According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[mfbukowski]

I didn't quite understand that. Church leaders have repeatedly said that the Church accepts all true and correct principles wherever they may come from. All true and correct principles are part of the gospel, and therefore of Mormonism. The Church is not in the business of combing through all philosophical, scientific, or theological principles and theories in the world and categorize them into "true" and "false". The Church leaves that at the discretion of ordinary Church members. All Church members are expected to have the Holy Ghost with them, and be able to discern for themselves correct principles from incorrect ones, according to the teachings of the Book of Mormon, "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5). The Church comments on a particular philosophical or scientific theory if it becomes a controversial issue, like evolution or abortion etc. But that does not mean that the Church does not accept all correct principles regardless of their origin.

Still not following. The Church's declaration that it accepts all correct principles is sufficient to establish its position as one of accepting all correct principles. The Church does not have to make a pronouncement on every philosophical theory on the planet in order to make that promise good.

I don't disagree with you at all; I think as I understood it, the point that was being made was that indeed the church endorses a specific theory of truth- and that is the correspondence theory of truth. That was way back early in some thread somewhere in my discussion with brainburn and maybe some others. I disagreed then and I still do. It's really too much trouble to look it up at this point- I have gotten beyond caring, quite frankly.

I disagree that the church officially endorses as doctrinal the correspondence theory of truth as stated by modern philosophers.

That's all I ever said as far as I recall- but others wanted to debate the issue.

[mfbukowski]

...is like using a slide rule to discribe God.

Agreed. It can be useful against the Korihors of the world though, so it can cut either way. It's kind of like wielding a sword in defense of truth and virtue if you get my drift.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, exasperating is a good word for it.

Sorry about that. Others seem to like it and understand it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Agreed. It can be useful against the Korihors of the world though, so it can cut either way. It's kind of like wielding a sword in defense of truth and virtue if you get my drift.

I do...but for some it is putting their faith in the "arm of flesh". So indeed it is a two edged sword...

[mfbukowski]

I do...but for some it is putting their faith in the "arm of flesh". So indeed it is a two edged sword...

Well I kind of believe in taking reason to the limits and using faith for the rest. I guess it just depends on how far you decide to take reason

[mfbukowski]

I didn't quite understand that. Church leaders have repeatedly said that the Church accepts all true and correct principles wherever they may come from. All true and correct principles are part of the gospel, and therefore of Mormonism. The Church is not in the business of combing through all philosophical, scientific, or theological principles and theories in the world and categorize them into "true" and "false". The Church leaves that at the discretion of ordinary Church members. All Church members are expected to have the Holy Ghost with them, and be able to discern for themselves correct principles from incorrect ones, according to the teachings of the Book of Mormon, "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5). The Church comments on a particular philosophical or scientific theory if it becomes a controversial issue, like evolution or abortion etc. But that does not mean that the Church does not accept all correct principles regardless of their origin.

Still not following. The Church's declaration that it accepts all correct principles is sufficient to establish its position as one of accepting all correct principles. The Church does not have to make a pronouncement on every philosophical theory on the planet in order to make that promise good.

Read posts 40-60 to see brainburns position and what I am arguing against.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited December 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

There's a lot to explain and I need to simplify a few ideas. I'll have to get back to you guys later after I'm done going over some ensign articles.

[mfbukowski]

There's a lot to explain and I need to simplify a few ideas. I'll have to get back to you guys later after I'm done going over some ensign articles.

Good luck in finding the terms objective realism or antirealism there.

I'll make it easy- just go to the church website and search for those terms. Or how about "correspondence theory of truth"?

[brainburn]

Good luck in finding the terms objective realism or antirealism there.

I'll make it easy- just go to the church website and search for those terms. Or how about "correspondence theory of truth"?

/facepalm

[mathonihah]

I note that the article refers to the Greek philosophers of idealism.... but not Wittgenstein or Rorty

It also refers to Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers! (I think they definitely got it wrong on the Reformers! ) But joking aside, those Greek philosophers have indeed had a great impact on the moral compass of whole nations, and of many generations of humanity. Their influence has been like that of a religion. But how many people have even heard of Wittgenstein or Rorty?

Edited December 6, 2012 by mathonihah

[volgadon]

But how many people have even heard of Wittgenstein or Rorty?

As many as those who could actually name any of the works of the aforementioned Greeks.

[mathonihah]

I agree with you, but at what level does the Church "accept" all true and correct principles? It does not accept all truth as "official doctrine."

Does the Church have an "unofficial" doctrine? Unless you can show me that the Church has an "unofficial" doctrine, talking about "official" doctrine seems a bit meaningless. The Church, however, is in the business if teaching theological truth (i.e. truth which will lead to salvation). Relativity may be a truth, but will not knowing that truth have an impact on my salvation? I doubt it, therefore I don't think it has a place in a Sunday School lesson (except perhaps in passing, as a side note to something else of importance that is being discussed). The Church's theological position or teachings, however, is based on what has been given to the Church by revelation; therefore the Church needs to use that as the touchstone with which to assess the validity or correctness of other theological teachings—including philosophical ones which may impact on the theological. Philosophy is in the business of making pronouncements on moral issues as well as the definition of truth. Those pronouncements need to be checked against the touchstone of revealed truth in order for their validity and correctness to be established.

Edited December 6, 2012 by mathonihah

[cesc101]

I guess it just depends on how far you decide to take reason

and in the end, let go of faith... but then again, reason itself is anchored by ones faith in reason... so, where does one draw the line?

[mathonihah]

I don't disagree with you at all; I think as I understood it, the point that was being made was that indeed the church endorses a specific theory of truth- and that is the correspondence theory of truth. That was way back early in some thread somewhere in my discussion with brainburn and maybe some others. I disagreed then and I still do. It's really too much trouble to look it up at this point- I have gotten beyond caring, quite frankly.

I disagree that the church officially endorses as doctrinal the correspondence theory of truth as stated by modern philosophers.

That's all I ever said as far as I recall- but others wanted to debate the issue.

The most important consideration for me in that debate is that the Church does have a revealed (i.e. theological) definition of truth which should form the basis on which such a discussion should revolve, rather than allowing ourselves to become so enmeshed in philosophical terminologies, definitions, and obscurantism as to lose sight of that fundamental revealed definition. That I think is the proper course of action in a discussion that focuses on LDS beliefs and teachings.

[mathonihah]

Good luck in finding the terms objective realism or antirealism there.

I'll make it easy- just go to the church website and search for those terms. Or how about "correspondence theory of truth"?

Not sure why that is important or relevant. Those are philosophical terms which may not be in common use in LDS kind of literature, but surely the concepts they define, stand for, or represent are not so alien to LDS thought and literature (especially revealed literature) that they cannot be used to pass judgement on the validity of what those philosophical terms stand for within their philosophical contexts.

Edited December 6, 2012 by mathonihah

[mfbukowski]

and in the end, let go of faith... but then again, reason itself is anchored by ones faith in reason... so, where does one draw the line?

Yep, that was my point. You can't escape faith.

[mfbukowski]

The most important consideration for me in that debate is that the Church does have a revealed (i.e. theological) definition of truth which should form the basis on which such a discussion should revolve, rather than allowing ourselves to become so enmeshed in philosophical terminologies, definitions, and obscurantism as to lose sight of that fundamental revealed definition. That I think is the proper course of action in a discussion that focuses on LDS beliefs and teachings.

To me that's kind of like saying "The universe was created literally in 6 days- that's the way it is, don't ask questions- get over it".

Sorry- I think we are here to use our brains.

And the "theological" definition of truth is insufficient and is based on Neoplatonism, which is pagan Greek philosophy. No thanks.

Besides the fact that the theology you mention is Protestant and therefore "apostate". No thanks again.

And incidentally the definition of revealed truth you think exists doesn't- all that exists are references to the way things "really are" which can be taken a dozen ways at least. How are things "really"? And how do we know anything about anything?

And if you really believe that such a definition exists, I suppose we could ask you the same question I have asked brainburn: Where is this definition?

Edited December 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Not sure why that is important or relevant. Those are philosophical terms which may not be in common use in LDS kind of literature, but surely the concepts they define, stand for, or represent are not so alien to LDS thought and literature (especially revealed literature) that they cannot be used to pass judgement on the validity of what those philosophical terms stand for within their philosophical contexts.

So we have a restored gospel which uses Neoplatonic Catholic and Protestant theology and their concept of "truth", and belief in a world beyond spiritual experience which can be experienced by no humans- only transcendent beings.

No thanks.

I think God IS an exalted human, is an immanent being and can communicate with us and indeed does all the time through direct experience.

That is completely incompatible with the transcendent Neoplatonic existing Protestant theology you are proposing we continue using.

There is a reason I left Catholicism and it was because of their theology and I don't plan on going back, thank you very much.

[mathonihah]

To me that's kind of like saying "The universe was created literally in 6 days- that's the way it is, don't ask questions- get over it".

I didn't quite follow that. Are you suggesting that revelation or scripture is inherently an unreliable source of knowledge and information? If that be the case, then what is the place of religion in your life? I thought revelation and scripture was foundational to any religious belief, and especially of Mormonism. How do you reconcile that with your religious convictions? I think you need to provide a longer explanation.

Sorry- I think we are here to use our brains.

Still not following. How does belief in revelation and scripture deprives us of using our brains? And if you honestly believe that, how do you reconcile that with your expressed religious convictions?

And the "theological" definition of truth is insufficient and is based on Neoplatonism, which is pagan Greek philosophy. No thanks.

I was using the word theology in a generic sense, meaning essentially the "study of religion" (in this case, of Mormon religion).

Besides the fact that the theology you mention is Protestant and therefore "apostate". No thanks again.

See above. I was not referring to the theology of Protestantism or Catholicism. I was using it in a generic sense, meaning the study of religion, in this case of the Mormon religion.

And incidentally the definition of revealed truth you think exists doesn't- all that exists are references to the way things "really are" which can be taken a dozen ways at least. How are things "really"?

The definition I was referring to was the following:

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;"

(D&C 93:24).

It says nothing about "really". It simply says, "things as they are ...". And that is definitely a definition. You may not think that it is a good definition; but you can't argue that it is not a definition.

And how do we know anything about anything?

If you think that we can't know anything about anything, then why are you engaging in this discussion? To do so presupposes that you think you know something, and you are anxious to tell us about it. Presumably other people "know" things in the same way that you do.

And if you really believe that such a definition exists, I suppose we could ask you the same question I have asked brainburn: Where is this definition?

It is in D&C 93:24. See above.

Edited December 6, 2012 by mathonihah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There's a lot to explain and I need to simplify a few ideas. I'll have to get back to you guys later after I'm done going over some ensign articles.

This thread has been running this long and you are sure what "you" think?

[mathonihah]

So we have a restored gospel which uses Neoplatonic Catholic and Protestant theology and their concept of "truth", and belief in a world beyond spiritual experience which can be experienced by no humans- only transcendent beings.

No thanks.

I continue to find your posts puzzling. Are you suggesting that the definition of truth given in D&C 93:24 is "Neoplatonic Catholic and Protestant theology"? Can you explain how you come to that conclusion? I honestly do not understand. I need some help here.

I think God IS an exalted human, is an immanent being and can communicate with us and indeed does all the time through direct experience.

That is completely incompatible with the transcendent Neoplatonic existing Protestant theology you are proposing we continue using.

There is a reason I left Catholicism and it was because of their theology and I don't plan on going back, thank you very much.

And I would appreciate an explanation for what that has to do with my posts, or what we are talking about here.

[mfbukowski]

I continue to find your posts puzzling. Are you suggesting that the definition of truth given in D&C 93:24 is "Neoplatonic Catholic and Protestant theology"? Can you explain how you come to that conclusion? I honestly do not understand. I need some help here.

And I would appreciate an explanation for what that has to do with my posts, or what we are talking about here.

That's ok.

I really am kinda burned out for now. I have several thousand posts here, most on these subjects and I have a blog. I really don't feel like repeating it all once again. If you are actually interested in what I think you can read those.

Things as they are is how we experience them. I don't know if your are philosophically inclined- I like the Pragmatists especially William James and what he has to say about religious experience.

No D&C is not neoplatonic- that is the whole point - it also doesn't follow a correspondence theory of truth or speak of a transcendent God.

[mathonihah]

That's ok.

I really am kinda burned out for now. I have several thousand posts here, most on these subjects and I have a blog. I really don't feel like repeating it all once again. If you are actually interested in what I think you can read those.

Things as they are is how we experience them. I don't know if your are philosophically inclined- I like the Pragmatists especially William James and what he has to say about religious experience.

I find that even more puzzling, as well as disappointing. I wouldn't engage someone in a discussion, and half way through tell them to go and look up my "thousands of posts," as well as blogs, to get the answer to their questions. I would get to the point, and give them direct and straight answers.

No D&C is not neoplatonic- that is the whole point - it also doesn't follow a correspondence theory of truth or speak of a transcendent God.

Then help me understand what you were talking about.

Edited December 6, 2012 by mathonihah

[mfbukowski]

I find that even more puzzling, as well as disappointing. I wouldn't engage someone in a discussion, and half way through tell them to go and look up my "thousands of posts," as well as blogs, to get the answer to their questions. I would get to the point, and give them direct and straight answers.

Fair enough.

Some other time then. Life intervenes.

I only replied because I thought you were understanding my posts - as I recall you entered the discussion late and hadn't seemed to be aware of what went before. Perhaps it would have been better to not "engage" you in discussion then.

I will catch you later sometime I am sure.

Edited December 6, 2012 by mfbukowski