According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[mfbukowski]

The scriptures define truth as 1) knowledge of things as they are (and as they were, and as they are to come), not simply as “things as they are” (and as they were, and as they are to come) and 2) as Christ, who is not of this world and so is not in His perfection part and parcel to “things as they are,” at least in this world (D&C 1:31).

Your argument needs to address the words “knowledge of” in the definiiton of truth, and how that translates into “absolute truth” as being the same for any estate and degree of glory or knowledge.

All one needs to say is that they ARE as we experience them. Sure we make perceptual mistakes occasionally but that is the exception. We routinely drive down the street without bumping into invisible objects all the time.

If things ARE as we experience them- let me flesh this out because apparently no one is getting this- If things ARE as we experience them, then obviously we experience them as they ARE.

So knowing things as we experience them IS knowing them as they ARE.

I have only said that about a thousand times already- I really don't know why this is so difficult.

[mfbukowski]

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.

So how do you know any of this is true? I guess Joseph got it wrong? And so did all of us?

And you know this because......

[mfbukowski]

Not sure what you mean. Independent of what? Is there a reality that exists independent of me or you, or of either of us knowing it? I think there is.

But you cannot know that because when you do, you automatically exclude it from existing in the realm of things existing without being known. It moves from the imaginary realm of real things which exist independent of the mind to real things which are known- and poof! by knowing it exists it no longer exists independent of knowledge.

The fact that our existence is part of that reality cannot alter that fact.

But I know you and experience you and interact with you. I know you are real. Not a doubt in the world. So how are you independent of anyone's knowledge.

Actually knowing yourself would qualify. And of course everyone has parents. You cannot exist without those.

Edited December 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The fact that God exists is a reality or truth that is independent of us knowing it or being there to know it. Is that a good example?

Ah- so you have proven the existence of God? Funny I thought we took that on faith! So all the world is now converted to your church?

YOU may have a certainty that God exists and so do I- but it is only because I have experienced Him in my heart.

[mfbukowski]

Every post requires its own response. I think that I have already given some good arguments.

And I have tried to respond to each.

[mfbukowski]

I think that the central focus of the definition is on the phrase, "as they are ..." rather than on the word "knowledge". The word "knowledge" is also significant; but not as significant as the phrase, "as they are ...". The significance of the word "knowledge" is that it must be known, i.e. somebody must know it. It doesn't matter who. As long as there is one intelligent being in the universe that knows it, then it qualifies as a truth. And since God by definition is omniscient, that means that anything that God knows is truth; and anything he doesn't know, is not. So God becomes the embodiment of truth.

That would be the embodiment of "knowledge" not "truth" but yes I actually have no problem with that.

But you are discounting the Pragmatic genius of Mormonism and that is that God is a Man. What God experiences IS "human experience".

Nothing exists "outside" human experience because that would be outside God's experience! That is how he created all by "The Word" - all that was created was KNOWN and expressed by The Word "calling" (defining) it into existence. Abraham 4.

"And the day and the night they CALLED (defined) the "first day". (second, third, fourth, etc)

Jehovah- the Savior- is the Messenger- the Word God's organizer of matter unorganized. He organizes by KNOWING it - by experiencing it which causes it to "exist" in a definable way. The Messenger gives us language though which even we can organize matter unorganized.

But I suppose that is too far too fast.

[CV75]

I have only said that about a thousand times already- I really don't know why this is so difficult.

It isn't--I'm not talking about that at this point, just the problem of appealing to scriptural definitions to make a point while using only part of the definition from the very perspective one is defending.

[mfbukowski]

It isn't--I'm not talking about that at this point, just the problem of appealing to scriptural definitions to make a point while using only part of the definition from the very perspective one is defending.

Yes I understand! I did not post that with the intention of taking issue with anything you said- I agree with you.

The intent of that post was to amplify what you were saying and back it up- not to take issue with it!

[mathonihah]

The operable word is clearly knowledge: “And truth is knowledge…” The phrase that follows, “of things [etc.]…,” describes that knowledge and what it consists of.

I agree that the operable word in that definition is “knowledge” (truth=knowledge ...). So I will make a slight adjustment to my original statement. For the purpose of the discussion with mfb, the phrase “as they are ...” is the focus of attention, rather than “knowledge” in itself. The question is, does that “knowledge” correspond to a reality that is independent of the “knower” of whatever is “known”? And is it possible to know that that correspondence is known and is real? Or is it something that cannot be “known” by the “knower”?

Your position is dependent upon an incomplete description of the properties (as you are leaving out two of the three) of the very thing you are claiming to define, while throwing out the actual definition. If you are basing your position on a scriptural definition, you really need to be using the full definition. Becuase of this, your definition of “omniscience” is suspect, so an appeal to that principle doesn’t help your case.

I don’t see how. In your original post you had stated:

The scriptures define truth as 1) knowledge of things as they are (and as they were, and as they are to come), not simply as “things as they are” (and as they were, and as they are to come) and 2) as Christ, who is not of this world and so is not in His perfection part and parcel to “things as they are,” at least in this world (D&C 1:31).

Your argument needs to address the words “knowledge of” in the definiiton of truth, and how that translates into “absolute truth” as being the same for any estate and degree of glory or knowledge.

The “absolute truth” is something that exists independent of how that truth is understood by, or taught to, beings of varying degrees of glory or knowledge. Let me think of an example. In the OT the Jews were commanded that if anyone wanted to “put away his wife,” he should give her a “bill of divorcement” (Deut. 24:1). In the NT the Lord taught that that was not a good commandment. It was given to them at that time because of the "hardness of their hearts". The better commandment is that one should not put away his wife at all (Mat. 5:32). These are two sets of commandments that were given to two different groups of people at different times. The commandments relate to the same subject, but are different for each group because the condition of the people were different. Now what exactly is the “truth” in all of this? There are several truths. It is true that the OT people were given that commandment. That statement corresponds to the reality that that commandment was indeed given to the Jews in the OT times. That is a truth. It is also true that Jesus gave that other commandment to the Jews in the NT times. That is also a true statement. It corresponds to the reality that Jesus indeed spoke those words to the Jews at that time. The question is not which one of these two commandments is a “better” commandment, although we could as that question as well. I suppose the answer to that would be, it depends on whom you are talking to, or whom you are giving the commandment to. To the OT Jews, the first was (possibly) a better commandment; to the NT Jews, the second was the better commandment. (Or, it might be argued that at all times the second commandment was the better of the two.) That might also be argued as a statement of truth (subject to the confirmation by God). But the point is, truth is not “relative,” it is absolute. It is absolutely true that the Jews were given that particular commandment in the OT, and it is absolutely true that the other commandment was given to them in the NT. Both statements correspond to a reality, regardless of the “moral condition” of the Jews in the OT versus in the NT times. I can’t see how the truth changes depending on whom you are talking to.

As you say, that a thing is known means it is true (note that its truth is in the knolwledge of it, which is according to the scriptural definition, not yours), and God being the embodiment of truth means He corresponds to nothing but Himself.

I don’t see the relevance of that to what we are talking about.

[CV75]

Yes I understand! I did not post that with the intention of taking issue with anything you said- I agree with you.

The intent of that post was to amplify what you were saying and back it up- not to take issue with it!

I was just testing you... LOL

[CV75]

I can’t see how the truth changes depending on whom you are talking to.

As the eternities roll on, its divine inhabitants give rise to more divine inhabitants, and the eternal truth, and their description of what that is (from their perspective), "expands" (for lack of a better word).

[mathonihah]

As the eternities roll on, its divine inhabitants give rise to more divine inhabitants, and the eternal truth, and their description of what that is (from their perspective), "expands" (for lack of a better word).

You mean like how the Jewish perception of "divorce" changed from OT to NT times?

[CV75]

You mean like how the Jewish perception of "divorce" changed from OT to NT times?

Yes. The standard to which the Lord’s people were held accountable changed. This happens all the time, when saints and their communities receive grace for grace. It happens when dispensations build upon the previous ones, and when progress in righteousness continues in the spirit world, and then after the resurrection by way of the continuation of the seeds. I am certain that those Jews that followed Jesus benefited from a change in their perception of divorce. In addition, the Atonement makes it possible for people without the Gospel, or with the "schoolmaster" or lesser law are still redeemed for abiding in the light they possess, and they are granted further opportunity to progress.

[mathonihah]

Yes. The standard to which the Lord’s people were held accountable changed....

But did "knowledge of things as they are .." change?

[mfbukowski]

But did "knowledge of things as they are .." change?

Of course because things "as they are" are in a constant state of flux as our experience and the issues generated by that experience change. God teaches us what we need when we need it as seen with polygamy and Blacks and the Priesthood and issues like the gathering- to where, etc.

The problems of the world are always changing- there is nothing in the Bible about gay marriage, though much is implied.

But surely you believe in an open Canon don't you? I thought you were LDS?

For all we know we could get new commandments added to the D&C tomorrow- in principle.

Edited December 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

But did "knowledge of things as they are .." change?

Yes-the knowledge and the things changed from "as they were," and they will change into "as they will be." It's ideally a matter of changing for the better.

[mfbukowski]

Yes-the knowledge and the things changed from "as they were," and they will change into "as they will be." It's ideally a matter of changing for the better.

A very good point. If we are able to attain exaltation, will we change "as we are"? When we move from the natural man to becoming Christlike- do we change things "as they are"? The entire notion of eternal progression implies that things "as they are" indeed change all the time. And that means that truth changes as well.

The statement "I am at stage "A" in my progression", which was once true, becomes false as I move into stage "B" and so forth.

And yes, I am changing me "as I am". Is there a "real" difference between an embryo in its mother's womb and a fully mature spiritual person, as the prophet for example is now? Yet all of us start out as embryos.

There is no difference which could be more "real".

[volgadon]

You mean like how the Jewish perception of "divorce" changed from OT to NT times?

We don't really know too much about it during either of those times.

[mathonihah]

Yes-the knowledge and the things changed from "as they were," and they will change into "as they will be." It's ideally a matter of changing for the better.

You mean the knowledge they had before of the commandment that they may divorce their wives by giving her a bill of divorcement was not true? I would say that it was, because it is factually the case that they were given that commandment at that time. Don't forget that truth is defined not only as "knowledge of things as they are," but also "as they were," and "as they are to come".

I think you are confusing what is "true" with what is "good," or what is "better". They are two different things.

Edited December 18, 2012 by mathonihah

[CV75]

I think you are confusing what is "true" with what is "good," or what is "better". They are two different things.

No, because I do not confuse truth and what is true with fact and what is factual. These are / can be (as in were / are to come) two (and arguably four) different things as well as the same thing under some conditions.

What are you confused about?

[CV75]

A very good point. If we are able to attain exaltation, will we change "as we are"? When we move from the natural man to becoming Christlike- do we change things "as they are"? The entire notion of eternal progression implies that things "as they are" indeed change all the time. And that means that truth changes as well.

The statement "I am at stage "A" in my progression", which was once true, becomes false as I move into stage "B" and so forth.

And yes, I am changing me "as I am". Is there a "real" difference between an embryo in its mother's womb and a fully mature spiritual person, as the prophet for example is now? Yet all of us start out as embryos.

There is no difference which could be more "real".

Agreed--when it is said that God does not change, it means He doesn't end His eternal round, which changes everything (everything that is, was, and will be) for the better.

[mathonihah]

What are you confused about?

About your posts!

Okay, Let's look at that particular example I gave from our timeline perspective. What is the "knowledge of things as they were" in the OT time period? The answer is that they were commanded that they may "put away" their wives by giving her a "bill of divorcement". What is the "knowledge of things as they were" in the NT time period? The answer is that they were commanded by the Lord that that is not the ideal way of dealing with a failed marriage; reconciliation might perhaps be a better solution. That as far as I can see is the basic description of the "knowledge of things" as they were and were in those two time periods, with regard to that particular subject.

Of course, it is possible to explorer more deeply the "moral" behind the story. What lesson, or principle of right and wrong behaviour can we learn form this story—principles that may be considered "eternal" concepts of truth, or of right and wrong? That could be a very long exploration—especially bearing in mind that the OT law basically gave a man unlimited power to dismiss his wife at whim without any recourse to justice or legal remedy for the woman concerned. It was a very cruel law, or one which could be exploited by an unrighteous man to inflict enormous cruelty on his wife. It wasn't like a divorce nowadays, where a woman has a lot of legal remedies if she feels that she has been unjustly treated, including recourse to financial compensation. It was almost like dismissing a hired servant. In any case, that could be a very long exploration, and concepts of "eternal truth" may be embedded in it which could be discovered. But the essential "knowledge" of the situation as they were and were is as described above. Truth is truth. Facts are truths. Events are truths. Truths are facts. Events are facts. The truths described above are realities, events, and facts. I fail to see what you are driving at.

Edited December 18, 2012 by mathonihah

[CV75]

Truth is truth. Facts are truths. Events are truths. Truths are facts. Events are facts.

If this is the bottom line, this is the root of the problem. Truth cannot be found in facts alone, and facts can hide the truth.

[brainburn]

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.

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.

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.

I'm trying to understand your position on certain things, but I can't get much more than "it depends" out of you. And of course I understand basic logic. I'm a little bit insulted, but I'll get over it.

Here's why I think your "it depends on the assumptions" doesn't sufficiently address the point of my questions.

I realize that in an argument the logic could be sound and the assumptions false and the opposite is another possibility. What I'm concerned about (and I thought this was obvious) is whether the logic is sound and the assumptions are correct. You can't "cash-in" on an logically consistent idea if it's assumptions are unsupported. The point I've been trying to make to you is that you can't cash-in the line of logic in the picture of the article. It really doesn't matter to me whether logic or the assumptions or both are the the problem.

And when I said that if Korihor and mfb both started with the same premise, we assume that if they stayed true to their desire to be logically consistent and hold true assumptions, they must end up in the same place. This is where we derive the idea that one must be making either a logical or presumptuous mistake. I stand by this and never suggested that if Korihor made mistakes after the premise, mfb must make those same mistakes. The question is whether they are both mistaken in the first premise.

But don't get hung-up on this above stuff...... it doesn't matter much to me anymore because you have offered me some answers that allows us to move on. Here's how:

If a vision is experience of some past or future event, then it is consistent to say you can only know what you experience and also hold that this includes any event experienced in a vision.

That's a fantastic idea. I will question it, but I'm absolutely prepared to accept it as true when the idea is clarified and supported. Here is what I can't figure out:

If a vision is somehow experience of an event, it seems obvious to me that LDS don't believe visions are the only true knowledge of past or future events. If it can be shown that some LDS epistemology which doesn't involve experience of the event can produce true knowledge of that event, then it would be inconsistent to then say you can only know what you experience and accept that epistemology.

This possible case is what I want to investigate. What can we determine about non-visionary knowledge?

So, the first step is figuring out what exactly a vision is, how experience of the event is involved, and next whether we can differentiate an "experience" epistemology of past and future (visions) from an "not-so-experienced" epistemology of past and future.

(mfb, I'm really serious about this. I know saying "not-so-experienced" epistemology might have caused your mind to explode, but please know that I understand why you reject it..... I want to show you that even if the rejection is valid, LDSism may include it anyways. What I'm attempting to show is that it's not me who is "is throwing away 100 years of philosophy accepted by virtually everyone because he does not understand it.")

What I mean by "not-so-experienced" epistemology is an way of gaining true knowledge that somehow involves a correspondence theory, but apparently that's going to take some digging....

So, calmoriah! I am truly pleased we can work with some useful definitions now. I actually think you've already provided some "not-so-experienced" epistemologies of past and future. You called them witnesses and inspiration. I have a clarifying question for you that I'm sort of itching to find an answer for. The specific event is sort of incidental. The question represents my overall point and yes, it's a leading question and I have follow-up questions prepared. Maybe you can figure them out before hand!

Did you experience the final judgement in a vision?

[brainburn]

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

My point is not that revelation is not an experience. Of course it is an experience, but my point is that it seems only some revelations (such as visions) are considered to be experiences of the event rather than simply an experience which confirms an event using correspondence somehow. It's clear to me that other forms of revelation involve some sort of correspondence theory of true knowledge.