The Dangers and Blessings of Reason and Revelation
Which is worse, false revelations being accepted as true or true revelations being rejected as false? This question, I think, gets very close to the heart of the debate between reason and authority. This issue can be framed historically in terms of the Enlightenment battle between revelation to authority figures and reasons and laws which are accessible to and binding upon everybody.
The Mormon tradition believes the Catholic Church to have become illegitimate (if not in terms of revelation, then definitely in terms of authority) by the time of the Enlightenment. Thus, we praise the Protestant reformers and other secular thinkers that cast away the shadows of the “Dark Ages” (so called) for their resistance to that apostate church.
The problem, however, is that the metaphors, values and concepts that these Enlightenment thinkers created in order to subvert and overthrow the authority of the Catholic Church were weapons that were meant to subvert any and all appeals to revelation to authority figures without any regard for the legitimacy of these claims. Indeed, the whole point of the Enlightenment was that such appeals to revelation given to authority are intrinsically illegitimate.
This forces a confrontation of sorts between Mormonism and reason. After all, while the Mormon tradition dismisses the illegitimate authority of the Catholic Church, it also stands apart from Protestantism in not wanting a Reformation in which authority is universalized/dissolved, but in wanting a Restoration of legitimate claims to revelation from authority figures. This, however, is exactly what Enlightenment reason was created in opposition to. We cannot fully embrace both traditions at the same time.
The question then becomes, in what way can we prevent the abuses of illegitimate authority without also closing the door on legitimate authority that we simply happen to not like? The Enlightenment answer – universal reason – seems to have done a decent job in preventing the former, but has unfortunately closed the door on the latter as well. We see various versions of this same Enlightenment answer within the bloggernacle in which we attempt to bind priesthood leaders to strict rules that universally apply world-wide and without exception, hold the book of scripture to the standards of the book of nature, judge living prophets by those of the past or future, etc.
These attempts at blocking claims to revelation from authority figures are motivated by the fear that false revelation might be accepted as true. This seems like a perfectly reasonable fear. From the other side of these same debates we find claims motivated by the fear that true revelation might be rejected as false. This too seems like a perfectly reasonable fear. The fact is that both dangers are very real and always present with the Mormon tradition, and it’s a little disingenuous to pretend that only one or the other is where the “real” danger lies.
Perhaps, it might be worth considering the possibility that universal reason is not the only protection we have, or must inevitably have against false revelation and abuses of authority.
Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.
Comment by Howard — January 17, 2015 @ 4:03 pm
I can’t tell if that’s a ringing endorsement or a really round about criticism of the post. Either way, the relevance isn’t clear.
Comment by Jeff G — January 17, 2015 @ 4:13 pm
It seems that God prefers his prophets to accurately pass along his word, clearly false revelation is not of him or his church. Which is worse? is simply a rationalization.
The church is his church to the extent it is following his revelation and not his church to the extent it isn’t. Where does this put the LDS church? Kind of hard to tell without a spiritual witness isn’t it? And if you have access to a spiritual witness why not parse every revelation and line up behind him?
Comment by Howard — January 17, 2015 @ 5:32 pm
“Which is worse? is simply a rationalization.”
Rationalization for what? Again, I’m not sure you understood the post, as can be seen by the fact that your second paragraph is exactly what my final paragraph was aimed at affirming.
One thing is for sure, either I don’t understand your point or you did not understand mine.
Comment by Jeff G — January 17, 2015 @ 5:50 pm
So you’re assuming I’m opposing the post?
Comment by Howard — January 17, 2015 @ 6:10 pm
You’re right, I thought you were. If not, then it’s nice to finally be on the same page. AmIRight? ;)
Comment by Jeff G — January 17, 2015 @ 6:17 pm
If you’re allowing spiritual witness as a protection then I think we’re pretty much in parallel although I’m probably requiring spiritual witness more than just allowing it. Yes, I agree it’s nice to be on the same page for a change although it’s also an interesting discussion when we disagree.
I was simply stating how I believe it works.
Comment by Howard — January 17, 2015 @ 6:27 pm
I would fully agree with that, actually. But then, we’ve both always agreed that personal revelation trumps both authority and reason. We just differ downstream from that point.
Comment by Jeff G — January 17, 2015 @ 6:47 pm
Good then the problem is solved for those who successfully seek spiritual witness and I particularly like the study it out in your mind; then you must ask approach to obtaining spiritual witness which obviously includes reason.
But that leaves a dilemma for those who do not have access to spiritual witness especially given the church’s controversial history and doctrine including doctrine reversals and other inconsistencies. Some would solve this by arguing for rote obedience but I would argue the church’s history argues against rote obedience.
Comment by Howard — January 17, 2015 @ 7:00 pm
“Some would solve this by arguing for rote obedience but I would argue the church’s history argues against rote obedience.”
But isn’t the point that arguing (as an appeal to universal reason) is running up against church authority? In other words, we are running the risk that the church history you speak of might be a true revelation that is being accepted as false?
Thus, we are forced to confront the original question: if we haven’t received a definite spiritual witness either way, are we more afraid of false revelation being accepted as true or about a true revelation being accepted as false?
This probably just is a way of describing the difference between our two ways of prioritizing reason and authority.
Comment by Jeff G — January 17, 2015 @ 7:22 pm
Well reason can prevent Mountain Meadow Massacres and the deaths of the Willie and Martin Handcart Cos. and the political extremes of Ezra Taft Benson and the failure of Prop. 8. Are these kind of failures worth the cohesiveness and mindlessness of rote obedience?
Comment by Howard — January 17, 2015 @ 7:41 pm
If, as unreasonable as it might seem to people such as yourself, these things actually were true revelations from God, then many people would say “yes”.
Of course there the dilemma I bring up isn’t really an all or nothing issue. I merely wanted to highlight the fact that when we dismiss cases like the ones you bring up, we are running the risk of rejecting true revelation as false even if we might like to pretend that the risk isn’t real. The whole point is that both risks are always present.
Comment by Jeff G — January 17, 2015 @ 7:47 pm
both risks are always present. I agree.
Comment by Howard — January 17, 2015 @ 7:51 pm
Jeff G.
Nice to see you back.
Just one historical point about the enlightenment. There were different strands of the enlightenment and many of them, such as Voltaire, were quite supportive of the authority of the king, over against other forms of authority, so I don’t think it is fair to say that the enlightenment was against authority per se.
In fact, much of the enlightenment thrust towards rationalizing society and promoting “civilization” is about authority.
There are reasons for opposing authority in religion for its systematizing effects apart from reasons having to do with denying revelation.
Correlation, for example, seems to be more a product of enlightenment rationalization and disenchantment than in support of revelation.
Comment by Martin James — January 18, 2015 @ 10:28 am
I agree with a lot that you’re saying.
You’re right that Enlightenment is not against all kinds of authority. However, the movement most definitely is characterized by a transformation (at minimum) of authority based in ordination and revelation to an authority based in reason and expertise. It is for this reason that many Enlightenment figures follow Plato in being suspicious of Democracy since the masses either could not or chose not to put in the work necessarily to reason properly.
I also think that correlation is a move in the direction you suggest, although I think something like it is necessary for a literate, cosmopolitan membership to move past and forget the revelations of the past in order to make room for future revelation.
Comment by Jeff G — January 18, 2015 @ 11:22 am
Likewise, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I just think the structure and scale of modern organizations entangle the church with expertise and modernism and away from the personal charisma that is part of pre-modern leadership, even if that religious charisma was based on a reputation for and examples of righteousness.
Comment by Martin James — January 18, 2015 @ 3:07 pm
I’m not sure I agree with that relationship between pre-modern authority, charisma and righteousness.
For starters, I’ve always been a little suspicious of “charisma” as an explanation or grounding for authority. My idea of authority is that some persons are placed under a moral obligation to follow or obey an authority figure, whereas my idea of charisma is that people follow or obey an “authority” figure without any kind of moral obligation to do so.
Second, I think that within a pre-modern, largely illiterate society, abuses of authority are far more of a danger to the followers than incompetence was. This, I suggest, explains the tight connection between righteousness/worthiness and authority – the latter is a pre-condition for the latter, but this does not mean that authority just is a kind of charismatic righteousness.
I’m not sure if we’re really disagreeing at this point, but I would be interested in your take.
Comment by Jeff G — January 19, 2015 @ 10:36 am
” My idea of authority is that some persons are placed under a moral obligation to follow or obey an authority figure, whereas my idea of charisma is that people follow or obey an “authority” figure without any kind of moral obligation to do so.”
I guess where I’m coming from is that in the “real world” (and I realize that I’m more interested in the real world than you are) it is very hard to distinguish the two. Certainly, there are very few historical examples of a moral authority apart from considerable real world power.
I used charisma but I don’t have a great word for what I’m trying to put a name on. But its something like “anti-bureaucracy”. You are very invested in hierarchical as part of God’s plan and wan to use an historical understanding of authority as opposed to neutral reason to allow people to get to that place.
I believe that formal hierarchical structures very modern and while government and armies and churches have always had hierarchy, they were also subject to replacement at the top by a person of considerable charisma. In Chinese terms the “mandate of heaven” goes with whoever happens to actually get power.
In intuitive terms, it is just impossible for me to ever see a bureaucracy as on God’s side. It just goes against both modern and pre-modern notions of the good. Its why I’m more on the look out for priestcraft than you.
In theory you can split up authority into a God-created moral obligation separate from the personal power. In practice, the moral authorities delivered using power (including God’s) or else they lost authority.
This probably didn’t clarify that much buts that is ust because our concerns are a bit different. We both think authority has authority, I’m just more willing to say by their empirical rather than titular fruits shall you know them.
Comment by Martin James — January 19, 2015 @ 1:46 pm
“Which is worse, false revelations being accepted as true or true revelations being rejected as false?”
I’ve probably said it before on here, but it seems that this becomes less of a dichotomy if we are simply more honest about revelation, are willing to adjust our culture, and not use authority to try to standardize opinion. We create our own problems. A person like me is willing to submit to an authority acting properly in his capacity (to an extent). And if that authority appeals to a higher authority, such as God, it should be very clear and presented in an unambiguous way. I don’t really fear rejecting true revelations because those should be identifiable.
Comment by Pierce — January 19, 2015 @ 4:13 pm
“I don’t really fear rejecting true revelations”
Until God crushes you for your insolence and sends you to the pits of hell. Otherwise, you are right.
Comment by jettboy — January 19, 2015 @ 11:10 pm
Finally, the voice of experience.
Comment by Martin James — January 20, 2015 @ 7:07 am
Martin,
I’m utterly shocked that you think that 1) I, the pragmatist, am not all that concerned about real world applications and 2) that I’m not on the look out for priestcraft. I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more emphatically.
(The second one is especially tiresome to me, but not because of you. On quite a few occasions when people have labeled my position “authority worship” or “morally troubling” I have explained that a) just because reason is not a righteous way of constraining priesthood authority does not mean there are no righteous constraints at all upon it, and b) overcoming an exaggerated hostility to any and all authority hardly constitutes authority-worship. When I ask why they insist on labeling me the way they do in spite of all these claims that I have repeatedly put forth, they simply abandon the conversation. Hence the tiresome frustration.)
Comment by Jeff G — January 20, 2015 @ 10:48 am
OK then. Please list for me the real world hierarchies that you trust.
Comment by Martin James — January 20, 2015 @ 11:15 am
So, are the anonymous essays on Lds.org priestcraft?
Comment by Martin James — January 20, 2015 @ 11:16 am
Jettboy, I should probably add the word “inadvertently” to “reject true revelations.” I suppose I reject plenty of revelations through sinning to one degree or another.
Comment by Pierce — January 20, 2015 @ 12:09 pm
But seriously, in the real world terms what weight do you give individual choice versus aggregate forces in the trends you discuss. Why do you it possible to recover a pre-enlightenment perspective?
I don’t think it’s easy to see what’s possible, but the past seems unrecoverable to me.
Comment by Martin James — January 20, 2015 @ 12:15 pm
” Please list for me the real world hierarchies that you trust.”
I think covenanting to consecrating everything we have and are to a hierarchy is a pretty serious form of trust.
” the past seems unrecoverable to me”
I’ve never seen such a stark rejection of the possibility of a restoration – which is pretty much defined as recovering some aspect of the past.
Peirce,
“I don’t really fear rejecting true revelations because those should be identifiable.”
Identifiable by whom? Isn’t that the whole point of personal revelation, that the leader don’t have to say – or even know themselves – when they are revealing God’s will?
Comment by Jeff G — January 20, 2015 @ 5:15 pm
“I think covenanting to consecrating everything we have and are to a hierarchy is a pretty serious form of trust.”
Yes, or one could view it as a sacrifice.
“I’ve never seen such a stark rejection of the possibility of a restoration – which is pretty much defined as recovering some aspect of the past.”
I’m mainly disputing the aspects that you wan’t restored. There’s usually some New with the Everlasting.
I get your points and hope they help some people.
Comment by Martin James — January 20, 2015 @ 6:02 pm
Well that’s good.
Just for clarification (I think you get this, but for others who might not) I, in no sense whatsoever, want to bring back authority that is enforced by physical coercion like unto a state. I think this was the biggest problem with the Catholic Church – when it began to enforce their claims to authority by physically coercive means. Good riddance to all of that!
Comment by Jeff G — January 20, 2015 @ 7:15 pm
A couple ideas about why we approach this differently even though I think we are agreed I think about the authority of authority.
The first is that I’m less confident that Reason can be separated from our everyday thinking and decisions. I understand that your issue is not with Reason but reason, but I think we are always using both in understanding authority. The way people are and decide is much more a tangled web and that we can’t separate the Reason from the Obedience. What looks like Obedience is often just people using Reason in the same way for example.
The second area of a difference in focus is that I see our extended sensory abilities through technology as an additional tool in understanding the world ( even a thinning of the veil) much more than I see them as a distraction from righteousness brought on by Man or Satan.
This may be the road to perdition, but it seems to me that God really, really wants is to know more about his creation than he did in the past.
And a return to a prior conception of authority doesn’t help me figure out why God is making this knowledge of existence beyond Earth available for us.
You’ve convinced me of the usefulness of your project and it’s audience.
I’m trying to get over that it doesn’t help me with mine.
You’ve probably even convinced me that Mormonism isn’t on point for this question, but you can at least give me that the day may come when it is on point.
Thanks for your posts and comments.
Comment by Martin James — January 21, 2015 @ 1:24 pm
“Identifiable by whom? Isn’t that the whole point of personal revelation, that the leader don’t have to say – or even know themselves – when they are revealing God’s will?
Well, that’s where you and I use different words for that. And I think maybe I should lay off commenting until authority isn’t the topic.
In those cases, I think there is a difference between revelation and inspiration. The Spirit can motivate a bishop to say something, or an Apostle to say something, and the same Spirit will carry the message to the heart of the listener. What happens if you don’t abide by it? Well I don’t think think it will affect your salvation, but it may have had countless benefits if you would have followed it, and possibly cursings for not following it.
Conversely, I use the word revelation when we see the Lord working through a prophet to give instruction to his people, usually collectively. Kind of in the style of D&C, Official Declarations, Samuel the Lamanite, etc.
In this class of revelation, there are no bones about where the person is claiming the words are coming from. It’s more than a thought or a good idea. It’s more than a funny anecdote that illustrates a point. These should be identifiable by everyone. If you are actually revealing God’s will and not your own, why keep it a secret or shroud it in assumption? By the scriptural standard, you don’t. By our cultural standard, we do.
Comment by Pierce — January 21, 2015 @ 1:33 pm
Martin,
“The way people are and decide is much more a tangled web and that we can’t separate the Reason from the Obedience.”
I don’t care about how they make decisions. I’ve only ever talked about how they justify decisions.
“I see our extended sensory abilities through technology as an additional tool in understanding the world ( even a thinning of the veil)”
I would never in a million years agree that this is a case of thinning the veil, however, I don’t have any problem with science at all. You think I am saying “science isn’t true and therefore its bad.” What I’m really saying is that science is really good, but no amount of goodness adds up to truth.
“You’ve convinced me of the usefulness of your project and it’s audience.”
I’m honestly shocked! I think that’s a big concession and a great sign of good will.
Comment by Jeff G — January 21, 2015 @ 2:43 pm
Pierce,
“And I think maybe I should lay off commenting until authority isn’t the topic.”
Hahaha. Don’t worry, you’ve shown much more patience with my approach to the subject than most. :)
“I think there is a difference between revelation and inspiration.”
A large part of my project has been tearing down this distinction since I think it was an integral part of why I left the church. (I actually gave a Sunstone presentation in which I explored the distinction right around that crucial time in my life.) Now I feel that while there might be some sort of distinction between the two, it’s blurry and not at all important.
Comment by Jeff G — January 21, 2015 @ 2:47 pm
Jeff G.,
Shockingly enough, I’ve always commented in good will and to learn.
We are like oblique reflections, mirror images that don’t line up. For example, I’m more likely to say.”What I’m really saying is that science is really truthful, but no amount of truthfulness adds up to goodness.
and to your “I would never in a million years agree that this is a case of thinning the veil” I would say “that’s your reason talking about your experience not your experience itself.”
and to “I don’t care about how they make decisions. I’ve only ever talked about how they justify decisions.”
I’d say never complain, never explain. To me, justification is usually a fairly uninteresting rationalization.
I hope I’m not burning up any good will; its just fascinating how different all of us are.
Comment by Martin James — January 21, 2015 @ 3:08 pm
“A large part of my project has been tearing down this distinction since I think it was an integral part of why I left the church
It may be that your experience has brought you to an understanding that works for you, but not for everyone. It’s kind of like an alcoholic who needs to completely avoid people, places, and things in order to keep himself sober, while a person who is not an alcoholic can have a beer or be in a bar without getting drunk. Your approach may be needed to help keep yourself engaged in the church, but I think it has some gaping holes for those who believe in a balance.
A balance is needed in order to account for the problems that come from assuming revelation, while still accepting that revelation does come through those channels, and that this is still a human institution. While the church won’t relinquish (for lack of a better word) its PSR position for the President, I think it has phased out a lot of the rhetoric and quietly disavowed some of the misconceptions of past leaders. How we view the past is how I view the present, but to me it’s a phenomenon that others won’t touch it.
My final thought here is this: if your connection with heaven is such that you receive personal revelation for every kind of idea, teaching, advice, etc., and it stands starkly apart from your reasoning processes, then I salute you. I think you have a gift or a sensitivity that I myself don’t possess to that degree. I have found that I have been directed in some things, felt inspired often, and felt the Spirit enlightening my mind. But quite frankly, I have not experienced heavenly manifestations about things like drinking caffeine or Adam-God.
Comment by Pierce — January 22, 2015 @ 1:57 pm
“It may be that your experience has brought you to an understanding that works for you, but not for everyone.”
I completely agree. No doubt there are tensions between what I say and what many people believe which is kind of the point. I do not think those holes are gaping, I just think many people do not like how I’ve plugged them.
I know it might start up a tangential thread I can’t help but notice an assumption that you seem to presuppose. You seem to suggest that inasmuch as a leader is not acting by revelation (whether it’s clear or not isn’t relevant), then he is no different from any other person in the congregation and as such ought to be subjected to a peer-review of sorts. I find no support for this assumption. I think a fairer reading would allow that even when our ordained leaders are not acting by way of revelation, they are still our ordained leaders that are set apart from the rest of the congregation. This third category (that I see you denying) is a big part of the reason why the distinction between revelation and inspiration simply isn’t all that important.
Comment by Jeff G — January 22, 2015 @ 2:54 pm
“…then he is no different from any other person in the congregation and as such ought to be subjected to a peer-review of sorts.”
It’s not that he is no different or that all of his decisions are up for scrutiny. I think he has the keys to lead the ward, much the same way you describe it. I personally haven’t turned down a calling or a request to serve from my priesthood leaders because I have sustained them as my leaders and they were acting in their calling. But that doesn’t give them carte blanche to try to control behavior or ideas based on what they fancy, under the auspice of authority. And here is where I have never really seen a solid acknowledgement from you, with the exception of personal revelation, which is a real dicey thing to kind of just throw around (again, I just may not be as sensitive to heavenly manifestations as you).
I believe they have a certain stewardship to bring people to Christ, provide ordinances, teach pure doctrine, receive revelation for the whole group, and facilitate the daily affairs of a ward/stake/etc. At some point that radius of stewardship ends, though there hasn’t really been hard lines drawn. But the scriptures do address things like declaring more or less than this, unrighteous dominion, he who is greatest shall be least, etc.
And, with respect, I don’t think you’ve really plugged the holes. For example, with the new church essays, I see reason trumping authority–with the church’s media department disavowing past statements made by church authorities. That regular, reasoning members came to those conclusions years ago amounts to no sin, in my opinion.
Comment by Pierce — January 26, 2015 @ 12:50 pm
“But that doesn’t give them carte blanche to try to control behavior or ideas based on what they fancy, under the auspice of authority.”
I have pushing back against this over and over again, in so many ways. I’ve said that the we can make appeals further up the chain of priesthood authority all the way up to Christ Himself. Given that priesthood authorities cannot physically compel obedience, this is a HUGE constraint upon them.
“the church’s media department disavowing past statements made by church authorities”
Us listening to living authorities (or the writers that living authorities endorse) instead of past authorities which no longer have stewardship over us is hardly a case of reason trumping authority.
To be honest, I think that you and I endorse and condemn almost the same set of behaviors, we just interpret those endorsements and condemnations in different ways. At least this is what I have actively been assuming about average reader of this blog. This is why I’m not really arguing for people to obey their leaders any more or less…. only to look at their obedience is a way that I think and hope prevents reasoned intellectualism from leading them astray.
Comment by Jeff G — January 26, 2015 @ 1:08 pm
Jeff,
I know you’ve said that over and over. Not only is it unrealistic, but I don’t think that things are designed to move their way “up” in the church.
It’s unrealistic in that you can’t personally make an appeal on every bit of questionable doctrine or every mandate given by a local leader. And who are you personally going to appeal to over an issue with a past or present apostle? Say it’s 1977 and I don’t buy into the idea that black people are part of a cursed lineage or were disloyal in the pre-existence. My reason tells me that it’s bunk. But, those ideas were taught by apostles–mouthpieces! You’re telling me that in order to disregard that, I need to go through an appeals process, and possibly all the way to the apostles (who support the idea)? This is one of many holes that you haven’t plugged with your hasty formula. I mentioned the other one about the SP regulating sexual activity in a marriage before, but I didn’t get a realistic resolution from you. Your position is that before you can carry on, you must go through an appeals process all the way up the chain of command. Again, not only is this unrealistic but it wasn’t really designed to be that way–with perhaps the exception of things that you can’t necessarily shirk without there being an incident (like a bishop asking an EQP to do something in his calling that he disagrees with). Your approach looks good in writing, but in application I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it done, nor has it been promoted, nor do I even feel compelled to do it.
I feel like I’ve beat this drum too much, so I apologize. Personally I would love to see a nice big post directly addressing the weaknesses of this approach. But in the end we have agreed on the big stuff.
BTW I was going back and reading your guys’ past interactions with the Mormon Coffee guys and I must say, it was really entertaining. You crushed it.
Comment by Pierce — January 26, 2015 @ 5:04 pm
I think we’re talking about two very different things. My model most definitely is realistic when we’re talking about the power that our leaders have over us. Our leaders can’t force us to do anything that we are convinced is wrong, so going up the chain of command to seek personal revelation is about as straight forward as it gets.
If, on the other hand, we’re talking about how our leaders interact with and deal with other people (policies such as the priesthood ban are a perfect example), then you’re right, I have nothing to say. Indeed, this is the whole point of my model since neither of us is authorized to receive any revelation on the subject at all. Our voices are simply not needed “higher up” the chain, if only because they can never be anything more than the philosophies of men (or women). We are completely free to not believe and not affirmatively teach the priesthood ban… but we are not authorized to receive revelation for, and thus teach our views on the ban to other people over which we have no stewardship.
In other words, the hole you see is that through which public revelation flows and I have no inclination to plug that hole. My whole argument amounts to the claim that all such attempts at plugging it by human reason stop up the flow of revelation altogether.
Sadly, I’m not sure what Mormon Coffee guys you’re talking about. Are you sure it wasn’t Geoff J? (Yes, he is a different guy, and we all miss him here, at his own blog.)
Comment by Jeff G — January 26, 2015 @ 9:10 pm
Is Geoff gone or is he (like I’ve been) simply too busy to blog much anymore?
Comment by Clark — January 26, 2015 @ 11:17 pm
From what I can tell, he keeps an eye on what goes on here, but he just doesn’t have the same desire to blog that he used to. Occasionally, he will ban commenters that are bugging him jump in on a discussion that has to do with the blog itself, but that’s about it.
Comment by Jeff G — January 27, 2015 @ 1:16 pm