According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[mfbukowski]

http://www.mormondia...entry1209197546

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

Huh?

Please just give me a full sentence or two which explains your point.

[brainburn]

Doesn't make you less wrong.

You said, "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 said I explained what I mean already, referring to this:

"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."

And you said I'm still wrong. So, then tell me...... What's wrong about the above statement?

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

So, are there any proven premises in your view?

One is a vision and the others are not.

I already established that. I want to know what qualities make them different and if that quality is experience or non-experience of the actually event.

If you experience the actual event in a vision, do you also experience the actual event in other forms of revelation or not?

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.

My point is more that you can "cash-in" the first premise, but not the 3rd. This use of "prophecy" makes the (apparently incorrect) assumption that prophecy doesn't involve experience of the event. Who ever made this line of logic made a mistake and now it's on lds.org. That's my point. That's it.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Noted.

[mfbukowski]

That's it.

And I already showed at least twice that I do not accept the second premise. Poof.

[Calm]

Huh?

Please just give me a full sentence or two which explains your point.

I put up a call for reference reference so you wouldn't get dinged by the mods for not doing it. Granted, I can see your lack of interest in regurgitating the thread, but I was curious so went ahead and looked for it.

[mfbukowski]

A vision is an experience which predicts or previews future experiences. What's so tough about that?

When you see the "I have a dream" speech on tv, it is an experience which mirrors a previous experience. Same thing but backward in time instead of forward. Nothing to do with ontology whatsoever. I have already said this multiple times.

What's the beef?

[mfbukowski]

I put up a call for reference reference so you wouldn't get dinged by the mods for not doing it. Granted, I can see your lack of interest in regurgitating the thread, but I was curious so went ahead and looked for it.

Ok thanks!

[Calm]

And you said I'm still wrong. So, then tell me...... What's wrong about the above statement?

No, I am stepping out of the conversation for good now because I have explained this over and over and have no desire to do it again. If it hasn't been made clear to you yet, no further effort on my part is likely to do so. If you care about what I mean, I invite you to go back and read my posts until they make sense to you, otherwise you will simply have to assume that I am wrong and you are right or I am right and you are wrong or we are both wrong or whatever makes you happy.

[mfbukowski]

There are no "events" unless you count experience as "events".

For the last last last time, you cannot get "outside" of experience to talk about anything else. So talk on but all you are talking about is yours, or someone's experience.

You can talk about talking about talking all you want but I am done talking.

[mfbukowski]

No, I am stepping out of the conversation for good now because I have explained this over and over and have no desire to do it again. If it hasn't been made clear to you yet, no further effort on my part is likely to do so. If you care about what I mean, I invite you to go back and read my posts until they make sense to you, otherwise you will simply have to assume that I am wrong and you are right or I am right and you are wrong or we are both wrong or whatever makes you happy.

[CV75]

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.

From the records of Moses, Abraham (Enoch) Nephi and Moroni we can see that there is very conceivably a point where the physical and spiritual aspects of an event overlap, where one or the other is seemingly absent but in reality is present. God can enable people to witness events from this point, even though from certain frames of reference the event hasn’t yet occurred or occurred too long ago, or occurred in a place that is inaccessible or no longer exists or doesn’t yet exist. This point allows one to experience events that they otherwise or normally cannot witness.

[mathonihah]

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.

Some dictionary definitions of "fact":

From Dictinary.com:

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth

2. something known to exist or to have happened

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened

From the Free Dictionary:

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

2.

—a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

—b. A real occurrence; an event

—c. Something believed to be true or real

3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime

Sounds a lot like "knowledge of things as they are ..." to me.

[mathonihah]

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.

God being unchangeable means that his character and attributes do not change.

[mathonihah]

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.

Sounds strange to me. Charity is not truth, it is love. Love and truth complement each other; they are not identical to each other. Sin is a "transgression of the law". It signifies an event that has occurred in the past. Assuming that it corresponds to an event that has actually occurred (i.e. things as they were), then it is a truth (as well as a fact). Truth=fact here. I am finding some very strange kinds of reasonings being presented here.

[mathonihah]

“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)

Truth is knowledge of things as they are, they were, and they are to come. If vaguely expressed, then it is vaguely perceived; if accurately expressed, then it is accurately perceived. "Rivers of water run down mine eyes" is a literary device called a metaphor or simile. It is a poetic mode of expression. It is used to convey thoughts and ideas which could not be conveyed in other ways. It is a manner of speech, a mode of expression. It is absurd to try to compare it with "facts". What he is trying to say is that it is not meant to be taken literally. Well that is obvious enough. It is like the camel passing through the eye of the needle. Every school kid knows that it is not meant to be taken literally. It is a deliberately exaggerated form of speech, a hyperbole.

Edited December 19, 2012 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

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

It is a shame you can't give negative points. I could have done with quite a few of those!

[mfbukowski]

Some dictionary definitions of "fact":

From Dictinary.com:

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth

2. something known to exist or to have happened

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened

From the Free Dictionary:

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

2.

—a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

—b. A real occurrence; an event

—c. Something believed to be true or real

3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime

Sounds a lot like "knowledge of things as they are ..." to me.

I wasn't aware that prophets and philosophers wrote dictionaries.

Nietzsche said "there are no facts, only interpretations." I guess the poor man didn't own a dictionary.

[brainburn]

No, I am stepping out of the conversation for good now because I have explained this over and over and have no desire to do it again. If it hasn't been made clear to you yet, no further effort on my part is likely to do so. If you care about what I mean, I invite you to go back and read my posts until they make sense to you, otherwise you will simply have to assume that I am wrong and you are right or I am right and you are wrong or we are both wrong or whatever makes you happy.

I also think I made my point. Thanks for the effort.

[brainburn]

Noted.

/facepalm. So, you go out of your way to acknowledge me when I admit that I've made a mistake, but try very little to actually find common ground with me. Oh well.......

And I already showed at least twice that I do not accept the second premise. Poof.

"Who ever made this line of logic made a mistake and now it's on lds.org. That's my point. That's it."

A vision is an experience which predicts or previews future experiences. What's so tough about that?

When you see the "I have a dream" speech on tv, it is an experience which mirrors a previous experience. Same thing but backward in time instead of forward. Nothing to do with ontology whatsoever. I have already said this multiple times.

What's the beef?

I don't find anything wrong with accepting a vision is an experience of the event in question. But my important question is whether there are non-visionary forms of revelation.

But also, what do you mean by a vision which is an experience which "predicts" a future event? Do you mean that the experience isn't of the event, itself or what?

There are no "events" unless you count experience as "events".

For the last last last time, you cannot get "outside" of experience to talk about anything else. So talk on but all you are talking about is yours, or someone's experience.

You can talk about talking about talking all you want but I am done talking.

And for the last last last time, I never suggested you could get "outside" of experience. You don't need to get outside if you have a correspondence theory that works divinely. I only suggested that you could talk to someone who 1) is on the "outside" of your personal experience, 2) doesn't lie, and 3) can open your spiritual eyes to absolute truth.

Why do you simply repeat that you can't get "outside" when I keep responding that it's not required if there is a divine correspondence theory?

If God wanted to gave you a description of some past or future event and you received a burning witness with an unexplainable sense of absolute certainty of that fact through the spirit of revelation, then what you have is a description which you know corresponds to some reality that is not your immediate experience. You have true knowledge of something you didn't experience directly.

Or if God simply wanted to give you true knowledge through a visionary experience of the event itself, that works too as a theory of truth.

What makes the former unacceptable and the latter OK?

And please don't tell me that the former somehow presupposes that you can get "outside". The knowledge is inside our minds, but from whom we received that knowledge let's us know (through the divine power of the spirit of revelation) that a certain concept corresponds to something outside our minds. All happening without our experience of the event directly or our subjective experience "reaching out" into "what's out there" or whatever you keep telling me you reject.

If someone personally holds that they "know the final judgement will occur and the gospel is an important factor in judgement", does this necessarily mean that they experienced the event directly? Or is it possible that many LDS accept that they didn't experience their own final judgement, but only know that certain descriptions of the event given in scripture and by prophets truly corresponds to the future because God made that possible to know?

[CV75]

Sounds a lot like "knowledge of things as they are ..." to me.

And your point is…? (That’s a rhetorical question).

[CV75]

God being unchangeable means that his character and attributes do not change.

That too. And your point is…? (That’s a rhetorical question, too).

[CV75]

Truth=fact here. I am finding some very strange kinds of reasonings being presented here.

And sin = truth "there." I think you’re just confusing yourself, so no need to repeat whatever points you are trying to make.

[CV75]

If vaguely expressed, then it is vaguely perceived; if accurately expressed, then it is accurately perceived.

Like I said, the root of the problem is one's overdependence on and rigid criteria for another's expression for the realization of what should otherwise be one's own perception.

[mfbukowski]

God being unchangeable means that his character and attributes do not change.

That is exactly right.

And his attributes and character include having interactions with his children and progressing through his children. Even Bruce R. McConkie says that.

God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply—not in the sense that he learns new truths and discovers new laws. God is not a student. He is not a laboratory technician. He is not postulating new theories on the basis of past experiences. He has indeed graduated to that state of exaltation that consists of knowing all things and having all power.

http://speeches.byu....viewitem&id=658

Progression means change. God changes. Progression is one of his attributes.

As his children are exalted, they add to his kingdoms. "This is my work and my glory - to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man".

God has a work and that work is growing his kingdom through our progression and as we progress, he progresses.

Edited December 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don't find anything wrong with accepting a vision is an experience of the event in question.

That's not what I said. Re-read it until you understand the difference. Or don't. I really don't care.

And for the last last last time, I never suggested you could get "outside" of experience. You don't need to get outside if you have a correspondence theory that works divinely. I only suggested that you could talk to someone who 1) is on the "outside" of your personal experience, 2) doesn't lie, and 3) can open your spiritual eyes to absolute truth.

And how pray tell does the person tell you this without you having an experience of him telling you something?

You have no clue. You cannot get outside of your experience. Period. No one experiences an event. They experience experiencing an event, or you have a direct contradiction in your statement which also says you cannot get "outside" of an experience.

You keep contradicting yourself. On one hand you agree about getting outside an experience and then you contradict it by saying the experience is OF an event. In order to know the experience is "of an event" you would have to get "outside your experience" to check it against the alleged "event". You cannot know the experience is "of" anything without getting "outside" the experience.

That's absolutely it. I can't believe I actually fell for it again.