The Demands of Justice

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, I believe it says truth is contextual to its sphere.

But it doesn't say that, even though you may believe that is what it says.  It says "truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come"

We can choose to believe whatever we want to believe is true, but that doesn't mean whatever we believe is true is true, or was, or will be.

 

Quote

WE are the intelligences to act for ourselves. How else could intelligence "act" ?

We can see things as they are or were or will be OR we can "receive not the light which would enable us to see.  Behold, here is the ^aagency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is ^bplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

Quote

Without intelligences creating the world as we know it, nothing is definable as "existing"

And yet all of that matter would still be there, it would still exist, even if we didn't create anything with it.

Quote

Do undiscovered species "exist"? You can say nothing about them or know anything about them.

That is how Europeans said Columbus "discovered " America.

In the European sphere of intelligence, that continent didn't exist until it was "discovered " and became part of cultural, verbal community knowledge, the same way the church is "true" in the intelligence pool of members and no one else unless they convert, " acting for themselves".

And yet this continent was still here, wasn't it. (a rhetorical question).  It wasn't those Europeans knowledge of this continent that made it exist.  It was here whether or not they knew about it.

 

Quote

I will not argue with you unless you make a substantial relevant comment 

 

I always do whether or not you agree with it.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

In the off chance that anyone actually wants to study "truth" and the problems associated with it, here is a great summary

Best wishes.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#Def

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

But after the "..." it says that truth is dependent on God having placed it in a sphere with intelligence (presumably that's your head!).

No, it says "all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it in, to act for itself"... regardless of what we or anyone else thinks about it.  We do not make the truth exist. And try as hard as I might, I can't make you see that, either.

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, it says "all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it in, to act for itself"... regardless of what we or anyone else thinks about it.  We do not make the truth exist. And try as hard as I might, I can't make you see that, either.

I demand justice!

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

No, it says "all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it in, to act for itself"... regardless of what we or anyone else thinks about it.  We do not make the truth exist. And try as hard as I might, I can't make you see that, either.

So truth is running around in different spheres making itself exist

Uh huh.

I guess it does not require PEOPLE who ARE intelligent to do anything.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So truth is running around in different spheres making itself exist

Uh huh.

I guess it does not require PEOPLE who ARE intelligent to do anything.

This shows that "truth" is not the "world" that is "out there" independent of the human mind.

The scripture where truth is knowledge (Knowledge of what? Of anything "out there") also supports this. "Knowledge of the thing" is not "the thing" itself.

From D&C 93: 30, do you see “existence” as synonymous with “the world out there” or is "existence" my construct and comprehension (truth and knowledge) of the world out there?

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So truth is running around in different spheres making itself exist

Uh huh.

I guess it does not require PEOPLE who ARE intelligent to do anything.

I think you are closer to the mark now than you think.  The truth does not require someone to know about it... because it would still be the truth even if nobody knew it.  But, yes, by knowing it you or anyone else can know what the truth is. 

Try thinking of the truth as a form of knowledge itself. or something that is knowable, even if some people do not know it.  True knowledge, too, of something that exists as it is, or was, or will be.  Not just something someone claims to know that doesn't really exist, and never did, and never will, which I suppose could be referred to as false knowledge or a knowing of things which are only fictional and not real or true.  The Star Wars universe, as depicted in movies and books and the Disney corporation. is an example of something that is not the truth and knowing all about that universe does not get anyone any closer to knowing the truth.  There is no Luke Skywalker, or Darth Vader, even if someone really believes they exist.  Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is a real person... a true, real, living person... who actually existed, and still exists, and will always exist.  He is the truth just as much as anything else that is the truth is, and anyone who doesn't believe that or in him is simply denying the truth... without affecting what the truth is.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think you are closer to the mark now than you think.  The truth does not require someone to know about it... because it would still be the truth even if nobody knew it.  But, yes, by knowing it you or anyone else can know what the truth is. 

Try thinking of the truth as a form of knowledge itself. or something that is knowable, even if some people do not know it.  True knowledge, too, of something that exists as it is, or was, or will be.  Not just something someone claims to know that doesn't really exist, and never did, and never will, which I suppose could be referred to as false knowledge or a knowing of things which are only fictional and not real or true.  The Star Wars universe, as depicted in movies and books and the Disney corporation. is an example of something that is not the truth and knowing all about that universe does not get anyone any closer to knowing the truth.  There is no Luke Skywalker, or Darth Vader, even if someone really believes they exist.  Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is a real person... a true, real, living person... who actually existed, and still exists, and will always exist.  He is the truth just as much as anything else that is the truth is, and anyone who doesn't believe that or in him is simply denying the truth... without affecting what the truth is.

Yes, it can be said that truth is knowledge of all things, arguably both fictional and actual. This knowledge (and related cognition such as belief, assurance, hope, certitude, etc.) is in the brain, and is not the things themselves. This knowledge is useful because we can use it to make choices that have positive effects upon us. People and God share what is in their brains through language in its various forms and media.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, it can be said that truth is knowledge of all things, arguably both fictional and actual. This knowledge (and related cognition such as belief, assurance, hope, certitude, etc.) is in the brain, and is not the things themselves. This knowledge is useful because we can use it to make choices that have positive effects upon us. People and God share what is in their brains through language in its various forms and media.

You mean, except when they are not?  The knowledge is of all things that are or were or will be, but not everybody has knowledge of all things, and yet that knowledge still exists for those who have it. 

So there must be a distinction between that knowledge and a person's brain or mind.  One person can have "it" while another person does not.  So would you say that knowledge exists, or that it does not, generally speaking?  

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You mean, except when they are not?  The knowledge is of all things that are or were or will be, but not everybody has knowledge of all things, and yet that knowledge still exists for those who have it. 

So there must be a distinction between that knowledge and a person's brain or mind.  One person can have "it" while another person does not.  So would you say that knowledge exists, or that it does not, generally speaking?  

I would say that knowledge exists in the mind that possesses it. The subject of that knowledge may or may not exist. For example, knowledge of the sun exists in our minds, but the sun itself does not, and the sun exists independently of our having that knowledge. Knowledge of Yoda exists in our minds, but Yoda does not, and Yoda, as far as I know, does not exist at all (but if he did, it would be despite my not knowing that).

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would say that knowledge exists in the mind that possesses it. The subject of that knowledge may or may not exist. For example, knowledge of the sun exists in our minds, but the sun itself does not, and the sun exists independently of our having that knowledge. Knowledge of Yoda exists in our minds, but Yoda does not, and Yoda, as far as I know, does not exist at all (but if he did, it would be despite my not knowing that).

For knowledge to be true or the truth it must be knowledge of something that is or was or will be.  If it is knowledge of something that is not, as in not in existence, and that thing never did exist and it never will, then it isn't true knowledge, or the truth.

And it is not having something called knowledge in a brain that makes that something the truth.  It has more to do with how that knowledge is of something that actually/really is or was or will be.  

So it is the fact that there is a sun in our solar system that makes knowing that the truth.  Otherwise, if there was no sun in our solar system, and there never was or ever would be, then "knowing" there is/was/will be a sun in it would not be the truth.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

For knowledge to be true or the truth it must be knowledge of something that is or was or will be.  If it is knowledge of something that is not, as in not in existence, and that thing never did exist and it never will, then it isn't true knowledge, or the truth.

And it is not having something called knowledge in a brain that makes that something the truth.  It has more to do with how that knowledge is of something that actually/really is or was or will be.  

So it is the fact that there is a sun in our solar system that makes knowing that the truth.  Otherwise, if there was no sun in our solar system, and there never was or ever would be, then "knowing" there is/was/will be a sun in it would not be the truth.

Where truth is knowledge, you cannot have a knowledge of all things as they are, were and are to come without choosing it over the opposing knowledge of all things as they are not, were not, and are not to come. We know darkness because we are born into it, and we know light because we are born with it. Choosing one expands agency and the other expands condemnation. So, you can have correct and incorrect knowledge, which we assert and describe as true and false knowledge, or colloquially and metaphorically refer to as truth and falsity... but knowledge is not the thing, or the subject itself (i.e., God / light, Yoda / darkness -- sorry, if you are a fan!).

Note that these distinctions are more important when facing the challenge to prove spiritual things scientifically, and in purely secular terms, than when preaching to the choir. Knowledge of the sun, obtained by physical observation, is not the sun itself; so why should God be any different, simply because knowledge of Him is obtained by other means? The knowledge has positive effects in both cases.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Where truth is knowledge, you cannot have a knowledge of all things as they are, were and are to come without choosing it over the opposing knowledge of all things as they are not, were not, and are not to come. We know darkness because we are born into it, and we know light because we are born with it. Choosing one expands agency and the other expands condemnation. So, you can have correct and incorrect knowledge, which we assert and describe as true and false knowledge, or colloquially and metaphorically refer to as truth and falsity... but knowledge is not the thing, or the subject itself (i.e., God / light, Yoda / darkness -- sorry, if you are a fan!).

Note that these distinctions are more important when facing the challenge to prove spiritual things scientifically, and in purely secular terms, than when preaching to the choir. Knowledge of the sun, obtained by physical observation, is not the sun itself; so why should God be any different, simply because knowledge of Him is obtained by other means? The knowledge has positive effects in both cases.

I am having some trouble understanding your words.  I know knowledge that the sun is... that it exists... is not the sun.  It is simply knowledge that the sun is.  That is the truth on that point.  Truth is knowledge of what is, and/or was, and/or will be,

To someone who has accepted that truth... to someone who knows that... it is simply something that person knows.  And he/she knows it even if some other person doesn't know it.  And what he/she knows is the truth on that point, not all truth, necessarily.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I am having some trouble understanding your words.  I know knowledge that the sun is... that it exists... is not the sun.  It is simply knowledge that the sun is.  That is the truth on that point.  Truth is knowledge of what is, and/or was, and/or will be,

To someone who has accepted that truth... to someone who knows that... it is simply something that person knows.  And he/she knows it even if some other person doesn't know it.  And what he/she knows is the truth on that point, not all truth, necessarily.

Now if the person that doesn’t know what you do says you cannot know God exists because it has not been / cannot be proven, you can say a) things exist independent of what he (or everyone) knowing it does; b) knowledge is in the mind and subject to biased choice; and c) your knowledge of God is proven by testing the claims and experiencing the promised results. Whether a point of knowledge is "correct" or not is irrelevant if you are happy with what you have from applying what you know, or to paraphrase, if he enjoys that which he is willing to receive, not being willing to enjoy that which he might have received. All you can do is describe what you know and invite others to share. There are many kinds of language with which to do this.

Edited February 18, 2021 by CV75

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now if the person that doesn’t know what you do says you cannot know God exists because it has not been / cannot be proven, you can say a) things exist independent of what he (or everyone) knowing it does; b) knowledge is in the mind and subject to biased choice; and c) your knowledge of God is proven by testing the claims and experiencing the promised results. Whether a point of knowledge is "correct" or not is irrelevant if you are happy with what you have from applying what you know, or to paraphrase, if he enjoys that which he is willing to receive, not being willing to enjoy that which he might have received.

Hmm.  Okay.  Yes, I think I understand what you mean, and I think we agree on this now.  And I think I can also sum it up like this:

I can know the truth even if and when someone else thinks I don't or can't, and their assessment of what I know or don't know isn't necessarily true.  Thus someone can think I am wrong about something even when I know the truth on that point.

Philosophers arguing with each other about what the truth is with some of them thinking their theories are debunked just because some other philosophers don't agree with them is just plain silliness. 

The question everyone should be able to answer correctly is:  How do I know when I know the truth?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

This shows that "truth" is not the "world" that is "out there" independent of the human mind.

The scripture where truth is knowledge (Knowledge of what? Of anything "out there") also supports this. "Knowledge of the thing" is not "the thing" itself.

From D&C 93: 30, do you see “existence” as synonymous with “the world out there” or is "existence" my construct and comprehension (truth and knowledge) of the world out there?

"Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face"

We sorta get an inkling of what lies beyond language, but only "darkly". 

And the dark mirror is language- a mirror because we only see ourselves through man-made language, all based on the pool of humanity mingling their dark mirror paradigms into disciplines like "philosophy " or "science " or worst of all for the spirit,  "theology "

Remember Babel  Is to me a parable about the pride of man trying to construct a tower to God to speak face to face, yet God DESIGNED it so that we could only do that through the spirit, so He inspired the story saying that language was "confounded ", which is absolutely true.

 I honestly think that all these scripts about the word and language are a code for those who see the message beyond the medium, it's a kind of code for those who who can SEE it that way. 

Scripture is designed for all mankind to read at their own level.

 I am sure there are many more levels than at least I can understand.

 Think about "peer review." 

 Experts in the area in which the paper is written make sure that the paper is within what they deem an acceptable contribution to the pool of other papers constructing the reality in which they are alleged experts in that particular " Sphere of intelligence.". 

And so the dark mirror of alleged reality grows, giving us a linguistic description of human perception and human experience in this narrow area of whatever the discipline is about.

 But it will always be a dark mirror of pooled human perceptions pulled together into a view of the world as humans see it. You just cannot get around that. It will never be "face to face" knowledge, defined and pronounced "TRUE" by the collective community. 

 Remember that talk on certitude.

 What passes for knowledge is a psychological state of certainty.

Effectively they have agreed about their psychological states of certitude of the data, which "coheres"  as a viable Paradigm,   until someone else's observation experience suddenly makes it incoherent, and a new paradigm is required. 

 What was certain suddenly becomes uncertain.

And so biologists know that well "researched" biology is "true," and we in church "know the church is true"  until further revelation shows that changes are necessary.

 But it's all Alma 32 on a macro level.

 All the instruction that is there about how to find true principles is simply magnified in science to taking a lot of experiences over 1 or 2 experiences and the subject matter is different.

 So knowing the church is true is no different than scientists knowing science is true,   With the exception of course that they are different subject matter.

 But still the bottom line remains that we have seen it all through a mirror darkly and expressed that darkened experience of our senses  through the dark mirror of language.

I can't wait for face to face to see how totally messed up it is!

But we have the Spirit ,thank God, to get us to qualify for face-to-face,   and allow us true flashes of intelligence until we get there.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/18/2021 at 6:14 AM, CV75 said:

The scripture where truth is knowledge (Knowledge of what? Of anything "out there") also supports this. "Knowledge of the thing" is not "the thing" itself.

From D&C 93: 30, do you see “existence” as synonymous with “the world out there” or is "existence" my construct and comprehension (truth and knowledge) of the world out there?

 Don't know if I hit this on the head in the last post.  Will take it on more directly ASAP.

 But quickly, knowledge is certitude about anything. It is a psychological state.

 I know the church is true expresses a psychological  State of certitude in language.

 The psychological state is intelligence creating What is expressed in the verbal sentence.

 Words create reality as we know it.

 So for example a new species of an animal does not exist until we have had a psychological state which puts our intelligence to work. We then describe that new animal which puts it into human understanding. At that point we humans see it as "existing".

 

But really this question is a question of definition , And the old  Silly problem of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it is it a sound?"  It's the duck and the rabbit all over again.

 Google " new species found Chinese fish Markets"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/study-rare-sharks-fish-markets-180971231/

Gotta run

 

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

Hmm.  Okay.  Yes, I think I understand what you mean, and I think we agree on this now.  And I think I can also sum it up like this:

I can know the truth even if and when someone else thinks I don't or can't, and their assessment of what I know or don't know isn't necessarily true.  Thus someone can think I am wrong about something even when I know the truth on that point.

Philosophers arguing with each other about what the truth is with some of them thinking their theories are debunked just because some other philosophers don't agree with them is just plain silliness. 

The question everyone should be able to answer correctly is:  How do I know when I know the truth?

When you say you “know the truth” I understand you to mean that based on your experience and practice, you possess knowledge that you believe is correct to the point that you can describe God and live, benefit and swear by your knowledge. Just like a diehard atheist concerning his knowledge of green tea, obtained through experience and practice. He cannot say his knowledge of green tea is more legitimate than your knowledge of God simply because he attends to the world differently than you do.

To answer the question, "How do I know when I know the truth?", I would say people know when they possess what they believe is correct knowledge the moment their terms of proof, which are biased, are satisfied, which is a subjective mental state. So much of this is habitual, automatic and subconscious which is why real intent is so important in finding meaning.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

When you say you “know the truth” I understand you to mean that based on your experience and practice, you possess knowledge that you believe is correct to the point that you can describe God and live, benefit and swear by your knowledge. Just like a diehard atheist concerning his knowledge of green tea, obtained through experience and practice. He cannot say his knowledge of green tea is more legitimate than your knowledge of God simply because he attends to the world differently than you do.

To answer the question, "How do I know when I know the truth?", I would say people know when they possess what they believe is correct knowledge the moment their terms of proof, which are biased, are satisfied, which is a subjective mental state. So much of this is habitual, automatic and subconscious which is why real intent is so important in finding meaning.

Fully agree. Fully. 😃

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

When you say you “know the truth” I understand you to mean that based on your experience and practice, you possess knowledge that you believe is correct to the point that you can describe God and live, benefit and swear by your knowledge. Just like a diehard atheist concerning his knowledge of green tea, obtained through experience and practice. He cannot say his knowledge of green tea is more legitimate than your knowledge of God simply because he attends to the world differently than you do.

To answer the question, "How do I know when I know the truth?", I would say people know when they possess what they believe is correct knowledge the moment their terms of proof, which are biased, are satisfied, which is a subjective mental state. So much of this is habitual, automatic and subconscious which is why real intent is so important in finding meaning.

What you said sounds somewhat good but I can see how it could easily be picked apart by someone who could say that your claim to know that what you have experienced and practiced is "true" is based on your simple belief that it is true.  And what would that mean, exactly?  Why are you associating knowledge with God?  Why would me saying something like "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" mean to you that I meant " "based on my experience and practice, I possess knowledge I believe is correct to the point that I can describe God and live, benefit and swear by my knowledge" ?   What if instead of me saying something like "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" I said  "I know Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God"?  Would you also take that to mean I meant "based on my experience and practice, I possess knowledge I believe is correct to the point that I can describe God and live, benefit and swear by my knowledge" that Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God?  Would that be the truth?

I'm not sure what you mean when talking about an atheist claiming to know that what he knows about green tea is true.  What do you suppose he would be claiming to know about green tea?  That green tea is true?  What would that mean?

When I say I know something is true, what I mean is that I have seen or otherwise experienced enough of whatever I am talking about to verify that it is whatever I am saying it is.   And if I were to say I know something was true, in the past, what I would mean is that I have seen or otherwise experienced enough of whatever I am talking about to verify that it was whatever I am saying it was.  And, just to cover all of the bases, if I were to say I know something will be true, in the future, what I would mean is that I have seen or otherwise experienced enough of whatever I am talking about to verify that it will be whatever I am saying it will be.

I could be talking about all kinds of things, from God to a sour lemon, and all I would be saying when saying "I know [fill in the blank] is true" is that [whatever filled in the blank] is what i am saying it is.  And now I ask you if that would be the truth?

I think we may agree that our knowledge of whatever we know is subjective. That I can know something you don't know, and vice versa. But how far do you think our subjective knowledge extends?  If I know something is good, and that it is truly good, could you think that what I was talking about was a bad or an evil thing?  Could what I know is good be something you would know or think is evil?  What do you think it would truly be?  Would your subjective perspective carry more weight than my own perspective, ya think, or do you think I would just go on thinking it is good, and claiming to know it is good, while you go on your merry way claiming it was evil?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

What you said sounds somewhat good but I can see how it could easily be picked apart by someone who could say that your claim to know that what you have experienced and practiced is "true" is based on your simple belief that it is true.  And what would that mean, exactly?  Why are you associating knowledge with God?  Why would me saying something like "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" mean to you that I meant " "based on my experience and practice, I possess knowledge I believe is correct to the point that I can describe God and live, benefit and swear by my knowledge" ?   What if instead of me saying something like "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" I said  "I know Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God"?  Would you also take that to mean I meant "based on my experience and practice, I possess knowledge I believe is correct to the point that I can describe God and live, benefit and swear by my knowledge" that Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God?  Would that be the truth?

I'm not sure what you mean when talking about an atheist claiming to know that what he knows about green tea is true.  What do you suppose he would be claiming to know about green tea?  That green tea is true?  What would that mean?

When I say I know something is true, what I mean is that I have seen or otherwise experienced enough of whatever I am talking about to verify that it is whatever I am saying it is.   And if I were to say I know something was true, in the past, what I would mean is that I have seen or otherwise experienced enough of whatever I am talking about to verify that it was whatever I am saying it was.  And, just to cover all of the bases, if I were to say I know something will be true, in the future, what I would mean is that I have seen or otherwise experienced enough of whatever I am talking about to verify that it will be whatever I am saying it will be.

I could be talking about all kinds of things, from God to a sour lemon, and all I would be saying when saying "I know [fill in the blank] is true" is that [whatever filled in the blank] is what i am saying it is.  And now I ask you if that would be the truth?

I think we may agree that our knowledge of whatever we know is subjective. That I can know something you don't know, and vice versa. But how far do you think our subjective knowledge extends?  If I know something is good, and that it is truly good, could you think that what I was talking about was a bad or an evil thing?  Could what I know is good be something you would know or think is evil?  What do you think it would truly be?  Would your subjective perspective carry more weight than my own perspective, ya think, or do you think I would just go on thinking it is good, and claiming to know it is good, while you go on your merry way claiming it was evil?

Sigh.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh.

Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

Sigh.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

What you said sounds somewhat good but I can see how it could easily be picked apart by someone who could say that your claim to know that what you have experienced and practiced is "true" is based on your simple belief that it is true.  And what would that mean, exactly?  Why are you associating knowledge with God?  Why would me saying something like "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" mean to you that I meant " "based on my experience and practice, I possess knowledge I believe is correct to the point that I can describe God and live, benefit and swear by my knowledge" ?   What if instead of me saying something like "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" I said  "I know Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God"?  Would you also take that to mean I meant "based on my experience and practice, I possess knowledge I believe is correct to the point that I can describe God and live, benefit and swear by my knowledge" that Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet of God?  Would that be the truth?

I'm not sure what you mean when talking about an atheist claiming to know that what he knows about green tea is true.  What do you suppose he would be claiming to know about green tea?  That green tea is true?  What would that mean?

When I say I know something is true, what I mean is that I have seen or otherwise experienced enough of whatever I am talking about to verify that it is whatever I am saying it is.   And if I were to say I know something was true, in the past, what I would mean is that I have seen or otherwise experienced enough of whatever I am talking about to verify that it was whatever I am saying it was.  And, just to cover all of the bases, if I were to say I know something will be true, in the future, what I would mean is that I have seen or otherwise experienced enough of whatever I am talking about to verify that it will be whatever I am saying it will be.

I could be talking about all kinds of things, from God to a sour lemon, and all I would be saying when saying "I know [fill in the blank] is true" is that [whatever filled in the blank] is what i am saying it is.  And now I ask you if that would be the truth?

I think we may agree that our knowledge of whatever we know is subjective. That I can know something you don't know, and vice versa. But how far do you think our subjective knowledge extends?  If I know something is good, and that it is truly good, could you think that what I was talking about was a bad or an evil thing?  Could what I know is good be something you would know or think is evil?  What do you think it would truly be?  Would your subjective perspective carry more weight than my own perspective, ya think, or do you think I would just go on thinking it is good, and claiming to know it is good, while you go on your merry way claiming it was evil?

My knowledge and description of God is true, or correct for me within my sphere, and for anyone who shares my description with a sufficient measure of appreciation. To do that of course we need minds to do that, otherwise true and false becomes irrelevant. This knowledge and description can build over time.

I am using God as an example. We can do the same thing with points concerning Joseph Smith, green tea and atoms. Disagreement between people might lead them to assert that the other’s knowledge is incorrect, incomplete, false or not true, but when they consider this may be the result of occupying different spheres, the contention should melt away. The atheist might consider his knowledge in comparison to mine to be a function of his brain, cognitional and other mental states and not the absence of God.

I am using a green tea as an example of something someone knows and describes as provably good. If you agree with them, you share the same sphere. If you don’t, you are viewing the world from/within another sphere. As a above, one might be enticed to experiment with the considerations, tools and methods of a new sphere.

I understand what you mean by saying something is true. I am saying that is shorthand for saying that you believe your knowledge and description are correct based on your observation and experience as processed by your mind. But for all intents and purposes, between you and me sharing, at least for the moment, the same sphere, I can casually accept the shorthand description, “the sour lemon is true.” But is that really what you mean (and if asked, can you explain it in other terms)?

Your last paragraph is exactly what people most often do, from my experience. Three good examples are politics, religion and sex.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My knowledge and description of God is true, or correct for me within my sphere, and for anyone who shares my description with a sufficient measure of appreciation. To do that of course we need minds to do that, otherwise true and false becomes irrelevant. This knowledge and description can build over time.

I am using God as an example. We can do the same thing with points concerning Joseph Smith, green tea and atoms. Disagreement between people might lead them to assert that the other’s knowledge is incorrect, incomplete, false or not true, but when they consider this may be the result of occupying different spheres, the contention should melt away. The atheist might consider his knowledge in comparison to mine to be a function of his brain, cognitional and other mental states and not the absence of God.

I am using a green tea as an example of something someone knows and describes as provably good. If you agree with them, you share the same sphere. If you don’t, you are viewing the world from/within another sphere. As a above, one might be enticed to experiment with the considerations, tools and methods of a new sphere.

I understand what you mean by saying something is true. I am saying that is shorthand for saying that you believe your knowledge and description are correct based on your observation and experience as processed by your mind. But for all intents and purposes, between you and me sharing, at least for the moment, the same sphere, I can casually accept the shorthand description, “the sour lemon is true.” But is that really what you mean (and if asked, can you explain it in other terms)?

Your last paragraph is exactly what people most often do, from my experience. Three good examples are politics, religion and sex.

My impression or understanding of what you said, in my own terms and words, if I were to try to share it with you, would sound to you something like this, I think:  Sounds like you don't believe anyone is ever wrong when sharing what they think is true.  That when people do not agree with each other it is only because, or maybe there are some other reasons but at least partially due to them being in different "spheres".  That rather than thinking of people having opposing perspectives of what is true... where one says something is true and another says it is not true... they each define truth according to what sphere they are in and truth therefore is dependent on what sphere they are in when they share their perspective of truth.  For example, when I say I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and it is true that he was, that is to be understood to be truth only within whatever sphere I am in to see things from that perspective.  And if someone else opposes that view, and says that is not true, and that the truth is in fact that he wasn't, that is what the truth is for him within the sphere he is in to see with that perspective.

Is that really how you see things?  As I said, that's what it sounds like, from my perspective.  So is my perspective true or not true, from either your perspective or mine?

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My impression or understanding of what you said, in my own terms and words, if I were to try to share it with you, would sound to you something like this, I think:  Sounds like you don't believe anyone is ever wrong when sharing what they think is true. Assuming they are sharing the light they possess in good faith, yes.  For example, if they tell me they think or know God is dead, I'd have have to agree that this is indeed what they know. This is why I invite them into my sphere so they can discover what I know to live better. That when people do not agree with each other it is only because, or maybe there are some other reasons but at least partially due to them being in different "spheres".  Yes. That rather than thinking of people having opposing perspectives of what is true... where one says something is true and another says it is not true... they each define truth according to what sphere they are in and truth therefore is dependent on what sphere they are in when they share their perspective of truth.  For example, when I say I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and it is true that he was, that is to be understood to be truth only within whatever sphere I am in to see things from that perspective.  Yes, and you can share a sphere with God as well as you can with anyone else. You can invite others to try your sphere. As believers in the power of the Spirit and the light of Christ, these invitations (descriptions) are not always verbalized but are nonetheless communicated to those who might not have otherwise acknowledged them before due to bias or rationale. And if someone else opposes that view, and says that is not true, and that the truth is in fact that he wasn't, that is what the truth is for him within the sphere he is in to see with that perspective. Yes.

Is that really how you see things?  As I said, that's what it sounds like, from my perspective.  So is my perspective true or not true, from either your perspective or mine? I think I understand you; do you understand and agree with my comments above (in bold type)?