Justifying Hallucinations as "Reality"

[hope_for_things]

On 4/8/2017 at 4:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

That, sir is an excellent question.  I think it is clear that he understood that direct experience of God was seeing things "as they are".

For me direct experience is always "seeing things as they are"- I look around and see my stuff and realize though that I am more tolerant of my stuff than others stuff.  I think in spatial terms so I know that I left my shoes in the living room next to the couch and don't see that as "messy".  My wife on the other hand perceives my shoes differently for some weird reason and ends up throwing them into my closet where I can't find them.

For both of us the shoes are "things as they are" but for her they are a mess to be cleaned up and for me they are "I was just going to put them on, so why did you move them?" As if she could read my mind while categorizing them as another mess of mine which she takes it upon herself to clean up because I am a slob but the slob she loves, luckily for me.  

So who is seeing things as they are?

We both do from different perspectives

So yes, if Joseph did not believe that visions were "things as they are" he would have gone to bed and put a cold towel on his head and tried to sleep off the first vision.

I missed this thread over the weekend, but I'd like to join in the fun on this question of how did Joseph view things.  

I'm reading Ann Taves new book Revelatory Events where she expands on an earlier thesis to explain the Materialization of the Golden Plates as an act of creation by Joseph to materialize something that he saw in vision by creating an object in the real world to represent this otherworldly vision.  

https://www.amazon.com/Revelatory-Events-Studies-Emergence-Spiritual/dp/0691152896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491837526&sr=8-1&keywords=revelatory+events

Assuming this premise for the sake of discussion, that Joseph made the physical Golden plates, this invites an interesting question to consider.   Did Joseph believe that his physical creation of plates was an act that God required of him in order to convince followers that visions in Joseph's mind, were also physically real?

Was this creation of plates evidence for fraud on the part of Joseph?  Or was this an evidence that Joseph looked at his "visions" in a different way than most people do.  Perhaps Joseph thought visions were just as real as the physical world, and in order to prove this point he needed to materialize the immaterial in order to get his followers to see what he could already see in his minds eye.  Thoughts?  

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Well, as Bernard Gui pointed out, he did not respond to such a paradigm in that way.  So, one could say that there are many Mormons who adapt within the Mormon paradigm and resist such polarizing notions.  Yet then there are others who seem to work from the premise that all non-members are generally not just in the world but of the world and will not be as happy as they can be in their path until they convert, be it in this life or the next.  I could argue that this is similar to a characteristic of any group or tribe behavior, yet even given that, one could say that that aspect of the Mormon paradigm can work to enhance the polarity.

And that's the point.  Does it enhance the human tendancy to polarize?  I think that on one hand, all the love and charitable feelings that Mormonism can inspire toward our fellow human beings, causing us to turn to them and see them as just as real as we are ourselves would subvert that claim.  There can be examples, however, of immaturity where prospective converts are objectified and treated like "golden converts" who add to numbers.  And when that baptism is rejected, there may be this tendency, both individual and institutional to draw members away from people who are not interested in being LDS.  The Mormon religion is very intensive, it asks for absolutely everything of its people, and can have the effect of actual organic relationships beings left at the side in favor of church duties and activities.

Rather than using the polarising attributes of Mormonism as a gotchya moment, I'd prefer to use it as a way to understand how we develop inside and outside of Mormonism, how it all works systemically, regardless of intent, so that when we see undesriable outcomes we can try to mitigate them.

If only the rest of the world accepted your paradigm and world view!  Only then would there be no polarization.  Seems like a rather polarizing world view if you ask me.  I think you missed my point there.  To white wash society from any truth claims in an effort to remove polarization is 1) an extremely polarizing position in and of itself, 2) naive and 3) a world I wouldn't want to live in.  

Light is polarizing; good is polarizing; love is polarizing; truth is polarizing; God is polarizing.  Just about any world figure who has made a difference for good in this world has been a polarizing figure.  Because something is polarizing doesn't make it bad, it could in fact be the polar opposite of bad.   

 

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh gosh.  Read the thread- the entire thread is my answer to that.  I won't respond further to you asking the same question again and again when I answer it with every post.  Your credibility is vanishing- I cannot follow your thought processes at all.

I suspect you still have your  atheist hat on and with that mindset you are still trying to avoid sharing your philosophy, again, in this thread... as you said you would in the opening post for this thread.

Fair enough.

I'll simply say that human experience is not enough to know whether or not some thing is true, and as evidence of that I have my own human experience in which I have learned things that some things that other humans think are not true are really not true. And vice versa. So obviously human experience, alone, is not enough to determine whether or not something is true.

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Ahab

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That's not the doctrine.  In LDS doctrine, an LDS baptism is required to achieve ultimate enlightenment, to live in God's presence. And that's just the first of many steps to live there.

I never claimed otherwise.  I said that there are many paths to one baptism.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I missed this thread over the weekend, but I'd like to join in the fun on this question of how did Joseph view things.  

I'm reading Ann Taves new book Revelatory Events where she expands on an earlier thesis to explain the Materialization of the Golden Plates as an act of creation by Joseph to materialize something that he saw in vision by creating an object in the real world to represent this otherworldly vision.  

https://www.amazon.com/Revelatory-Events-Studies-Emergence-Spiritual/dp/0691152896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491837526&sr=8-1&keywords=revelatory+events

Assuming this premise for the sake of discussion, that Joseph made the physical Golden plates, this invites an interesting question to consider.   Did Joseph believe that his physical creation of plates was an act that God required of him in order to convince followers that visions in Joseph's mind, were also physically real?

Was this creation of plates evidence for fraud on the part of Joseph?  Or was this an evidence that Joseph looked at his "visions" in a different way than most people do.  Perhaps Joseph thought visions were just as real as the physical world, and in order to prove this point he needed to materialize the immaterial in order to get his followers to see what he could already see in his minds eye.  Thoughts?  

http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/on-the-erasure-of-native-americans-from-the-book-of-mormon-conversation-thomas-murphy/ I listened to part of this podcast. It's an interesting concept, that there are native Indians that actually had a story similar to the BoM story and Christ visiting America.

I remember hearing something in the past but never thought much about it until now. It could be faith affirming or it could be faith destroying. Did Joseph Smith know about their story and go off of it, or is is true and the BoM gives the story, but with details that are left out or details that aren't possible as in having things in it that didn't exist. 

Thomas Murphy put out this paper about it:  https://www.academia.edu/10367006/Imagining_Lamanites_Native_Americans_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

So maybe there were golden plates?  

[HappyJackWagon]

I came across this podcast by Sam Harris about Reality and the Imagination. Of course I think he's looking at the same general premise as MF but from a different angle and with different conclusions. Just thought it was interesting.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/reality-and-the-imagination

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/on-the-erasure-of-native-americans-from-the-book-of-mormon-conversation-thomas-murphy/ I listened to part of this podcast. It's an interesting concept, that there are native Indians that actually had a story similar to the BoM story and Christ visiting America.

I remember hearing something in the past but never thought much about it until now. It could be faith affirming or it could be faith destroying. Did Joseph Smith know about their story and go off of it, or is is true and the BoM gives the story, but with details that are left out or details that aren't possible as in having things in it that didn't exist. 

Thomas Murphy put out this paper about it:  https://www.academia.edu/10367006/Imagining_Lamanites_Native_Americans_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

So maybe there were golden plates?  

Yes, that was an interesting podcast.  I think if we can determine what Joseph was doing when he first transitioned from treasure seeker to a religious leader, we can then expound that into other things like the reality of Lamanites in his mind, or the reality of a scroll that contained the writings of the John the beloved apostle, or the reality of the city of Zion, or the Garden of Eden, etc.  I think its apparent that Joseph took things from his mind's eye and applied them to the physical world we inhabit.  But what was Joseph thinking, was he delusional, or was he seeing a reality that to him was just as real as the physical?  

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

She said, "The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they have all the truth, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy."

Let's be fair and consider the slightly different position, which when used still makes her point:

"The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they are the only true church, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy."

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe she misspoke and that is what she meant.

(By the way, the church does claim the fullness of the gospel.)

Anyways, I agree that such a thing is polarizing. It has a way of emotionally isolating LDS from their non-LDS brothers and sisters on this planet.

That is like a junior high school student, just having passed basic algebra saying I have the fullness of Quantum Mechanics. There are worlds of knowledge out there we have no clue about.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But what was Joseph thinking, was he delusional, or was he seeing a reality that to him was just as real as the physical?  

What is the difference, in your mind?

Are you aware of other options?

[Ahab]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

She said, "The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they have all the truth, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy."

Let's be fair and consider the slightly different position, which when used still makes her point:

"The problem here is that we have two or more churches on the earth that think they are the only true church, it's an us vs. them syndrome that doesn't play well with individuals that are living with that idiocy."

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe she misspoke and that is what she meant.

(By the way, the church does claim the fullness of the gospel.)

Anyways, I agree that such a thing is polarizing. It has a way of emotionally isolating LDS from their non-LDS brothers and sisters on this planet.

Polarization.is inevitable as long as there is any disagreement.

People who know the truth (about anything) vs people who don't know the truth about that thing (for whatever reason).

We are either on one side or the other.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I missed this thread over the weekend, but I'd like to join in the fun on this question of how did Joseph view things.  

I'm reading Ann Taves new book Revelatory Events where she expands on an earlier thesis to explain the Materialization of the Golden Plates as an act of creation by Joseph to materialize something that he saw in vision by creating an object in the real world to represent this otherworldly vision.  

https://www.amazon.com/Revelatory-Events-Studies-Emergence-Spiritual/dp/0691152896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491837526&sr=8-1&keywords=revelatory+events

Assuming this premise for the sake of discussion, that Joseph made the physical Golden plates, this invites an interesting question to consider.   Did Joseph believe that his physical creation of plates was an act that God required of him in order to convince followers that visions in Joseph's mind, were also physically real?

Was this creation of plates evidence for fraud on the part of Joseph?  Or was this an evidence that Joseph looked at his "visions" in a different way than most people do.  Perhaps Joseph thought visions were just as real as the physical world, and in order to prove this point he needed to materialize the immaterial in order to get his followers to see what he could already see in his minds eye.  Thoughts?  

 I do not believe that is what actually happened but if it could be "proven" I would have no problem with it.

Remember Joseph did not use the plates in his "translation" of the BOM anyway- and that it was received by revelation through the seer stone.

Another possibility is that there is some evidence that there were others who knew of "treasures" buried in the hill and one had said that he believed that Joseph was fated to find them and no one else could.  Logically that leaves the possibility open that the gold was known to others by legend, perhaps passed down for who knows how long, but Joseph received revelation where to find them.  That could include the possibility that someone else other than Joseph made and deposited the plates (Perhaps his name was Moroni or perhaps that was his new name.....) and then circulated the rumor that they were there waiting to be found, and that person helped Joseph find them.

Now take that last sentence

Quote

 That could include the possibility that someone else other than Joseph made and deposited the plates (Perhaps his name was Moroni or perhaps that was his new name.....) and then circulated the rumor that they were there waiting to be found, and that person helped Joseph find them.

and take out the element of time.

Suppose the first event - the making and depositing of the plates - happened 1200 years before and the real person's name really was "Moroni"

Now take the statement and make the person one living contemporaneously with Joseph who spiritually represented "Moroni" who made and deposited the plates without Joseph's knowledge.

I have no problem with that either.  The question is whether or not there were plates- because their existence is actually irrelevant to the translation of the BOM.

The BOM can only be evaluated by testimony - either the believer accepts it as the word of God or doesn't.   I personally have a strong testimony that it is the word of God and has been in my life.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'll simply say that human experience is not enough to know whether or not some thing is true, and as evidence of that I have my own human experience in which I have learned things that some things that other humans think are not true are really not true. And vice versa. So obviously human experience, alone, is not enough to determine whether or not something is true.

Oh Ahab!  What am I going to do with you??

Obviously YOU judged in those situations what was true or not even though others disagreed with you.  That is the whole point- YOUR HUMAN EXPERIENCE inside Ahab made that judgement call.  That was someone or something out there in the world deciding what was true- it was Ahab.

Edited April 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I came across this podcast by Sam Harris about Reality and the Imagination. Of course I think he's looking at the same general premise as MF but from a different angle and with different conclusions. Just thought it was interesting.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/reality-and-the-imagination

I have not listened yet but he is along the same lines I think as Rorty- remember the whole strategy here is to use postmodernism AGAINST atheism

If there is no truth, Mormonism cannot be false.  We just have to define truth in terms that Mormons accept, which is easy.  That is the whole point of the thread, but make sure you don't tell anyone- ok?

My philosophical idols are all atheists- atheists who prove that religion can be "true".

For some stupid reason Mormons still want to take the old philosophy and make life hard for themselves by hanging onto Christian Neoplatonism which no one but Christian Neoplatonists still believe.  But they cling to their silly "objective truth" when no Mormon scripture supports that view

"Mormon scriptures are all pragmatic- if it works it's true.  If you get a testimony- that shows truth.  If the tree grows good fruit- that is truth.  Truth exists in spheres and contexts. Direct visions and spiritual experiences are true."

All those are postmodern ideas.  But don't tell Mormons they are natural postmodernists- ok?  They will fight you all day to keep believing in what does not work philosophically.  

But don't tell anybody ok?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

What is the difference, in your mind?

Are you aware of other options?

There's the fraud option.  

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Now take the statement and make the person one living contemporaneously with Joseph who spiritually represented "Moroni" who made and deposited the plates without Joseph's knowledge.

I have no problem with that either.  The question is whether or not there were plates- because their existence is actually irrelevant to the translation of the BOM.

The BOM can only be evaluated by testimony - either the believer accepts it as the word of God or doesn't.   I personally have a strong testimony that it is the word of God and has been in my life.

Its possible there were actually plates and Moroni, etc, but I want to take that off the table for this discussion.  I'm assuming that ancient plates don't exist, this is what Taves talks about in her book.  I'm assuming that Joseph created a physical object to materialize what he saw in his mind's eye. 

If Joseph created plates to materialize a reality that in his mind was truly real, what does that mean?  The whole culture was steeped in treasure lore and mound builder myths, thats how Joseph got started in all this..  Luman Walters is the one you mention who predicted that Joseph would be the only person to get the plates.  

These village seers were seeing things in their mind that don't exist in the physical world.  However, many people believed that these objects do exist in the physical world too (they spent a lot of time and effort trying to dig them up).  Any thoughts about what is going on with respect to these efforts to find an object that only exists in the mind of the seer, but that people think they can find if they just try hard enough and use the correct techniques?  

Is it evidence for delusion, or is it evidence that Joseph believed something was so real (the golden plates) that he manufactured a physical object that was transformed into his vision for the actual ancient Golden plates.  

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh Ahab!  What am I going to do with you??

Obviously YOU judged in those situations what was true or not even though others disagreed with you.  That is the whole point- YOUR HUMAN EXPERIENCE inside Ahab made that judgement call.  That was someone or something out there in the world deciding what was true- it was Ahab.

Yep, so obviously human experience is not enough to determine what is true. And that means your human experience isn't enough, either, even if you really believe your human experience is enough for you to know what is true.

So what's next? Some more language games? Again?

What is it that gives you, or me, or anyone else an advantage over other humans to help us know what is true?

Oh wait. Excuse me for asking you in a thread where you can just put on your atheist hat if you want to. I will just give the correct answer to that question.

It isn't my human experience that gives me an advantage over other humans to know what is true, when I do know.  It is the fact that God (someone other than me) knows what is true and tells me.

So the key is to agree with him.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There's the fraud option.  

There are other options, too.

Come on, reach for it. Think positive thoughts.

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Ahab said:

There are other options, too.

Come on, reach for it. Think positive thoughts.

God uses an iStone?  

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have not listened yet but he is along the same lines I think as Rorty- remember the whole strategy here is to use postmodernism AGAINST atheism

If there is no truth, Mormonism cannot be false.  We just have to define truth in terms that Mormons accept, which is easy.  That is the whole point of the thread, but make sure you don't tell anyone- ok?

My philosophical idols are all atheists- atheists who prove that religion can be "true".

For some stupid reason Mormons still want to take the old philosophy and make life hard for themselves by hanging onto Christian Neoplatonism which no one but Christian Neoplatonists still believe.  But they cling to their silly "objective truth" when no Mormon scripture supports that view

"Mormon scriptures are all pragmatic- if it works it's true.  If you get a testimony- that shows truth.  If the tree grows good fruit- that is truth.  Truth exists in spheres and contexts. Direct visions and spiritual experiences are true."

All those are postmodern ideas.  But don't tell Mormons they are natural postmodernists- ok?  They will fight you all day to keep believing in what does not work philosophically.  

But don't tell anybody ok?

There is a better option than to agree with atheists who deny what God is or can tell us.

[MiserereNobis]

On 4/8/2017 at 11:09 PM, 3DOP said:

It would seem that it is your position that Grateful Dead lyrics make sense. I have tried without success to understand anything on Wake of the Flood because I still like the sound. I saw them at the old Paramount in Portland around '76, and again in Eugene with my wife in the 80's. That was outdoors. Autzen Stadium. It rained...and they played "Rain" by the Beatles. It was pretty fun. I was just looking for our copy of Wake of the Flood and was told by my wife that we listened to it on our last trip to guess where??? Veneta, OR! Hah. I vaguely remember from when we were going down there for a wedding last year. Hopefully it is out in the car. Anyway, I could enjoy some commentary some time if you are ever up to it...

Hey, I've started a Grateful Dead thread in the social hall.  Let's chat there!

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

IMO Calm, you contradicted yourself in the bold. Mormons must feel they are a priviliged class, when they think their way is the only way to ultimate enlightment and they are fortunate to be a Mormon. I know you didn't mean the last sentence how I took it and I may have twisted it, but when you think about it, aren't Mormons a priviliged class when putting it in that context.

No, I believe that God has the only way to ultimate enlightenment and there are many, many steps that the path consists of and only a few of them currently are only available through the Mormon Church.  When God's Kingdom is fully established on earth, it will be that which offers all the steps.  The Mormon Church is only a partial, very imperfect manifestation of God's Kingdom, imo. I know others see them as identical, but I view what .God has to offer as so much more as to equate them is somewhat like equating a dollhouse with a mansion.  Even that doesn't work because a child can conceive of what a mansion is while I don't believe we have more than a hint of awareness of what it will mean to us to walk through fully established, fully manifested God's Kingdom.

Since everyone will have the same opportunities to be part of God's Kingdom, then Mormons are no more a privileged class than Hebrews who lived in Abraham's time and heard what he was offering or Israelites in Moses' time or those who lived in the time of Christ in Palestine who were aware of a teacher named Jesus or any Christians today who hear whatever part of the Gospel they hear or nonChristians who have an opportunity to be taught godly principles.  Every person who has ever existed has been given the Light of Christ and a partial story of God's plan for us.  We can only move along the path as far as we are exposed to God's principles and ordinances and it is LDS doctrine we in the Church as well as outside of it lack full understanding of those, so we can no more claim to have everything needed than those who are not Mormon, imo.  We can only claim to have what God has seen fit to give us at this time...just like everyone else.

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

There are other options, too.

Come on, reach for it. Think positive thoughts.

Ahab, I love you guys but positive thoughts will not procure rabbit out of your hat. Even reputable guys David Copperfield who create a Flying Saucer out of thin air has to work on his perfectionism.

[3DOP]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just to let you know I am working on a long and detailed reply to this- great questions- get back to you later!

Mark,

Don't feel pressed. You are keeping busy! I'll be watching whenever you get to it.

3DOP

[pogi]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I came across this podcast by Sam Harris about Reality and the Imagination. Of course I think he's looking at the same general premise as MF but from a different angle and with different conclusions. Just thought it was interesting.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/reality-and-the-imagination

I like Sam Harris, and have used him to support my positions before.  He is also a strong proponent of meditation, which I like, but his ultimate deterministic conclusions that the self and free-will are illusions are where we diverge. 

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

If only the rest of the world accepted your paradigm and world view!  Only then would there be no polarization.  Seems like a rather polarizing world view if you ask me.  I think you missed my point there.  To white wash society from any truth claims in an effort to remove polarization is 1) an extremely polarizing position in and of itself, 2) naive and 3) a world I wouldn't want to live in.  

Light is polarizing; good is polarizing; love is polarizing; truth is polarizing; God is polarizing.  Just about any world figure who has made a difference for good in this world has been a polarizing figure.  Because something is polarizing doesn't make it bad, it could in fact be the polar opposite of bad.   

 

I certainly did not suggest that we whitewash polarisation.