According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[harfad]

There is no such thing as an objective interpretation of one's own revelation. Even the theory that such comes from God is simply an interpretation.

That didn't make sense to me. You mean when the Brother of Jared saw God, that was just an "interpretation"?

[harfad]

Sure it does. The church's philosophy via Thomas S. Monson is do not doubt anything, simply believe what yo are taught and all will be well. Ridiculously weak as it is, that is a philosophical position about dealing with reality. Anyone with half a brain can see through it, but that doesn't mean it's not philosophical. It's a philosophy of don't use your brains, use your ears and believe everything you hear from us. Obedience is a philosophy.

LOL!

I am simply disagreeing with your philosophy that the church does not have a philosophy is all.

Oh the Church has a philosophy all right, at least according to some dictionary definitions of the term. The question is whether it is an "inspired philosophy" or the "philosophies of men".

[Maidservant]

To the OP:

Would you be willing to define or elaborate what objective realism is in your mind?

Would you be willing to explain why you consider objective realism the standard of comparison versus all other perception models?

For myself, the way I understand the world, ideas are always changing. It is people, humans, that are the constant--the I AM. And the I AM experiences myriad things, the line upon line, the precept upon precept, from hell to exaltation and the progressions in between. It is the I AM that is constant and true--not the ideas and 'reality'/perceptions that the being/child of God passes through.

The way I have experienced revelation, I never find the final answer because there is always more. So revelation is a process, steps to take, and my understanding is always transforming (hopefully in an ascending direction, or at least I experience it that way). As Thunderfire said in another thread and which I think will be my new motto for a while (if he doesn't mind me stealing it, lol) . . . "we are pursuing an endless God."

Sure it does. The church's philosophy via Thomas S. Monson is do not doubt anything, simply believe what yo are taught and all will be well. Ridiculously weak as it is, that is a philosophical position about dealing with reality. Anyone with half a brain can see through it, but that doesn't mean it's not philosophical. It's a philosophy of don't use your brains, use your ears and believe everything you hear from us. Obedience is a philosophy. I am simply disagreeing with your philosophy that the church does not have a philosophy is all.

I appreciate that this is or was your experience of the Church and when I hear you express it this way, no wonder you reject and challenge it. I do too. When I participate in the Church, and when I hear any teaching from President Monson and other leaders, I DO NOT experience what you describe, because if I did, again, I would not consent to it.

[mfbukowski]

Sure it does. The church's philosophy via Thomas S. Monson is do not doubt anything, simply believe what yo are taught and all will be well. Ridiculously weak as it is, that is a philosophical position about dealing with reality. Anyone with half a brain can see through it, but that doesn't mean it's not philosophical. It's a philosophy of don't use your brains, use your ears and believe everything you hear from us. Obedience is a philosophy. I am simply disagreeing with your philosophy that the church does not have a philosophy is all.

I was using the term in an academic philosophical sense, not in the sense of "philosophy" as discussed in barber shops. These are not philosophical positions- they are moral maxims taken on faith. But I agree that it is impossible to divorce "the philosophies of men" from scriptural interpretation.

Edited November 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

I'm super interested to know if there are any quotes from LDS sources clearly explaining whether revelations can "prove" something about what "really is" to the person receiving them.

100% sure proof of anything is impossible without knowing everything, including all of the variables of truth and how they relate to each other. Until then, it is all probabilities. Until we can know everything as God knows it, we are destined to a most probable picture of God and reality. We all have unique perspectives and obscure views of "reality", "truth", and God. We can know if a principle is good (in the objective and absolute sense). We know it not through logical proof (though there may be logical evidence), but in spirit. We cannot know it in it's entirety as it relates to all eternal truths until we know all eternal truths and see how they relate. Our interpretations or understanding of that "good" principle may be way off (as we have difficulty divorcing ourselves from the philosophies of men, as Bukowski put it) but it becomes clearer as we follow what we "know" to be good. We are given new pieces of the puzzle which give us a clearer picture and more probable picture of God and truth. I am sure others here are tired of hearing about the analogy of the puzzle, but I think it relates here as well. Sorry!

You will probably ask - "How can you know without proof?"

Answer - I don't know how to answer that, other than the experience of objective and absolute good is knowledge somehow. It is not logical proof to the "carnal mind" rather spiritual proof to the "spiritual mind."

Spiritual sight will forever be a mystery to the spiritually blind because it cannot be proven logically.

Amen to Maidservant! Our perception of truth is forever evolving based on the heed we give to the light we are given.

Edited November 25, 2012 by pogi

[CV75]

"According to the LDS view of revelation... God can grant man revelations which prove beyond any doubt to the receiver what 'really is'. Because of this fact, we can know that the Plan of Salvation works the same way for all of God's children."

Moroni 10: 5-7, “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things… for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.”

So, according to the Book of Mormon, God can grant man revelations proving the truth of all things. Because of this fact, we can know that Moroni’s Promise works the same way for all of God's children.

[Erin15]

Sure it does. The church's philosophy via Thomas S. Monson is do not doubt anything, simply believe what yo are taught and all will be well. Ridiculously weak as it is, that is a philosophical position about dealing with reality. Anyone with half a brain can see through it, but that doesn't mean it's not philosophical. It's a philosophy of don't use your brains, use your ears and believe everything you hear from us.

I hear this complaint a lot from anti's yet I have never actually seen it occur in real life. I was always taught, and that teaching is reinforced almost weekly, that Latter Day Saints are supposted to gain a testimony for ourselves about the teachings of the prophet, the scriptures, and our support of the bretheren. That we are supposted to follow the prophet because The Lord told us to, and because we have recieved withness that it is The Lord's will.

I follow President Monson because The Lord told me to, not because the church told me to. In fact, it was the church that told me to go to The Lord and and ask him directly in the first place.

So, given my experience and what I have always been taught, your comments seem, at best, bizzarely incorrect, and, at worst, intentionally decietful.

[pogi]

I hear this complaint a lot from anti's yet I have never actually seen it occur in real life. I was always taught, and that teaching is reinforced almost weekly, that Latter Day Saints are supposted to gain a testimony for ourselves about the teachings of the prophet, the scriptures, and our support of the bretheren. That we are supposted to follow the prophet because The Lord told us to, and because we have recieved withness that it is The Lord's will.

I follow President Monson because The Lord told me to, not because the church told me to. In fact, it was the church that told me to go to The Lord and and ask him directly in the first place.

So, given my experience and what I have always been taught, your comments seem, at best, bizzarely incorrect, and, at worst, intentionally decietful.

Erin is exactly right,

Relying solely on authorities, we can easily become, “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14) There is historical evidence of this in the church. That is why we are taught to not rely solely on authorities.

Elder Dieter Uchtdorf has counseled that

“We are a question-asking people. We have always been, because we know that inquiry leads to truth. That is how the Church got its start, from a young man who had questions. In fact, I’m not sure how one can discover truth without asking questions. In the scriptures you will rarely discover a revelation that didn’t come in response to a question…. Inquiry is the birthplace of testimony. “Some might feel embarrassed or unworthy because they have searching questions regarding the gospel, but they needn’t feel that way. Asking questions isn’t a sign of weakness. It’s a precursor of growth.”

President Brigham Young said,

"the greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord."

He reiterated it like this:

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. 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. (Brigham Young, 9:150)

President Harold B. Lee said,

“We can know or have the assurance that they (the Prophet and Apostles) are speaking under inspiration if we so live that we can have a witness that what they are speaking is the word of the Lord. There is only one safety, and that is that we shall live to have the witness to know.”

President Benson siad,

"We pay too little attention to the value of meditation, a principle of devotion. In our worship there are two elements: One is spiritual communion arising from our own meditation; the other, instruction from others, particularly from those who have authority to guide and instruct us. Of the two, the more profitable introspectively is the meditation. Meditation is the language of the soul. It is defined as “a form of private devotion, or spiritual exercise, consisting in deep, continued reflection on some religious theme.” Meditation is a form of prayer."

Edited November 25, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

You are simply incorrect or misinformed here.

[mfbukowski]

To the OP:

Would you be willing to define or elaborate what objective realism is in your mind?

I have tried that on other threads- he doesn't have an answer but simply insists that it is perfectly clear as stated.

[mfbukowski]

See my post #20.

I have

[mfbukowski]

Erin is exactly right,

Yeah, get used to it. She almost always is.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't know that there is an "LDS view" of "Revelation" it is or is not "Revelation" which btw is to make secret things known and Christ clearly taught that this is done to keep things known to the believer and unknown by the unbeliever.

[brainburn]

To the OP:

Would you be willing to define or elaborate what objective realism is in your mind?

Anything insufficient about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism ?

I'm not trying to defend it. Just trying to tell whether the Church accepts it as truth.

Would you be willing to explain why you consider objective realism the standard of comparison versus all other perception models?

I can pretend, but it's not my standard.

For myself, the way I understand the world, ideas are always changing. It is people, humans, that are the constant--the I AM. And the I AM experiences myriad things, the line upon line, the precept upon precept, from hell to exaltation and the progressions in between. It is the I AM that is constant and true--not the ideas and 'reality'/perceptions that the being/child of God passes through.

The way I have experienced revelation, I never find the final answer because there is always more. So revelation is a process, steps to take, and my understanding is always transforming (hopefully in an ascending direction, or at least I experience it that way). As Thunderfire said in another thread and which I think will be my new motto for a while (if he doesn't mind me stealing it, lol) . . . "we are pursuing an endless God."

I would only note that there are some revelations which aren't the best candidates for any sort of progress that involve radical revision. A good example is the path our spirits take after death until judgement. I think it's silly to suggest that continuing revelation will deny that our spirits will continue in the after-life. It's a sure thing and we know it's objectively true because of revelation.

Similarly, I think we're pretty certain that the "more" which might be revealed later won't be that God is evil or actually a dolphin or something else just as incompatible. I don't think continuing revelation detracts from our sense of certainty about particularly important and "non-revisable" revelations.

I appreciate that this is or was your experience of the Church and when I hear you express it this way, no wonder you reject and challenge it. I do too. When I participate in the Church, and when I hear any teaching from President Monson and other leaders, I DO NOT experience what you describe, because if I did, again, I would not consent to it.

Understood. I appreciate your perspective, as well!

[brainburn]

Not much to respond to- when you read the article you will realize it is not about what you might think it is. It's object is to keep kids off the internet.

But that's about as close as you will get to things as they "really are". I have told you again and again that the church does not take philosophical positions but you will not believe it.

I understood the objective of the talk, but I think it demonstrates realism in LDSism very nicely. As well as others in this thread (especially post #20 by harfad ;]).

It's the same old problem- you define "objective" to mean "what is real" when that is only one way of knowing a small portion of "what is real".

Of course. I don't get where you are trying to tell me I've gone wrong. I never suggested in any way that it was the only way of knowing.

You won't explain your perspective

:/ I told you I'm willing to try and explain as best I can. I thought what I defined so far was perfectly understandable, if someone wants to know more, I can try. It's the fact that you dismiss everything I say which makes it seem like I'm not trying to answer. If there's anything I can get through to you, it's that I want to reach mutual understanding.

[brainburn]

And harfad, thanks. That's exactly what I'm looking for. Now I just want to go deeper, but it seems I can't according to mfbukowski...

[brainburn]

100% sure proof of anything is impossible without knowing everything, including all of the variables of truth and how they relate to each other. Until then, it is all probabilities. Until we can know everything as God knows it, we are destined to a most probable picture of God and reality. We all have unique perspectives and obscure views of "reality", "truth", and God. We can know if a principle is good (in the objective and absolute sense). We know it not through logical proof (though there may be logical evidence), but in spirit. We cannot know it in it's entirety as it relates to all eternal truths until we know all eternal truths and see how they relate. Our interpretations or understanding of that "good" principle may be way off (as we have difficulty divorcing ourselves from the philosophies of men, as Bukowski put it) but it becomes clearer as we follow what we "know" to be good. We are given new pieces of the puzzle which give us a clearer picture and more probable picture of God and truth. I am sure others here are tired of hearing about the analogy of the puzzle, but I think it relates here as well. Sorry!

I love the puzzle analogy and I totally agree with you. I'll just add what I discussed with Maidservant concerning continuing revelation and the process of learning.

Here's what I think: No matter how many times someone explains that revelation is a process of learning and "things getting clearer" according whether we make the best choices, I think there are still foundational revelations which we can't "go back on". They're not likely candidates for a radical revision.

As for the puzzle, what I'm trying to say is that we are pretty certain that even as we find more pieces of the puzzle, not all the old pieces will be thrown out or revised. We know that many pieces are there to stay and will need zero revision because they make the foundation of the puzzle and puzzle building process.

You will probably ask - "How can you know without proof?"

Answer - I don't know how to answer that, other than the experience of objective and absolute good is knowledge somehow. It is not logical proof to the "carnal mind" rather spiritual proof to the "spiritual mind."

Spiritual sight will forever be a mystery to the spiritually blind because it cannot be proven logically.

Amen to Maidservant! Our perception of truth is forever evolving based on the heed we give to the light we are given.

Agreed. I'd only add that although spiritual knowledge might not be proven logically, it must be understood with our logical minds for it to have any effect on our lives.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And harfad, thanks. That's exactly what I'm looking for. Now I just want to go deeper, but it seems I can't according to mfbukowski...

So tell us how deep does the rabbit hole go? I have found clarity is better than cryptic. Also ever expanding question never allow either side to arrive at the location, leaving one or the other shouting back directions to those left behind, or those behind thinking they are int the lead. Anyway turns into circular arguments. Edited November 26, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Kerry S. Shirts:

Anyone whom posits Mormonism isn't a thoughtful religion isn't paying attention.

Philosophy is just words to describe reality

Also the language of "logic" is in the eye of the beholder. People can disagree with our beliefs without being disagreeable...well some can. Those who rely solely on science without faith are (to use Paul's words) "seeing through a glass darkly".

[volgadon]

Also the language of "logic" is in the eye of the beholder. People can disagree with our beliefs without being disagreeable...well some can. Those who rely solely on science without faith are (to use Paul's words) "seeing through a glass darkly".

QFT.

[Maidservant]

Anything insufficient about this: http://en.wikipedia....ophical_realism ?

Thanks. This was helpful to know better what you meant.

I'm not trying to defend it. Just trying to tell whether the Church accepts it as truth.

Ok. Good to know.

"Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. . . . . Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality and that every new observation brings us closer to understanding reality."

That is a quote from the wikipedia that I think generally covers how Mormonism has generally approached the idea of reality and therefore the approach of many of the members. But I don't think it is the only thing that can be found in Mormonism nor in the members. For myself, I challenge the first sentence and accept the second sentence (more or less, worth arguing the details, I'm sure).

I can pretend, but it's not my standard.

Do you mean that it is a standard you don't subscribe to? Or do you mean that you do subscribe to it but not taking credit for inventing it (of course, ha ha)?

I would only note that there are some revelations which aren't the best candidates for any sort of progress that involve radical revision. A good example is the path our spirits take after death until judgement. I think it's silly to suggest that continuing revelation will deny that our spirits will continue in the after-life. It's a sure thing and we know it's objectively true because of revelation.

Similarly, I think we're pretty certain that the "more" which might be revealed later won't be that God is evil or actually a dolphin or something else just as incompatible. I don't think continuing revelation detracts from our sense of certainty about particularly important and "non-revisable" revelations.

I will reply on this below where you repeat and expand in response to another poster.

Understood. I appreciate your perspective, as well!

Well, that was directed at Mr. Shirts, but yes, I always appreciate learning from other people, so thanks for sharing.

I love the puzzle analogy and I totally agree with you. I'll just add what I discussed with Maidservant concerning continuing revelation and the process of learning.

Here's what I think: No matter how many times someone explains that revelation is a process of learning and "things getting clearer" according whether we make the best choices, I think there are still foundational revelations which we can't "go back on". They're not likely candidates for a radical revision.

As for the puzzle, what I'm trying to say is that we are pretty certain that even as we find more pieces of the puzzle, not all the old pieces will be thrown out or revised. We know that many pieces are there to stay and will need zero revision because they make the foundation of the puzzle and puzzle building process.

I don't disagree with this. My working device for this is a set of words I call "stable-instable". That I am a daughter of God is what I call stable. I don't expect to find out that I am NOT a daughter of God. However, in the ultimate end, how do I know? The idea or reality that I am a daughter of God is the foundation upon which all my further progressions/revelations/perception of reality is based. So if it is undone due to some direct experience with God or the universe, wow, I will have to start over. But I remain open to even a change on these kinds of things, because I simply want to know what there is to know from God or in the universe, so I am open to even fundamental and painful revisions.

Interestingly, the examples you provide: the path of our spirits--I have that completely open (for myself). I don't know anything for myself (that not being one of the things I have specifically sought on). I shouldn't say I don't know anything, because I am always surrounded by spirits and I am aware that they are there. So that is a direct experience, or my understanding of the significance of a direct experience. But I don't know anything else about them except that they are with me and the specific communications that we have that are 99% about me and not themselves (never tried asking them about themselves yet).

And . . . . God IS a dolphin. Or at least a dolphin is God. (Or as I understand.)

And . . . evil . . .is another thread. But I did write about the invention of evil in a historical paper, so I challenge a lot about cultural perceptions on those things, not sure if what I am learning or questioning amounts to revelation however. For example, the Old Testament did not talk a lot about evil; rather things were framed as clean-unclean. Also even in Job, the Adversary was viewed as a tester rather than a tempter. At least a slight difference there.

So, well, the point is that I am responsible for my own point of view and (in my view) I am accountable to my heavenly Father for my point of view. My perception (revelation) of life and of him is an ongoing project between him and me.

Agreed. I'd only add that although spiritual knowledge might not be proven logically, it must be understood with our logical minds for it to have any effect on our lives.

Perhaps it's semantics, but I still immediately get lost when people talk about logic because I haven't permitted this to enter my perceptual framework. I simply don't deal in logic, as I understand it. Nor do I deal in proof. But I would still love to hear you elaborate where you are coming from and going with this, because it does sound interesting.

[Calm]

I don't know that there is an "LDS view" of "Revelation" it is or is not "Revelation" which btw is to make secret things known and Christ clearly taught that this is done to keep things known to the believer and unknown by the unbeliever.

Perhaps one essential quality of Revelation as it is viewed/defined by LDS is that it is "continuing". Some have defined revelation as having been finished shortly after Christ's death after all.

[mfbukowski]

Anything insufficient about this: http://en.wikipedia....ophical_realism ?

We have discussed this before.

The problem with the correspondence theory of truth is that there is no way of verifying the alleged "correspondence" between our EXPERIENCE of what we see and what is "actually there".

We cannot get outside of what we see to check how it corresponds to our experience of it.

And besides you have never mentioned "realism" before- you have always spoken about "objective realism" without defining "objective"- and you still haven't.

Further of course correspondence explains nothing about how moral principles like "it is wrong to kill babies for fun" could possibly be "true".

What does that statement "correspond" to?

[brainburn]

So tell us how deep does the rabbit hole go? I have found clarity is better than cryptic. Also ever expanding question never allow either side to arrive at the location, leaving one or the other shouting back directions to those left behind, or those behind thinking they are int the lead. Anyway turns into circular arguments.

I meant deeper as in find more references and clear explanations in official sources. But if you're still interested in where I'm going with this, it's really up to you. As for mfbukowski, I'm still looking for some evidence of anti-realism...

[brainburn]

We have discussed this before.

The problem with the correspondence theory of truth is that there is no way of verifying the alleged "correspondence" between our EXPERIENCE of what we see and what is "actually there".

We cannot get outside of what we see to check how it corresponds to our experience of it.

And besides you have never mentioned "realism" before- you have always spoken about "objective realism" without defining "objective"- and you still haven't.

Further of course correspondence explains nothing about how moral principles like "it is wrong to kill babies for fun" could possibly be "true".

What does that statement "correspond" to?

You really don't understand that I don't subscribe to any of those things you reject.