What is pure knowledge?

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Direct, non-verbal, spiritual interaction.

Hebrew "yada".  Non "intellectual" knowledge, but to "grok".

Just to re-iterate the above and add to it from DC 121

Quote

26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;

Luke 17:21

Quote

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

All of these instances where the word is translated "know" are the word "yada" in Hebrew

Hebrew scholars please correct me if I am wrong- I am going on secondary sources.

They all imply a relationship or the "knowing" of a person instead of intellectual factual knowledge.  It implies a thorough acquaintance beyond communication, not factual intellectual knowledge like the date Columbus discovered America.

Quote

 

139 O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.

2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.

3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.

4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether.

 

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

 

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Grok was defined as drinking, enjoying, communing. It is thus very sacramental.

Good choice.

And it included direct intuitive understanding if I am correct.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grok

 

Quote

Definition of grok

grokked; grokking

transitive verb

: to understand profoundly and intuitively

 

Grok may be the only English word that derives from Martian. Yes, we do mean the language of the planet Mars. No, we're not getting spacey; we've just ventured into the realm of science fiction. "Grok" was introduced in Robert A. Heinlein's 1961 science fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land. The book's main character, Valentine Michael Smith, is a Martian-raised human who comes to earth as an adult, bringing with him words from his native tongue and a unique perspective on the strange, strange ways of earthlings. "Grok" was quickly adopted by the youth culture of America and has since peppered the vernacular of those who grok it, from the hippies of the '60s to the computerniks of the '90s.

The 90's ? Really?  Wasn't that last month? 

And then one which is also close is a theological term - perichoresis.  I think all are relevant.  Perichoresis is often used in papers discussing the Social Trinity and I think it has direct parallels - or is in fact a good word to describe the LDS Godhead

https://www.theopedia.com/Perichoresis

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

Edit: the term is found in Taylor's translation of the Phaedo where Socrates says, "Because of this, lovers of wisdom, if they would have pure knowledge of anything, must be free of the body, and the soul in itself must behold all things in themselves."

Yep

I would extend it to pure direct pre-verbal bodily sensations as well thereby making it "spirit matter" and discernable as visions etc

On the other hand, it is that moment when you go out on a star-lit night and look up - that nanosecond just before the word "wow" escapes your lips- pure awe, intuitive raw reverence/surprise.  Gazing into your newborn child's eyes - unconditional love- direct spiritual communication, or that burst of raw love from God we call a "testimony"

Obviously we LDS do not believe ANYTHING is "free of the body" including the "burning in the bosom" because we know that the "soul" includes the body and of course our theology is rather ambiguous as it must be on this matter- that even spirit is matter just "more refined"

Without a bosom- it cannot burn

If we KNOW it it must be in the body of course, but I would divorce it from verbal understanding or attempts at description

Why?

Because linguistic knowledge is automatically tainted by culture- in natural languages it cannot be otherwise.  Our beliefs teach that in the  parable of the Tower of Babel where God "confounds" the pure "language" of Adam which is direct spiritual communication.

Language is NEVER direct communication from God- I see that as axiomatic along with the odd notion that scriptures are the "Word of God" in languages the Bible itself says have been "confounded" and therefore CANNOT in PRINCIPLE be the "Word of God" in a literal sense.

That is a central contradiction for literalism imo.  How does the "word of God" escape Babel?

Rorty makes quite a point in his atheism about the total contingency of the self because language conditions everything we can be- according to him.  If humans are conditioned by language they cannot be agents who act for themselves- only beings who are acted upon.  And then Rorty then uses the contingency of language and the self therefore as seeing the best society as a Godless social collective where youth are conditioned to accept the social norms of the collective.  (Rorty later rejected much of this- but we are dealing with arguments and logic- not Rorty as a person and I think his arguments were perfect.  For the record he later says he would believe in a God who was a "friend" of mankind - or indeed who was a PART of mankind in some way- nearly affirming the Mormon idea of God)

I do not accept the full contingency of the self based on the contingency of language - so yes Plato is right in one sense and totally wrong because of his dualistic metaphysics.  For Plato the spirit CANNOT be material- for Mormons it MUST be material- just "more refined"

To have a valid sense of the self therefore one needs to reject pure contingency of the self based on contingency of language and incidentally is the basis of my problems with Peirce- who has a horrible understanding of God.

Anyway I don't want to throw another log on that fire....   but if it's "signs all the way down" then it is essentially language "all the way down".

So for me direct pure language is direct pure pre-verbal "grokking" of a person/situation point of view or theory which is so visceral that one need not think through the "correct" answer to know what is right or wrong even doctrinally. 

It is so much inside you that it becomes part of you, yet you have accepted it line upon line proving it to yourself through the spirit

It is a process of BECOMING through self-determination, a process of self-creation of one's own world from matter unorganized.

If the self is contingent and programmed in every way by language which is "confounded" we cannot in principle get there.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

[USU78]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And it included direct intuitive understanding if I am correct.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grok

 

The 90's ? Really?  Wasn't that last month? 

And then one which is also close is a theological term - perichoresis.  I think all are relevant.  Perichoresis is often used in papers discussing the Social Trinity and I think it has direct parallels - or is in fact a good word to describe the LDS Godhead

https://www.theopedia.com/Perichoresis

 

And this brings us back to Buber's Ich und Du:

Obwohl wir uns umarmten und uns liebten,

Liebten Du und Ich

Nichts als mich und dich.

Edited July 15, 2018 by USU78

[Avatar4321]

On 7/14/2018 at 5:07 PM, Josh Khinder said:

You can find know one holding the Melchezedek Priesthood other than Jesus in the Bible and The Book of Mormon .

 

 

you can find plenty. Starting with Melchesidek

[Avatar4321]

51 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And this brings us back to Buber's Ich und Du:

Obwohl wir uns umarmten und uns liebten,

Liebten Du und Ich

Nichts als mich und dich.

My German is clearly getting better. I'm actually recognizing some of that

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

And this brings us back to Buber's Ich und Du:

Obwohl wir uns umarmten und uns liebten,

Liebten Du und Ich

Nichts als mich und dich.

Exactly!! And Schiller's esthetics !!

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Do you mean these pieces of pure knowledge are spiritual in nature? As in, your studies of spiritual matters cannot compare to the revealed knowledge those issues? Or do you mean you’ve received more temporal pieces of pure knowledge—like scientific or mathematical truths, etc.?

For me, both

Intuitive insight where something "clicks" and the answer is so obvious you can't imagine how you didn't see it.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 7/14/2018 at 10:52 AM, Avatar4321 said:

D&C 121:42 discusses the use of pure knowledge in exercising priesthood power and influence.

so what is pure knowledge? On the same line, what is impure knowledge?

"pure knowledge? An imagination....a bliss reached by only ingesting LSD.....

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Do you mean these pieces of pure knowledge are spiritual in nature? As in, your studies of spiritual matters cannot compare to the revealed knowledge those issues? Or do you mean you’ve received more temporal pieces of pure knowledge—like scientific or mathematical truths, etc.?

Not knowing you on this board (meaning you not having a record of posts here that define your good will or lack thereof, or what your real intentions are given your posting name) makes me somewhat reluctant to discuss this with you. I don’t take this topic lightly so I don’t engage in debate about revelations I have received. Obviously I am not talking about receiving some sort of new scientific or mathematical breakthroughs from revelation. That much is clear from my post.

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/14/2018 at 10:41 PM, Josh Khinder said:

It's described in Hebrews chapter 7 as Jesus' priesthood only attributed to Jesus himself 

Then you might rejoice to learn that every one of us can share in the incredible blessings of the holy priesthood after the order of the Son of God...

Quote

D&D 76:50 And again we bear record--for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just--
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given--
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.
55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things--
56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;
57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God--
59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
60 And they shall overcome all things.
61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.
62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.
63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.
64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.
65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.
66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.
67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.
68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.
69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.
70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/14/2018 at 3:07 PM, Josh Khinder said:

You can find know one holding the Melchezedek Priesthood other than Jesus in the Bible and The Book of Mormon .

 

 

Are you sure about that? You may wish to review Alma 13, our best source of knowledge about the Melchizedek priesthood....

Quote

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.
2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.
3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained--being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.
5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared--
6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest--
7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things--
8 Now they were ordained after this manner--being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end--
9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[FunOnlineMan]

Fair enough, Bernard

[FunOnlineMan]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

For me, both

Intuitive insight where something "clicks" and the answer is so obvious you can't imagine how you didn't see it.

Sorry, I just saw that you responded to me. Thanks for taking the time.

I’d be hesitant to call any knowledge pure, and while I am certainly not religious now, when I was making that effort, I think I still would have a hard time calling knowledge pure, just because humans are just so great at being wrong.

Would you say it’s possible to have a pure knowledge of an untrue proposition? If that is possible, then I’ll grant myself so much of this pure stuff.

[mfbukowski]

On 7/14/2018 at 3:07 PM, Josh Khinder said:

You can find know one holding the Melchezedek Priesthood other than Jesus in the Bible and The Book of Mormon .

 

 

The only priesthood in the Book of Mormon is the Melchizedek priesthood. None of them are Levites. They were all Melchizedek priesthood holders operating under Mosaic law.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, FunOnlineMan said:

Sorry, I just saw that you responded to me. Thanks for taking the time.

I’d be hesitant to call any knowledge pure, and while I am certainly not religious now, when I was making that effort, I think I still would have a hard time calling knowledge pure, just because humans are just so great at being wrong.

Would you say it’s possible to have a pure knowledge of an untrue proposition? If that is possible, then I’ll grant myself so much of this pure stuff.

There is this odd idea that knowledge has to be correct. Knowledge is a state of psychological certainty.

We know what truth and falsity is but it cannot be defined. We can use the terms culturally and when they are important as in court proceedings etcetera. But no philosophical definition has ever held up to define truth or falsity.

I suggest you read this.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

So the short simple answer is "yes".

People have pure intuitions about a lot of things that turn out  wrong or not work. But that is part of finding what works. Think of Edison and his hundreds of tries to find a filament that worked. He was eliminating all of those things which did not work. And so his falsity was leading further to the truth.

We should think in terms of process in the act of becoming.

Edited July 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[FunOnlineMan]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is this odd idea that knowledge has to be correct. Knowledge is a state of psychological certainty.

We know what truth and falsity is but it cannot be defined. We can use the terms culturally and when they are important as in court proceedings etcetera. But no philosophical definition has ever held up to define truth or falsity.

I suggest you read this.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

It doesn’t have to be correct, but wouldn’t you rather have knowledge of true things, even if it’s a deflationary, non-platonic truthiness?

Also, wouldn’t eternal happiness vs. endless suffering, legislating morality, teaching future generations, and other ideas tied into religious belief be as important in terms of recognizing truth as would be court proceedings?

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

It doesn’t have to be correct, but wouldn’t you rather have knowledge of true things, even if it’s a deflationary, non-platonic truthiness?

Also, wouldn’t eternal happiness vs. endless suffering, legislating morality, teaching future generations, and other ideas tied into religious belief be as important in terms of recognizing truth as would be court proceedings?

Yes to both.

Read Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon.

Truth is what becomes too sweet to you through trial and error and practice.

I had come to that conclusion before I  joined the church, and there was in black and white, and in religious terms yet.! So the object of life is to find what works for you and is sweet to you, as long as it is also moral because morality has worked for the human race.

If you want to put it this way morality has evolved because it has survival value for the human race. The Ten Commandments have survival value for the human race, and simply codify what Humanity has found to be necessary or "sweet." Everybody just wants to be at peace and not have to worry about their neighbors.

Mormons don't really believe in "orthodoxy" we believe in "orthopraxis", a combination of belief and practice that works to create a "sweet" lifestyle

But anyway Alma 32 :

https://www.lds.org/languages/eng/content/scriptures/bofm/alma/32

Quote

 

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a asign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to abelieve, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much amore bcursed is he that cknoweth the dwill of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into etransgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

21 And now as I said concerning faith—afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye bhope for things which are cnot seen, which are true.

22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is amerciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.

23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, anot only men but women also. Now this is not all; little bchildren do have words given unto them many times, which cconfound the wise and the learned.

24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast out—now I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true—

25 For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who awould humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a bseed may be planted in your cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your aknowledge bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your dmind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your aground is bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the atree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with apatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree bspringing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your adiligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall areap the brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth cfruit unto you.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

It doesn’t have to be correct, but wouldn’t you rather have knowledge of true things, even if it’s a deflationary, non-platonic truthiness?

Also, wouldn’t eternal happiness vs. endless suffering, legislating morality, teaching future generations, and other ideas tied into religious belief be as important in terms of recognizing truth as would be court proceedings?

Another point for what its worth- we don't believe in endless suffering incidentally- we are kind of universalists in that all except the really really really bad guys will have eternal "happiness" of some kind- just some more than others- it's a kind of graded heaven but even the lowest, it is said, is far far far above earth and that people would die intentionally to get there.  Of course if they did that might be another story, unless they were wacked out etc....  only God can judge

[USU78]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is this odd idea that knowledge has to be correct. Knowledge is a state of psychological certainty.

We know what truth and falsity is but it cannot be defined. We can use the terms culturally and when they are important as in court proceedings etcetera. But no philosophical definition has ever held up to define truth or falsity.

I suggest you read this.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

So the short simple answer is "yes".

People have pure intuitions about a lot of things that turn out  wrong or not work. But that is part of finding what works. Think of Edison and his hundreds of tries to find a filament that worked. He was eliminating all of those things which did not work. And so his falsity was leading further to the truth.

We should think in terms of process in the act of becoming.

Section 93 of the D&C figures here, which very much supports the notions you are treating here.  Only those who've overcome the world, including themselves,  can possibly know TRVTH, pure knowledge, because only they have access to the G-d's eye view of the world "out there."

 

Quote

 

23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth; 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.  26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth ...

 

 

[FunOnlineMan]

I must disagree with the verses in Alma. I believe the author jumps from faith to perfect knowledge using irrational means. 

I also disagree about the Ten Commandments, only because they mix religious and moral rules together. So, like six, eight, and nine are important to society’s survival (this could also be the genesis of many more links to philosophy articles), whereas seven or so commandments mainly only apply to abrahamic religions, and such religions don’t appear to be sufficient or necessary for an effective social contract.

And I put in many years of LDS membership, so I’m curious what area you’ve found that has unorthodox Mormons. All I’ve ever found are Mormons who are equal parts orthodox and orthoprax… orthopraxist… orthopraxaic… orthopradjective believers. 

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Section 93 of the D&C figures here, which very much supports the notions you are treating here.  Only those who've overcome the world, including themselves,  can possibly know TRVTH, pure knowledge, because only they have access to the G-d's eye view of the world "out there."

 

 

Yes and the idea of "spheres" of truth found in section 93 fits nicely with Wittgenstein's view of "language games" as well- there are different "truth" paradigms for different disciplines- so scientific truth is different than religious truth which is different than historic truth etc etc

I agree whole heartedly with the "God's view" you espouse here but I think one has to reduce that to "intuition" for a secular audience not familiar with the Path.

It's like Buddhist koans in a sense- there is a language for the initiated and language for those who have not had religious experiences like you mention- but we can at least try to speak "secularese" for a general audience.

Of course neither really expresses "the truth" anyway- since truth is contextual.  

[FunOnlineMan]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Another point for what its worth- we don't believe in endless suffering incidentally- we are kind of universalists in that all except the really really really bad guys will have eternal "happiness" of some kind- just some more than others- it's a kind of graded heaven but even the lowest, it is said, is far far far above earth and that people would die intentionally to get there.  Of course if they did that might be another story, unless they were wacked out etc....  only God can judge

I was under the impression that you will suffer endlessly just in knowing you aren’t with god or that you had all he tools necessary or whatever and fell short. In any case, this would be a separate subject from perfect knowledge. One I’m happy to discuss elsewhere, by the way. 

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, FunOnlineMan said:

I must disagree with the verses in Alma. I believe the author jumps from faith to perfect knowledge using irrational means. 

I also disagree about the Ten Commandments, only because they mix religious and moral rules together. So, like six, eight, and nine are important to society’s survival (this could also be the genesis of many more links to philosophy articles), whereas seven or so commandments mainly only apply to abrahamic religions, and such religions don’t appear to be sufficient or necessary for an effective social contract.

And I put in many years of LDS membership, so I’m curious what area you’ve found that has unorthodox Mormons. All I’ve ever found are Mormons who are equal parts orthodox and orthoprax… orthopraxist… orthopraxaic… orthopradjective believers. 

Define "rational means".  Read that article on truth again.  There ain't no "rational means"- just paradigms that work for certain purposes.

Every important decision you have made in your life were by "irrational means"- your choice of mate, whether you are gay or straight- even what you think is "rational" is based on emotion because someone taught you what "rational" is and you bought it hook line and sinker.

Positivism is dead.  Google that if you have not gotten the newsflash!!

I am sorry to be rude- I just have a busy life!

Have a good one!!  Truly!

Edited July 16, 2018 by mfbukowski