Faith Based vs. Scientific Reasoning

[Calm]

Anijen, Intersex is at 1.7% from a quick google.  Do you judge that as extremely rare or are you talking about something else?  Not a challenge, just trying to understand POV.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Everything we "know" is psychological phenomena, or we don't know about it, by definition.

I don't know why this seem so hard to understand.

Quoting myself..

But as church members everything is based on seeing the first vision of Joseph Smith as  "real".

The bottom line is that if you do not accept non verifiable psychological experience as" real "you cannot logically be a member of this church.

We accept the Book of Mormon as real and in some sense, with little scientific evidence.

We accept all of the propositions of morality without scientific evidence.

We hopefully live The Ten Commandments without scientific evidence that they are correct.

I am just Bamboozled that this isn't obvious. 😜

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

You are welcome.   I notice that the rush-to-judgement here puts me in mind of this passage quoted by Alan Goff.

It happens that the vocabulary of "empiricism" and ""unverifiable events" and that "faith claims are different" reminds me of the important discussions of Positivism in Goff's essays, in Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, and such. Goff explains:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-inevitability-of-epistemology-in-historiography-theory-history-and-zombie-mormon-history/#sdfootnote68anc

A bit further on:

So considering the notion of an after-life, and evidence, I notice that important qualification "empirical evidence."   Ian Barbour's comments are notable.

Since it turns out that "all data is theory laden" (N. H. Hanson, The Logic of Scientific Discovery), for someone to say that a kind of evidence is not "empirical evidence" not verifiable by the logic and methods and standards of empiricism, a philosophy that is itself not verifiable by the standards of empiricism, Barbour goes on to say:

I've got around twenty books on Near Death Experience research on my shelves at home, one of the best being Carol Zaleski's Otherworld Journeys.  And I've heard several people report personal accounts.  And it seems to me that while these accounts may not constitute "empirical evidence" regarding an afterlife, they do provide evidence of a sort.  And the philosophy that decides they are not evidence by the definitions and methods assumed by empircism, rather than by a final and absolute empirical demonstration that there is no afterlife. So it turns out that I have the option of choosing to evaluate these accounts by means of something different than Positivism/Empiricism.  And in comparing two different approaches, the issue is whether I make a judgement based on completely self-referential standards, or, whether I turn to values that are not completely self-referential.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Holy cow, wonderful quotes Kevin!

I am usually so busy reading others who might be able to shake my view of the world that I do not read much from those with whom I agree.

Nothing has shaken my position and it is wonderful to find others who affirm it.

[clarkgoble]

On 10/23/2018 at 1:06 PM, pogi said:

By different spheres, what I mean is that it is contextual.  Temporal vs spiritual; Celestial vs terrestrial vs telestial vs outerdarknes.  Different laws, different orders, different spheres of light/truth, so to speak.  

I agree that truth is truth, but my religious understanding of truth is that truth is light, and light is spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ aka. light of Christ.  Would a scientist agree with me on that definition and use of truth, or would he be utilizing a different sphere of truth altogether?

I'd say that second use of truth is more metaphoric although it can be read in various ways. As I've mentioned before in Hebrew truth is more akin to a kind of reliable showing of oneself. That is truth is a property of objects and not propositions or sentences except in a derived way. (See this post on how the Church is true for more on my thoughts on that) So I'd agree Hebrew uses truth in a different fashion than contemporary English. My understanding is that Hebrew - particularly poetry - would double up terms like truth and light. So you see that in say Psalms 43:3. Some argue that some D&C passages while possibly making use of that Hebrew idiom are also influenced by neoplatonism which gets a bit complicated in how it talks of truth. (Although likely a partial background for D&C 88 & 93) This means that when we speak using the scriptures we may use language differently from how we do in day to day life. 

For context I'm not quite sure what you mean. Is temporal vs. spiritual different from talking about Chinese vs. American? Certainly there are different laws. I'm not sure they're different spheres of truth except to the degree truth is accepted differently.

Anyway, I think we have to distinguish between truth in the normal sense of the term applied to propositions about objects, about ethics and so forth from truth used more metaphorically or in terms of Hebrew use. However assuming normal use truth as used doesn't really vary by context. The word truth has different senses/uses though.

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Anijen]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Intersex is at 1.7% from a quick google.  Do you judge that as extremely rare or are you talking about something else?  Not a challenge, just trying to u deratand POV.

Yes, a quick google will generally place the modern-day [popular] view at the top of the lists. However, most of these quick googles are not from scientific sources, but from a source that wants to push some sort of agenda.. The one that quotes a 1.7% is from the IC4E (Intersex Community For Equality) and in their statistics they will add to their data the more definitive estimates were there is a third extra chromosome and is not noticeable at birth (i.e. no sharing of genitalia). This, of course, will inflate the percentage. If a search is being done I would suggest an objective site and one that places its results on the science and not one that is predetermined by their agenda.

From the World Health Organization (WHO) we get a different set of statistics showing a more rarer percentage than the above mentioned site. Why is this? I would posit it is because they are more objective pushing their science rather than a site that also promotes National Coming Out Day. 

• 99.9% of Males are 45XX
• (99.3% of Females are 45XY  
• Hermaphrodites/Intersex (what label do you prefer me to use?)are 45X or 45Y

The current scientific estimate in a measurement of percentage is about .05% to .09% depending on the culture and ethnicity, e.g. more Samoan and Tongan cultures will have a higher percentage of women with more women with a male genotype (45XY). This is about a .05% raise, higher than most other cultures. Scientist do not yet know why this is.

But this can be broken down even further, even rarer are those born with:

Three or more sex chromosomes:

• A female with 47XXX
• A male with 47XYY
• A male with a 47XXY

Additionally some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome. Furthermore some females are born 46XY due to mutations of the Y chromosome. So, clearly there are females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosomes complements.

Once again this is a rarity and I want to focus on the male and female at birth and not the rare intersex. Men are men, women are women their biological sex does not change regardless of the gender they identify with.

I side with the Church. Biologically born men will be men in heaven, the same for women.

[clarkgoble]

On 10/23/2018 at 11:12 AM, hope_for_things said:

One major problem with President Oaks talk is that he didn't keep them separate.  In that very talk he makes claims about gender identity that are ignorant of the science around gender and in contradiction to it.  He should stick with earlier statements about how general authorities aren't experts on many subjects, and gender is one of them.  The doctrine being invented by recent church leaders on this subject is directly harmful to those in the transgender community and ignorant of a growing corpus of scientific understanding.  

Just to second Mark's point I think this confuses Oak's claim about spirits from claims about biology - although there I think the even the established science is much more ambiguous than you suggest. The psychological community by and large tends not to distinguish between certain types of body dimorphism issues from judgments about gender. Also gender, as used, tends to be much more a social and political term rather than really a hard science term. Many people who talk about science are really much more talking about things in sociology rather than what can unambiguously be established in cognitive science.

By and large though I think there reasonable, if imperfect, evidence that there are three separate cognitive functions that are somewhat independent even if usually unified in the typical human. You have the judgment of ones own gender, the gender one has an attraction to, and then the gender norms of behavior. These can vary quite a bit. So you may have a heterosexual person who considers themselves a male matching their sex but who instinctually wants to act in feminine ways. You might have someone attracted to the same sex but who behaves along typical gender norms. And so forth. It'd hard to get a reasonable number for incidence of these especially given the politics tied to them.

It seems to me though that none of this tells us anything about spiritual gender since spiritual gender is historically prior to biological gene expression. Many who were skeptical of things like biological homosexuality assumed that it was a choice and not gene expression because the spirit gender was causally determinative. I think that a difficult to hold to position for a wide variety of reasons. 

It's interesting to me that some criticize Oaks on these points since it's arguably Oaks who gets the Apostles in the 90's to accept a more scientific position towards homosexuality. How Oaks became the boogeyman is something that leaves me quite bemused. I think it's far more that people just want to get rid of the theology of spirit gender and since Oaks teaches it he's public enemy in a way that Packer might have been to them in the 90's.

Edited October 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd say that second use of truth is more metaphoric although it can be read in various ways. As I've mentioned before in Hebrew truth is more akin to a kind of reliable showing of oneself. That is truth is a property of objects and not propositions or sentences except in a derived way. (See this post on how the Church is true for more on my thoughts on that) So I'd agree Hebrew uses truth in a different fashion than contemporary English. My understanding is that Hebrew - particularly poetry - would double up terms like truth and light. So you see that in say Psalms 43:3. Some argue that some D&C passages while possibly making use of that Hebrew idiom are also influenced by neoplatonism which gets a bit complicated in how it talks of truth. (Although likely a partial background for D&C 88 & 93) This means that when we speak using the scriptures we may use language differently from how we do in day to day life. 

For context I'm not quite sure what you mean. Is temporal vs. spiritual different from talking about Chinese vs. American? Certainly there are different laws. I'm not sure they're different spheres of truth except to the degree truth is accepted differently.

Anyway, I think we have to distinguish between truth in the normal sense of the term applied to propositions about objects, about ethics and so forth from truth used more metaphorically or in terms of Hebrew use. However assuming normal use truth as used doesn't really vary by context. The word truth has different senses/uses though.

 

Just to clarify, are you saying that the light of Christ is only a metaphor?

 

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Just to clarify, are you saying that the light of Christ is only a metaphor?

In what context? I don't think it's a natural kind the way say an electron is. By way of analogy I think it's much more akin to say the term chi/ki in eastern medicine & philosophy than say a term tied to fixed actual objects. So in that sense it's metaphoric. But it's not metaphoric in the sense that it's just a way of talking with no reality behind it. Again by way of analogy I might reject a lot of the claims about chi but the idea of energy for a body seems true and does correspond in part to natural kinds we discover in biology.

I think in practice the term encompasses typical instinctual cognitive behaviors given to us biologically that fulfill God's plans for a basis of instinctual ethical knowledge. I also think it encompasses some moderate spiritual influence from the Holy Ghost. When used in a particular talk or verse of scripture it may be more metaphoric or more ambiguous than that.

Edited October 25, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

In what context?

In the context that you said the following:

Quote

I'd say that second use of truth is more metaphoric although it can be read in various ways

Spiritual truth is (according to my interpretation) the light of Christ.  There is no where you can be where it is not.  Utilizing the keys he holds, God can tap into every sphere that it exists in.  He sees the whole of it.  It is what gives him omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.  All that exists, exists because of it.  It is the ineffable "word of God" that can only be experienced.  It IS truth as spiritual truth is experienced.  It is the source of ALL knowledge, power, order, life, and existence.   The light of Christ is Spirit matter that exists in all and through all things. It is not some supernatural energy that leads to dualism.  Anyone that is in harmony with it abides in truth.  Anyone who is out of harmony with it, does not understand it and does not abide in truth - the light penetrates the darkness and the darkness comprehends it not.  It is, for all intents and purposes truth as we experience it.  It is the spiritual practical application of truth.  The Holly Ghost utilizes it to commune with us.  We commune with the father through it.  All knowledge is revealed through it.  The authority and keys of the priesthood utilize it's power - it is the power of the priesthood.  It is the same priesthood power that God utilized to create the universe.  For all spiritual practical purposes, it is literally and not simply metaphorically truth.  Without it, there is no truth.  There is no life.  There is no order.  There is no existence. 

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

By way of analogy I think it's much more akin to say the term chi/ki in eastern medicine & philosophy than say a term tied to fixed actual objects. So in that sense it's metaphoric. But it's not metaphoric in the sense that it's just a way of talking with no reality behind it. Again by way of analogy I might reject a lot of the claims about chi but the idea of energy for a body seems true and does correspond in part to natural kinds we discover in biology.

I think that qi or chi is one cultures perspective of the light of Christ.  In Hindu philosophy it is called prana - the “life force” or “vital principle” that permeates reality on all levels of life and inanimate objects.  It has also been called ether or aether - as in “tap into the ether.” Those are different cultural interpretations and experiences with what we call the light of Christ. 

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think in practice the term encompasses typical instinctual cognitive behaviors given to us biologically that fulfill God's plans for a basis of instinctual ethical knowledge. I also think it encompasses some moderate spiritual influence from the Holy Ghost. When used in a particular talk or verse of scripture it may be more metaphoric or more ambiguous than that.

Yes, typically it is associated with conscience - knowledge of good and evil - in Mormonism.  But modern revelations suggest that it is so, so much more than that.  But even in that context alone, what else could be the source of the knowledge of all good and all evil except...the "truth"?   The Holy Ghost, a personage of spirit, can only be in one place at one time.  When a group of people all feel the "Holy Ghost" all at the same time, it is actually the light of Christ that the Holy Ghost is using to influence them.

The light of Christ is the God maker.  It is the eternal priesthood power and order.  It is the source of all knowledge requisite to become God.  It is everything. 

That is what I mean by spiritual truth.  Now, truth can exist in different spheres both spiritually and temporally.  In philosophy and science, etc. truth is different.  It is a totally different sphere of truth.  It is not necessarily wrong, it is just different.  

My description of the light of Christ above might sound different than the way the typical Latter-day Saint thinks of it, but nothing I said is original.  This has all been explained in modern revelation and expounded upon by the prophets.  Of course you are free to disagree, but I just want to make it clear that I am not just making this stuff up.  

Edited October 25, 2018 by pogi

[CV75]

On 10/23/2018 at 11:42 AM, Anijen said:

Questions, questions, questions... When is testify via faith and testify via science appropriate and acceptable and when is it not?

Sharing evidence obtained via religious experience and/or scientific outcome is always appropriate and acceptable when one uses his best faculties in being “quick to observe” (the spiritual gift to see, obey and apply) and in his willingness and discipline to accept new and verified facts over theory (an intellectual trait) regarding that matter of which he testifies. Appropriateness and acceptability can be assessed only by him and to those who are like-minded and is usually learned over time.

[SouthernMo]

I think the main question I ask myself is whether we can hold ‘religious’ truth to the same standard as ‘secular’ truth.

I think they should be held to the same standard.  I have found great clarity, consistency, and peace in this paradigm.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I think the main question I ask myself is whether we can hold ‘religious’ truth to the same standard as ‘secular’ truth.

I think they should be held to the same standard.  I have found great clarity, consistency, and peace in this paradigm.

What is that standard?

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I think the main question I ask myself is whether we can hold ‘religious’ truth to the same standard as ‘secular’ truth.

I think they should be held to the same standard.  I have found great clarity, consistency, and peace in this paradigm.

I know this is being pedantic but I'd just repeat that we be careful to keep epistemological issues (how we know or believe) separate from ontological ones (what is truth).

Relative to this, topics often are quite different ontologically and also often have different ways of knowing them. So, for instance, ethical propositions are ontologically quite different from physical propositions and also have very different methods of justification.

So when we say if we hold religious truths to the same standard as secular truths, it's not quite clear what we mean by that. Some religious truths are ethical and some religious truths seem physical/historical. Now a secular claim can also be in the ethical arena or physical/historical arena. In theory the religious and secular are commensurate.  However even then we may have different epistemologies of how we know them.

I'd add into all that the problem that the boundaries of the religious are pretty ambiguous. Typically people don't agree upon what is or isn't a religious claim. For instance to me the proposition "Isaiah was all written by a single man in the 7th century" is a religious claim and also a secular claim. Others don't see that as a religious claim at all.

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

Spiritual truth is (according to my interpretation) the light of Christ. 

I confess I'm not entirely sure what you mean by truth in that context. It sounds like your use is fairly metaphoric from my perspective though.

Quote

There is no where you can be where it is not.  Utilizing the keys he holds, God can tap into every sphere that it exists in.  He sees the whole of it.  It is what gives him omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.  All that exists, exists because of it.  It is the ineffable "word of God" that can only be experienced.  It IS truth as spiritual truth is experienced.  It is the source of ALL knowledge, power, order, life, and existence.   The light of Christ is Spirit matter that exists in all and through all things. It is not some supernatural energy that leads to dualism. 

Typically energy is seen as material in some sense. At least that's the use in physics. So if I talk about a spring having potential energy that seems a material claim. So I don't think energy leads to dualism. (I'll leave out "supernatural" since people mean such different things by it and invoking it usually leads to equivocation problems)

You seem to want truth to be a material thing and not a proposition about things. Which is fine although I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. As I said the Hebrew use usually saw truth as a property of things not abstract propositions. So one could certainly use truth in a materialist sense. One is then using truth radically differently from how it's used culturally in most contemporary English though. The question is making clear our use so we can translate between these two very different uses. 

I'd add an other distinction that probably should get clarified: between what is real and what is actual. They aren't the same. Further once we start talking about things with significant ontological distinctions we should clarify what we mean by the actual. You appear to want to talk materialism so I assume you mean by actual something that is material and thus having spatio-temporal properties in some sense. However many would say there are objects that aren't spatio-temporal yet which we can objectively talk about without really just talking about our beliefs. So, for instance, are mathematical objects actual? Yet they don't appear to be spatio-temporal and thus not spiritual truth as you are using the term.

Quote

I think that qi or chi is one cultures perspective of the light of Christ.  In Hindu philosophy it is called prana - the “life force” or “vital principle” that permeates reality on all levels of life and inanimate objects.  It has also been called ether or aether - as in “tap into the ether.” Those are different cultural interpretations and experiences with what we call the light of Christ. 

Just to be clear I invoked qi/chi more as analogy of the linguistic problem not that spirit is qi. I don't believe that although it sounds like you do.

Quote

 

My description of the light of Christ above might sound different than the way the typical Latter-day Saint thinks of it, but nothing I said is original.  This has all been explained in modern revelation and expounded upon by the prophets.  Of course you are free to disagree, but I just want to make it clear that I am not just making this stuff up.  

 

It's definitely not an uncommon view although also typically it's not thought through terribly well. I'd say revelation is much more vague than you suggest though. It's when we move from the language of scripture in particular to ask what we mean by that where we quickly run into problems.

Edited October 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[changed]

Most spiritual growth happens through humility, repentance  and admitting being wrong - including admitting incorrect belief sysems.  Many falsely use faith as justification for maintaining prideful judgemental attitudes rationalizing "superioriority" of one particular belief system or authority figure which is the opposite of the humble repentant nature needed for real progression.  

Experiment on the words - sounds like a scientific methodology to me... combined with enough humility to change beliefs based on experimental results....

My beliefs changed... experiment - rely on priesthood -result=abused kids... new belief, don't trust in the arms of flesh, only rely on your own personal conscious for guidance.... used to believe relying and trusting others - prophets, bishops was "faithful",  now I believe relying on others is being lazy, better to take personal responsibility for yourself, follow your own conscience above "following the leader"

Edited October 26, 2018 by changed

[pogi]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

You seem to want truth to be a material thing and not a proposition about things. Which is fine although I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. As I said the Hebrew use usually saw truth as a property of things not abstract propositions. So one could certainly use truth in a materialist sense. One is then using truth radically differently from how it's used culturally in most contemporary English though. The question is making clear our use so we can translate between these two very different uses. 

I must admit that these are ideas about truth that I am currently exploring and have come to no hard conclusions as of yet.  But if we are to take the revelations about truth in a more literal sense, truth is the Spirit or light of Christ (D&C 84:45) aka Spirit of truth.  Spirit is material (D&C 131:7).    The light of Christ must be material or it cannot really exist as a source of power and life, it could not be the source of all intelligence and understanding, it could not allow God omnipresence, omnipotence, or omniscience, it could not be the governing power that sustains all of creation (D&C 88 and 93).   I agree that this use of the term is radically different from contemporary English as used in philosophy and science, but it is one of the only definitions found in the revelations. 

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yet they don't appear to be spatio-temporal and thus not spiritual truth as you are using the term.

The revelations suggest that the light of Christ is the source of all understanding/knowledge and intellectual advancement.  I wouldn't expect this Spirit to appear as spatio-temporal by the perceptions of the mortal man.  It is matter more refined that is not measurable by man.   

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Just to be clear I invoked qi/chi more as analogy of the linguistic problem not that spirit is qi. I don't believe that although it sounds like you do.

I understood that you were using it more as an analogy.  I am not saying that spirit is qi, I am saying that qi is one cultural perspective of spirit.  Just as God is perceived in different ways by different people, and called different names, so to is His Holy Spirit.  But I do find it intriguing to find compelling parallels in many different cultures throughout the world which describe this "life force" and "vital principle" which permeates all of existence. 

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's definitely not an uncommon view although also typically it's not thought through terribly well. I'd say revelation is much more vague than you suggest though. It's when we move from the language of scripture in particular to ask what we mean by that where we quickly run into problems.

What parts are not through terribly well?

In what ways is revelation more vague?  Are you suggesting that revelation can happen independent of the light of Christ?  How so?  What is the medium of revelation if not the light of Christ?

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I must admit that these are ideas about truth that I am currently exploring and have come to no hard conclusions as of yet.  But if we are to take the revelations about truth in a more literal sense, truth is the Spirit or light of Christ (D&C 84:45) aka Spirit of truth.  Spirit is material (D&C 131:7).    The light of Christ must be material or it cannot really exist as a source of power and life, it could not be the source of all intelligence and understanding, it could not allow God omnipresence, omnipotence, or omniscience, it could not be the governing power that sustains all of creation (D&C 88 and 93).   I agree that this use of the term is radically different from contemporary English as used in philosophy and science, but it is one of the only definitions found in the revelations. 

I think the assumption it should be read "literally" (whatever that means) is a big one. I put literal in quotations marks as one can read some terms so they have different meanings in different contexts. That's still reading "literally" in some sense. So for instance spirit in D&C 131 might be referring to spirit bodies but spirit in the spirit of Christ means something quite different. That's true in English in the 19th century by the way. If I talk of the spirit of the times it's the same English word but means something radically different than saying a saw a spirit that visited me.

I'd add that some historians have noted the influence at least rhetorically of neoplatonism, particularly the works and translations of classic texts of Thomas Taylor on Joseph Smith. Whether that's direct (he read such works) or indirect (it affected the language in his environment) isn't clear. In platonism those terms in D&C 88 & 93 have fairly formal meanings and rhetoric. Platonism however is an ontology in which the material is an illusion and only the immaterial is real. The famous allegory of Plato's Cave is relevant here.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not saying that spirit is qi, I am saying that qi is one cultural perspective of spirit.

Ah. OK. Yeah, I'd agree with that.

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

What parts are not through terribly well?

In what ways is revelation more vague?  Are you suggesting that revelation can happen independent of the light of Christ?  How so?  What is the medium of revelation if not the light of Christ?

Not speaking of you, just in general when I've encountered these sorts of assertions in the past. 

I think that if light of Christ is an ambiguous vague term that what actually is the medium can be different. So one might say that light of Christ is just a term in terms of results not underlying substance. Much like in psychology one talks about symptoms or effects and not the physical processes in the nervous system typically. So to say the Light of Christ is the medium of revelation is more or less to speak of an affect on people that when interpreted is the spoken/written/thought revelation. To abstract the Light of Christ might well be wrong. Of course it could also easily be that there is some unknown immaterial substance that is how revelation gets transmitted from God to us and how we have moral intuitions. That more platonic conception certainly is a different way to read the scripture.

The problem ends up being how on earth we can distinguish between the two. If we can't, then that's a problem and we're left in an indeterminate position.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that if light of Christ is an ambiguous vague term that what actually is the medium can be different. So one might say that light of Christ is just a term in terms of results not underlying substance. Much like in psychology one talks about symptoms or effects and not the physical processes in the nervous system typically. So to say the Light of Christ is the medium of revelation is more or less to speak of an affect on people that when interpreted is the spoken/written/thought revelation. To abstract the Light of Christ might well be wrong. Of course it could also easily be that there is some unknown immaterial substance that is how revelation gets transmitted from God to us and how we have moral intuitions. That more platonic conception certainly is a different way to read the scripture.

First, can we agree that "immaterial substance" that enlightens our mind and gives us conscience doesn't exist?  That is dualism. 

Quote

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. (D&C 131:6).

That is the same passage which suggests that all spirit is material. 

Let me lay out what revelation says about the light of Christ - 

1) It is the power by which all things were created - sun, moon, stars, earth, mankind...and everything else too. 

2) It gives us understanding, it enlightens our minds.

3) It is in all things, through all things, and fills the immensity of space (omnipresence). If it "fills space" then it must be material.

4) It gives life to all things.

5) It is the law by which all things are governed.

6) It is the power of God (omnipotence). 

7) It is the voice of God.

8 ) It is the glory of God.

9) It leads to the comprehension of all things (omniscience).

10) It is truth. 

11) It is given to every man to know good from evil. 

12) It is the light be which we should judge.

13) We progress grace by grace in this light, until we perceive it's wholeness and know all things. 

(Mostly from D&C 88, 93, and 84 and Moroni 7)

In what sense is any of this metaphorical?  The power to create moons, stars, planets, and governs all matter and life, etc. It cannot be immaterial.  

 Parly P Pratt gives one of my favorite descriptions of the light of Christ, even if I don’t agree with every single point..  He agrees that it is material, along with Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith.  Bruce R. McConkie is a little more vague and states that it is not material "at least as far as we measure these things". So, he does not deny that it could be spirit matter.  Their quotes can all be read in the link below the following quote by Pratt:

Quote

 

The omnipresence of God must therefore be understood in some other way than of his bodily or personal presence.    

This leads to the investigation of that substance called the Holy Spirit, or Light of Christ. 

This Spirit "giveth light to every man that cometh into the world and the spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit."    

As the mind passes the boundaries of the visible world, and enters upon the confines of the more refined and subtle elements, it finds itself associated with certain substances in themselves invisible to our gross organs, but clearly manifested to our intellect by their tangible operations and effects.    

The very air we breathe, although invisible to our sight, is clearly manifested to our sense of feeling. Its component parts may be analyzed. Nay more, the human system itself is an apparatus which performs a chemical process upon that element. It is received into the system by the act of respiration, and there immediately undergoes the separation of its component parts.    

The one part, retained and incorporated in the animal system, diffuses life and animation, by supplying the necessary animal heat, etc., while the other part, not adapted to the system, is discharged from the lungs to mingle with its native element.    

There are several of these subtle, invisible substances but little understood as yet by man, and their existence is only demonstrated by their effects. Some of them are recognized under several terms, electricity, galvanism, magnetism, animal magnetism, spiritual magnetism, essence, spirit, etc.    

The purest, most refined and subtle of all these substances, and the one least understood, or even recognized, by the less informed among mankind, is that substance called the Holy Spirit.    

This substance, like all others, is one of the elements of material or physical existence, and therefore subject to the necessary laws which govern all matter, as before enumerated.    

Like the other elements, its whole is composed of individual particles. Like them, each particle occupies space, possesses the power of motion, requires time to move from one part of space to another, and can in no wise occupy two spaces at once. In all these respects it differs nothing from all other matter.    

This substance is widely diffused among the elements of space. This Holy Spirit, under the control of the Great Eloheim, is the grand moving cause of all intelligences, and by which they act.    

This is the great, positive, controlling element of all other elements. It is omnipresent by reason of its infinitude of its particles, and it comprehends all things.    

It is the agent or executive, by which God organizes and puts in motion all worlds, and which, by the mandate of the Almighty, or any of his commissioned servants performs all the mighty wonders, signs and miracles ever manifested in the name of the Lord, the dividing of the sea, the removing of a mountain, the raising of the dead, or the healing of the sick.

It penetrates the pores of the most solid substances, pierces the human system to is most inward recesses, discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart.  It has power to move through space with inconceivable velocity, far exceeding the tardy motions of electricity, or of phyisical light.

It comprehends the past, present and future, in all their fullness.  Its inherent properties embrace all the attitributes of intelligence and affection.

It is endowed with knowledge, wisdom, truth, love, charity, justice and mercy, in all their ramifications. 

In short, it is the attributes of the eternal power and Godhead.  

Those beings who receive of its fullness are called sons of God, because they are perfected in all its attributes and powers, and, being in communication with it, can, by its use, perform all things.    

Those beings who receive not a fullness, but a measure of it, can know and perform some things, but not all.    

This is the true light, which in some measure illuminates all men. It is, in its less refined existence, the physical light which reflects from the sun, moon, and stars, and other substances; and by reflection on the eye, makes visible the truths of the outward world.    

It is, also, in its higher degrees, the intellectual light of our inward and spiritual organs, by which we reason, discern, judge, compare, comprehend and remember the subjects within our reach.    

Its inspiration constitutes instinct in animal life, reason in man, vision in the Prophets, and is continually flowing from the Godhead throughout all his creations.    

God sits enthroned in the midst of all his creations, and is filled and encircled with light unapproachable by those of the lower spheres.    

He associates with myriads of his own begotten sons and daughters who, by translation or resurrection, have triumphed over death.    

His ministers are sent forth from his presence to all parts of his dominions.    

His Holy Spirit centers in his presence, and communicates with and extends to the utmost verge of his dominions, comprehending and controlling all things under the immediate direction of his own will, and the will of all those in communication with him, in worlds without end! (Key to the Science of Theology [1891], pp.38-42)   

http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/Light of Christ.htm

 

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by pogi

[changed]

On 10/23/2018 at 5:15 PM, mfbukowski said:

The proclamation is obviously a religious statement and not a scientific one. Therefore it uses concepts of religion to justify the truth of it.

 

The proclamation, "Men are to protect and provide"?  Haha ... tell that to all the single moms out there...scientifically observable - "incarceration rates" tell one tale - who is actually protecting kids, and who is putting kids in danger??  ... beliefs are nice, but cannot be applied in many circumstances.  Religious beliefs that cannot be applied are not true and are pointless.  

 

On 10/23/2018 at 9:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

 

In the beliefs of science the Earth and Humanity have no purpose.

 

 

Evolutionary progression - vs. religious eternal progression - religion and science have the same purpose, both seek progress.

 

On 10/24/2018 at 3:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

The bottom line is that if you do not accept non verifiable psychological experience as" real "you cannot logically be a member of this church.

 

I thought I felt the spirit when Holland gave his missionary story - the story was then retracted, so I guess I misinterpreted the spirit?  There are good spirits and evil spirits and apparently the evil spirits often appear as spirits of light...  so what exactly are people supposed to do with emotional / spiritual experiences?  

 

On 10/25/2018 at 12:49 PM, pogi said:

Spiritual truth is (according to my interpretation) the light of Christ.  I think that qi or chi is one cultures perspective of the light of Christ.  In Hindu philosophy it is called prana - the “life force” or “vital principle” that permeates reality on all levels of life and inanimate objects.  It has also been called ether or aether - as in “tap into the ether.” Those are different cultural interpretations and experiences with what we call the light of Christ. 

 

This is my new understanding of it - that there is no "true" church, there is only the existence of our conscience - for all of us - for men, women, and in-between....  We only need honor and give allegiance to our own conscience, and allow others to do the same.

 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

 

1) It is the power by which all things were created - sun, moon, stars, earth, mankind...and everything else too. 

 

how do you define create?

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_studies.html

"The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. "

 

Don't you think a better scenario is for... God to be cleaning up a mess He did not "create"?  .. did God create evil?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Is there a grand beginning? or are we eternal with no beginning and no end?

https://www.panspermia.org/thebegin.htm

 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by changed

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

First, can we agree that "immaterial substance" that enlightens our mind and gives us conscience doesn't exist?  That is dualism. 

Not necessarily dualism. The language of D&C 131 can be reasonably interpreted as platonic too. They had emanations and the level above matter was intelligible matter and was like matter but only more pure.

I'm not a dualist, but I don't really have strong ontological commitments. I tend to see matter as emergent out of a more fundamental sign system though. But it's a weak commitment. However whether one calls that material or not depends upon what one means by material. This topic is a bit more complicated and tricky than I think you realize.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

That is the same passage which suggests that all spirit is material.

Yes but how to read it isn't quite clear. (IMO)  Orson Pratt read it nominalistically so that only atoms ultimately existed and everything was made out of atoms. That's clearly wrong. What's right though isn't clear at all.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Let me lay out what revelation says about the light of Christ - 

[...]

In what sense is any of this metaphorical? 

When you start calling it the voice of God surely you see that can't be anything but metaphorical, right?

But more or less my rejoinder would be that each of those lines needs explained and filled in. What does it mean to give understanding for instance? Now again if one takes this literally then we're talking platonism but then that means it's not material. If it's not platonic then it seems hard to see how it is anything but metaphoric again.

Quote

Parly P Pratt gives one of my favorite descriptions of the light of Christ, even if I don’t agree with every single point..  He agrees that it is material, along with Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith.  Bruce R. McConkie is a little more vague and states that it is not material "at least as far as we measure these things". So, he does not deny that it could be spirit matter.

Several historians think Parly Pratt adopts a mostly platonic emanation theory in the early 1840's most likely coming out of neoplatonic texts or possibly Emerson. He thought that we were literally made out of the substance of God which was immaterial. With D&C 131 he and Orson change their views to something more akin to a Stoic conception of the Trinity by way of Joseph Priestly's atoms. (Priestly was a famous scientist and theologian who pushed an early atomic theory) However this still was basically a materialist take on the earlier platonic conception only with the Aether being an atomic fluid that interpenetrates all things. If you read the full quote by Parley Pratt you're referring to you'll see he's more or less giving the same model of the light of Christ as this interpenetrating fluid that fills the universe. This is the Spirit that carries the attributes of God. It's also what got Orson in trouble with Brigham Young over. When Brigham criticizes Orson for worshipping the attributes of God and not the person of God it's this notion of the light of Christ he's attacking.

My point here isn't to say you're wrong, just to note there are many, many ways to read this text and it's meaning isn't as obvious as you seem to think it is.

Edited October 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not necessarily dualism. The language of D&C 131 can be reasonably interpreted as platonic too. They had emanations and the level above matter was intelligible matter and was like matter but only more pure.

I'm not a dualist, but I don't really have strong ontological commitments. I tend to see matter as emergent out of a more fundamental sign system though. But it's a weak commitment. However whether one calls that material or not depends upon what one means by material. This topic is a bit more complicated and tricky than I think you realize.

Yes but how to read it isn't quite clear. (IMO)  Orson Pratt read it nominalistically so that only atoms ultimately existed and everything was made out of atoms. That's clearly wrong. What's right though isn't clear at all.

When you start calling it the voice of God surely you see that can't be anything but metaphorical, right?

But more or less my rejoinder would be that each of those lines needs explained and filled in. What does it mean to give understanding for instance? Now again if one takes this literally then we're talking platonism but then that means it's not material. If it's not platonic then it seems hard to see how it is anything but metaphoric again.

Several historians think Parly Pratt adopts a mostly platonic emanation theory in the early 1840's most likely coming out of neoplatonic texts or possibly Emerson. He thought that we were literally made out of the substance of God which was immaterial. With D&C 131 he and Orson change their views to something more akin to a Stoic conception of the Trinity by way of Joseph Priestly's atoms. (Priestly was a famous scientist and theologian who pushed an early atomic theory) However this still was basically a materialist take on the earlier platonic conception only with the Aether being an atomic fluid that interpenetrates all things. If you read the full quote by Parley Pratt you're referring to you'll see he's more or less giving the same model of the light of Christ as this interpenetrating fluid that fills the universe. This is the Spirit that carries the attributes of God. It's also what got Orson in trouble with Brigham Young over. When Brigham criticizes Orson for worshipping the attributes of God and not the person of God it's this notion of the light of Christ he's attacking.

My point here isn't to say you're wrong, just to note there are many, many ways to read this text and it's meaning isn't as obvious as you seem to think it is.

First off, Plato was a dualist, and that started off Western philosophy in the wrong direction in my opinion

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl257/classical/platonic_dualism.htm

And yes, all this is complicated because all language is metaphor, so it is subject to interpretation.

Pratt was no philosopher, and believed he was talking about real science.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

First off, Plato was a dualist, and that started off Western philosophy in the wrong direction in my opinion

Plato proper was a dualist but most platonists weren't - particularly in the middle platonic and neoplatonic periods. They were pure idealists. Well Plutarch was a strong dualist - even more so than Plato but he was a bit unusual as I understand it. Philo is a monist and most I've read are monists. Certainly by the time of what gets called neoplatonism monism is the dominant position. As soon as you have the rise of the notion of the One in a strong sense you lose the dualism of the earlier pythagorian limited/unlimited. Instead you have a continuum from the One to pure nothing. However that's seen as privation rather than dualism. Although from an other perspective they're tripartitists with the One, the Intellect and the Soul with matter or otherness being pure nothing.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And yes, all this is complicated because all language is metaphor, so it is subject to interpretation.

I actually agree with that - although here I'm using it in the loser sense of what is more metaphoric in obvious ways.  I didn't want to get into that debate about whether the very notion of the literal is self defeating. I'd say the literal is usually just a meaning that's stable in a community and refers to objects in common use in a common sense way. So literalism usually ends up just being assuming some text's meaning is found in ones everyday community of uses. The metaphoric is thus what is an unusual use tied to common words. There's movement to the metaphoric whereas the literal has "congealed" in use.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Pratt was no philosopher, and believed he was talking about real science.

I'd say Pratt was a bad philosopher. He couldn't have been talking just science for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which being he's arguing for non-materialism being inconsistent. Although you do find contemporary physicists ignorant of philosophy trying to do philosophy making the same kinds of mistakes Pratt makes in say "Absurdities of Immaterialism." In particular some recent books like Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing or Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design seem done in the same vein. But Pratt was far from a scientist too. He appears to have been somewhat versed in the Scottish Common Sense Realists and clearly Priestly was a huge influence on him as well. But I always found he thought he knew far more than he did and he was typically ignorant of what was going on in contemporary science and philosophy. Priestly for instance is an 18th century thinker and doesn't reflect physics in the 1830's or 40's let alone 50's. He seems ignorant of the conservation of energy or the later law of entropy for instance. He also seems ignorant of field theories. He's really thinking in 18th century terms most of the time.

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

When you start calling it the voice of God surely you see that can't be anything but metaphorical, right?

But more or less my rejoinder would be that each of those lines needs explained and filled in. What does it mean to give understanding for instance? Now again if one takes this literally then we're talking platonism but then that means it's not material. If it's not platonic then it seems hard to see how it is anything but metaphoric again.

You are going to have to be somewhat patient with me in understanding the different philosophical theories.  Can you explain to me why it would be considered platonism to say that the light of Christ gives understanding, and why we must conclude that it is not material if it does indeed give understanding?  

Any Latter-day Saint who accepts that the light of Christ gives “knowledge of good and evil”, or “conscience”  agrees that it “gives understanding”.  That seems to be the orthodox view.

Is it platonic to say that a computer or a book gives understanding?  Must we conclude that the computer or book is not material if it gives understanding?  I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from here.

You ask what it means that the Spirit gives understanding.  Any person who has experienced personal revelation has experienced what it means to have their mind enlightened by the Spirit - to receive spiritual understanding.  The scriptures often speak of the "eyes of your understanding being enlightened" (Eph 1:18).  Alma 32 speaks of the process of how to tap into the Spirit and explains what it is like via the metaphor of the seed and explains how it begins to "enlighten my understanding".  There are endless passages about our eyes being enlightened, or of "hearing" with spiritual ears (hence the metaphor of the voice of God in relation to the spirit). We can discuss endlessly about what this all really means, but I think that we allow words to get in the way too often.  I agree with Mark that words are all metaphoric symbols of actual experience.  What it means to have ones mind enlightened via the Spirit and to receive understanding is ineffable - but I think we both know what it means via personal experience.  Would you consider that ineffable experience of revelation to be platonic?

Finally, by using your definition of metaphor to mean the "unusual use tied to common words", I don't think that any of this is unusual in religious and spiritual writings and canon.  When scriptures speak of the voice of God, it rarely is speaking of the audible voice of God from his physical mouth, so it is a metaphor; however, it is such a common metaphor that it almost becomes non-metaphoric in its representation of the experience of the Spirit - Just as the common expression "she is an old flame" is metaphorical, but common enough to know exactly what it represents.  That is how I see these passages.  I don't think we need to dissect what the "power of God" means, for example and if it is metaphoric in relation to the light of Christ.  If we try to extrapolate some meaning beyond its common usage in scripture, then I think we are left with the problem of explaining what it actually means if it is something other than it's common usage.   So, we can't simply dismiss these passages as metaphor without a good explanation as to what the intended message was then.  I don't think the metaphor card should ever be allowed to be played without an explanation of what they think the metaphor means.   

Edited October 27, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

You are going to have to be somewhat patient with me in understanding the different philosophical theories.  Can you explain to me why it would be considered platonism to say that the light of Christ gives understanding, and why we must conclude that it is not material if it does indeed give understanding?  

The details of platonism, particularly this platonism of late antiquity or the Renaissance gets complicated fast. The details really don't matter as I'm just using it as an example of how one could read the text immaterially while still having spirits matter. I'm not a platonist myself, but the language of platonism is through unknown sources a clear influence on D&C 88 & 93 along with various other texts including Abr 3.

More or less platonism of this type starts with the One which is everything real. The image of light is used and so there are what are called emanations. These are levels of being that descend from the One via light. Each level is an intermediary and light from that level of being then illuminates and creates the next level of being. But that level is slightly darker than what came before due to what is called privation. This is basically rejecting some of the truth that was given to it in light. So you have places for light but they can choose not to receive it. Since the light is simultaneously this flow of The Good, Being, and Truth this rejection is to lose knowledge of things as they are - which is The One. If you look at D&C 93:24-32 is basically this idea of the flow of light as intelligent to lesser intelligences. They are lesser because they don't receive the fulness of the light that is given them.

In the various types of this platonism, particularly in the more religious forms, the goal is through meditation particularly on symbols try to purify the soul so that more and more of this light is accepted. As one accepts more light (which is truth and intellect) one becomes more like these higher levels of being. Thus one is ascending back to the One through a kind of mystic perception.

Again, I hasten to add, that while the language of this seems clearly in the texts, I'm not sure that entails the ontology of Platonism is taught.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Any Latter-day Saint who accepts that the light of Christ gives “knowledge of good and evil”, or “conscience”  agrees that it “gives understanding”.  That seems to be the orthodox view.

Right. But that's just stating the words. When one asks what they mean it can be very different. For instance is knowledge propositions one learns and accepts as true or is it a kind of intuitive grasp of things given directly by revelation? In one model you're more in the platonic idea where one sees higher forms given by revelation through light. In the other model understanding and knowledge is more just as our culture of learning propositions and whether they are true or false by way of justifications particularly by experiment. In that model God teaches us by giving us information that can act as justification in a more traditional way of knowing.

These are two radically different ways of understanding.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Is it platonic to say that a computer or a book gives understanding?  Must we conclude that the computer or book is not material if it gives understanding?  I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from here.

I'm not going to be able to teach platonism, which is a pretty alien way of thinking to how most Americans think. Plus I fundamentally think it wrong. However a Platonist would say that a book or argument can act as a catalyst towards understanding. What it does is produce a state where we get a mystical glance of a higher reality. So the classic example is mathematics. You do proofs but the proofs don't establish that a bit of math can be called true. It's not about rules the way most take math. Rather it's a way of doing a practice that allows a glipse or recognition of a higher abstract reality we can't see. So math isn't about a bunch of rules and what you can produce with those rules and symbols. (That's called Mathematical constructivism) Rather it's about the ideas in math being true and we do mathematics so the idea is given us by revelation. That's the platonic way of thinking.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

You ask what it means that the Spirit gives understanding.  Any person who has experienced personal revelation has experienced what it means to have their mind enlightened by the Spirit - to receive spiritual understanding.  The scriptures often speak of the "eyes of your understanding being enlightened" (Eph 1:18).  Alma 32 speaks of the process of how to tap into the Spirit and explains what it is like via the metaphor of the seed and explains how it begins to "enlighten my understanding".  There are endless passages about our eyes being enlightened, or of "hearing" with spiritual ears (hence the metaphor of the voice of God in relation to the spirit). We can discuss endlessly about what this all really means, but I think that we allow words to get in the way too often.  I agree with Mark that words are all metaphoric symbols of actual experience.  What it means to have ones mind enlightened via the Spirit and to receive understanding is ineffable - but I think we both know what it means via personal experience.  Would you consider that ineffable experience of revelation to be platonic?

But again the issue is what this means. Is revelation just communication the way I am communicating with you now? There may be other trappings to the communication, but is it ultimately just something like regular language? (That's what I think) Or is it giving full ideas?

Alma 32 doesn't help too much since again on this level it can be read in many ways. There's a way to read it pragmatically for instance. Just try out what's said by a prophet. If it works then you know it's true. It's almost empiricism of just testing things. (That's my favored reading) The other way of reading it is more mystically. If you try the words of the prophets it opens up a mystic connection to God so that you taste the goodness that is flowing from God. This more aesthetic experience once it happens thus determines that the prophet is right. But fundamentally the issue isn't testing but a kind of experience.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

There are endless passages about our eyes being enlightened, or of "hearing" with spiritual ears (hence the metaphor of the voice of God in relation to the spirit). We can discuss endlessly about what this all really means, but I think that we allow words to get in the way too often.

Well you agree they're metaphors now. I just raised all this to note that in your outline there were tons of metaphors. When you say, "allow the words to get in the way" what you're really saying is that these are all metaphors. Some would say we shouldn't take them too literally and what counts is the experience the metaphor is a catalyst for. That is what matters is what's behind the words and not the words themselves. But again this is a radically different way of reading this which is just God communicates with us, the light of truth is a kind of communication and sets of habits of intepretation we have.

More or less the issue is the classic one from the medieval era. Are these various terms referring to real things (whether material or immaterial) or are they referring to just the way language works?

Edited October 27, 2018 by clarkgoble