According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[brainburn]

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

Well, I really care to find exactly where I go awry. Help me understand. You're saying that a visionary revelation of past and future events is like watching a tv which shows past and future events?

OK. Hopefully that's correct. Let me tell you how I see our disagreement.

Here's what we apparently agree on:

So, according to you, the only propositions we can know to be true are limited to what we experience. So, in the case of the television, the only true propositions involved are of the experience of watching the television. But we assume that there are true but unknowable propositions concerning things which are not our experience of watching the tv. As far as propositions concerning the external reality being experienced (like how television waves work, that the event recorded happened, the devices used, etc.) we accept those propositions because they "work", but don't claim to have absolute knowledge of whether they exist and in what form. In other words, we presume there is some absolute truth "out there" which determined our experience of the television but it's impossible to know how or if this description corresponds to that external reality.

I absolutely accept this interpretation. It's the way I think. "I experienced the television showing X" is the first and only knowable proposition. There's no magic method to gain absolute knowledge of anything about the televisions waves or the events themselves.

Now, introducing religion...

If a vision is like watching television, then effectively what God must be doing is opening our eyes to a spiritual television that's tuned to either the future show or the past show. So, we've conclude somehow that there are physical televisions and spiritual "televisions". Sure, I can entertain that idea. Let's explore.

Clearly, there are extreme differences between how interpret watching a show on the physical television and watching a show on the spiritual television. We interpret the internal realities pretty much the same (with some magical exceptions I'll mention), but the biggest differences are in our assumptions about the external realities.

Here's where our disagreements come in (again, I hope): It would seem that if we applied the same logic to spiritual television as we did to the physical, everything would fit. But, the point of what I've been trying to get through to you is this...

Applying the same logic to the spiritual television as we did to the physical contradicts LDS doctrine.

Let me demonstrate this to you by switching out the physical terms in my description of the physical television with spiritual terms for the spiritual television:

So, according to you, the only propositions we can know to be true are limited to what we experience. So, in the case of the spiritual television, the only true propositions involved are of the experience of watching the spiritual television. But we assume that there are true but unknowable propositions concerning things which are independent our experience of watching the tv. Things like what is a spiritual recording, that the event recorded happened or will happen, how a spiritual television works etc. We accept those propositions because they "work", but don't claim to have absolute knowledge of whether they exist and in what form. In other words, we presume there is some absolute truth "out there" which determined our (very strange and inexplicable) experience of the television but it's impossible to know how or if this description corresponds to that external reality.

Do you see the contradiction?

...............................here's the point I want to hit home, mfb. I think it's appropriate that you should pay most attention to the following point in your response.

If you've agreed with that paragraph, you might have a problem if you call yourself LDS.

LDS doctrine states that we can know certain things about the external reality of the spiritual television. The true and knowable propositions are not only "I experienced the spiritual television showing X/Y/Z" but also, "The spiritual television's shows actually represent the past or future".

There's nothing tricky about this. LDS doctrine holds unequivocally that visions provided by God can truly represent the past or future.

That proposition, "visions from God truly represent the past or future", is not a proposition only about experience. It's very clearly also a claim about the external reality of the spiritual television. Why does LDS hold this proposition to be knowable if it involves a claim about external reality in addition to experience?

And I'll still push that saying that we know visions represent the past or future only makes sense with a divine correspondence theory of visions.

If visions God shows us are not lies, then we admit that the visions are representations which will always correspond to the events in question and any non-correspondence is impossible. It's inherit to the way we see lies and truths about past or future events.

Everyone accepts that a lie about the past or future is a proposition which doesn't correspond to external reality and the truth is what does. But according to you (and your chosen club of philosophers), we can't know that any proposition about the future is a truth or a lie. This simply isn't true according to LDSism. We can know whether propositions about the future are true or lies.

Jesus will return to Earth. Truth.

Jesus will never return to Earth. Lie.

Those propositions have nothing to do with my immediate experience. They are beyond my experience.

If God gives you knowledge of the truth about the past or future and never a lie, then how can calling one proposition the truth and the other a lie ever make sense without a correspondence theory of truth and lies?

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

Can we be explicit and ask the question again?

How does God tell someone he is on the outside of your experience, doesn't lie, and can open their spiritual eyes without that someone experiencing God telling him those things?

uuhhhh... what? How does this question have anything to do with what I've said? When did I ever suggest that God could tell you he is those things without you experiencing God telling you those same things?

It's absurd questions like these which let me know that you really don't get me, mfb.

No one experiences an event.

And it's statements like these which make me doubt that I will ever understand what you mean....

But I'm still very interested in trying!

Edited December 21, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

But we assume that there are true but unknowable propositions concerning things which are not our experience of watching the tv.

Nope. We cannot make that assumption. First of all "propositions" are sentences in a language, created in a human mind. No mind, no language, no propositions, no knowledge. There is nothing which "knows" without a mind knowing. Does a table "know"? Perhaps a dog "knows"- who knows?

It doesn't matter really. It's just words. The practical consequences are what is important.

I absolutely accept this interpretation. It's the way I think. "I experienced the television showing X" is the first and only knowable proposition. There's no magic method to gain absolute knowledge of anything about the televisions waves or the events themselves.

Stop right there and you have it. Pretend for a moment that everything is an interactive "movie" but you cannot turn around and find the projectionist etc. Yet within the movie itself, because it is interactive, there is evidence that there is out there a brainburn who keeps driving you crazy, and you know that you could never make up such an interaction, so clearly there is another intelligence out there that you can really know very little about. Maybe he is messing with you. Maybe he is a real seeker. Maybe he is playing games. Who knows- and at a certain point- who cares? Christmas is coming and there is a lot to do. Real life- real experience, and practical concerns prevail.

But the interactive "movie" IS "reality" - it is reality as we and everyone knows it and experiences it. Why do we have to even postulate anything else? Why not just drop the whole idea of a "movie" at all and just say that what is "real" is what we experience? Is it really a movie? Of course not!

It is real. It is what IS as it really is because we can know nothing else. What we experience IS what IS. There is nothing more we can talk about or interact with.

If a vision is like watching television, then effectively what God must be doing is opening our eyes to a spiritual television that's tuned to either the future show or the past show. So, we've conclude somehow that there are physical televisions and spiritual "televisions". Sure, I can entertain that idea. Let's explore.

You really love your dualism, don't you? There is always something dualistic built right into you from the get-go. You have already begged the question with your assumption that there are 2 kinds of tv's. Where did you get that assumption?

No there is only 1 television that you can know about, and it is your mind. Clearly you mind tells you that others are just as "real" as you are- they love you, give you a hard time, punch you in the nose, etc. They interact with you, give you pleasure and pain, and you have absolute real live CERTAINTY without any doubt that they are as "real" as anything can be.

And one of those real intelligences is God. He speaks to your heart in times of trouble, sends experiences just as real as any you have when you feel love for someone, or hear good news that makes you happy. He is another person among the intelligences with whom you interact every day, except he is invisible, he still can send you messages and you can feel his presence.

Clearly, there are extreme differences between how interpret watching a show on the physical television and watching a show on the spiritual television. We interpret the internal realities pretty much the same (with some magical exceptions I'll mention), but the biggest differences are in our assumptions about the external realities.

Yep - in fact right here you are assuming there ARE "external realities" we can know about. Clearly there is "something out there"- I am not a solipsist in any way shape or form. BUT YOU CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IS OUT THERE INDEPENDENT OF YOUR MIND BECAUSE WHAT YOU KNOW IS NOT INDEPENDENT OF YOUR MIND. In fact it is "IN" your mind.

Here's where our disagreements come in (again, I hope): It would seem that if we applied the same logic to spiritual television as we did to the physical, everything would fit. But, the point of what I've been trying to get through to you is this...

You've begged the question by assuming there are 2 tvs

Applying the same logic to the spiritual television as we did to the physical contradicts LDS doctrine.

Nope. We've already discussed this. You are not even LDS anyway why do you care?

Things like

But we assume that there are true but unknowable propositions concerning things which are independent our experience of watching the tv.

Nope. I don't do that.

How can there even BE a linguistic "proposition" about something which is not linguistic? If it is in language, it has been experienced already.

what is a spiritual recording, that the event recorded happened or will happen, how a spiritual television works etc. We accept those propositions because they "work", but don't claim to have absolute knowledge of whether they exist and in what form. In other words, we presume there is some absolute truth "out there" which determined our (very strange and inexplicable) experience of the television but it's impossible to know how or if this description corresponds to that external reality.

Do you see the contradiction?

Yep I sure do!! The contradiction is in your assumptions- not mine. I make no assumptions about absolute truth in any sense except as propositions which are as far as we know always justified in experience. Absolute truth in your sense doesn't exist. If you had actually listened or read anything I posted you would know that.

The rest is offensive garbage and you don't know what you are talking about. But I will quote it specifically so you know what "offensive garbage" is for future reference.

...............................here's the point I want to hit home, mfb. I think it's appropriate that you should pay most attention to the following point in your response.

If you've agreed with that paragraph, you might have a problem if you call yourself LDS.

LDS doctrine states that we can know certain things about the external reality of the spiritual television. The true and knowable propositions are not only "I experienced the spiritual television showing X/Y/Z" but also, "The spiritual television's shows actually represent the past or future".

There's nothing tricky about this. LDS doctrine holds unequivocally that visions provided by God can truly represent the past or future.

That proposition, "visions from God truly represent the past or future", is not a proposition only about experience. It's very clearly also a claim about the external reality of the spiritual television. Why does LDS hold this proposition to be knowable if it involves a claim about external reality in addition to experience?

And I'll still push that saying that we know visions represent the past or future only makes sense with a divine correspondence theory of visions.

If visions God shows us are not lies, then we admit that the visions are representations which will always correspond to the events in question and any non-correspondence is impossible. It's inherit to the way we see lies and truths about past or future events.

Everyone accepts that a lie about the past or future is a proposition which doesn't correspond to external reality and the truth is what does. But according to you (and your chosen club of philosophers), we can't know that any proposition about the future is a truth or a lie. This simply isn't true according to LDSism. We can know whether propositions about the future are true or lies.

Jesus will return to Earth. Truth.

Jesus will never return to Earth. Lie.

Those propositions have nothing to do with my immediate experience. They are beyond my experience.

If God gives you knowledge of the truth about the past or future and never a lie, then how can calling one proposition the truth and the other a lie ever make sense without a correspondence theory of truth and lies?

Can we be explicit and ask the question again?

How does God tell someone he is on the outside of your experience, doesn't lie, and can open their spiritual eyes without that someone experiencing God telling him those things?

uuhhhh... what? How does this question have anything to do with what I've said? When did I ever suggest that God could tell you he is those things without you experiencing God telling you those same things?

It's absurd questions like these which let me know that you really don't get me, mfb.

And it's statements like these which make me doubt that I will ever understand what you mean....

But I'm still very interested in trying!

[mfbukowski]

LDS doctrine states that we can know certain things about the external reality of the spiritual television.

I think I might have a new siggy.

Yes, I think that is in D&C 947: 536 as I recall.

[brainburn]

I might have a new siggy.

Yes, I think that is in D&C 947: 536 as I recall.

It's in D&C 93:24.

Truth includes the knowledge of things as they are to come.

If the only true knowledge we can have is of experience and the future is what we haven't experienced, how do we interpret true knowledge of the future?

Well, clearly the proposition becomes a contradiction.

Under your definitions, to say true knowledge of the future is possible is to say that it's possible to experience what you haven't experienced yet.

Experiencing what you haven't experienced is impossible. How do you resolve this contradiction without a correspondence theory?

While you're explaining your answer, I still contend that a divinely powered correspondence theory is exactly what makes an experience of something true knowledge of what you haven't experienced.

With correspondence, the experience is not the impossible experience of the future event in question... But rather the very possible experience of God's infallible witness to some description.

God is who shows us it's possible to know that the experience of a vision of some future event mirrors (corresponds to) the unexperienced future event.

God is who shows us it's possible to know that the experience of a witness to some description of a future event in scripture corresponds to the unexperienced future event.

Scripture describes the future and many LDS know that God has confirmed those descriptions to them when they asked in faith.

Mfb, I was LDS and I know that I wasn't taught by any priesthood holder or scripture that knowing that the descriptions of future events found in scripture were true is impossible because it requires a correspondence theory.

No. It was absolutely clear to me that the most common reason for accepting the descriptions in scripture were true was a witness to the source of the particular description. To experience some mirror of the events described through a vision was a much rarer justification. I never personally knew anyone who experienced a vision of the events of the BoM like Smith did. Smith's true knowledge of the BoM in that moment was different than the true knowledge the common believer has. The more common form of true knowledge of past and future events only makes sense if we accept a divinely powered correspondence theory to make the descriptions true without directly experiencing what they describe.

Edited December 22, 2012 by brainburn

[brainburn]

Nope. We cannot make that assumption. First of all "propositions" are sentences in a language, created in a human mind. No mind, no language, no propositions, no knowledge. There is nothing which "knows" without a mind knowing. Does a table "know"? Perhaps a dog "knows"- who knows?

It doesn't matter really. It's just words. The practical consequences are what is important.

Yes, but we have a very specific model of practical consequences involving future events. The practical consequences of denying Jesus is the savior are facts. The practical consequences of accepting Jesus is the savior are different facts.

Stop right there and you have it. Pretend for a moment that everything is an interactive "movie" but you cannot turn around and find the projectionist etc. Yet within the movie itself, because it is interactive, there is evidence that there is out there a brainburn who keeps driving you crazy, and you know that you could never make up such an interaction, so clearly there is another intelligence out there that you can really know very little about. Maybe he is messing with you. Maybe he is a real seeker. Maybe he is playing games. Who knows- and at a certain point- who cares? Christmas is coming and there is a lot to do. Real life- real experience, and practical concerns prevail.

Yep. But if God told you that I was actually "out there" beyond your mind, you would have absolute evidence of this fact because God wouldn't lie to you.

But the interactive "movie" IS "reality" - it is reality as we and everyone knows it and experiences it. Why do we have to even postulate anything else? Why not just drop the whole idea of a "movie" at all and just say that what is "real" is what we experience? Is it really a movie? Of course not!

Why not say what is "real" is what we experience?

Because we require distinctions between the imagined facts and real facts to understand the world as it really is according to the LDS model.

If I had an imaginary friend, he would be a reality only to me. But under your definition, the friend I made up is just as "real" as a friend that actually exists. Nothing about your definition makes the very important distinction between the imaginary and the unimagined. But if God tells me that the friend is real, there is a need for the distinction between imagined reality and actual reality. The practical consequences of an imaginary friend and a real friend are different. So, it's absolutely necessary to think this way if we want to avoid or seek consequences dependent on whether the friend is imaginary. If we made no distinction between what is imaginary and unimagined, we would run into all sorts of unintended consequences based on our lack of distinction. There needs to be some standard that distinguishes the imagined from the unimagined and God supplies the ultimate application of that standard.

It is real. It is what IS as it really is because we can know nothing else. What we experience IS what IS. There is nothing more we can talk about or interact with.

No. We can talk about whether Jesus will return to Earth. You still haven't responded to this point.

Jesus will return to Earth. Truth.

Jesus will never return to Earth. Lie.

Those propositions have nothing to do with my immediate experience. They are beyond my experience.

If it is beyond my experience, then according to you, I can't talk about it.

Clearly, saying one non-experienced thing is a truth and the other a lie is talking about what we haven't experienced.

You really love your dualism, don't you? There is always something dualistic built right into you from the get-go. You have already begged the question with your assumption that there are 2 kinds of tv's. Where did you get that assumption?

From you! There's a difference between viewing whatever it is your looking at right now and having a vision of something you could have never "looked at" without God. That difference is in the external reality of the situation. In other words, the difference is that God gave you the vision you wouldn't have received by yourself. One vision is natural and the other is supernatural because it involves God. Two types of vision. Your own vision you experience constantly and the vision given to you by God which is sought after.

No there is only 1 television that you can know about, and it is your mind.

I'm not sure, but I think this changes the metaphor. If there is only one television and it is your mind... then the same point I was attempting to make applied to this metaphor would be that there are two "waves" your mind can receive: It can receive two different inputs through your senses, those from the natural world and those from God.

And one of those real intelligences is God. He speaks to your heart in times of trouble, sends experiences just as real as any you have when you feel love for someone, or hear good news that makes you happy. He is another person among the intelligences with whom you interact every day, except he is invisible, he still can send you messages and you can feel his presence.

Yes. God sends different television waves to your television than you would receive without God.

Yep - in fact right here you are assuming there ARE "external realities" we can know about. Clearly there is "something out there"- I am not a solipsist in any way shape or form. BUT YOU CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IS OUT THERE INDEPENDENT OF YOUR MIND BECAUSE WHAT YOU KNOW IS NOT INDEPENDENT OF YOUR MIND. In fact it is "IN" your mind.

The fact that Jesus will return to Earth is independent of your mind at this moment, yet you know it's true.

Yep I sure do!! The contradiction is in your assumptions- not mine. I make no assumptions about absolute truth in any sense except as propositions which are as far as we know always justified in experience. Absolute truth in your sense doesn't exist. If you had actually listened or read anything I posted you would know that.

Absolute knowledge of absolute truth includes knowledge of the future. If it's in the future, it's clearly independent of your immediate experience. So, if you have absolute knowledge of absolute truth, you accept that you have absolute knowledge of something independent of your immediate experience.

[mfbukowski]

Brainburn:

I'll let your comments stand on their own merit, thank you, without comment.

[brainburn]

Brainburn:

I'll let your comments stand on their own merit, thank you, without comment.

..........and I still have very little clue what you mean by this statement. I don't intend to beat my mind against a wall and ask another willing person to waste their time helping me figure it out. I would never naturally be entertained or benefited by it. I'm actually embarrassed at the thought. I know we could both operate at the same level in some sense and find common logical ground. We don't have to feel this way about each other. It's clear you understand the mind very well, and I'm sure you recognize much of the disconnect between us. So, I'm very interested in returning sometime after christmas and gladly rebooting our discussion at maybe a much more simple and equal pace. (I tend to experience debates progress a bit more smoothly if we try to focus on those smaller chunks of logic to find those essential points of agreement.) You should expect this thread to pop back up whenever I get around to it.

But a few things you should think about: I feel the need to eschew delusion in myself and if others want to help, it's only part of my process that I seriously question our judgements of each others position. I understand my use of logic is very much in question and from my perspective I have plenty of objections and responses to your statements but also am ready to acknowledge my own logic mistakes. But I'm very willing to explore your perspective by asking (maybe quite a few) very important clarifying questions. So, if you're willing or even just don't mind helping me change my mind, then I'd really appreciate your input. It's not often I pursue a goal which involves truly understanding what it means to be LDS. We each are insisting ourselves to be correct in this struggle. I think this fact gives me more than a few reasons to believe it's very likely this will lead to an actual mutual improvement in our understanding of why we disagree and that "works" for me.

Edited December 22, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

This is more a question of philosophical education. These are not "my" positions. I am not making this stuff up.

Maybe we can talk