According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[CV75]

You've found support for two opposite ideas in LDS sources?

Yes, scripturally (see post #62). All knowledge and experience are subjective, but when what we know and experieince is affected by something outside of our knowledge and experience, that "something/knowledge and experience)" is objective as far as we are concerned. When we act, we experieince subjective reality; when we are acted upon, we are subject to a reality we do not comprehend and so it is objective to us. So that which might be a subjective reality to one person can be objective to another with less knowledge and experience of that same reality. The scriptures seem to hold that God's relationship to all truth is purely, perfectly subjective. But as long as we are not as God is, our relationship to some truths is objective, "until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon us" and we are like God.

[CV75]

An example of the above is the person whose subjective experieince is defined only by the five physical senses--he is acted upon only by the world around him. The person whose subjective experience incorporates other internal senses (intuition, extrapolation, etc.) additionally acts upon himself. The person whose subjective experience results from his anticipation of events is acting upon himself and the world around him. Whatever it is that he is not aware of that is contributing to his being acted upon or acting, which results in his subjecive experience, is an objective reality (and whatever he is aware of is a subjective reality).

[brainburn]

You think that because God is real (and of course He is) then any statement about him should "correspond" to his reality but that is not what the philosophical discussion is about.

Again, it doesn't matter to me what the "philosophical discussion" is about, however you define it. It matters to me whether it's a part of revelation.

The correspondence theory of truth is actually about epistemology- it is about how we can KNOW that a scientific statement is "true"- it's not about metaphysics or what is real. I think that might be the confusion.

Clearly but I think it's your fault. It still baffles me as to why you would interpret my thoughts with such a specific idea when I only specified otherwise.

Correspondence is based on a common sense view about simple statements like "The cat is on the mat". You write the sentence and then you look at the cat, and indeed if the cat "really is" on the mat, the statement corresponds to reality and thus is true. The cat moves off the mat and the statement is false. This is epistemology- how you can KNOW something is true. It is a very simplistic way of thinking and for most simple statements it works just fine. We know when the cat is on the mat and the system works.

But then we get into more complex problems like the reality of experiencing love or religious experience and the correspondence breaks down as an insufficient way of seeing it. There is nothing "in the world" which is observable to allow you to "know" you are in love or are receiving a spiritual experience from God- yet you know it deep in the fiber of your being- there are no doubts, and you do "KNOW"- but how do we make this consistent with an explanation of how we know the cat is on the mat?

This is where correspondence breaks down. We know something that doesn't correspond to something observable in the world. So how do we resolve this conflict?

I think you're asking the wrong questions. If you insist that revelation must correspond to the outside and observable world, then it's difficult to think of what our subjective experience can correspond to. But if we remove this unnecessary requirement, revelation can very well correspond to truths concerning our subjective worlds if you just add a bit more of creative thinking.

Knowing that you're in love doesn't have to correspond to anything besides your subjective experience of love. But let me suggest something else, too:

God can reveal to us how our subjective experience works (the structure or consequences of our choices, for example), so I don't see anything inconsistent about God giving you such revelation and that description corresponding to true possibilities (depending on your choices). Examples include the choices you should make to receive true possibilities such as blessings and revelations.

Plus, while it's clear there are revelations specific to a single person's subjective journey that correspond to true possibilities, there are also revelations about all subjective journeys that correspond to objective facts. For example, God could reveal to you that a successful subjective relationship with Him is based on love, not logic or evil or humor or something else. So, the objective fact would be that no matter who you are or what you're perceiving, love is the key to your relationship with God. "Love is the key" is true for everyone, regardless of what we think or subjective perceive. Same sort of idea with the Plan of Salvation.

We realize that what we really KNOW when we speak about the cat being on the mat is not that the cat IS on the mat necessarily, but that our perceptions TELL us that he is. When you think about it, that is the common factor between knowing that the cat is on the mat and knowing that you are in love or that God has spoken to you.

It's not an issue of something "in the world" it is an issue of knowing your PERCEPTION or EXPERIENCE OF THE WORLD. That is the common factor here. Your eyes tell you that the cat is on the mat- you perceive that it is the case- you experience it. You also experience love and you experience God speaking to you.

So now, as philosophers are wont to do, what theory can we put forth to explain both kinds of cases as having truth value? What is the commonality between knowing you are in love and knowing the cat is on the mat? How can we put it in language to have one common description of how we know both kinds of propositons?

I know you find this approach very important, but I want to insist that it's not relevant to my argument, only related to the subject. It doesn't matter to me whether we can know something which is only inside corresponds to something outside. What matters to me is that this:

Things change when God tells you the cat is on the mat. Then you know that the cat IS on the mat necessarily.

Well obviously it is the Pragmatic approach- that all we know or can know is what we perceive or experience. We experience the cat being on the mat and we experience being in love or having God speak to us. That is the common thread here. If we postulate that "reality" is what we experience- nothing more nothing less, suddenly we have a unified way of seeing everything around us. Hearing God's voice is just as real as the cat being on the mat. What a scientist experiences is just as real as those things as well. So now we have God on the same footing as science- God is experienced in a different way, but taking all of human experience as "real" in some way includes God and atoms and quantum mechanics and love and the cat on the mat all in one way of seeing the great whole.

So Pragmatism kind of becomes the "unified field theory" of all that is known and is knowable and what is "real" all in one unified way of seeing it all, from God to atoms to love to religious experience. We are all together in the pool of human experience and we all contribute in our own small ways. We help God organize reality in our own little way in our own little worlds and contribute our own little worlds into the pool of all the worlds humanity has organized. The Man of Holiness has organized us all and we help him organize worlds without number.

I can't think of anything more beautiful than thinking about this- that's why I do it so much!

I understand that's the way it works with Pragmatism, but really... it doesn't have to. You can save "knowing something is real" or "true" with God.

[mfbukowski]

Again, it doesn't matter to me what the "philosophical discussion" is about, however you define it. It matters to me whether it's a part of revelation.

Clearly but I think it's your fault. It still baffles me as to why you would interpret my thoughts with such a specific idea when I only specified otherwise.

I think you're asking the wrong questions. If you insist that revelation must correspond to the outside and observable world, then it's difficult to think of what our subjective experience can correspond to. But if we remove this unnecessary requirement, revelation can very well correspond to truths concerning our subjective worlds if you just add a bit more of creative thinking.

Knowing that you're in love doesn't have to correspond to anything besides your subjective experience of love. But let me suggest something else, too:

God can reveal to us how our subjective experience works (the structure or consequences of our choices, for example), so I don't see anything inconsistent about God giving you such revelation and that description corresponding to true possibilities (depending on your choices). Examples include the choices you should make to receive true possibilities such as blessings and revelations.

Plus, while it's clear there are revelations specific to a single person's subjective journey that correspond to true possibilities, there are also revelations about all subjective journeys that correspond to objective facts. For example, God could reveal to you that a successful subjective relationship with Him is based on love, not logic or evil or humor or something else. So, the objective fact would be that no matter who you are or what you're perceiving, love is the key to your relationship with God. "Love is the key" is true for everyone, regardless of what we think or subjective perceive. Same sort of idea with the Plan of Salvation.

I know you find this approach very important, but I want to insist that it's not relevant to my argument, only related to the subject. It doesn't matter to me whether we can know something which is only inside corresponds to something outside. What matters to me is that this:

Things change when God tells you the cat is on the mat. Then you know that the cat IS on the mat necessarily.

I understand that's the way it works with Pragmatism, but really... it doesn't have to. You can save "knowing something is real" or "true" with God.

We're making progress over here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59271-knowing-believing-and-doubts-richard-bushman

/page__st__260__p__1209198239#entry1209198239

I'm tired of repeating it all.

[brainburn]

We're making progress over here: http://www.mormondia...richard-bushman

/page__st__260__p__1209198239#entry1209198239

I'm tired of repeating it all.

I'm tired of you repeating it too when I've explained why you don't need to repeat the things you do because I'm not arguing from an atheistic/scientific point of view.

[mfbukowski]

I'm tired of you repeating it too when I've explained why you don't need to repeat the things you do because I'm not arguing from an atheistic/scientific point of view.

Where's my CFR? Show that the LDS church accepts as doctrine the "correspondence theory of truth" as defined by philosophers or retract the statement.

You haven't even read that thread yet. If you are not arguing from a scientific pov define your position. Like I said, put up or shut up. I'm tired of it.

Edited November 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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...

This is simple...anytime someone holding the Priesthood who speaks by the power of the Holy Spirit it is Revelation. It is no Canon though.

[brainburn]

Where's my CFR? Show that the LDS church accepts as doctrine the "correspondence theory of truth" as defined by philosophers or retract the statement.

You haven't even read that thread yet. If you are not arguing from a scientific pov define your position. Like I said, put up or shut up. I'm tired of it.

I explained what I thought about your cfr. I already defined my position as theistic and lds. I also demonstrated that a correspondence theory of truth is required for revelations about the objective world to be considered true knowledge. It's inherit to scripture because the idea that we can (by revelation) know true things about objective reality (things as they were, are, will be...) makes no sense without a correspondence theory of truth. I challenge you to interpret knowing things as they were, are, and will be without correspondence.

I'm repeating myself, too. But only because you haven't acknowledged my actual position and continue to contrive a straw man.

Have you been reading why I think God solves all the problems you have with correspondence theory?

Edited November 29, 2012 by brainburn

[brainburn]

This is simple...anytime someone holding the Priesthood who speaks by the power of the Holy Spirit it is Revelation. It is no Canon though.

Almost. I'm looking for references that clearly explain revelation as making it possible to have true knowledge about objective reality outside of our immediate experience.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Almost. I'm looking for references that clearly explain revelation as making it possible to have true knowledge about objective reality outside of our immediate experience.

I just paraphrased the very canonized scripture you needed. You are trying to hard to place respondants in a box.

[brainburn]

I just paraphrased the very canonized scripture you needed. You are trying to hard to place respondants in a box.

But how does the scripture show a realist theory of truth? And I don't know what you mean by your last sentence.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

But how does the scripture show a realist theory of truth? And I don't know what you mean by your last sentence.

No matter the answer, you keep moving the goal posts...all to common ploy that we Mo's are exspoed too. In short your brainburn is causing us heart burn.

[brainburn]

No matter the answer, you keep moving the goal posts...all to common ploy that we Mo's are exspoed too. In short your brainburn is causing us heart burn.

You're going to have to explain a bit more on how I've moved the goal post... What is the goal you think I'm working towards and how have I moved the post of the goal I proposed for references?

Edited November 30, 2012 by brainburn

[CV75]

I challenge you to interpret knowing things as they were, are, and will be without correspondence.eory?

Sorry to interject, but we do this by actually becoming what you propose to be only objective.

[brainburn]

Sorry to interject, but we do this by actually becoming what you propose to be only objective.

Hey CV75,

I was eventually going to get your view, but it's still confusing me a bit. If we can interpret knowing things as they were, are, and will be without correspondence... is it still possible to derive statements from the revelation experience which correspond to reality, according to your view?

Because if it's still possible, I'm not sure we have anything to discuss.

Edited November 30, 2012 by brainburn

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You're going to have to explain a bit more on how I've moved the goal post... What is the goal you think I'm working towards and how have I moved the post of the goal I proposed for references?

I think you are trying to norrow the field, and then if you secede you will then point to a revelation that did not come to pass as evidence that we should all lose faith in JS...but my faith is in Christ. I hope this is clear enough, after a while it is easy to spot those with anti-agenda's very quickly.I hope I am wrong, time will tell. Or just go ahead and make your point and we can discuss it.

[brainburn]

I think you are trying to norrow the field, and then if you secede you will then point to a revelation that did not come to pass as evidence that we should all lose faith in JS...but my faith is in Christ. I hope this is clear enough, after a while it is easy to spot those with anti-agenda's very quickly.I hope I am wrong, time will tell. Or just go ahead and make your point and we can discuss it.

Heh. My agenda for this thread is to show that the most important Mormon revelations are necessarily realist. This is to go against the anti-realist idea that you can't have a theory of truth or knowledge unless you interpret knowledge and truth as what "works" subjectively.

I want to point out that pragmatism itself isn't what establishes the LDS model of reality as true; revelation does. In official descriptions of how revelations work (knowing true things as they were, are, and will be), it's clear that the traditional correspondence theory fits and anti-realist theories don't. The realist definition of truth and knowledge works because it relies not on pragmatism, but on the ultimate observer and communicator: God. Thus "saving" the traditional correspondence definitions of knowledge and truth and discrediting the anti-realist idea that pragmatist definitions are the only definitions that make sense.

It works like this:

God is on the outside of our immediate experience.

God only tells the absolute truth.

If God tells you what's on the outside of your immediate experience (things as they were, are, and will be), you know it's the absolute truth without having to get outside of your own experience.

Edited November 30, 2012 by brainburn

[CV75]

Hey CV75,

I was eventually going to get your view, but it's still confusing me a bit. If we can interpret knowing things as they were, are, and will be without correspondence... is it still possible to derive statements from the revelation experience which correspond to reality, according to your view?

Because if it's still possible, I'm not sure we have anything to discuss.

I see a distinction amongst the “things as they were, are, and will be,” as between things that are facts and things that are truths. Both facts and truths can be received by divine revelation, but then there’s also a distinction between the types of revelation.

2 Nephi 2: 13-14 explains that there are “things” to act and “things” to be acted upon, and that God organized them all. D&C 93:30 shows that we can consider truth to be a “thing” that acts for itself. So a “thing” that is acted upon might be better referred to something other than “truth,” such as an item, an object or a description—D&C 93 uses the term “light,” and by the way it is used, "light" should not be confused with "truth," and especially not with “all truth” or “all things.”

Things that act for themselves (or truths according to D&C 93:30) are manifest in the form of God and His children. God placed us in our own sphere to act for ourselves. Things that are acted upon are most fundamentally manifest in the form of light. D&C 93 shows in several places that the light which is acted upon arises and is sent forth from the truth that acts. It also shows that the light which freely emanates from God must be voluntarily received by the recipient in order for him to possess truth (and as stated in other scriptures, with all our heart, might, mind and strength) and so become like God (D&C 93:31; 88:49).

As recipients and possessors of light, we have to act upon that light to become true or to become “truth” in the same sense that God is truth. Otherwise we simply lose it.

Light creates and illuminates facts, and both depend on and answer to truth, so light and facts might be considered objective realities (see Abraham 3:6-19 for an example), but they are not “truths” that act independently (this same example refers to the intelligences which do). On the other hand, truth (which acts and answers only to itself) is subjective reality.

As independently acting beings (subjective “truths”), we experience the revelation of facts and formulate greater truth from that action—truth begets truth and uses light or facts as raw materials to accomplish that “grace for grace”. We also experience the revelation of truth as we experience it within ourselves as we become more like God, “grace for grace.” As we become one with God, what else is there to correspond with other than ourselves?

I hope this means we have nothing to discuss, because I'm tired! Just kidding.

[mfbukowski]

I explained what I thought about your cfr. I already defined my position as theistic and lds. I also demonstrated that a correspondence theory of truth is required for revelations about the objective world to be considered true knowledge. It's inherit to scripture because the idea that we can (by revelation) know true things about objective reality (things as they were, are, will be...) makes no sense without a correspondence theory of truth. I challenge you to interpret knowing things as they were, are, and will be without correspondence.

I'm repeating myself, too. But only because you haven't acknowledged my actual position and continue to contrive a straw man.

Have you been reading why I think God solves all the problems you have with correspondence theory?

That does not back up your previous assertions- and as far as bringing God into it- Look up deus ex machina

That does nothing. God could make the moon into green cheese if he wanted to- this is a philosophical discussion about the nature of logic not about God.

[mfbukowski]

Heh. My agenda for this thread is to show that the most important Mormon revelations are necessarily realist.

This is absurd and you don't know what you are talking about.

Do some reading. http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/realism/

Edited November 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

God only tells the absolute truth.

Yes, but not quite. We also believe that God gives to men according to the light they are able and willing to recieve.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Heh. My agenda for this thread is to show that the most important Mormon revelations are necessarily realist. This is to go against the anti-realist idea that you can't have a theory of truth or knowledge unless you interpret knowledge and truth as what "works" subjectively.

I want to point out that pragmatism itself isn't what establishes the LDS model of reality as true; revelation does. In official descriptions of how revelations work (knowing true things as they were, are, and will be), it's clear that the traditional correspondence theory fits and anti-realist theories don't. The realist definition of truth and knowledge works because it relies not on pragmatism, but on the ultimate observer and communicator: God. Thus "saving" the traditional correspondence definitions of knowledge and truth and discrediting the anti-realist idea that pragmatist definitions are the only definitions that make sense.

It works like this:

God is on the outside of our immediate experience.

God only tells the absolute truth.

If God tells you what's on the outside of your immediate experience (things as they were, are, and will be), you know it's the absolute truth without having to get outside of your own experience.

So are you saying your way or the highway?

[brainburn]

Dupe.

Edited December 1, 2012 by brainburn

[brainburn]

That does not back up your previous assertions- and as far as bringing God into it- Look up deus ex machina

That does nothing. God could make the moon into green cheese if he wanted to- this is a philosophical discussion about the nature of logic not about God.

Factoring God into whether you can derive true knowledge from revelation does nothing?

I'm sorry but you must think I'm talking about something else. Also, do you really expect me to read everything you link to? I'm not interested. I understand realism well enough to know it's a part of revelation. It doesn't matter to me whether you think it's wrong, it's clearly expressed by lds sources.

[mfbukowski]

So are you telling me that God doesn't establish revelation?

I hope not.

You are so far off with this there is clearly nothing more to discuss. You really should be banned for failure to meet the CFR's but that is not my decision.