the gospel message as the Word- the messenger to mankind, The Son of God.

And this is theory of truth is not "my" theory. I wish it was but I totally stole it!

Variations of this view of truth and falsity are pretty much universally understood by contemporary philosophers to be what "truth" is. Of course they might be "wrong", but it is hard to imagine what that would even mean.

The correspondence theory is deficient as I have said many times. There is no way to verify it itself- we cannot get outside of experience to check anything against it, and it has pretty much been abandoned.

[mfbukowski]

Alma 32 is all about what we experience and then know. The description of what we can do and expect to experience as real and/or true points us to truth and/or knowledge. If one does not experience these things (arouse faculties, experiment, desire to believe, exercise a particle of faith, belief, work, give place, compare, feel, swell, sprout, grow, enlarge, feel, enlighten, taste, increase, strengthen, try, plant, not cast away, bring forth likeness, expand, discern, nourish, bring forth fruit, diligence, faith, patience, looking forward, behold, spring up, reap) he is pointed in the wrong direction.

Exactly! And it fits perfectly with what President Kimball said in the quote about taking action. We learn by testing actions as you have well illustrated.

[mfbukowski]

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.

The more I think about this example the more ironic it becomes. You are not appealing to "correspondence" here- you are not going out to find what what color the car "really" is- you are in effect taking a poll of what others experience and deciding the truth or falsity by what they perceive.

And is you asked those same four billion people if it was right or wrong to kill innocent children for sport, they would agree 99.99999% that indeed it was wrong.

That is because the truth IS that morality works and everyone knows it. Perception works - we know red from blue 99% of the time except in rare instances. That IS what truth is!

I am not saying that truth is decided by a poll and certainly whole nations can be wrong as has been evidenced in the last hundred years.

It is not that it is true because it works- it works because it is TRUE! God teaches us true principles by what actually works in the real world. Being good gives us a better life than being wicked. People like peace and harmony and a happy life. What is the best way to get that kind of life? What leads us to happiness?

We even have a phrase for it - we call it "The PLAN of Happiness" for a reason! That is exactly what it is- and surprise surprise- it works!!

But it is not true because it corresponds to something we cannot see or experience in some Abstract Realm- it is true because it works right here and now and we can see and test the results- here and now. It is Alma 32 generalized to all of reality and all of experience.

I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but I honestly believe that if the whole world simply understood and adopted the principles of Alma 32 and applied them to their entire lives, the world would be an infinitely better place- not because the BOM is scripture- and it is- but because it is just plain TRUE.

As a work of philosophy, it is just plain TRUE. All that William James ever wrote can be seen right there in Alma 32 and as far as I know, he never knew that. But indeed he was, in my opinion, a "closet Mormon" as has been said before.

[mfbukowski]

I find that even more puzzling, as well as disappointing. I wouldn't engage someone in a discussion, and half way through tell them to go and look up my "thousands of posts," as well as blogs, to get the answer to their questions. I would get to the point, and give them direct and straight answers.

Then help me understand what you were talking about.

OK so now are we cool? Can I go on with my life?

[brainburn]

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.

"Off the hook", huh? Ok. I can tell you're actually trying to understand me, as well, so I'll get over it. (And sorry I've taken a while to respond, I've been suffering from a cold or virus or something for the last few days that's seems to be very popular among my friends.) Now maybe you could let me try and show you one more time - at the risk of sounding repetitive - that you're still missing my point... I'll try to tie it in to what you've said as much as possible.

I suspect you still don't understand my point for two reasons:

1. Your definition of reality doesn't explain why LDS sources refer to knowledge of absolute truths and non-relative "realities" which are outside our experience. I fail to see why you don't simply expand your definition to include revealed knowledge of non-experienced reality instead of restricting your definition to what we experience.

I thought I was very clear and gave more than few very powerful examples that show that the LDS definition of reality and theory of knowledge reaches farther than what we experience by trusting God is capable of providing us with that sort of knowledge. LDSism is implicitly realist in that it holds to a model of reality in which human minds perceiving (clearly or darkly) a reality outside our minds, .

2. I don't see any response to these examples of non-experienced realities or my questions concerning them. LDSism requires that we consider true knowledge of "realities" outside of our experience to be not only possible, but must already include many examples of revealed yet non-experienced realities, as demonstrated in "Absolute Truth" by Spencer W. Kimble. He clearly explains that even if everyone was dead and there was no one to experience a certain absolute truth about reality, it's still true reality. Your definition of reality clearly leaves this out. What explains this difference between what Spencer W. Kimble says is possible with God and what you say is not possible?

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.

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.

Yes, "in cases likes these".

Do you realize how this approach to reality sounds in the context of very important revelations about reality?

The truth or falsity of many things sure does matter. Whether we call the plan of salvation a reality matters... or that Jesus and repentance really are the necessary solutions for our sins... or that there really is only one true church and we can pick the wrong one... or that there really is only one true Godhead and Adversary...

Recognize that these are the only things I'm trying to talk about. Not questions about correspondence theory generally but specifically in revelatory matters.

Revelations of absolute truth and reality aren't all "a matter of our perceptions and how we define them". Scripture defines reality and it either matches our perception or not. Reality is already defined in a non-relative sense. You must account for non-experienced, non-relative reality.

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?

I don't mean to condescend, but how do any of your reasons to reject correspondence theory relevant to statements of eternal and absolute truths?

I'm still convinced that revelation of eternal and absolute truth requires a correspondence theory of eternal and absolute truth.

I see "epistemological pragmatism" as incompatible with LDSism because it leaves out the most important purpose of revelation: to establish the correct model of reality to act with. Establishing a foundation of knowledge for a person to make correct decisions with is part of LDS theology. This knowledge foundation includes a very specialized model of reality that we clearly interpret our minds as perceiving (clearly or darkly).

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.

How does this statement mix with Alma 32:21? I'm so confused by you.

[mfbukowski]

Sorry- I have done my best and answered all these before. There's nowhere else to go.

[brainburn]

You haven't told me how your definition of reality accounts for Spencer's absolute truths which he clearly states are true independent of any human experience. Your definition only accounts for knowledge of relative truth when prophetic interpretation clearly accepts knowledge of the non-relative details of reality is possible through the holy spirit. Absolute and relative truth are distinct within LDSism.

Where is your response to the realism inherent in Spencer's view?

[mfbukowski]

You haven't told me how your definition of reality accounts for Spencer's absolute truths which he clearly states are true independent of any human experience. Your definition only accounts for knowledge of relative truth when prophetic interpretation clearly accepts knowledge of the non-relative details of reality is possible through the holy spirit. Absolute and relative truth are distinct within LDSism.

Where is your response to the realism inherent in Spencer's view?

My response is who cares about Spencer?

[Nathair/|\]

Because I know you, I will assume this is a serious question regarding magic. Alchemy requires belief in "substance" which is pretty purely Neoplatonic theory which I find philosophically unsubstantiated (pun intended) and scientifically unsubstantiated.

But faith is a powerful thing and how it works- I certainly don't know. So if alchemy works for you, who am I to say it doesn't? It certainly doesn't work for me!

Alchemy is related to transubstantiation- in fact it is kind of a corollary of it. It implies a pretty Catholic view of the world, which is not surprising considering its medieval origins.

I guess I'm not referring to the kind of alchemy that literally transforms lead into gold, but the kind where the alchemist works on physical matter with the intent that the changes are reflected in the soul of the alchemist.

[brainburn]

My response is who cares about Spencer?

God. And apparently God told him something which contradicts your flavor of anti-realism because it supposes absolute knowledge of absolute truth which is clearly defined as non-relative and independent of any experience. Where is the broken link? Can you explain (helps a bit more than simply asserting) who is misinterpreting what? Where did these ideas come from if not from God?

Edited December 13, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

God. And apparently God told him something which contradicts your flavor of anti-realism because it supposes absolute knowledge of absolute truth which is clearly defined as non-relative and independent of any experience. Where is the broken link? Can you explain (helps a bit more than simply asserting) who is misinterpreting what? Where did these ideas come from if not from God?

What the heck are you talking about?

[mfbukowski]

I guess I'm not referring to the kind of alchemy that literally transforms lead into gold, but the kind where the alchemist works on physical matter with the intent that the changes are reflected in the soul of the alchemist.

Ah- that's very different!

I am not very familiar with that approach but just based on what you said it sounds interesting. If it works to bring you closer to Christ- that is what matters, I should think.

[mfbukowski]

What the heck are you talking about?

Edit: Holy cow are you talking about President Kimball? You call him "Spencer?"

I thought you were talking about Herbert Spencer's view of absolute ethics- why would you talk about a prophet by his first name???

But while Spencer insisted that freedom was the power to do what one desired, he also held that what one desired and willed was wholly determined by “an infinitude of previous experiences” (The Principles of Psychology, pp. 500-502.) Spencer saw this analysis of ethics as culminating in an ‘Absolute Ethics,’ the standard for which was the production of pure pleasure–and he held that the application of this standard would produce, so far as possible, the greatest amount of pleasure over pain in the long run.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/spencer/#H4

I spend all this time writing these posts and you don't even read them- I answered your interpretation of Pres Kimball in post 247 and 246

I'm done. If you are not even going to read what I write- just forget it. It is totally hopeless.

Edited December 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

Edit: Holy cow are you talking about President Kimball? You call him "Spencer?"

I thought you were talking about Herbert Spencer's view of absolute ethics- why would you talk about a prophet by his first name???

http://www.iep.utm.edu/spencer/#H4

I spend all this time writing these posts and you don't even read them- I answered your interpretation of Pres Kimball in post 247 and 246

I'm done. If you are not even going to read what I write- just forget it. It is totally hopeless.

Maybe you should check more than once to see if you understand what I'm trying to say before you jump to conclusions. I only ever mentioned one Spencer. I'm sorry if I didn't mention I'd gotten over the sort of quirky language Mormons use and no longer see the use for myself...

And our conversation is only hopeless as far as we refuse to address the objections raised by the other. I want to respond to your thoughts in posts 246 and 247. I will. But just realize that I already understand the points you made in them... I just think you're leaving something out. I'm pushing you still to show me how you apply anti-realism to a very relevant fact. That fact is an official LDS belief (absolute knowledge of absolute truth) described and interpreted by a prophet: When Spencer talks about how absolute knowledge of a absolute truth is possible, it's very clear that he includes knowledge of a specialized model of reality which is true independent of human experience. A model we which is clearly realist because we understand that it describes a reality independent of our experience for us to experience. Restricting what we can know to what we can experience excludes certain parts of theology and I think this is very easy to demonstrate..

But before I jump into attempting to demonstrate that one more time (and how it relates to post 246/247)... There are some important things I want to clarify about your position:

It would seem from what you explained that the only statements you contend we can subjectively or objectively consider "true" must be propositions about experience. Is this a fair description of your approach?

And could you explain exactly what this means:

That is because religious knowledge is subjective in nature while physical knowledge is objective

Edited December 14, 2012 by brainburn

[mathonihah]

Perhaps these verses can help move the discussion forward:

"Yea, they shall know

of a surety

that these things are true, for from heaven will I declare it unto them.

"I will give them

power

that they may behold and view these things

as they are;

"And to

none else

will I grant this power, to receive

this same testimony

among this generation, ..." (D&C 5:12–14)

"And a commandment I give unto thee—that thou shalt write for him; and the scriptures shall be given,

even as they are in mine own bosom,

to the salvation of mine own elect;" (D&C 35:20)

"They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they

see as they are seen, and know as they are known,

having received of his fulness and of his grace;" (D&C 76:94).

Some thoughtful questions:

(1) How can God give the three witnesses "power that they may behold and view these things as they are;" beyond the experiential knowledge gained from handling the plates, which the eight witnesses had? Why is that a more "sure" way (of a surety) of knowing something?

(2) In what way do the scriptures "as they exist in God's own bosom" differ from the way they are transmitted by other means? Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon, or did he transmit them to us "as they exist in God's own bosom"? And what does that actually mean?

(3) What does it mean to "see as you are seen, and know as you are known"? It seems to suggest stepping outside of your own experience to know things, which is a higher level of consciousness than knowing them through your own experience.

Edited December 14, 2012 by mathonihah

[mfbukowski]

That fact is an official LDS belief (absolute knowledge of absolute truth) described and interpreted by a prophet: When Spencer talks about how absolute knowledge of a absolute truth is possible, it's very clear that he includes knowledge of a specialized model of reality which is true independent of human experience.

Disagree. The whole notion is absurd. How can you know something you cannot experience- nor has anyone ever experienced ? You know it but have not experienced it, not thought about it- it is not "in your mind" at all. And besides we are talking about the truth of a proposition which has never been spoken, because to do so a human would have to speak the proposition which would put it into someone's experience- into someone's "mind".

Ok- sure. Totally absurd. Bye. I am SO done.

[volgadon]

Perhaps these verses can help move the discussion forward:

"Yea, they shall know

of a surety

that these things are true, for from heaven will I declare it unto them.

"I will give them

power

that they may behold and view these things

as they are;

"And to

none else

will I grant this power, to receive

this same testimony

among this generation, ..." (D&C 5:12–14)

"And a commandment I give unto thee—that thou shalt write for him; and the scriptures shall be given,

even as they are in mine own bosom,

to the salvation of mine own elect;" (D&C 35:20)

"They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they

see as they are seen, and know as they are known,

having received of his fulness and of his grace;" (D&C 76:94).

Some thoughtful questions:

(1) How can God give the three witnesses "power that they may behold and view these things as they are;" beyond the experiential knowledge gained from handling the plates, which the eight witnesses had? Why is that a more "sure" way (of a surety) of knowing something?

(2) In what way do the scriptures "as they exist in God's own bosom" differ from the way they are transmitted by other means? Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon, or did he transmit them to us "as they exist in God's own bosom"? And what does that actually mean?

(3) What does it mean to "see as you are seen, and know as you are known"? It seems to suggest stepping outside of your own experience to know things, which is a higher level of consciousness than knowing them through your own experience.

This speaks to the fact that what we see now, what could be called objective really, is NOT how things really are.

[mfbukowski]

(3) What does it mean to "see as you are seen, and know as you are known"? It seems to suggest stepping outside of your own experience to know things, which is a higher level of consciousness than knowing them through your own experience.

IT MIGHT BE A "HIGHER LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS BUT IT IS STILL OUR CONSCIOUSNESS!!!!!!!!!!!"

Please read exactly what those words say. To see AS YOU ARE SEEN. Who is doing the seeing? God? God is a human. - yes infinitely glorified but a human!

WE WILL UNDERSTAND AS GOD UNDERSTANDS- ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER. FATHER TEACHING CHILD. GOD TEACHING GOD IN EMBRYO

To "know as you are known?" How does God know us? How do we know him? As humans know each other! Search for the word "friend" in D&C and see how many times it says that Christ wants us to see him as our "friend".

AND HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE: Who is the promise made to that WE will "see as we are seen"?? TO US!!!!

WE will see as we are seen and know as we are known. THAT PUTS IT SQUARELY IN TERMS OF OUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

Please please please notice that I am including SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE in the realm of human experience- because we are spiritual beings!

So anything we can experience spiritually- including theophanies - is OUR EXPERIENCE! There IS nothing more sure than what we have experienced for ourselves.

[mfbukowski]

This speaks to the fact that what we see now, what could be called objective really, is NOT how things really are.

Nor how we will experience them. But still it IS "WE" who will be doing the experiencing. Our experience will be magnified to see as he sees- but it is still our "selves" who will be doing the experiencing.

We will never "escape" human experience as long as we are human. We cannot!

What it seems that is not getting across is that all anyone knows or ever will know or ever can know is human experience. So in this respect, science and religion simply describe the same phenomena- human experience- in different ways.

I don't know why LDS people fight against this idea when all I am doing is showing how contemporary philosophy gives us a basis for seeing spiritual experience being as "valid" as science. Why LDS people would fight that, and want to go back to Neoplatonic ways of seeing the universe, I have no idea.

Those ideas should have gone out with the Restoration.

[CV75]

(1) How can God give the three witnesses "power that they may behold and view these things as they are;" beyond the experiential knowledge gained from handling the plates, which the eight witnesses had? Why is that a more "sure" way (of a surety) of knowing something?

When the spiritual and the physical (or elemental) are brought together, we have a fullness of experience. The Atonement is about bringing (experiencing) heaven and earth together, physically and spiritually.

(2) In what way do the scriptures "as they exist in God's own bosom" differ from the way they are transmitted by other means? Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon, or did he transmit them to us "as they exist in God's own bosom"? And what does that actually mean?

The phrase is “even as they are in my bosom,” not “even as they exist in my bosom.” I see a subtle difference. “Even as they are” conveys that the scriptures in His bosom are what are on His mind for the moment to share in relation to Joseph’s translation of the Bible, while “even as they exist” would convey all that all scriptures ever were, are, and will be in His bosom / on His mind, whether he reveals them or not. This verse applies to what the Lord is revealing to Joseph and Sydney for a specific purpose in addition to what had been revealed and until He reveals more.

(3) What does it mean to "see as you are seen, and know as you are known"? It seems to suggest stepping outside of your own experience to know things, which is a higher level of consciousness than knowing them through your own experience.

It means to see things, including yourself and God, as God sees things, including you and Himself.

[mfbukowski]

When the spiritual and the physical (or elemental) are brought together, we have a fullness of experience. The Atonement is about bringing (experiencing) heaven and earth together, physically and spiritually.

The phrase is “even as they are in my bosom,” not “even as they exist in my bosom.” I see a subtle difference. “Even as they are” conveys that the scriptures in His bosom are what are on His mind for the moment to share in relation to Joseph’s translation of the Bible, while “even as they exist” would convey all that all scriptures ever were, are, and will be in His bosom / on His mind, whether he reveals them or not. This verse applies to what the Lord is revealing to Joseph and Sydney for a specific purpose in addition to what had been revealed and until He reveals more.

It means to see things, including yourself and God, as God sees things, including you and Himself.

(underlining added)

Exactly! Just as we will see God "face to face" - and we see now "through a glass darkly"- it will still be us and he will still be God, who is a glorified human.

It will still be human experience we are experiencing! There is nothing beyond! (that we can know). This is how "the Word" creates all that can be created, (John 1) though human interaction INCLUDING interaction between God and "man"- parent to child.

Edited December 14, 2012 by mfbukowski