How Do You Tell The Difference Between A True And False Conversion?

[mfbukowski]

akboy is a perfect example of the type of individual I am speaking about- no offense to him.

 

He will never understand my argument much less refute it.

 

For that reason I will not reply to him- been there tried that.

[Akboy]

You don't understand truth and falsity- see below.  Truth is a human invention because it is linguistic.

The Bible never says anything like 'Truth is a human invention.' Where do you get that idea?

 

Do you consider yourself a Christian? The Greek word 'Christian,' christianos, literally means 'follower of Christ.' How can you follow Christ if you're following general philosophies that Christ never taught and even contradict what He did teach? Following some of His teachings is not enough. If you see yourself, or some other human, as the ultimate arbitrator of truth, what teachings to follow and how to follow them, then you are not following Christ. You would be following yourself or that other human. What's the difference between your beliefs and the beliefs of an atheist who follows some of Jesus' teaching on morality, but ignores everything Jesus said about God? You're both just picking what you like. Being inspired by Christ is not the same as following Christ.

 

When you shop for a car, you can chose based on which features you want. It doesn't really matter what you pick as long as the car you get runs. Religion is not like shopping for a car. You don't get to pick the teachings and ideas you like and ignore the others.

 

Yes, I did refute your argument. You said the detective who investigated the gospels was assuming the gospels were right, which is totally false. There are many other examples that prove that your assumption is completely false. Can you refute that?

Edited April 21, 2014 by Akboy

[mfbukowski]

The Bible never says anything like 'Truth is a human invention.' Where do you get that idea?

 

Do you consider yourself a Christian? The Greek word 'Christian,' christianos, literally means 'follower of Christ.' How can you follow Christ if you're following general philosophies that Christ never taught and even contradict what He did teach? Following some of His teachings is not enough. If you see yourself, or some other human, as the ultimate arbitrator of truth, what teachings to follow and how to follow them, then you are not following Christ. You would be following yourself or that other human. What's the difference between your beliefs and the beliefs of an atheist who follows some of Jesus' teaching on morality, but ignores everything Jesus said about God? You're both just picking what you like. Being inspired by Christ is not the same as following Christ.

 

When you shop for a car, you can chose based on which features you want. It doesn't really matter what you pick as long as the car you get runs. Religion is not like shopping for a car. You don't get to pick the teachings and ideas you like and ignore the others.

 

Yes, I did refute your argument. You said the detective who investigated the gospels was assuming the gospels were right, which is totally false. There are many other examples that prove that your assumption is completely false. Can you refute that?

Anyone else reading this thread can tell that we are not even talking about the same thing. There's no point in going on. I am speaking German and you Chinese and I am talking about baseball and you are talking about dragsters.

I wish you well, you obviously are enthusiastic about your faith. Good for you!

Edited April 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Akboy]

Anyone else reading this thread can tell that we are not even talking about the same thing. There's no point in going on. I am speaking German and you Chinese and I am talking about baseball and you are talking about dragsters.

I wish you well, you obviously are enthusiastic about your faith. Good for you!

So what are you talking about when you say 'truth is a human invention'? Can you explain that and back it up with Biblical references?

[brainburn]

They those people have found AN answer that is satisfactory to them.  That's the best anyone can hope for.

Right. I understand this. My contention is that the answer may be emotionally satisfactory, but it doesn't actually answer some of the questions it claims to answer.

 

The fact that they BELIEVE, as you do, that "the world is out there" AND that you can say anything about it which "corresponds" to it is because they are wrong, and haven't thought it through.

What do you mean "as you do"? Everyone acts as if there "is a world out there" and I accept this. I believe the question of whether there in fact "is a world out there" is a mystery.

 

Not many people in the world understand that truth is not correspondence, but once you see it, you can never go back.  That is all I hope you see and why I am spending so much time- because you are so dang close, and now closer than ever.

I really appreciate your time. I really do. But did you read my entire post? I already understand and agree with you. Did you read this paragraph:

To make it absolutely clear, since considering the possibility many years ago, I believe you simply and mysteriously experience. Then, through equally mysterious mechanisms, our minds constructs a theoretical model of an objective reality that works in combination with our experience of subjective reality. But most importantly, that objective model we each operate by is a correspondence theory. Although it can never be known absolutely, it's written into the fabric of our experience. We act as if our chosen model of objective reality, things within and beyond our experience, corresponds to a true reality.

I think that's enough to show that we're on the same page. To continue, what I believe your missing is this:

 

But supernaturally, the story could be different. It is possible that there is a way to supernaturally confirm knowledge of correspondence in a conversion experience.

 

TRUTH IS WHAT WORKS.

Right. But that's only one definition of the word. There is the mysterious possibility of a truth that is beyond our experience of what "works".

 

 

I haven't a clue what "you are effectively solving an epistemic problem with a non-epistemic answer." means.

Having certainty about what is behind door 1 and in fact experiencing what is behind door 1 are two different things.

 

Maybe it's the lady and maybe its the tiger.  Oh well.

 

The entire point is that its the certainty that makes your life have meaning.

 

Right. Here's exactly what I mean by "effectively solving an epistemic problem with a non-epistemic answer."

What's behind the Door represents what is beyond our experience. Yes, you can have certainty about what is beyond our experience, but that certainty doesn't solve the epistemic question. It's a non-epsitemic answer to an epistemic problem. The answer is emotionally certain, not logically certain. I'm aware this isn't news to you. 

 

I understand that certainty gives life meaning, but as far as where to place your certainty for such important questions as "what happens to us after we die?", we can recognize that there are different ways to answer the question.

 

I understand that you see that the only answer is to see the truth of the matter as what works. I'm attempting to shake up this conclusion a bit. One of those ways is offering the possibility of a supernaturally confirmed correspondence theory of knowledge. Another way I might question your belief is to ask something like this:

 

If truth is what "works", how does belief in one type of afterlife "work" better than another if the afterlife is beyond our experience? Wouldn't this mean that we could never experience whether the belief "works" or not because it concerns what is beyond our experience?

 

THAT is religion.  The "truth" of religion is based on faith- hope for things UNSEEN.  Just as you are confident that your feet will not be chewed by starving dogs, we are confident that we will have a pleasant afterlife.

 

You have no evidence that your feet will not be chewed by starving dogs, we have no scientific evidence for religion.  That's the way it works.

Understood. We are confident about many things which are beyond our experience only because that confidence is useful to our lives. But is it wise to use this sort of answer for very important "beyond-our-experience" questions like what happens to us after we die?

 

Can you know whether a belief in a certain type of afterlife will be useful after you die? 

 

Given that this is an epistemic question about something beyond our experience, I figure your answer would be "There is no "knowing what is out there" independent of human experience, period."

 

So, the answer is no, you can't know whether a belief in a certain type of afterlife will be useful after you die.

 

But are you not consequently stating that any preparation for the afterlife (such as the LDS temple rituals), is not actually about preparation for the afterlife? Because the afterlife is beyond our experience, it must be (according to your philosophy) just as unclear whether your house will be hit by a meteor... yet many believe the LDS temple rituals are a sort of exclusive preparation for the afterlife?

 

Isn't this like constantly preparing your house for something as unlikely as a meteor strike, but neglecting to put the same effort into preparation of any other sort of equally mysterious possible threats to your life?

[mfbukowski]

I still have no clue what you mean by "epistemic" and you refuse to define it.

[Akboy]

I still have no clue what you mean by "epistemic" and you refuse to define it.

Could you define how you know truth is a human invention?

[Calm]

Even from your POV where God is the creator of truth, it is a human invention since God is a human (as the Bible teaches us since we are in His image).

[brainburn]

I still have no clue what you mean by "epistemic" and you refuse to define it.

Ah. I'm sorry. I honestly didn't mean to "refuse" :]

Epistemic as in concerning epistemology.

Am I still confusing something?

[brainburn]

an epistemic question is a question regarding the truth or falsehood of some proposition and an epistemic answer would be concerning the truth or falsehood of that proposition.

In the case of our discussion, pragmatic belief in religious models of what is beyond our experience is answering an epistemic question with an answer that has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the supernatural model.

[brainburn]

What I'm pointing out is that it's just about as wise as being massively concerned with a freak meteor strike, but dismissive of the possibility of other freak accidents which are just as mysterious.

[brainburn]

I'm guessing you may wish to point out that the "truth of falsehood of a proposition" doesn't make sense. It does make sense if you define true or false as corespondent or not to reality. It's not incoherent to say even if it's completely uncertain whether correspondence can be confirmed or not.

[brainburn]

Also, are you "refusing" ;] to tell me what you think of the possibility of a supernatural correspondence theory of truth?

[mfbukowski]

We act as if our chosen model of objective reality, things within and beyond our experience, corresponds to a true reality.

No we just act.  Do you actually think while you are reading this that your perception of the screen "corresponds" to anything? No, you just read the screen and respond.

 

We act as if our chosen model of objective reality, things within and beyond our experience, corresponds to a true reality.

When a truck is heading for you head on you are not thinking about your chosen model of objective reality.  Experience IS reality- there is nothing for it to correspond to.  If you read too much of the wrong philosophy you get convinced that correspondence is correct.  Ask the cashier at the supermarket if she acts as if her chosen model of objective reality corresponds to true reality.  Ask any ordinary person if that is the case.

That's nonsense.

 

But supernaturally, the story could be different. It is possible that there is a way to supernaturally confirm knowledge of correspondence in a conversion experience.

Nope.   How???  You can never get out of your own skin or head.  It is all input into your brain/spirit/mind whatever you want to use.  Human experience is human experience.

 

There is the mysterious possibility of a truth that is beyond our experience of what "works".

 

 No, because truth is a property of sentences.  If you cant say it it cant be true.

 

It is possible that the earth will be vaporized by Xylon of Org in his starship orbiting pluto in 28 seconds but it has no relevance to anything I can do anything about

I understand that certainty gives life meaning, but as far as where to place your certainty for such important questions as "what happens to us after we die?", we can recognize that there are different ways to answer the question.

Yeah, so what.

 

You can be Buddhist or Hindu or Christian or etc.  You find the best model that works and either accept it or become atheist.  If you believe the Mormons, you did your very best and will get another crack at it anyway after you've died.

 

Yes it takes courage to live without absolute certainty but that's life.  It takes courage to ask a girl to the prom.  You can stay at home and pull the covers over your head or act without certainty.  Life is uncertain- who cares?

If truth is what "works", how does belief in one type of afterlife "work" better than another if the afterlife is beyond our experience? Wouldn't this mean that we could never experience whether the belief "works" or not because it concerns what is beyond our experience?

NO its about what works in this life for you.

 

I am not going to believe in the flying spaghetti monster because that makes no sense to me. 

 

I am certain from my experience that a Great Intelligence knows me personally and loves me and is concerned about me and is guiding me to get closer to him/her.  Not it because it is a person.  That is my personal spiritual experience.  So what can I deduce from that?  The person is kind of like how my father was, so I perceive "him" to be my Father.

 

I know that when I do bad things, He withdraws that good feeling.  When I change my ways and don't do bad things, I get the good feeling back.

 

So I say "God loves me, and when I repent, I feel closer to the spirit and feel peace".  That is the linguistic expression of my experience.  And on it goes.

 

Such a being would be fair, so I construct my images based on the attributes he should have

 

So I essentially make up a story which fits my experience.  And surprise- then I stumble on Mormonism which teaches exactly what I already believed.  So I adopt that story to fill in the gaps in mine.  That is how it worked for me.

 

Am I certain of any of it?  I accept it on faith- that means I am not certain.  But it gives me peace and I have experiences which reinforce my belief that the story works in my life.   I express that my saying "I know the church is true".

 

But are you not consequently stating that any preparation for the afterlife (such as the LDS temple rituals), is not actually about preparation for the afterlife? Because the afterlife is beyond our experience, it must be (according to your philosophy) just as unclear whether your house will be hit by a meteor... yet many believe the LDS temple rituals are a sort of exclusive preparation for the afterlife?

 

Isn't this like constantly preparing your house for something as unlikely as a meteor strike, but neglecting to put the same effort into preparation of any other sort of equally mysterious possible threats to your life?

 

Kind of , but it is intrinsically pleasurable to help people.  I love the temple.  I have a great sense of peace just being there.  God speaks to me there, and I feel his presence.  It is self-rewarding.  I like people and trying to help them and bring the peace I feel myself, to others.

 

The bottom line is that you start to understand that these beliefs are rewarding in themselves and make me the kind of person I would want to be independent of the beliefs.

 

I want to be the best human I can.  I want to help people.  I want to make sure they have peace and purpose in their lives.  I do not want them to be confused about silly linguistic issues.   If I knew for certain tomorrow that God did not exist and there was no afterlife, I would not change one iota.  I would give money to charity, I would teach others the importance of faith and teach them to be the best kind of humans they can.

 

Lots of atheists live that way- that is why they do it.  They are good people who want social justice, good ecology, save the whales etc.  If you have no purpose you might as well commit suicide.

 

Why the flip do you think I am talking to you???  

 

But this is definitely getting labor intensive again.  Can 't go on forever.

[mfbukowski]

Ah. I'm sorry. I honestly didn't mean to "refuse" :]

Epistemic as in concerning epistemology.

Am I still confusing something?

Words.  I know what epistemology is but what epistemology are you talking about?

There are a zillion types of epistemology

An "epistemic question" is a question about epistemology- but whose?  A religious question is about religion- but whose?

[mfbukowski]

an epistemic question is a question regarding the truth or falsehood of some proposition and an epistemic answer would be concerning the truth or falsehood of that proposition.

In the case of our discussion, pragmatic belief in religious models of what is beyond our experience is answering an epistemic question with an answer that has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the supernatural model.

Convoluted language.  Don't understand it.

[mfbukowski]

What I'm pointing out is that it's just about as wise as being massively concerned with a freak meteor strike, but dismissive of the possibility of other freak accidents which are just as mysterious.

What's "just about as wise as being massively concerned with a freak meteor strike, but dismissive of the possibility of other freak accidents which are just as mysterious."?

Full sentences without ambiguous pronouns help a lot.

[mfbukowski]

I'm guessing you may wish to point out that the "truth of falsehood of a proposition" doesn't make sense. It does make sense if you define true or false as corespondent or not to reality. It's not incoherent to say even if it's completely uncertain whether correspondence can be confirmed or not.

[mfbukowski]

Also, are you "refusing" ;] to tell me what you think of the possibility of a supernatural correspondence theory of truth?

I cannot even conceive what that would mean

[mfbukowski]

Rorty

We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that the truth is out there.  To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages and that human languages are human creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot.

 

That's about it.

 

If you can refute that, you will get written up in the philosophy text books for the rest of eternity.  Best wishes.

 

There is no truth beyond sentences.  Its not out there

Edited April 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Akboy]

NO its about what works in this life for you.

That's not what Jesus said.

 

John 14:6  Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

He doesn't say He's one of the ways to the Father. He doesn't say He's one of the truth options we can follow.

 

Such a being would be fair, so I construct my images based on the attributes he should have

 

So I essentially make up a story which fits my experience.  And surprise- then I stumble on Mormonism which teaches exactly what I already believed.  So I adopt that story to fill in the gaps in mine.  That is how it worked for me.

 

Am I certain of any of it?  I accept it on faith- that means I am not certain.  But it gives me peace and I have experiences which reinforce my belief that the story works in my life.   I express that my saying "I know the church is true".

Look at your pronoun usage. There's at least 12 uses of 'I,' 'me' or 'my.' How are you following Christ in any of that?

 

You construct your images based on the attributes God should have? Who are you to say what God should be like? Either you're following Christ and His teachings or you're following your own whims and desires. If there really is a Great Intelligence, how do you think it would react to you deciding what religion to follow based on your own desires?

 

Do you have any kids? How would you react if they told you they'll only follow the rules they like, and they'll only follow those rules based on their own interpretation of them?

[brainburn]

I understand this can get frustrating or "labor intensive". I'm glad you're still here. I think we're getting really close to unraveling this sort of Gordian knot we're in... I don't mind taking the blame for it as long as you stick around when it unravels :]
 

Words.  I know what epistemology is but what epistemology are you talking about?
There are a zillion types of epistemology
An "epistemic question" is a question about epistemology- but whose?  A religious question is about religion- but whose?

It's always been about the correspondence theory of truth. I think you're expecting me to be more confusing than I am and are consequently confusing yourself wherever you find the semantic wiggle room. Is it possible you're not looking hard enough to find what I really mean? Are you missing that I've defined what I believe can be known and it doesn't include the beliefs you accuse me of? It's as if every time you see me type the word "truth" it confirms to you that I personally believe that truth is beyond sentences?
 
I don't know how else to explain what you're telling me about myself. You're quite the puzzle :]
 

Rorty
That's about it.
 
If you can refute that, you will get written up in the philosophy text books for the rest of eternity.  Best wishes.
 
There is no truth beyond sentences.  Its not out there

I know this may be difficult to believe... and I admire that you think I'm that ambitious ;] but you're confused. You need to stop believing that I am ever suggesting that there is truth beyond sentences. It is ridiculous and I'd like to request that you offer me the respect of accepting that I don't believe something that ridiculous or at least respond to the fact that I've explained what I personally believe about truth and correspondence. I don't think you've made a direct response to my explanation of what I personally believe about truth:
 
To make it absolutely clear, since considering the possibility many years ago, I believe you simply and mysteriously experience. Then, through equally mysterious mechanisms, our minds sometimes consciously and always unconsciously constructs a theoretical model of an objective reality that works in combination with our experience of subjective reality. But most importantly, that objective model we each operate by is a correspondence theory. Although it can never be known absolutely, it's written into the fabric of our experience. We sometimes consciously and always unconsciously act as if our chosen model of objective reality, things within and beyond our experience, corresponds to a true reality.
 
I updated the phrasing to accommodate a recent comment of yours (read below) but the important part is the statement: I believe you simply and mysteriously experience. I think we're getting very close to the core of our disagreement and I'm excited.
 

No we just act.  Do you actually think while you are reading this that your perception of the screen "corresponds" to anything? No, you just read the screen and respond.

When a truck is heading for you head on you are not thinking about your chosen model of objective reality.  Experience IS reality- there is nothing for it to correspond to.

I never meant to say that we only consciously accept a correspondence theory of reality before acting. I mean just as you do, we just act within the model of objective reality our minds constructed unconsciously and sometimes we create the model consciously.
 

If you read too much of the wrong philosophy you get convinced that correspondence is correct.

Again. I have never really believed that correspondence theory is correct. You're confused each time you perceive that I am affirming correspondence theory. I am simply trying to suggest the possibility of correspondence and pointing out that our minds operate by a correspondence theory whether we can have "true" knowledge of correspondence or not.
  

No, because truth is a property of sentences.  If you cant say it it cant be true.

You said: "TRUTH IS WHAT WORKS."
I said: "Right. But that's only one definition of the word. There is the mysterious possibility of a truth that is beyond our experience of what "works"."
You misinterpreted my use of the word truth. What I meant to point out is that there is the mysterious possibility of true things that exist beyond our experience. I thought that was clear, but it seems you're very quickly interpreting any use of the word as incorrect and missing the context and meaning I intend to convey.
 

"No interpretation is closer to reality than any other."

Here's one of the things that really intrigues me about you: this is simply anti-mormon. Official Mormon doctrine is literally an interpretation of reality claimed to be closer to reality than any other interpretations. That statement is a denial that Mormon doctrine is what prophets claim it to be: the interpretation which is closer to reality than any other.

Reminds me of Korihor:
 
"Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ."
"Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true."
 
And Alma's response:
 
"And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only. But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true;"

Alma talks about knowing the truth of something beyond his experience (Christ's first coming). He's denying Korihor's argument that you can't know things you don't experience, not supporting it like you are.

The way you speak it sounds like you would tell Alma that he doesn't really know Christ will come. Is that true?
 

NO its about what works in this life for you.

This is where we really need to connect.

I'm not sure if I asked you directly yet, though. Do you believe in the Mormon version of the afterlife? Do you perform temple rituals in order to prepare for the afterlife? 

 

I know you do it because it feels good, but are you denying that you're doing it to actually prepare for the afterlife?

You're misunderstanding my point here. If truth is, as you say, only about what works in this life, then what truly happens after this life is a complete mystery. This is the opposite of what the prophets tell us. It's the opposite of what the prophets prophesy.

I'm just curious to know what you think about what this really means... to nevertheless act as if one theory of the afterlife is true and others false, is about as wise as preparing for one specific kind of freak accident and neglecting all other equally freakish possibilities. 

But, I know you don't really care because the belief is of massive pragmatic utility, as you've explained.
 

Am I certain of any of it?  I accept it on faith- that means I am not certain.  But it gives me peace and I have experiences which reinforce my belief that the story works in my life.   I express that my saying "I know the church is true".
 
Kind of , but it is intrinsically pleasurable to help people.  I love the temple.  I have a great sense of peace just being there.  God speaks to me there, and I feel his presence.  It is self-rewarding.  I like people and trying to help them and bring the peace I feel myself, to others.
 
The bottom line is that you start to understand that these beliefs are rewarding in themselves and make me the kind of person I would want to be independent of the beliefs.
 
I want to be the best human I can.  I want to help people.  I want to make sure they have peace and purpose in their lives.  I do not want them to be confused about silly linguistic issues.   If I knew for certain tomorrow that God did not exist and there was no afterlife, I would not change one iota.  I would give money to charity, I would teach others the importance of faith and teach them to be the best kind of humans they can.
 
Lots of atheists live that way- that is why they do it.  They are good people who want social justice, good ecology, save the whales etc.  If you have no purpose you might as well commit suicide.
 
Why the flip do you think I am talking to you???  
 
But this is definitely getting labor intensive again.  Can 't go on forever.

And I've understood all of this from the beginning. Seriously.

I have understood all of this from the beginning. I am very familiar with the way you think.

 

I read your responses and think to myself, yeah... that's exactly what I'd expect mfbukowski to say on subject X. The problem is getting mfbukowski to realize that I'm focusing on subject Y. :]

 

I'm not confused about any silly linguistic issues. I think you have an interesting puzzle of a mind that I enjoy decoding and talking with about important questions.

I understand that your style of philosophy is very self-rewarding as you explain. Where my mind goes from there is that if you claim we can't know that anything exists beyond your experience, you seem to deny that there could be a supernatural correspondence theory of truth.
 

I cannot even conceive what that would mean

Can you conceive of how exactly God causes a miracle? Creates light? How Jesus is dead then alive?
 
Because it would be supernatural, being able to conceive of how a correspondence theory might be supernaturally confirmed is not required.
 
Is this the only reason you don't believe a supernatural theory of correspondence is possible? 

Nope.   How???  You can never get out of your own skin or head.  It is all input into your brain/spirit/mind whatever you want to use.  Human experience is human experience.

:] You sound like an atheist denying miracles. "If you can't describe the mechanism that allowed Jesus to rise from the dead, it can't be true." "If you can't describe how God could supernaturally confirm a correspondence theory in your mind, it can't be true."

[Akboy]

"No interpretation is closer to reality than any other."

Here's one of the things that really intrigues me about you: this is simply anti-mormon. Official Mormon doctrine is literally an interpretation of reality claimed to be closer to reality than any other interpretations. That statement is a denial that Mormon doctrine is what prophets claim it to be: the interpretation which is closer to reality than any other.

That's what I've been trying to get him to address. He seems to say he's a member of the church, yet his relativistic statements about truth and God contradict many passages in the Bible and modern statements by LDS leaders. I don't think he's confirmed that he actually believes Jesus was a real person who actually lived on the earth. It almost sounds like he disagrees with more doctrine than he actually agrees with. I wonder if the leaders in his local congregation know he believes this kind of stuff. He's basically following and worshiping himself.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Akboy

[brainburn]

I wonder what would happen if you met the prophet. How he would respond if you explained that his testimony of the fact that Christ will return is actually beyond his experience and therefore can never be called true knowledge.

I wonder what would happen if you were in a room with ever person who had a spiritual confirmation that the theory "Christ will return" corresponds to a future reality.

Is that you can't conceive of how this spiritual confirmation works enough reason to deny it exists?

Of course not. This is not to say I am claiming it does exist. It is to say that it is still possible.

A correspondence theory of truth is possible because supernaturally, anything is possible.

If we can agree, I can explain how this applies to my OP.

[brainburn]

That's what I've been trying to get him to address. He seems to say he's a member of the church, yet his relativistic statements about truth and God contradict many passages in the Bible and modern statements by LDS leaders. I don't think he's confirmed that he actually believes Jesus was a real person who actually lived on the earth. It almost sounds like he disagrees with more doctrine than he actually agrees with. I wonder if the leaders in his local congregation know he believes this kind of stuff.

Right. It's a really special kind of inversion of terms.