The question then becomes whether Mormons accept prophets as infallible. Clearly we don’t. Which pretty well ends the argument in a way. At least as you’ve presented it.

If I have a fundamental misunderstanding of those terms, please forgive me. Us construction workers do not use such words on a daily basis. We are not as complicated as folks here. The conversation is more along the lines of “I wonder if my wife will meet me at the door naked with a cold beer in her hand?” :)

Regarding your question, I think we have to distinguish between what I strongly believe to be true versus the implications of it if is false. The example I’m using in my post (which I don’t want to give too much away from) is the classic brain in a vat thought experiment. Clearly it is possible that we are just a brain in a box (or more interestingly just a computer simulation in some alien’s advanced video game). But it seems pretty ridiculous to believe such a thing even if the implications of it being true are quite dreadful.

So we have to keep separate the issue of trumps, which is a matter of justification and debates about justification, from issues of what is true which ultimately is a more ontological and not epistemological issue.

As I see it you are confusing the epistemological issues (how we know) from the ontological ones (what is ultimately true).

Clark – You say –
“I think we can know eternal truths but like all knowledge it is fallible. (One could argue that if we are wrong then it isn’t’t knowledge – which I agree but I think you know what I mean)”

Yes, I think I know what you mean, but I think it is trying to have it both ways. I agree, if it is shown that something thought to be an eternal truth is not true, then it never was true in the first place. But if it can be shown that God is good today, and tomorrow He will be bad, then I think it could be argued that life has no meaning at all. At least it would not be a universe that I would wish to live in. Tell me that is not what you are saying. That when it really comes down to it, there really are eternal truths.

Maybe we lack the ability to present a trump card now, I would not argue with that, but at some point in time, a trump will be presented. And that with keeping with what Blake said, and I think what you are saying, that the LDS church will be the one that embraces those eternal truths.

Otherwise, I think one could make a good argument that our apostles and prophets are nothing more that pious frauds, or at best, delusional.

I have no idea why I get myself into these discussions, one would think someone mentally challenged like me, would have sense enough to stay out of water over there heads. Of course if I had that kind of sense, it could be argued that I may not be mentally challenged.

Let me say first, that it is not that I really disagree with you, but I am not someone that is considered active in the Church. I only go less than half the time, the other times I stay home with my wife. She got her feelings hurt and will not go anymore. Another reason is because I have come to see the Church in the same light you are casting it in.

If we can expect new revelation to totally change the way we see things, as you suggest, and yes, Sec. 19 of the D&C would help you make your case, then what else might we have wrong?

If I extend your line of reasoning out to its (at least to me) logical conclusion, then I would have to entertain the following worse case scenario: Instead of seeing blacks and the priesthood, polygamy and maybe a few other things as anomaly’s, exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself, then I would have to wonder, okay, what??? – Where do I draw the line?

Perhaps Joseph Smith did not really see God and Christ, or any other angelic visitor. Maybe he actually wrote the “Book Of Mormon” himself, and made all of the other things up.

We say a person must be baptized in the LDS church to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe a new revelation will say, no, that is not true, one need only believe in Christ and repent to live with God. So for years we have denied people the belief/hope in going to heaven/CK if they refused to join our church in this life or the next.

I do not know about you, but that kind of thing would bother me. I would prefer to think there could very well be changes made in the way we see things, but not a major shift in our view of the gospel. Other wise, there would be no reason to try and convert people to our faith. What would be the point? I could make the same point about our authority, temples, ordinances, you name it, and it could easily be made to look trivial/unimportant by what you are saying.

I think Michael Dorfman is making the same point I am trying to make in #9.

“My question to you: as a rational but religious person, are there any dogmas (or matters of faith) that you personally feel could not possibly be overturned by new evidence? Do you feel there is anything that is off-limits to inquiry? Put another way, it is theoretically conceivable that you could come across evidence that would cause you to reject your (current) belief in God?”

I think somewhere, a religious person has to draw a line in the sand and say, this is it, I am willing to entertain everything else, but not beyond this point. And maybe that point is nothing more than Jesus and Him crucified. But again, I am not sure that works for members of the Church. I might as well be a member of the Catholic Church or *any* other church, because there would be no definitive/eternal truths that we can know. No trumps.

As I said before, I tend to agree with you Clark, but I am hardly considered a good active member. I wish I could square what I have come to believe with the claim of the Church, The Only True Church on The Earth. It just does not add up. If I could just go back and take the “Blue” pill, instead of the “Red” one, all would be well. :)

I would think most members, including GAs, would see you view troubling, at best less than orthodox. Of course that does not make you wrong, just different. And I am not saying different is bad, but it is different.

But I tend to come from the perspective that there is nothing inherently unknowable in theory. In practice, especially given we are finite beings, then problems occur. This contrasts with a more Kantian or Husserlian perspective where things-in-themselves are not knowable.

Having spiritual experiences doesn’t mean that one is omniscient or knows all truth or cannot be mistaken about gospel principles. Revelation is continuing in the Church and it must be continuing for each individual. The fact that there is continuing revelation is a pretty good clue that we don’t know it all already, and we could be wrong. I repeat, we could be wrong.