According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[mfbukowski]

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

Please tell me how these "things" are different- and also while you are at it, describe what you mean by "things".

[brainburn]

The fallacy here Is that we CAN see the future, we just have to wait for it to appear.

If you actually READ the BOM you will see that this is what happened- no one knew for sure it was going to happen- they took it on faith, until the signs actually happened.

This whole thing is ridiculous and has nothing to do with anything. This is not my argument.

I understand it's not your argument, but it starts with your premise that you've never stopped defending. So, the whole thing is not ridiculous....... just the fallacies after the first premise. The first premise which you repeatedly defend.

And also, I think you're wrong about us having to wait for knowledge of the future. Visions skip the delay.

Nope.

"Nope"??? That's it?

[brainburn]

He doesn't know what he is talking about. I tried-

I'm totally willing to figure out what I'm talking about. You don't try very hard to connect my thoughts to yours. You just repeat your own thoughts it seems.

[Calm]

And of course I understand basic logic. I'm a little bit insulted, but I'll get over it.

Then why do you insist that agreement on one premise was enough to require agreement in the conclusion even when there was more than one premise given?

What I'm concerned about (and I thought this was obvious) is whether the logic is sound and the assumptions are correct.

The assumptions are faith based and therefore depending on what faith position one holds yields a correct or false conclusion.

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

Any method of acquiring knowledge is experiencing that knowledge. Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

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.

Even Bruce R. McConkie acknowledged that God "progresses" in all ways except in knowledge, but one has to understand that there is indeed constancy AMID change.

That which is not progressing is stagnant.

The whole notion that what is "perfect" meaning "complete" is unchanging is totally based in Greek philosophy- starting with Parmenides

Parmenides of Elea (play /pɑrˈmɛnɨdiːz əv ˈɛliə/; Ancient Greek: Πaρμενίδης ὁ Ἐλεάτης; fl. early 5th century BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher born in Elea, a Greek city on the southern coast of Italy. He was the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy. The single known work of Parmenides is a poem, On Nature, which has survived only in fragmentary form. In this poem, Parmenides describes two views of reality. In "the way of truth" (a part of the poem), he explains how reality (coined as "what-is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging. In "the way of opinion," he explains the world of appearances, in which one's sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful. These ideas strongly influenced the whole of Western philosophy, perhaps most notably through its effect on Plato.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Parmenides

Of course we know where this eventually led- to the apostasy of Christianity in Neoplatonism, and because most Christians do not understand this, here we are still discussing this seriously on this thread. In philosophical issues this is largely a dead issue.

Those who espouse this way of thinking are simply perpetuating apostate doctrine unwittingly.

The true God progresses and is ever changing as our Father. As he hears and answers prayers he moves from state 1 to state 2- God before the answer, God after the answer. We likewise move from state 1 to state 2- as God influences our lives.

In a "dialectical manner" (coming from the Greek root from which we also get "dialogue") we ask a question and get an answer.

There is real interaction with God- he is able to respond to us. An unchanging God cannot respond. That seems totally clear to me. An unchanging God is stone, a golden edifice, a statue. He cannot "smile" or interact or for that matter communicate. He gave all revelation once and forever- there is no need for further revelation. The Bible becomes a dead book which somehow must be reconciled with a living God. Sorry- it cannot be done.

Our God though is nothing like that. He is not transcendent or independent of human interaction - indeed he is the epitome of human interaction as our Father. We go to him with our worries and concerns. He hears our prayers and offers solace. He is not an Unchanging Edifice or a Mighty Fortress. He is our Father who loves us. See the difference, and how that unchanging view is apostate? Even the imagery we see of a Mighty Fortress portrays that image. The Unchanging God of TRVTH literally etched in stone!

Ironically another Greek philosopher did NOT win the cultural wars because he was a very obscure writer. Actually this philosopher represents the earliest understanding of the other dominant direction philosophy took as eventually followed by other great thinkers.

Heraclitus is famous for his insistence on ever-present change in the universe, as stated in the famous saying, "No man ever steps in the same river twice"[1] (see panta rhei, below). He believed in the unity of opposites, stating that "the path up and down are one and the same", all existing entities being characterized by pairs of contrary properties. His cryptic utterance that "all entities come to be in accordance with this Logos" (literally, "word", "reason", or "account") has been the subject of numerous interpretations.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Heraclitus

This view is carried forward, I believe, in Mormonism with its notion of a God who progresses and the idea of "opposition in all things", a view which unifies both Eastern philosophy with Western philosophy, and which indeed could become a philosophy for all the world if we would but allow it.

But here we have the first statement of characterizing reality as how we experience it and not as a static realm of abstract "realities" or Platonic forms.

But notice that there is still constancy here- and there can be absolutes. The conception of Heraclitus is that there IS a river which is always there- the constancy is found in the fact that it is continually changing. It is Absolute in its progression. No man ever steps into the SAME river twice- because the river has changed in one sense but in the other it is still the same river.

Our experience of the river is at once the same in certain respects- we see the same trees which were there moments ago- but are they the "same"? Perhaps they have lost their leaves which have fallen into the river. Perhaps the leaf that swept past a moment ago is now a hundred yards downstream, but it is still the same leaf in the same river.

Time itself is this "river" and time cannot be stopped. Leaves fall, snow falls and then melts, new leaves grow and mature, the grass greens, turns brown, and is replaced. We grow from embryos to adults and then go the way of the dust of the earth and new generations take over.

Surely this constant change and progression itself is what is Absolute. Progression itself can be the only Absolute if you want a God who can speak to his children.

Such a God is completely incompatible with the transcendent unchanging "Being" of sectarian thought. If one is aware of the changes in the endowment made in 1990, that is obvious.

Relating to that as well is the fact that Parmenides influenced the thought of Pythagoras. In this temple context, that may really show the irony here to those who are familiar with all this, but I won't go into it here.

Edited December 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

Then why do you insist that agreement on one premise was enough to require agreement in the conclusion even when there was more than one premise given?

I explained what I meant in the part of my post you didn't quote.

The assumptions are faith based and therefore depending on what faith position one holds yields a correct or false conclusion.

Wait a sec. The assumption of the first premise is taken on faith?

Any method of acquiring knowledge is experiencing that knowledge.

Help me understand: a visionary knowledge of a past or future event is the experience of that event AND any non-visionary knowledge of a past or future event is also an experience of that event?

What's the difference then between visionary knowledge and non-visionary knowledge of past or future events?

[mfbukowski]

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....

Correspondence has been virtually abandoned for at least 100 years.

When you notice you are in a hole, stop digging.

http://en.wikipedia....theory_of_truth

Edited to include a quote from the above article:

Vagueness or circularity

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, immediately the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.^[7]

Edited December 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

[brainburn]

Correspondence has been virtually abandoned for at least 100 years.

When you notice you are in a hole, stop digging.

http://en.wikipedia....theory_of_truth

You think that's convincing? Just telling me that it's been abandoned by a special club of philosophers for a really long time?

You know that ultimately doesn't matter if a correspondence theory of true knowledge is an integral factor of non-visionary revelation. It doesn't matter that the philosophies of men reject what the LDS know is true.

Edited December 18, 2012 by brainburn

[brainburn]

It's funny how I can make my major point in several different ways and I can barely get you to say anything about it. It's possible within LDSism to have spiritual confirmation of some past or future event without directly experiencing that event. The spiritual confirmation is that some description found in scripture (or through inspiriation/witness) corresponds to some reality independent of your immediate experience. The concept of a non-visionary revelation of past or future events require a correspondence theory to make any sense.

If you receive spiritual confirmation of some past or future event, LDS don't require that you have a vision or experience of that event. It seems in this case you only need to experience the confirmation (burning, sense of unfathomable certainty, no doubt, etc) and not the actual event.

When you have spiritual confirmation that the events of the BoM happened, did you experience the event or did you experience something else?

When you have spiritual confirmation that the final judgement will occur, did you experience it occurring or did you experience something else?

When you have absolute knowledge of absolute truth which never changes, did you experience it never changing for all of eternity or did you experience something else?

Those things are considered true knowledge, yet they often don't involve direct experience of the reality in question.

Edited December 18, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

You think that's convincing? Just telling me that it's been abandoned by a special club of philosophers for a really long time?

You know that ultimately doesn't matter if a correspondence theory of true knowledge is an integral factor of non-visionary revelation. It doesn't matter that the philosophies of men reject what the LDS know is true.

Back to square 1. Unbelievable. CFR that the correspondence theory of truth is the only doctrinal theory of truth- not by your misunderstanding of what is being said, but by specific reference to that theory by name. Good luck.

Every further response I will make to you if any will include that CFR and at this point, I will push it.

Respond or retract.

Edited December 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

I explained what I meant in the part of my post you didn't quote.

Doesn't make you less wrong.

The assumption of the first premise is taken on faith?

All unprovable premises are taken on faith, whether it is a premise about spirituality or math.

What's the difference then between visionary knowledge and non-visionary knowledge of past or future events?

One is a vision and the others are not.

I think you are making more work and confusion for yourself by attempting to make it too complicated.

Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

You can't "cash-in" on an logically consistent idea if it's assumptions are unsupported.

In logic, something is an assumption (axiom) because it can't be supported and is just accepted as a given....I am a classicist when it comes to logic because that is the way my math and logic teachers taught me. When writing proofs we had to always take it back to the 'beginning' by either staring with axioms or with a previously proven premise.

And all of math is based on unsupported assumptions.

An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy....Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths. An axiom is defined as a mathematical statement that is accepted as being true without a mathematical proof

Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[brainburn]

I challenge the condition in your CFR that I demonstrate that the correspondence theory of truth is the "only doctrinal theory of truth".

You made that part up and I won't stand for it.

[CV75]

Great stuff!

But notice that there is still constancy here- and there can be absolutes. The conception of Heraclitus is that there IS a river which is always there- the constancy is found in the fact that it is continually changing. It is Absolute in its progression. No man ever steps into the SAME river twice- because the river has changed in one sense but in the other it is still the same river.

From http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng

“We learn about these absolute truths by being taught by the Spirit. These truths are “independent” in their spiritual sphere and are to be discovered spiritually…" ("Absolute Truth," Kimball, 1978)

Ironically another Greek philosopher did NOT win the cultural wars because he was a very obscure writer. Actually this philosopher represents the earliest understanding of the other dominant direction philosophy took as eventually followed by other great thinkers.

From https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/09/the-truth-shall-make-you-free?lang=eng

“Truth does not consist in minute accuracy of detail, but in conveying a right impression; and there are vague ways of speaking that are truer than strict facts would be. When the Psalmist said, ‘Rivers of water run down mine eyes, because men keep not thy law,’ he did not state the facts, but he stated the truth deeper than fact, and truer.” (Henry Alford, quoted in "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Faust, 1998)

[CV75]

P.S. An example of where truth trumps fact: “And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.” -- 1 Peter 4:8. Charity (truth) eradicates sins (facts) through forgiveness -- and it applies to both of the one possessing and giving and the one receiving charity and forgiveness.

To complete my earlier post where I pointed out that facts often obscure or incompletely represent and convey the truth.

Edited December 18, 2012 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

From https://www.lds.org/...u-free?lang=eng

“Truth does not consist in minute accuracy of detail, but in conveying a right impression; and there are vague ways of speaking that are truer than strict facts would be. When the Psalmist said, ‘Rivers of water run down mine eyes, because men keep not thy law,’ he did not state the facts, but he stated the truth deeper than fact, and truer.” (Henry Alford, quoted in "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Faust, 1998)

Thanks- and this!

As a means of coming to truth, people in the Church are encouraged by their leaders to think and find out for themselves. They are encouraged to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to such knowledge of the truth as their own consciences, assisted by the Spirit of God, lead them to discover.

Brigham Young said: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security. … Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 135). In this manner no one need be deceived.

Searching and inquiring are a means of coming to a knowledge of all truth, whether that truth be spiritual, scientific, or moral. The restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and all that it means to us came about because of the inquiring after truth of the 14-year-old Joseph Smith, guided by the passage, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 1:5).

Many years of experience in courtrooms have taught me that truth, in the sense of obtaining justice, is arrived at only by questioning in a searching way.

Members of the Church are encouraged to seek learning from all good books and from any helpful source. For “if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things”

There is that approach to truth through a dialogue with our experiences we find in Alma 32

Edited December 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I challenge the condition in your CFR that I demonstrate that the correspondence theory of truth is the "only doctrinal theory of truth".

You made that part up and I won't stand for it.

Rave on.

[CV75]

Thanks- and this!

There is that approach to truth through a dialogue with our experiences we find in Alma 32

Yes--I was hoping those with real intent would read the entire articles themselves!

My first-ever emoticon! CV's geting hi-tech!

[Calm]

P.S. An example of where truth trumps fact: “And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.” -- 1 Peter 4:8. Charity (truth) eradicates sins (facts) through forgiveness -- and it applies to both of the one possessing and giving and the one receiving charity and forgiveness.

To complete my earlier post where I pointed out that facts often obscure or incompletely represent and convey the truth.

Out of points, so just must say I like this one very, very much.

[Calm]

How could this possibly interpret this without a correspondence theory of truth? And according to your view, how is the correspondence theory even incompatible? I think it fits perfectly and it's the only thing that fits.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209197546

Because I love you, mfb, and don't want the mods to scold you when you don't deserve it.

Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[brainburn]

http://www.mormondia...entry1209197546

Because I love you, mfb, and don't want the mods to scold you when you don't deserve it.

You forgot context.

[Calm]

You forgot context.

Feel free to provide it (I included a link for those who wanted to see the context), but at the very least it provides a reason for why mfb might have interpreted your comments to mean that. He may have been wrong, but if so, I think it was a reasonable inference so claiming that he made it up and you won't stand for it comes across as somewhat of an over the top reaction. Edited December 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[brainburn]

Feel free to provide it (I included a link for those who wanted to see the context), but at the very least it provides a reason for why mfb might have interpreted your comments to mean that. He may have been wrong, but if so, I think it was a reasonable inference so claiming that he made it up and you won't stand for it comes across as somewhat of an over the top reaction.

in progress.......

[brainburn]

If you two paid attention to context (and my argument generally, for that matter) you would see very clearly that I said a correspondence theory of truth is the only thing that fits the particular passages in Alma I quoted.

I see now looking back that a vision could have qualified as fitting the passages without a correspondence theory. But it's not clear that Alma describes the "spirit of revelation" or "manifest" as experiencing the event of Jesus' second coming. I really don't care actually. I retract my statement that those passages in Alma can only make sense with correspondence. If Alma experienced Jesus' second coming before it happened, he wouldn't need correspondence.

But I still stand by my interpretation that if he didn't experience the event itself, he must have only experienced spiritual confirmation of some description. If that's possible and we call it "true knowledge" then you have a correspondence theory of true knowledge.

Let me be absolutely clear:

I never claimed that the only doctrinal theory of truth is the correspondence theory of truth. I fully accept the possibility that there is more than one doctrinal theory of truth.

I don't personally hold the correspondence theory of truth as one of those possible doctrinal theories of truth, but it seems absolutely clear that many LDS do and it's entirely consistent with scripture and prophetic interpretation.

So, here is the claim I stand by and I will leave no room for mis-interpreation:

The correspondence theory of truth is inherit (not explicitly with academic terms, mfb) to some non-visionary forms of revelation.

Non-visionary revelation of past and future events makes no sense unless it involves experiencing confirmation that some description has true correspondence OR involves experiencing that actual event.

So, which is it?

Visions involve experience of the event, so I accept that they don't need correspondence to be considered true knowledge. But visions aren't the only thing we accept as producing true knowledge. It seem that there are other ways of knowing something is true that don't necessarily involve experience of the event but a description of the event and the only experience is burning, unexplainable sense of certainty, zero doubts, and any sort of other positive feelings and convictions.

I think my point is demonstrated by asking about whether we can have true knowledge of things like the final judgement, apostacy, events of the BoM, second coming, whatever.....

If we consider these past and future events knowable and many people do, then did everyone who has true knowledge of those kinds of events have an experience of the events themselves?

Or were they presented with a description and no direct experience, but still ended up with true knowledge because they can know it corresponds to reality?

Edited December 18, 2012 by brainburn