According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[mfbukowski]

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

Well I feel we keep going in circles- again you haven't told me what "things" you don't subscribe to that I allegedly "reject".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#SocCon

That's ok- I will just bow out and let you guys chat. I guess I have been rather boorish. Besides since you don't to subscribe to anything I reject, that means that we agree in all respects, so the problem is solved. We totally agree according to that.

Edited November 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

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

And you're still wrong.

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.

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?

God solves every one of your objections. You're leaving him out. Just think about it instead of presuming I'm trying to defend it as if God's not involved. Also, if you haven't noticed my discussions with others in this thread, official LDSism is essentially an objective realist worldview because God gives those sorts of revelations as the basis of his authority. And all of this talk from you about there being no "metaphysics of correspondence" is leaving out revelation. Your interpretations of "true" and "know" are useful, but not the only uses according to the Church and according to God. Anti-realism has yet to be found in any official source. Apparently it's not any conclusion derived from Mormonism. Are you just lucky to have come by it?

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

Again? I know we've discussed this before. You can't even guess?

Objective realism refers to belief in a reality that includes mind-independent things. Does "independent" sound like a word I like to use? I think it's appropriate to call you out for moving the goal post at this point.

Edited November 26, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

God solves every one of your objections. You're leaving him out.

OK I guess I get it now. Of course I am leaving Him out. I am trying to talk philosophy- a language which all, secular atheists and Mormons alike will understand.

You are speaking Mormonism. OK fine I can do that, as long as an atheist doesn't show up and want to speak academic philosophy.

[mfbukowski]

Anti-realism has yet to be found in any official source. Apparently it's not any conclusion derived from Mormonism. Are you just lucky to have come by it?....

Objective realism refers to belief in a reality that includes mind-independent things. Does "independent" sound like a word I like to use? I think it's appropriate to call you out for moving the goal post at this point.

I found antirealism before I found Mormonism thank God.

Now let's pretend I am now how I was before I found it- a believer in correspondence. Note again- this is just for the sake of instruction. I will take on a realist view for a while and see where it lands us. I will italicize "fake Bukowski" to make it clear that I am assuming an argument I actually do not make.

Fake Bukowski says:

When you have a spiritual experience, what does it correspond to? It is certainly nothing it reality- reality is independent of your silly experiences! Reality has nothing to do with what you see and feel- it is REAL. What's wrong with you? You have an emotional marginally psychotic experience and you think such things are real?

I don't see God- no one ever has. Where is he? Show me! Reality is independent of your silly stories of revelation! You are having experiences NOT based in reality in any way- they are all in your mind! What is in your mind has no relation to reality! Reality exists independent of you and the way you see things!

One cannot believe in revelation without believing at least to a small degree that religious experience is in some way both "real" and thus not dependent on a mind-independent reality. If reality is not mind independent to some degree, and "objective realism" is the case, as so defined, then revelation cannot be considered "real". How can one check to see if revelation is "real" if it is only real if it corresponds to objective reality?

Revelation becomes hallucination.

[brainburn]

I found antirealism before I found Mormonism thank God.

Now let's pretend I am now how I was before I found it- a believer in correspondence. Note again- this is just for the sake of instruction. I will take on a realist view for a while and see where it lands us. I will italicize "fake Bukowski" to make it clear that I am assuming an argument I actually do not make.

Fake Bukowski says:

One cannot believe in revelation without believing at least to a small degree that religious experience is in some way both "real" and thus not dependent on a mind-independent reality. If reality is not mind independent to some degree, and "objective realism" is the case, as so defined, then revelation cannot be considered "real". How can one check to see if revelation is "real" if it is only real if it corresponds to objective reality?

Revelation becomes hallucination.

You're misunderstanding again. I don't think all reality is independent of the mind. Reality includes mind-independent things. I'm a bit shocked you'd think I'd make such a basic mistake.

[mfbukowski]

You're misunderstanding again. I don't think all reality is independent of the mind. Reality includes mind-independent things. I'm a bit shocked you'd think I'd make such a basic mistake.

Well I give up.

You won't define your position and I am done with a guessing game. I know your response already- you want to reach a common understanding. Sorry- I don't believe it. If you wanted that you would explain a cohesive position which we could discuss. It's like trying to squeeze a water balloon- wherever you push, it bulges out in a different direction.

I am sure you understand your position but I sure don't. There really is no point to the discussion anymore. And as your screen name suggests, I think you are here just to play games.

Edited November 26, 2012 by mfbukowski

[harfad]

OK I guess I get it now. Of course I am leaving Him out. I am trying to talk philosophy- a language which all, secular atheists and Mormons alike will understand.

You are speaking Mormonism. OK fine I can do that, as long as an atheist doesn't show up and want to speak academic philosophy.

The object of our current discourse is truth and reality. Truth and reality may be objects of investigation in academic philosophy, but they are also objects of discourse in revelation-based religion—independent of academic philosophy. Your assumption that any discourse about truth or reality can only be meaningful to a secular atheist if it is carried out within the framework of academic philosophy and not of revelation-based religion is plainly baseless and false. Your persistence that this discussion should only takes place within the framework of academic philosophy, a view which nobody else shares but you, amounts to a flagrant derailment of the thread.

[brainburn]

You give up? Well, the thing is that I am interested in sharing my perspective with you, but when it comes to you, specifically, all I really have to say is that you are at odds with a very important piece of Mormonism and you don't seem to acknowledge it. You're a hardcore anti-realist and I think I've demonstrated that Mormonism is undeniably the opposite when it really comes down to their most important and foundational ideas. All of my questions for you have been attempts to figure out whether your anti-realisim overlaps (or contradicts) the Church's realism. I've figured you're far enough to be at odds with the church from what you've explained about correspondence, "know", "truth", realism/anti-realism etc... but maybe you'll surprise me with a quote that demonstrates the Church actually agrees with you on those sorts of matters.

And many people in this thread have made the differences between your system of belief and official Mormonism even clearer in my mind.

Edited November 26, 2012 by brainburn

[brainburn]

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)?

Heh. I don't subscribe to it.

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.

I think it's excellent that you think that, but why would you ever revise being a daughter of God? It seems to me that any changing of that revelation would make the old revelation false. Do you mean to say it's possible you received a false revelation?

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.

I meant to suggest something a bit more incompatible with Mormonism. Such as dolphins being the main purpose of the universe and not us or something silly.

Also, I meant evil as in manipulating humans for evil purposes. ie, not the Mormon God.

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.

Kinda don't know what to say to someone who claims they don't "deal in logic".

[brainburn]

And brainburn refers to overthinking.

[thesometimesaint]

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".

We all see through that glass darkly. Science has its place, and in my view an important one, but not the only one for all circumstances. Knowing that atoms are mostly empty space doesn't shake my faith a bit that I'll not fall through the floor when I get up in the morning.

[CV75]

Regarding the scripture, “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come… (D&C 93:24),” truth (or knowledge) is ultimately a purely subjective experience since objects (records, evidence, facts, etc.) that can be said to contain or represent such knowledge cannot act for themselves. They only contain knowledge by the hand of those who do act for themselves. This idea is often expressed in such ways as “I am the true light… I am the Spirit of truth… [having] received a fulness of truth, even of all truth (D&C 93: 2, 26)” and “All truth is independent… to act for itself …otherwise there is no existence (D&C 93:30).”

So on one hand, truth is objective before we find it, and on the other hand, is subjective once we become it (and we "become" by "doing").

Edited November 26, 2012 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

You give up? Well, the thing is that I am interested in sharing my perspective with you, but when it comes to you, specifically, all I really have to say is that you are at odds with a very important piece of Mormonism and you don't seem to acknowledge it. You're a hardcore anti-realist and I think I've demonstrated that Mormonism is undeniably the opposite when it really comes down to their most important and foundational ideas. All of my questions for you have been attempts to figure out whether your anti-realisim overlaps (or contradicts) the Church's realism. I've figured you're far enough to be at odds with the church from what you've explained about correspondence, "know", "truth", realism/anti-realism etc... but maybe you'll surprise me with a quote that demonstrates the Church actually agrees with you on those sorts of matters.

And many people in this thread have made the differences between your system of belief and official Mormonism even clearer in my mind.

Yes well then report me to my Stake President as an apostate. He needs a good laugh, the poor man is over worked beyond measure.

What you are missing is that if everything is mind-dependent, then every moment is a revelation. I live by revelation every moment of every day. Every tree and leaf and table and chair are revelations. Every moment is based in what God is teaching me.

If that is against church policy, then I am an apostate all right.

[brainburn]

Yes well then report me to my Stake President as an apostate. He needs a good laugh, the poor man is over worked beyond measure.

What you are missing is that if everything is mind-dependent, then every moment is a revelation. I live by revelation every moment of every day. Every tree and leaf and table and chair are revelations. Every moment is based in what God is teaching me.

If that is against church policy, then I am an apostate all right.

I'm sure you're a superb member of the Church and I don't mean that in any negative way. Unfortunately, you're an anti-realist to the bone so you differ doctrinally with the Church in a very significant way and I think I've demonstrated this. Official LDSism includes a correspondence bridge and you deny that such a thing exists. It just so happens that this bridge is revelation, the true keystone of Mormonism. So, apparently you deny that revelation does what the Church says it does. I'm thinking you couldn't disagree on a more important idea. That's good enough for me to put you in a category of Mormon that is incompatible with the category I would put the GA's in.

Edited November 26, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

That's good enough for me to put you in a category of Mormon that is incompatible with the category I would put the GA's in.

Oh no! I am in horrible fear of your judgement! (yawn)

[brainburn]

Oh no! I am in horrible fear of your judgement! (yawn)

Please don't misunderstand me again. I really don't care how you feel about the situation. I'm interested in your logical evaluation of my specific objection to to your claim to be Mormon first. I'm not trying to distance you from Mormonism generally and tell you your life is meaningless or something. It's much more simple in my mind. I'm pointing out a very specific difference between your views of revelation and your lack of substantive response can only mean a few things...

[Calm]

I'm sure you're a superb member of the Church and I don't mean that in any negative way. Unfortunately, you're an anti-realist to the bone so you differ doctrinally with the Church in a very significant way and I think I've demonstrated this. Official LDSism includes a correspondence bridge and you deny that such a thing exists. It just so happens that this bridge is revelation, the true keystone of Mormonism. So, apparently you deny that revelation does what the Church says it does. I'm thinking you couldn't disagree on a more important idea. That's good enough for me to put you in a category of Mormon that is incompatible with the category I would put the GA's in.

So basically you are saying he's a real nice guy, but not a true Mormon.....

[Nemesis]

Please don't misunderstand me again. I really don't care how you feel about the situation. I'm interested in your logical evaluation of my specific objection to to your claim to be Mormon first. I'm not trying to distance you from Mormonism generally and tell you your life is meaningless or something. It's much more simple in my mind. I'm pointing out a very specific difference between your views of revelation and your lack of substantive response can only mean a few things...

• Judging others
  
• Personal attacks. You may dispute a member's opinion, but you may not label them for having that opinion.
  
• Psychoanalyzing others \
  

Wow 3 strikes. Read the board guidelines before posting again.

Nemesis

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Please don't misunderstand me again. I really don't care how you feel about the situation. I'm interested in your logical evaluation of my specific objection to to your claim to be Mormon first. I'm not trying to distance you from Mormonism generally and tell you your life is meaningless or something. It's much more simple in my mind. I'm pointing out a very specific difference between your views of revelation and your lack of substantive response can only mean a few things...

It gets tiresome to always have others trying to tell us what "We Believe"...that term is used in conjunction with theAoF...there you will find "what" we believe on the issue.

[brainburn]

I'm not interested in judging, attacking, or psycho analyzing and I apologize sincerely for giving that impression. But I want to be clear that I didn't tell mfbukowski what he believes. He told me and I compared what he said to what I've found in LDS sources. If he's an antirealist like he says he is, I want to point out that this position doesn't mix well with the Church's realist position on revelation. In fact, they're opposite in a very significant sense as far as I can tell.

I don't want to involve egos or negative feelings towards anyone. I want to discuss whether anti realism really does contradict the Church on such am important issue as revelation. I think it does and that's all I care to stand by at this time. I will no longer mention anything about mfbukowski himself just to be safe.

[CV75]

I compared what he said to what I've found in LDS sources.

I've seen LDS sources that support both views, without any more problematic contradictions than Gospel principles of faith/knowledge, testimony (knowing)/conversion (being), objectivity/subjectivity, salvation and damnation/degrees of glory, etc.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not interested in judging, attacking, or psycho analyzing and I apologize sincerely for giving that impression. But I want to be clear that I didn't tell mfbukowski what he believes. He told me and I compared what he said to what I've found in LDS sources. If he's an antirealist like he says he is, I want to point out that this position doesn't mix well with the Church's realist position on revelation. In fact, they're opposite in a very significant sense as far as I can tell.

I don't want to involve egos or negative feelings towards anyone. I want to discuss whether anti realism really does contradict the Church on such am important issue as revelation. I think it does and that's all I care to stand by at this time. I will no longer mention anything about mfbukowski himself just to be safe.

You have given no evidence for any of this because there isn't any. If you read Blake Ostler you will even find out that it is debatable that the church has "doctrine" at all- as opposed to orthopraxis- much less a specific doctrinally prescribed philosophical view including the correspondence theory of truth.

In fact if the church DID have such a position it would put the philosophical theorist (say for example Descartes or Russell or whoever above revelation. Aristotle arguably came up with the correspondence theory of truth - and guess what- Aristotle was a Greek pagan. This is the precise reason the church does NOT take philosophical positions- because they are the positions of philosophers- not prophets.

The restoration was necessary to rid ourselves of those Greek heresies including Neoplatonism and now you tell me that we should perpetuate those errors in the Restoration and that indeed such errors are officially recognized doctrine.

I would never dare to assert that my view is "church doctrine"- yet you assert that correspondence is! As I have repeatedly stated the church does not take positions on philosophies in fact it eschews "the philosophies of men" as all here know.

The correspondence theory is totally incompatible with personal revelation being regarded as "true" in any way. William James saw that clearly a hundred years ago, and now you attack what is essentially his position without any clear argument or with no evidence for anything you have stated.

You repeatedly attack me without any evidence for your position whatsoever and attack my belief in the church. You have gone beyond the margins of civil discourse

[mfbukowski]

In fact, they're opposite in a very significant sense as far as I can tell.

That's exactly the problem. You can't "tell" at all. I have repeatedly challenged you on that and you have repeatedly not answered. I can only conclude that you truly do not know what you are talking about. Put up or shut up.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So basically you are saying he's a real nice guy, but not a true Mormon.....

I love it "true Mormon"...that would only be someone who has every car they own at Church on Sunday. Edited November 27, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[mfbukowski]

I love it "true Mormon"...that would only be someone who has every car they have at Church on Sunday.

Hey- by that criterion- I qualify!