According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[mathonihah]

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

Maybe. Perhaps you have in mind 1 Cor. 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Does that mean that "objective reality" is inherently unknowable, or does it mean that for now it may not be discernible perfectly?

[mfbukowski]

John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe. Perhaps you have in mind 1 Cor. 13:12, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Does that mean that "objective reality" is inherently unknowable, or does it mean that for now it may not be discernible perfectly?

The latter. Notice it speaks of a mirror- relate that to the temple. What do we see in a mirror? An image of ourselves! But then face to face- why? because we will be like HIM!.

Even now spiritual experience "expands our reality" but it is still human experience.

Edited December 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mathonihah]

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.

It is not so much the word "experience" that I was focusing on, as the phrase, "as they are". Is there a difference between knowing the truth of the artefacts of the Book of Mormon "as they are," rather than not quite "as they are"? What was the difference between the testimony of the three witness and that of the eight, that made the testimony former "as they are," while the latter's testimony was not perhaps quite as perfect?

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.

I think that the phrase, "as they are in mine own bosom" conveys a meaning deeper than just "what are on His mind for the moment to share". It kind of ties in with D&C 9:9, "... therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me."

[CV75]

It is not so much the word "experience" that I was focusing on, as the phrase, "as they are". Is there a difference between knowing the truth of the artefacts of the Book of Mormon "as they are," rather than not quite "as they are"? What was the difference between the testimony of the three witness and that of the eight, that made the testimony former "as they are," while the latter's testimony was not perhaps quite as perfect?

If there’s any difference in the level or degree of “perfection” between the testimonies, it is that the first had an angel show them the plates, they heard God’s voice testify of them and command them to bear record, and the second had only Joseph Smith show them the plates. The first experience combines more aspects of reality (heaven and earth) than the second (earth only).

I think that the phrase, "as they are in mine own bosom" conveys a meaning deeper than just "what are on His mind for the moment to share". It kind of ties in with D&C 9:9, "... therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me."

For me, it goes without saying that “what is on His mind for the moment to share” and what is "given you from me" are both sacred.

[mfbukowski]

It is not so much the word "experience" that I was focusing on, as the phrase, "as they are". Is there a difference between knowing the truth of the artefacts of the Book of Mormon "as they are," rather than not quite "as they are"? What was the difference between the testimony of the three witness and that of the eight, that made the testimony former "as they are," while the latter's testimony was not perhaps quite as perfect?

I think that the phrase, "as they are in mine own bosom" conveys a meaning deeper than just "what are on His mind for the moment to share". It kind of ties in with D&C 9:9, "... therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me."

The more witnesses to an experience the more "objective" it becomes. That is an idea put out by Thomas Nagel.

If I see a pink elephant, it can be dismissed as an hallucination. If you see it with me, perhaps we were both on the same drug or who knows what. If we go out and put a net around the pink elephant and take it to the scientists, and the newspapers come and see the pink elephant and it gets written up in scientific literature suddenly it is "real" and a part of "objective reality".

But what is the real difference which made it "objective reality"? Wasn't it just as "real" when only I saw it? What changed?

The number of witnesses and the way they saw it.

I think that the phrase, "as they are in mine own bosom" conveys a meaning deeper than just "what are on His mind for the moment to share". It kind of ties in with D&C 9:9, "... therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me."

When God is the witness and he tells us so, we can be sure we are seeing things "as they are".

Of course we can only know that in our hearts- so we are back again to the pink elephant. How do we know that God has told us?

I can't tell you, but we know. It is beyond speaking about.

Edited December 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

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.

No, please!!! We've only just started talking about why you think knowing non-experienced reality is absurd. This is far from an irreparable disagreement and just needs a little more digging.

We're getting closer but I still think you're misunderstanding me and making unnecessary presumptions.

First, did you not answer that clarifying question in my last post because it was accurate?

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?

I want to assume that this is a fair description and maybe you'll get this...

I think I can demonstrate to you that if LDSism holds that we can have absolute knowledge of absolute truth, it necessarily holds that there are things which are true independent of any mortal experience. Showing that your definitions of knowledge and reality leave part of LDSism out is as simple as choosing a proposition LDSism holds to be absolutely true but is necessarily non-experienced in some sense.

And here it is (from "Absolute Truth"): There are relative truths, and there are also absolute truths which are the same yesterday, today, and forever-- never changing.

The most powerful LDS examples of non-experienced truths would be propositions about future events. I've not seen you acknowledge this specific point, at all. Propositions about future events are either true or false but they are non-experienced by mortals until they happen. But the fact that these future events are non-experienced doesn't stop LDS from considering these descriptions of future events God gives to us to be absolute knowledge of absolute truth. They're actually the very necessary foundation of LDS theology and model of reality.

Some follow-up points:

If men are really humble, they will realize that they discover, but do not create, truth.

...I repeat, these are not matters of opinion. They are absolute truths. These truths are available to every soul.

Do you accept this statement? What is truth before it is "discovered"? What does it mean that truths are "available"?

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 do. Revelation is the key.

Claiming that you know one sort of experience will be "available" to another is more of this non-experienced true knowledge. When you say someone will experience this if they do this, you aren't having the other person's experience. So, why do we still claim that we know something about the possible future of their experience?

He even adds this:

The assurance will definitely come to you, but not unless you make an effort. I bear testimony to you that this is true. I know it. I send to you a solemn warning; and when you stand before the judgment bar in the not-too-distant future, you will know then that I spoke the truth with your eternal welfare in mind.

And what about things in the past which happened but no mortal experienced:

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

That statement has nothing to do with mortal experience or even the future. Did you experience this? Why is it considered absolute knowledge of absolute truth?

Death was his last enemy, and he overcame even that and established the resurrection. This is an absolute truth. All the theorists in the world cannot disprove it. It is a fact.

Did we experience Christ overcoming death? In other words, did we experience Christ being dead?

LDSism is filled with non-experienced truths:

This apostasy is a certainty. There is no room for doubt.

Did we experience the apostasy?

I think all these questions deserve answers.

[brainburn]

When God is the witness and he tells us so, we can be sure we are seeing things "as they are".

Of course we can only know that in our hearts- so we are back again to the pink elephant. How do we know that God has told us?

I can't tell you, but we know. It is beyond speaking about.

And God can be witness to things we haven't and tell us about it.

Following your logic, we then know something we haven't experienced.

I've been trying to prove to you something you already believed this entire time.

Edited December 14, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

brain

Truth and falsity are properties of linguistic propositions- not experiences or things. There is no truth or falsity independent of anyone stating anything. Only statements, propositions etc can be true or false. If a statement is justified it is true. If you had only actually listened to the Rorty video I have posted and re posted you would know that

[mfbukowski]

And God can be witness to things we haven't and tell us about it.

But the minute he tells us about it we experience him telling us about it, and that statement is then either justified by our experience or not justified by our experience.

Who told you you should trust your experience of "God" "telling" you anything? How do you know it was Him who told you? Your experience of him and the way you know his voice.

[mfbukowski]

You don't "know" statements about the future are "true" until they come to pass and you experience the results.

This is not rocket science

[mathonihah]

The first experience combines more aspects of reality (heaven and earth) than the second (earth only).

Is that what you think it means by knowing them "as they are"?

For me, it goes without saying that “what is on His mind for the moment to share” and what is "given you from me" are both sacred.

I have no doubts about that. My focus was not on the word "sacred" in that verse, but more on the fact that man cannot write them without it being given to us directly by God.

Those three verses I had quoted all have one thing in common. They all talk about things "as they are". The artefacts being shown "as they are;" the scriptures in God's bosom "as they are;" and being seen or known "as they are". They all talk about reality existing somehow independently, and then being made known to us "as they are"—and doing so in such a manner that we can know that our knowledge is "as they are".

[mfbukowski]

They all talk about reality existing somehow independently, and then being made known to us "as they are"—and doing so in such a manner that we can know that our knowledge is "as they are".

Can't you see how contradictory that sentence is? It does fine until you use the word "independently" but then you still have to put us into it KNOWING. Once we know "something" it is "in" us- not independent of us.

And you cannot define how- that is why you had to say "somehow".

Why do you feel it is so important that it be "independent" of human experience? How can you KNOW anything independent of how you experience it?

Why keep chasing this illusion of something we cannot experience? God gives us direct experience of himself- what we experience IS reality.

Sigh. I really don't see the problem here and why some of you are still protesting. We do know things as they are- and the are as we experience them!!

[CV75]

Is that what you think it means by knowing them "as they are"?

And then some of course, but we are discussing the term in a particular and limited way.

I have no doubts about that. My focus was not on the word "sacred" in that verse, but more on the fact that man cannot write them without it being given to us directly by God.

Those three verses I had quoted all have one thing in common. They all talk about things "as they are". The artefacts being shown "as they are;" the scriptures in God's bosom "as they are;" and being seen or known "as they are". They all talk about reality existing somehow independently, and then being made known to us "as they are"—and doing so in such a manner that we can know that our knowledge is "as they are".

Man cannot do anything with anything without it first being “given” him. See Moses 7:32, where “their knowledge” means “their self-awareness, or their condition of having experience”:

“The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency…”

The Lord gave mortal man his knowledge (awareness) and his agency by granting him an environment in which he could exercise his already-existing (co-eternal and experiencing) spirit in a new, physical setting. Reality then, is reality only when it has meaning (a function of awareness and agency), and this can only be accomplished through experience. God did not put this “thing” “into” us, since we are co-eternally independent beings.

Now when God gives a prophet scripture and the prophet in turn gives that scripture to others, the process is not one of God or the prophet putting something into other minds, but a process of mutual awareness and agency.

[brainburn]

brain

Truth and falsity are properties of linguistic propositions- not experiences or things. There is no truth or falsity independent of anyone stating anything. Only statements, propositions etc can be true or false. If a statement is justified it is true. If you had only actually listened to the Rorty video I have posted and re posted you would know that

We already talked about this. It's established that I already understand this and I'm not aware of any proof of my misunderstanding this. I don't know why you've brought it up again (maybe quoting me will help). I'm arguing that LDS believe revelatory statements correspond to realities which are sometimes independent of experience. You didn't respond to any of the examples of non-experienced reality I offered.

So, trying again... what does it mean to have absolute knowledge of the absolute truth of past and future events we haven't experienced?

It clearly means that we can absolutely know something has or will happen without experiencing it and without a doubt. We can know some description corresponds to a reality beyond our experience, in the past or future, because the "bridge to reality" has been offered to us through revelation. Spencer W. Kimball has accepted this as far as we can tell and if it's truly the case, you're effectively telling him that it doesn't work this way. He doesn't get the mfbukowski anit-realist stamp of legitimacy, if I've analyzed both of your positions correctly.

So, I'm not asserting. I'm asking. Do you understand in any single solitary degree what I'm trying to say or could you simply show me the correct way to interpret "absolute knowledge of absolute truths" we haven't experienced?

But the minute he tells us about it we experience him telling us about it, and that statement is then either justified by our experience or not justified by our experience.

Who told you you should trust your experience of "God" "telling" you anything? How do you know it was Him who told you? Your experience of him and the way you know his voice".

I have no answer for those questions because I have no way to establish how much I should factor in our mortal capacity to be delusional. Apparently, you do. What's the secret? How do you know how much delusion to factor into your "experience of him and the way you know his voice"?

You don't "know" statements about the future are "true" until they come to pass and you experience the results.

This is not rocket science

Not according to Spencer W. Kimball. He said we have absolute knowledge of absolute truth which will remain true into the future. In other words, we know statements about the future are true before they come to pass. I'm not aware that he specified at all that we we can't know it's true until it happens.

Edited December 15, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

We already talked about this. It's established that I already understand this and I'm not aware of any proof of my misunderstanding this. I don't know why you've brought it up again (maybe quoting me will help). I'm arguing that LDS believe revelatory statements correspond to realities which are sometimes independent of experience. You didn't respond to any of the examples of non-experienced reality I offered.

So, trying again... what does it mean to have absolute knowledge of the absolute truth of past and future events we haven't experienced?

It clearly means that we can absolutely know something has or will happen without experiencing it and without a doubt. We can know some description corresponds to a reality beyond our experience, in the past or future, because the "bridge to reality" has been offered to us through revelation. Spencer W. Kimball has accepted this as far as we can tell and if it's truly the case, you're effectively telling him that it doesn't work this way. He doesn't get the mfbukowski anit-realist stamp of legitimacy, if I've analyzed both of your positions correctly.

So, I'm not asserting. I'm asking. Do you understand in any single solitary degree what I'm trying to say or could you simply show me the correct way to interpret "absolute knowledge of absolute truths" we haven't experienced?

I have no answer for those questions because I have no way to establish how much I should factor in our mortal capacity to be delusional. Apparently, you do. What's the secret? How do you know how much delusion to factor into your "experience of him and the way you know his voice"?

Not according to Spencer W. Kimball. He said we have absolute knowledge of absolute truth which will remain true into the future. In other words, we know statements about the future are true before they come to pass. I'm not aware that he specified at all that we we can't know it's true until it happens.

I'm done. I can only say the same thing so many times. Where is Camus?

[volgadon]

I'm done. I can only say the same thing so many times. Where is Camus?

Get your own rock!

[mfbukowski]

Get your own rock!

LOL- That's exactly what I was thinking!

[brainburn]

It's clear you think I can't be reasoned with, but it's not clear that you understand I'm trying to show you that you're operating from false assumptions about my position. I explained that I thought you were leaving something out of your definition of reality and you still haven't addressed it. It's the one thing I want to take slow. Walk through it with me instead of simply repeatedly insinuating that I can't be reasoned with.

The appropriate (and most mutually beneficial) response is to show me where I've gone wrong on my main point. Walk through the logic and show me the broken link.

What exactly is wrong with the following idea:

What does it mean to have absolute knowledge of the absolute truth of past and future events we haven't experienced?

The question? My answer? What is it?

Edited December 15, 2012 by brainburn

[brainburn]

I'm sorry I have to talk to you this way but I really think it's the only way to get through to you.

If you feel like you need to repeat yourself. Just do it.

But remember, I get to object to your objection and afterwards you can't just repeat the same thing. You have to add to it. Defend it against my point and within the context of the question. I would immensely appreciate it.

Edited December 15, 2012 by brainburn

[brainburn]

And in addition, do any of these descriptions mean anything to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

[mathonihah]

And then some of course, but we are discussing the term in a particular and limited way.

Man cannot do anything with anything without it first being “given” him. See Moses 7:32, where “their knowledge” means “their self-awareness, or their condition of having experience”:

“The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency…”

The Lord gave mortal man his knowledge (awareness) and his agency by granting him an environment in which he could exercise his already-existing (co-eternal and experiencing) spirit in a new, physical setting. Reality then, is reality only when it has meaning (a function of awareness and agency), and this can only be accomplished through experience. God did not put this “thing” “into” us, since we are co-eternally independent beings.

It seems to me that you are using the word "experience" so broadly and all-encompassingly as to make it devoid of all meaning, making conversation about the subject impossible. When Joseph Smith talks about "pure intelligence flowing into you," you call that "experience" without which we cannot know anything. When BB quite correctly points to knowing (with certainty) of past or future events without "experiencing" them, you call that an "experience" and bring us back to square one again. I like the language of the scriptures better which talks about receiving light and truth until one is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. The word experience is not mentioned there at all.

Now when God gives a prophet scripture and the prophet in turn gives that scripture to others, the process is not one of God or the prophet putting something into other minds, but a process of mutual awareness and agency.

I don't know how that is relevant to what I was talking about. It was not a question of God or the prophet putting anything into anybody's mind. It was a question of the scriptures existing as a "reality" in God's own mind (or bosom), and then being conveyed to us directly through the agency of God "as they are" without interfearance or involvement of the prophet's own mind which might distort that reality even slightly into "as they are not".

[mfbukowski]

I like the language of the scriptures better which talks about receiving light and truth until one is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

That's great! I like that language too!

Where IS that "knowledge"? Inside you our outside somewhere in the "world"? If it is outside- how can YOU know it? If it is inside how did it get in there?

All this is is a different perspective - a different way of understanding the same thing. I am not sure why it is so threatening to some that they will not even look at it.

[mathonihah]

That's great! I like that language too!

Where IS that "knowledge"? Inside you our outside somewhere in the "world"? If it is outside- how can YOU know it? If it is inside how did it get in there?

All this is is a different perspective - a different way of understanding the same thing. I am not sure why it is so threatening to some that they will not even look at it.

Thank you. The bottom line for me is whether there is such thing as "knowledge of things as they are;" and if so, whether it is possible to know it, and to know that you know it. I don't know what the philosophers have to say about that; but the scriptural answer seems to me to be yes, and that is what I like to go by.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you. The bottom line for me is whether there is such thing as "knowledge of things as they are;" and if so, whether it is possible to know it, and to know that you know it. I don't know what the philosophers have to say about that; but the scriptural answer seems to me to be yes, and that is what I like to go by.

Of course!

I know the gospel is true and I know that I know it. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I have direct experience of that in my life and know it as surely as I know anything or CAN know anything.

My only point is that that knowledge is not "out there" in some world beyond experience- it is IN US- in our hearts and minds and spirits and souls. THAT is where what is "real" IS. If it were "out there" we could not KNOW it like that- how could we? It has to be in our minds and hearts and in every fiber of our being for it to be true "knowledge".

I cannot be certain of what is out there- I can only be absolutely certain about what is "in here".

And yes, "that is what the philosophers say" at least the philosophers I read. The entire area of philosophy know as "Phenomenology" is largely about how everything "IS" in that way, and so does Pragmatism.

Edited December 15, 2012 by mfbukowski