According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[CV75]

All things are material in the sense that they are either matter or energy, imo. Knowledge/information could therefore be stored in either energy or matter. Knowledge can be shared by transmitting energy that then excites or alters the state of the matter into a new configuration that then stores the information as apparently is done in our brains and is done in computers, information that then deciphered by having corresponding language with the matter states.

That would be related to the replication idea I mentioned, where the replication takes place in the recipient. But there are those who hold that even energy is a particle, and that the spirit mechanism (or its more fundamental mechanism intelligence) that deciphers it is also particulate in nature. To me this reduces “experience” and “who we are (spirits, intelligence)” to containers of data dependent on excitation by other particles which, if according to the misapplied definition from D&C 93, are themselves ultra-mini sentient entities acting for themselves (making the opposition a great contradction: who or what is acting on whom, and if so, who or what is ultimately really real?). Not that I believe this; I’m only guessing what the underlying opposition might be—since it hasn’t been mentioned beyond what’s been posted so far. I’m sure whoever opposes it will speak for themselves.

[CV75]

But seeing it as little balls that if I have the ball you cannot have the same idea- that is pretty weird to me. I virtually never speak that way because it is totally unintelligible logically but maybe if we are on the same wavelength that might work.....

I agree, but I think that is the conclusion the opposing view leads to (you asked, "What is the opposition to what seems so obvious??" and I took a stab at it) -- and why it isn't obvious.

[brainburn]

But that is not the same as Korihor's argument. Korihor's argument was that there was no spiritual experience and therefore one couldn't truly experience and therefore know prophecy. Since mfb believes in spiritual experience and if someone experiences prophecy as a spiritual experience, therefore in his worldview prophecy can be known, there is no correlation between Korihor's and mfb's argument simply because some of the phrasing is similar.

If you want to state that one of the assumptions of Korihor's is "you can't know what you don't experience" and one of the assumptions of mfb's argument is the same, I will grant you that, but claiming therefore that mfb is following an anti-christ argument or his position is similar to Korihor's is like claiming that glue is the same thing as a waffle just because both can be made from milk. One similar ingredient/assumption doesn't make for similar arguments. If one of the assumptions---in this case the existence of spiritual experience---is fundamentally different, so is the argument.

Of course.

So, let's analyze the ingredients for the glue and the waffle:

Glue:

1. You can't have true knowledge of what you don't experience.

2. You don't experience the future.

3. Therefore, you can't have true knowledge of the future.

4. Prophecy is true knowledge of the future.

5. Therefore, you can't have prophecy.

Waffle:

1. You can't have true knowledge of what you don't experience.

2. ???

3. Therefore, you can have prophecy.

So, without changing the first premise, what ingredients do I add to make a waffle that doesn't turn out to be glue?

Edited December 16, 2012 by brainburn

[CV75]

There is one line of logic I'm accusing you of holding:

The thing is, we “see” through faith.

You can’t know / see what you don’t have faith in.

You can’t know / see the future you don’t have faith in.

Prophecies are true because the events they predict are worthy of faith being placed in them.

You can know of Christ and His atonement because they are worthy of faith being placed in them.

Korihor taught that you cannot see through faith.

[Calm]

Of course.

So, let's analyze the ingredients for the glue and the waffle:

Glue:

1. You can't have true knowledge of what you don't experience.

2. You don't experience the future.

3. Therefore, you can't have true knowledge of the future.

4. Prophecy is true knowledge of the future.

5. Therefore, you can't have prophecy.

Waffle:

1. You can't have true knowledge of what you don't experience.

2. ???

3. Therefore, you can have prophecy.

So, without changing the first premise, what ingredients do I add to make a waffle that doesn't turn out to be glue?

mfb can correct me if I am wrong...

1. You can't have true knowledge of what you don't experience.

2. You can experience a spiritual vision of the future.

3. Therefore, you can have true knowledge of the future.

4. Prophecy is true knowledge of the future.

5. Therefore, you can have prophecy.

[brainburn]

mfb can correct me if I am wrong...

1. You can't have true knowledge of what you don't experience.

2. You can experience a spiritual vision of the future.

3. Therefore, you can have true knowledge of the future.

4. Prophecy is true knowledge of the future.

5. Therefore, you can have prophecy.

Ok. Are you suggesting that if you haven't experienced it, the only way to know it is through a vision?

Meaning: no vision or experience of it, no true knowledge of it.

Edited December 16, 2012 by brainburn

[Calm]

No, any spiritual witness or inspiration would be sufficient, including a witness of someone else's spiritual vision, the scriptures, etc. mfb has described his own personal spiritual journey of learning the gospel multiple times. I would think it was obvious.

[brainburn]

No, any spiritual witness or inspiration would be sufficient, including a witness of someone else's spiritual vision, the scriptures, etc. mfb has described his own personal spiritual journey of learning the gospel multiple times. I would think it was obvious.

Ok. Great. Let's take the first vision, for example.

So, what do you mean that a witness is sufficient?

In the case of the first vision, is having a witness of the first vision the same as experiencing it or is it confirmation of some description that corresponds to the first vision? Or something else?

I'm asking if experience of the first vision itself must be involved in order to establish that you have true knowledge of the first vision, according to you or any source you cite, of course.

And also, just to be clear. You deny the following line of logic is valid:

Edited December 16, 2012 by brainburn

[Calm]

You deny the following line of logic is valid

Where did I do that?

The logic is valid if the assumptions are correct. What position one holds on those assumptions is a faith position and not a logical one.

What I stated was mfb's assumptions do not match Korihor's assumptions and therefore mfb cannot be accused of using any of the antichrist's logic. They are two different arguments.

So, what do you mean that a witness is sufficient?

I was clear enough the first time around. If that is not sufficient enough for you, then I don't see what else I can say that would make it more so. Edited December 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[mathonihah]

I have no qualms about that. But if you're saying that receiving light and truth, being glorified, and knowing are devoid of experieince, or not experieinces, then the scripture does become meaningless to a person and applicable only to a computer.

Again, you are suggesting the prophet (and likewise all of us) is a computer that doesn't need a mind, doesn't need grace for its involvement, and doesn't grow from grace to grace.

Alright then, I will let you play with your "experiences" in the corner, while I deal with the more serious issue raised by mfb about knowing things as "they really are ...".

By the way, the reasons why I am not replying to posts here as often as I would like is because I have conversations going on elsewhere. I will get round to it eventually.

[brainburn]

Where did I do that?

The logic is valid if the assumptions are correct. What position one holds on those assumptions is a faith position and not a logical one.

Woops. My mistake. For some reason I thought you agreed with mfb's position.

What I stated was mfb's assumptions do not match Korihor's assumptions and therefore mfb cannot be accused of using any of the antichrist's logic. They are two different arguments.

I was clear enough the first time around. If that is not sufficient enough for you, then I don't see what else I can say that would make it more so.

Well, they're only different arguments after the first premise. Of course, if mfb and Korihor both accept the same premise, they both must accept the conclusions that follow from that premise. From this we can know that if they arrive at different conclusions, one of them reasoned incorrectly from that first premise by making a false assumption. So, your point would be that mfb could be reasoning correctly from the first premise and Korihor not, right?

But the argument in "Countering Korihor's Philosophy" is not quite that. The line of logic in the picture shows that the conclusion derived from premise 1 is correct. Its point is that if you apply reason correctly to that first false assumption, you must reject prophecy. The problem according to the article isn't after the first premise, it is the first premise.

If you agreed with the line of logic that you laid out in post #330 (and again, sorry I assumed you did), it would follow that you would deny the logic that premise 1 necessarily leads to rejecting prophecy. But because you seem to resist this idea, I'm still confused about what you think. May I ask what is your position on the line of logic in "Countering Korihor's Philosophy"?

Do you accept or reject the logic that premise 1 necessarily leads to rejecting prophecy? Is the first premise part of the problem or not?

Edited December 16, 2012 by brainburn

[Nathair/|\]

Maybe if I take the opposite atheistic tack I could be fakebukowski and argue the other side to make others argue my side!

Fakebukowski says:

So what is your response to fakebukowski?

What if, as some physicists are starting to suspect, the universe is just a computer simulation?

[Nathair/|\]

Brainburn, In what way is spiritual experience and divine revelation not an experience?

[CV75]

Alright then, I will let you play with your "experiences" in the corner, while I deal with the more serious issue raised by mfb about knowing things as "they really are ...".

And as you can see by now, my remarks are most germane to this topic.

By the way, the reasons why I am not replying to posts here as often as I would like is because I have conversations going on elsewhere. I will get round to it eventually.

Huh? Who asked?

[Calm]

Woops. My mistake. For some reason I thought you agreed with mfb's position.

I do. That does not mean the logic is invalid for the other argument. It is a matter of which assumptions you accept on faith as to whether or not one believes one argument or the other or neither.

Have you taken a logic course btw? I am trying to figure out if you are reading too much into things or not enough.

I am only going to point this out one more time because you keep repeating yourself while getting too many things wrong which is why, it appears to me, you keep asking questions over and over, including for specifics that are either already covered or irrelevant.

Of course, if mfb and Korihor both accept the same premise, they both must accept the conclusions that follow from that premise.

Totally untrue. One has to consider all the premises, not just one alone. Like the glue and waffle example, just because they share one ingredient (premise) in common doesn't mean they are identical in results/conclusion. It depends on what other ingredients/premises are included as well as the process (logical argument) involved. Edited December 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I have identified the premises/definition and conclusions in the one argument, the other follows the same pattern. (It needs a lot more work to actually be a complete logical construction, but it is fine for casual use.)

Premise 1. You can't have true knowledge of what you don't experience.

Premise 2. You can experience a spiritual vision of the future.

Conclusion 1. Therefore, you can have true knowledge of the future.

Definition 1. Prophecy is true knowledge of the future.

Conclusion 2. Therefore, you can have prophecy.

[mathonihah]

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.

I don't really know what you mean by "out there". Knowledge of things "as they are" means there exists a "reality" of some description which is independent of "us" being there, or knowing it. That reality exists, whether we "know" it or not, or are even there to know (or experience) it or not. To my way of understanding, knowing things "as they are" means becoming cognizant of that "reality," and knowing what it is, and knowing it as it is, and knowing that we know it as it is. The problem I have with your analysis of the situation is that you appear to reject the existence of that reality, or of our ability of knowing it, and knowing that we know it; whereas the scriptural teaching seems to suggest otherwise.

[mathonihah]

I have no qualms about that. But if you're saying that receiving light and truth, being glorified, and knowing are devoid of experieince, or not experieinces, then the scripture does become meaningless to a person and applicable only to a computer.

The word "experience" is a non-issue here. What I like to call "know," you seem to like to call "experience". Fair enough. If you prefer to call it that, it is OK with me. It is not an issue. The issue is, is there a "reality" that exists independent of us being there, or knowing it; and if so, is it possible for us to know it, and know what it is, and know it as it is, and know that we know it as it is? mfb's philosophical stipulations seems to me to deny the existence of that reality, or of our ability to know it, and know it as it is, and know that we know what it is and as it is; whereas the scriptural teaching suggests otherwise. Now if you prefer to substitute the word "experience" for the word "know" in this paragraph, be my guest. I have no objections. I kind of like the word "know" better.

Again, you are suggesting the prophet (and likewise all of us) is a computer that doesn't need a mind, doesn't need grace for its involvement, and doesn't grow from grace to grace.

I don't know where you get that from. My view is as stated above. Perhaps the question you are considering is, how is that knowledge (or if you prefer experience) communicated to us so as to override mfb's objections? I agree that that is an interesting question. But that is a different aspect of the issue that is worth exploring.

[Calm]

there exists a "reality" of some description which is independent of "us"

Okay, so show me where this reality is completely independent of any interaction with this reality with either me or you.

[mathonihah]

I think it is from the idea that all things are material, and so knowledge (light) as a material must be conveyed from one generous being to another receptive being. Since the same particle cannot be in two places at once, it has to either move very fast (in which case both minds have to be slower than the traveling particle so as to perceive it as a simultaneously placed piece of something) or be replicated (in which case it isn't really shared directly from one mind to the other) or as the higher intelligence is moving foward the lesser intelligence catches up and takes its discarded knowledge. I'm not saying this doesnt happen under some circumstances, but fundamentally... I have to stick with the "e" word.

Interesting. You seem to be thinking in terms of Orson Pratt's Key to the Science of Theology theory. I was never impressed by that all that much. I acknowledge that God's power is indeed infinite, and it is effected by that spiritual "light" that is spoken of in D&C 88, and it has no limitations of time or space associated with it. It is infinite in all its aspects, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

[mathonihah]

Okay, so show me where this reality is completely independent of any interaction with this reality with either me or you.

That reality is associated with anything that has an existence in the universe of possibilities, including you and me. If you exist at all, then you are part of that reality, and therefore something that is "knowable as it is".

[mathonihah]

All things are material in the sense that they are either matter or energy, imo. Knowledge/information could therefore be stored in either energy or matter. Knowledge can be shared by transmitting energy that then excites or alters the state of the matter into a new configuration that then stores the information as apparently is done in our brains and is done in computers, information that then deciphered by having corresponding language with the matter states.

You are thinking too much in terms of the natural world in which you live. In the realm of the spirit things work differently. That is also the mistake that Orson Pratt makes in his Key to the Science of Theology. The mistake is spurred by Joseph Smith's calling spirits or spiritual things as "matter". It is true that they are made of "something" or of a "substance" of some kind; but it is not the same substance, and therefore does not possess the same physical or chemical properties, and therefore is not governed by the same physical, chemical, nuclear (etc.) laws.

[CV75]

Interesting. You seem to be thinking in terms of Orson Pratt's Key to the Science of Theology theory.

I am not thinking in those terms. I am putting forth what appears to the source of objections to pragmatism, the best I can figure, since those that object haven't yet made a compelling case.

[Calm]

It is true that they are made of "something" or of a "substance" of some kind; but it is not the same substance, and therefore does not possess the same physical or chemical properties, and therefore is not governed by the same physical, chemical, nuclear (etc.) laws.

CFR

[Calm]

That reality is associated with anything that has an existence in the universe of possibilities, including you and me. If you exist at all, then you are part of that reality, and therefore something that is "knowable as it is".

So it is not actually independent after all.