Literalism, The Gospel, And The Perry Scheme

[mfbukowski]

There have been a lot of threads lately both started by critics and TBM's that reflect a literalistic understanding of the Gospel.

Here is one example of a quote from a recent post by a former member of the church:

....The church is obviously not true because it's pretty obvious Joseph Smith just made things up, it's not at all clear that any of his more substantive claims, such as to have had hands laid upon him by resurrected or "translated" beings to confer authority on him from the Creator of the Universe, involve actual occurrences or are in fact later inventions designed to bolster his influence over his followers. Supposedly ancient scripture allegedly translated by Joseph Smith appears to have been of modern invention, etc.

Btw, I realize that it's not obvious to you that the church isn't true. Just like it's not obvious to JWs that their church isn't true either. It's pretty obvious that Lord Xenu was a figment of L. Ron Hubbard's imagination, but try telling that to Tom Cruise. There's a reason for this pattern, and it's actually quite interesting.

Here the critic is basing his claims on the difficulty of proving that such events as those mentioned "involve actual occurrences".

Others on the other side insist that in order to be Mormon, one must believe that certain events "really happened" or WERE "actual occurrences".

I find it ironic that in these examples both sides are essentially agreeing on the premises- that for the church to be "true" we have to have to be sure that certain "actual occurrences" in fact happened. In this case both the critic and the TBM take the opposite positions on the same question about whether or not these events "happened"- one saying "Yes they did" and the other insisting "no they didn't" in a standoff which could go on until doomsday!

Still others claim there is a "middle way" which blends these views so that even if the events themselves are "fiction" it doesn't matter because what matters is how belief in these events changes or doesn't change our lives.

So we have the yea-sayers the nay-sayers and the "it's fiction but it doesn't matter"-sayers.

Is there still another way to see these apparent contradictions?

We have others, most notably on this board, Kevin Christensen, who bring up the Perry Scheme as a way of explaining these questions not necessarily as a matter of facts on one side or the other, but more of a different way of thinking about these matters altogether.

It's not so much that they are black or white, true or false- (though indeed they might be perfectly factual events) but that what is important is the context in which we view these stories and events, and that we must support our views with good reasons relative to their different contexts.

On this view, our task is to evaluate solutions to these problems and use the solutions in our lives to create a consistent world view which allows us to become an integrated, happy and useful person in our community, and remain committed to our views as they change and develop as we grow as persons, in a constant state of becoming better human beings.

The Perry Scheme itself is quite complex- I have chosen this description for its brevity even though it really over-simplifies the whole idea-

*( Edit- I had formatting problems getting this quote in- I suggest you go to the site to see it with correct formatting)*

http://www.cse.buffa....positions.html

William Perry claimed (and his claims have been substantiated by subsequent research) that college students (but others, too) "journey" through 9 "positions" with respect to intellectual (and moral) development. These stages can be characterized in terms of the student's attitude towards knowledge. The 9 positions, grouped into 4 categories, are:

Dualism/Received Knowledge:

There are right/wrong answers, engraved on Golden Tablets in the sky, known to Authorities.

Basic Duality:

All problems are solvable;

Therefore, the student's task is to learn the Right Solutions

Full Dualism:

Some Authorities (literature, philosophy) disagree;

others (science, math) agree.

Therefore, there are Right Solutions, but some teachers' views of the Tablets are obscured.

Therefore, student's task is to learn the Right Solutions and ignore the others!

Multiplicity/Subjective Knowledge:

There are conflicting answers;

therefore, students must trust their "inner voices", not external Authority.

Early Multiplicity:

There are 2 kinds of problems:

those whose solutions we know

those whose solutions we don't know yet

(thus, a kind of dualism).

Student's task is to learn how to find the Right Solutions.

Late Multiplicity:

Most problems are of the second kind;

therefore, everyone has a right to their own opinion;

or some problems are unsolvable;

therefore, it doesn't matter which (if any) solution you choose.

Student's task is to shoot the bull.

(Most freshman are at this position, which is a kind of relativism)

At this point, some students become alienated, and either retreat to an earlier ("safer") position ("I think I'll study math, not literature, because there are clear answers and not as much uncertainty") or else escape (drop out) ("I can't stand college; all they want is right answers" or else "I can't stand college; no one gives you the right answers".)

Relativism/Procedural Knowledge:

There are disciplinary reasoning methods:

Connected knowledge: empathetic (why do you believe X?; what does this poem say to me?)

vs. Separated knowledge: "objective analysis" (what techniques can I use to analyze this poem?)

Contextual Relativism:

All proposed solutions are supported by reasons;

i.e., must be viewed in context & relative to support.

Some solutions are better than others, depending on context.

Student's task is to learn to evaluate solutions.

"Pre-Commitment":

Student sees the necessity of:

making choices

committing to a solution

Commitment/Constructed Knowledge:

Integration of knowledge learned from others with personal experience and reflection.

Commitment:

Student makes a commitment.

Challenges to Commitment:

Student experiences implications of commitment.

Student explores issues of responsibility.

"Post-Commitment":

Student realizes commitment is an ongoing, unfolding, evolving activity

The journey is sometimes repeated; and one can be at different stages at the same time with respect to different subjects.

I would suggest that when we adopt this scheme, the problems detailed above can be seen in a new way, which essentially eliminates them as misunderstandings based on "dualistic" thinking, when in fact when seen within their proper contexts, the apparent conflicts disappear as one grows aware of the contexts of each proposition.

The issue is not so much about "the facts" as what we mean by the word "facts" in the first place and how this definition is important to the larger question of how we effectively integrate these views in our lives and put them into action.

Perhaps if we could all understand this in terms of a contextual misunderstanding, all this quibbling over words would go away.

So here then is the big question:

Can we all just get along, if we learn to think properly about these questions? Is this a case of black and white, literalistic thinking getting in the way of true understanding or is this just some liberal egghead "philosophy of men" to be ignored so we can get back to making pot shots at each other?

Edited February 19, 2013 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

There have been a lot of threads lately both started by critics and TBM's that reflect a literalistic understanding of the Gospel.

Here is one example of a quote from a recent post by a former member of the church:

Here the critic is basing his claims on the difficulty of proving that such events as those mentioned "involve actual occurrences".

Others on the other side insist that in order to be Mormon, one must believe that certain events "really happened" or WERE "actual occurrences".

I find it ironic that in these examples both sides are essentially agreeing on the premises- that for the church to be "true" we have to have to be sure that certain "actual occurrences" in fact happened. In this case both the critic and the TBM take the opposite positions on the same question about whether or not these events "happened"- one saying "Yes they did" and the other insisting "no they didn't" in a standoff which could go on until doomsday!

Still others claim there is a "middle way" which blends these views so that even if the events themselves are "fiction" it doesn't matter because what matters is how belief in these events changes or doesn't change our lives.

So we have the yea-sayers the nay-sayers and the "it's fiction but it doesn't matter"-sayers.

Is there still another way to see these apparent contradictions?

We have others, most notably on this board, Kevin Christensen, who bring up the Perry Scheme as a way of explaining these questions not necessarily as a matter of facts on one side or the other, but more of a different way of thinking about these matters altogether.

It's not so much that they are black or white, true or false- (though indeed they might be perfectly factual events) but that what is important is the context in which we view these stories and events, and that we must support our views with good reasons relative to their different contexts.

On this view, our task is to evaluate solutions to these problems and use the solutions in our lives to create a consistent world view which allows us to become an integrated, happy and useful person in our community, and remain committed to our views as they change and develop as we grow as persons, in a constant state of becoming better human beings.

The Perry Scheme itself is quite complex- I have chosen this description for its brevity even though it really over-simplifies the whole idea

I would suggest that when we adopt this scheme, the problems detailed above can be seen in a new way, which essentially eliminates them as misunderstandings based on "dualistic" thinking, when in fact when seen within their proper contexts, the apparent conflicts disappear as one grows aware of the contexts of each proposition.

The issue is not so much about "the facts" as what we mean by the word "facts" in the first place and how this definition is important to the larger question of how we effectively integrate these views in our lives and put them into action.

Perhaps if we could all understand this in terms of a contextual misunderstanding, all this quibbling over words would go away.

So here then is the big question:

Can we all just get along, if we learn to think properly about these questions? Is this a case of black and white, literalistic thinking getting in the way of true understanding or is this just some liberal egghead "philosophy of men" to be ignored so we can get back to making pot shots at each other?

Depends of what has to be literal fact for the Church to exist and what can be interpreted as a belief but not necessarily literal fact.

[mfbukowski]

Depends of what has to be literal fact for the Church to exist and what can be interpreted as a belief but not necessarily literal fact.

Yes that is the dualistic way of seeing it- but is that the only way? Is there another way of seeing it?

Where would you place that way of thinking on the Perry Scheme?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes that is the dualistic way of seeing it- but is that the only way? Is there another way of seeing it?

Where would you place that way of thinking on the Perry Scheme?

I think we make a mistake if we go to either extreme. Of course some people are going to go to extremes, but either such a tactic results in the abandonment of faith, or of reason.

I think that Perry has the right idea.

[Nathair/|\]

This might be helpful:

A binary is a pair of ideas, factors, or forces in opposition to each other. Binaries exert a curious magnetism on the human mind. Once we get caught up in thoughts of yes or no, right or wrong, love or hate, truth or falsehood, or any other binary, it can be hard to realize that the two poles of the binary don't contain all of reality...Druid philosophy offers a useful tactic in situations of this kind. When you encounter a binary, you simply look for a third factor that is not simply a midpoint between the two poles. Find the third factor and you convert the binary into a ternary, a balanced threefold relationship that allows freedom and flexibility.

Greer, John Michael; The Druid Magic Handbook

Yours under the sacred oaks,

Nathair /|\

[mfbukowski]

I think we make a mistake if we go to either extreme. Of course some people are going to go to extremes, but either such a tactic results in the abandonment of faith, or of reason.

I think that Perry has the right idea.

Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. If Perry is right, the more mature we get as a thinker, the less literal we get. (and it seems that the data supports that)

5-Contextual Relativism:

All proposed solutions are supported by reasons;

i.e., must be viewed in context & relative to support.

Some solutions are better than others, depending on context.

Student's task is to learn to evaluate solutions.

And indeed, one could be a "Perry 9" and be a TBM. I have known a few very well

Edited February 19, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This might be helpful:

Yours under the sacred oaks,

Nathair /|\

Good stuff.

But what if it takes more than a "threefold" way of seeing it?

[BCSpace]

Is there still another way to see these apparent contradictions?

One need not see it any different than many of these items must be historical because they are taught officially as historical happenings and therefore must have occurred else the Church cannot true. But some of the details may be metaphorical/blurred by the passage of time etc.

[thesometimesaint]

Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. If Perry is right, the more mature we get as a thinker, the less literal we get. (and it seems that the data supports that)

And indeed, one could be a "Perry 9" and be a TBM. I have known a few very well

Only if taken to the extreme. If taken literally then any established fact contrary to a persons religion either demotes religion to mere unsupportable belief, or the rejection of those established facts. I'm quite comfortable with Mormonism in that it accepts all facts and still maintains a firm faith in Christ.

I haven't taken Perry's test so I don't know how I would score, but as I trend towards the less literal, but still fully believe the Truth Claims of the Church. My guess would be pretty similar to Perry 9 and a TBM.

[mfbukowski]

One need not see it any different than many of these items must be historical because they are taught officially as historical happenings and therefore must have occurred else the Church cannot true. But some of the details may be metaphorical/blurred by the passage of time etc.

I don't doubt that they "really happened", personally. When God tells you something is true, who am I to question?

The question is, how do we dialogue with others who do not yet know this for themselves, and let them see that there are other ways of seeing these questions than the black and white way they see them?

How do we allow them the room they need intellectually to gain a testimony?

As an atheist, I was only willing to actually ask God about the truth of the church because I understood contextual thinking and was open to seeing things in a new way, and God for his own reasons decided to show me the truth.

I see the Perry Scheme as a short-cut to that understanding- a way of presenting these thought patterns in a brief way rather than the 20 years of searching it took me to start thinking this way.

I would not even have accepted the Moroni 10 challenge if I had not understood the nature of contextual thinking and the limits of scientific paradigms in the first place. If I had a theory of truth that admitted only the investigations of science could show things to be "true", I never would have looked twice at all the angels and plates and prayers in the first place.

When you think you know what "truth" is, you automatically intentionally leave out other ways of seeing the world.

Edited February 20, 2013 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

Interesting discussion. For my part, I am less concerned about literal thinking than I am about dogmatism (or, as Joseph Smith calls it, "creedalism").

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

Can we all just get along, if we learn to think properly about these questions? Is this a case of black and white, literalistic thinking getting in the way of true understanding or is this just some liberal egghead "philosophy of men" to be ignored so we can get back to making pot shots at each other?

Wow. That would be great to have the Church move away from "black and white, literalistic" thinking.

Good luck with that.

[wenglund]

Wow. That would be great to have the Church move away from "black and white, literalistic" thinking.

Good luck with that.

Black and white thinking is critical during the early stages of development. One must first learn to distinguish between the more obvious variance in blacks and whites before being able to comprehend the more nuanced distinctions of gray. If so, then it would only make sense for the Church as a whole to move away from black and white thinking when it no longer has new and early-developmental members. However, as individual members, particularly those of us who are seasoned, it is good for us to be well on our way in that direction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nathair/|\]

Good stuff.

But what if it takes more than a "threefold" way of seeing it?

That's actually answered a few pages further on in the book. Just keep adding numbers until you find one that fits your purpose. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are all very powerful, but you can use any number that works.

[BCSpace]

The question is, how do we dialogue with others who do not yet know this for themselves, and let them see that there are other ways of seeing these questions than the black and white way they see them?

How do we allow them the room they need intellectually to gain a testimony?

I don't see how it cannot be black and white as everything, without exception, is black and white because all questions can be broken down into basic yes or no up or down type elements.

However, one could start with the doctrinal statement by SWK that the rib story from the garden is figurative. If that detail is figurative, and Adam and Eve can certainly still be historical people in that case, then surely other details can be figurative whether the Church specifically states it or not.

See also D&C 19:4-7. Another example of something being figurative.

I think these two examples could be the beginning of wisdom on this issue.

Edited February 20, 2013 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

Wow. That would be great to have the Church move away from "black and white, literalistic" thinking.

Good luck with that.

The Church must, and does, accommodate all kinds of thinking. When has anyone ever been excommunicated for thinking symbolically? In fact in the temple, we must think symbolically.

[mfbukowski]

I don't see how it cannot be black and white as everything, without exception, is black and white because all questions can be broken down into basic yes or no up or down type elements.

However, one could start with the doctrinal statement by SWK that the rib story from the garden is figurative. If that detail is figurative, and Adam and Eve can certainly still be historical people in that case, then surely other details can be figurative whether the Church specifically states it or not.

See also D&C 19:4-7. Another example of something being figurative.

I think these two examples could be the beginning of wisdom on this issue.

4 And surely every man must arepent or bsuffer, for I, God, am cendless.

5 Wherefore, I arevoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, bwailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my cleft hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is anot written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written bendless ctorment.

7 Again, it is written aeternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

Not sure how this is relevant- please explain

[kenporay]

All axiomatic systems share certain traits including, but not limited to: the ability to construct proofs based on axioms; symbols to represent constructs of proofs and other statments; axioms which cannot be proven but are just logical.

If you are able to compartmentalize then the universe is open to you. If you try to use axioms from one system to define, prove or disprove another system it looks 'silly.'

Nevertheless, without mankind to do the math all of the operations of physics, for example, would still continue as they always have...

[kenporay]

All axiomatic systems share certain traits including, but not limited to: the ability to construct proofs based on axioms; symbols to represent constructs of proofs and other statments; axioms which cannot be proven but are just logical.

If you are able to compartmentalize then the universe is open to you. If you try to use axioms from one system to define, prove or disprove another system it looks 'silly.'

Nevertheless, without mankind to do the math all of the operations of physics, for example, would still continue as they always have...

[mfbukowski]

All axiomatic systems share certain traits including, but not limited to: the ability to construct proofs based on axioms; symbols to represent constructs of proofs and other statments; axioms which cannot be proven but are just logical.

If you are able to compartmentalize then the universe is open to you. If you try to use axioms from one system to define, prove or disprove another system it looks 'silly.'

Nevertheless, without mankind to do the math all of the operations of physics, for example, would still continue as they always have...

I agree with that whole first paragraph- interesting stuff.

But I would like to see what "as they always have" means in that last sentence, and how that could be knowable.

Who gets to check to see if that's right?

[Stroopwafel]

I like to say that Truth without context does not convert; actually, it doesn't do much at all by itself. The problem I find in upholding positive statements (though the problem can be found as well in negative ones, but in a different way) is that there is a series of elements in support of that particular view which is always not said. When one affirms something positively, this person usually needs to have solid ground to justify him/herself, because there is something new brought on the table, something that was not previously there. There is a reasoning that has to be done to arrive at a conclusion, and of course this reasoning has to hold as well. If one starts accusing people around of a whole lot of nasty things, though it may damage someone's reputation even though this person would have done nothing wrong, it has no bearing on the truth of things.

So, the mere statement of something being true of false have no bearing on instilling the conviction and understanding of the "fact" (whatever it may be) at hand. In the end, as was pointed out, all questions can be conceptualized back to yes/no elements; either JS did receive the heavenly visits he claims, or he did not, there is no arguing. But merely saying that JS did or didn't have this experience leaves a whole lot of informations out, which are still needed to make an informed decision regarding how much credit one is ready to give the statement.

Of course, LDS believe in a form of epistemology where the Holy Ghost, in some cases, may actually bring witness, support, and instill conviction in the hearer's heart to believe that what was being said is indeed true (or false, depending on what's at hand). However, in that case, the HG never imparts understandingfrom nothing. Yes, there are some scriptures out there saying how the HG may expand/enlighten the understanding, and so on... but I hold that the HG can do so only by calling on knowledge or fragments of knowledge that we previously have, using that as building block. So one still needs to have a certain level of knowledge to understand a statement.

That being said, in the end, the key to communication is that both sides need to "learn to think properly", to use mfbukowski's words, about the questions at hand. I believe that the Perry scheme is a powerful tool to point out the phenomenon rapidly, without taking years to arrive there by oneself; thus we could potentially (and maybe with too much optimism) help quicken the process for others if we point it out to them. However, I'm not too sure (for lack of experience) how people from the very first stage would react when faced with this scheme. I'd be interested to know actually.

It is my understanding that Perry's scheme doesn't pass a value judgement (good vs. bad) on the different levels of intellectual development. Yet, there is inevitably a sense of progression towards better in the very notion of development. Then the question could becomes: by what standard(s) are Perry's intellectual development scheme and ordinal classification justified? Maybe it is already answered in Perry's work, and maybe I missed something that was already said here in the thread, but still, that is something else I'd be interested to know.

[Spammer]

How timely. Last night, I had a conversation with my wife that touched on some of these issues. I'd say that some issues require dualistic thinking. I view Joseph Smith's First Vision account as a historical claim, the same as any statement about something that happened in the past. The Father and Jesus literally appeared to Joseph in the Grove; George Washington was our first president. Yes or no; black or white. IMO, only cranks debate whether George was really our first prez or whether the earth really is flat (I recently discovered the existence of the Flat Earth Society; apparently, those zanies really believe in that model!). I view the Church's truth claims in that manner. If the First Vision account is true, the Church is true. And vice versa. No First Vision, then no Restoration and the Church is not true, no matter how wonderful the programs or how Christlike the church members are. I don't see how Perry's scheme has any relevance here in light of the Church's historical claim about the First Vision. It seems to be useful only for those who accept the validity of that claim and might be struggling with other issues.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Spammer

[Kevin Christensen]

Perry was an educator at Harvard, and the scheme was a study of how incoming students adapted (or not) in moving from their provincial ways of thinking to adapting to a pluralistic environment. I don't think its a matter of literal thinking versus figurative thinking (like the Fowler Stages of Faith model) so much as closed versus open, or, as Alma 32 puts it, being oriented to the idea of a final, static "knowing" versus an open ended "cause to believe."

POSITION 1 - Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them.

Alma clearly favors an orientation towards "cause to believe" in a which a person is fully aware that their knowledge is "not perfect", and that they are engaged in an ongoing process of learning, in which experiment is ongoing, knowledge and understanding expanding, and yet in which they can have faith. "is this not real?" even though your knowledge is not perfect. Originally, the Perry scheme was meant to be descriptive, but the possibility is that it can be pedagogical, that if students and teachers become more self-aware about their own thinking processes, they might be able to move through the nine stages more easily.

If a person can move along through to Stage 6, they come to this point:

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

And this puts me in mind of 2 Nephi 2 on opposition in all things, and Joseph Smith's comment that "by proving contraries, truth is made manifest," remembering that "truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come."

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic.

This puts me in mind of Nephi's comment that we cannot understand the Jewish prophets without knowing the cultural context. It's why I continue to find enlightenment from learning more about other cultures. It goes back to my discovery that what the English meant by biscuit is much like what I thought of as a cookie, and was different than what I might make from a box of bisquick. "Cookie" as a word is merely a social convention relative to a specific time and place that points to something else, but that something is not merely figurative but real. I should know, because I bake them regularly. That someone from Liverpool might call them biscuits does not make them less real. That what I thought of a French fry was not far from their chips, and my chips were like their crisps.

He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own.

Think of Alma 29, where Alma says that even though he might want to speak with a voice of thunder and coerce everyone into repentance, yet he knows that is a sin, and that God gives unto men all that he sees fit for them to have. This does not mean that Alma takes his own vision as merely symbolic, merely figurative. It's real and binding, but not the same thing as instant omniscience, and not binding on anyone else. It does not give the right to coerce or judge, thought it does drive his need to testify. He knows he has room to grow. Joseph Smith is the same. He's not a fanatic, saying "Submit or die!" but says, "If I cannot convince you that my way is better", we'll work with your way.

Perry's Stage 7 includes this:

He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others.

Joseph Smith's later discourses are full of this attitude. He doesn't condemn other people for not having had his experiences, yet accepts his own experience as binding on him, and worth offering to others.

Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

Here I think of the passages about seeking out of the best books words of wisdom, preparing our minds to understand more tomorrow, of searching the scriptures, of recognizing the need to study others and cultures and times to understood as they understood, and not presume it's just a matter of memorizing our favorite proof-texts, ignoring context, and calling that "scripture mastery."

The Perry Scheme does not tell me whether the First Vision is real, but does, I think, cast light on how I understand the different accounts, and how I approach and value the historical process by which the account "emerged as a fundamental", and how I approach the visions reported by other people in what Richard Bushman describes as "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith" or what I see in my own readings of visionary and religious literature.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited February 20, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Joseph Smith's later discourses are full of this attitude. He doesn't condemn other people for not having had his experiences, yet accepts his own experience as binding on him, and worth offering to others.

I'd love to hear a couple of examples of this if you have them handy.

[mfbukowski]

I like to say that Truth without context does not convert; actually, it doesn't do much at all by itself. The problem I find in upholding positive statements (though the problem can be found as well in negative ones, but in a different way) is that there is a series of elements in support of that particular view which is always not said. When one affirms something positively, this person usually needs to have solid ground to justify him/herself, because there is something new brought on the table, something that was not previously there. There is a reasoning that has to be done to arrive at a conclusion, and of course this reasoning has to hold as well. If one starts accusing people around of a whole lot of nasty things, though it may damage someone's reputation even though this person would have done nothing wrong, it has no bearing on the truth of things.

So, the mere statement of something being true of false have no bearing on instilling the conviction and understanding of the "fact" (whatever it may be) at hand. In the end, as was pointed out, all questions can be conceptualized back to yes/no elements; either JS did receive the heavenly visits he claims, or he did not, there is no arguing. But merely saying that JS did or didn't have this experience leaves a whole lot of informations out, which are still needed to make an informed decision regarding how much credit one is ready to give the statement.

Of course, LDS believe in a form of epistemology where the Holy Ghost, in some cases, may actually bring witness, support, and instill conviction in the hearer's heart to believe that what was being said is indeed true (or false, depending on what's at hand). However, in that case, the HG never imparts understandingfrom nothing. Yes, there are some scriptures out there saying how the HG may expand/enlighten the understanding, and so on... but I hold that the HG can do so only by calling on knowledge or fragments of knowledge that we previously have, using that as building block. So one still needs to have a certain level of knowledge to understand a statement.

That being said, in the end, the key to communication is that both sides need to "learn to think properly", to use mfbukowski's words, about the questions at hand. I believe that the Perry scheme is a powerful tool to point out the phenomenon rapidly, without taking years to arrive there by oneself; thus we could potentially (and maybe with too much optimism) help quicken the process for others if we point it out to them. However, I'm not too sure (for lack of experience) how people from the very first stage would react when faced with this scheme. I'd be interested to know actually.

It is my understanding that Perry's scheme doesn't pass a value judgement (good vs. bad) on the different levels of intellectual development. Yet, there is inevitably a sense of progression towards better in the very notion of development. Then the question could becomes: by what standard(s) are Perry's intellectual development scheme and ordinal classification justified? Maybe it is already answered in Perry's work, and maybe I missed something that was already said here in the thread, but still, that is something else I'd be interested to know.

Great post- thanks- will comment later when I have some time