Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[Brade]

Part of the problem is that the LDS Church is caught indeterminately between two epistemologies. One is the mystical epistemology, which says that gospel and spiritual knowledge are obtained mystically through prayer and the "burning bosom." This mystical epistemology creates a direct line of knowledge between God and the Mormon, which does not pass through any human intermediary. This is the epistemology represented by the First Vision, and through "Moroni's challenge."

On the other hand, the church has a very different epistemology which says that gospel and spiritual truth is obtained through "the Prophet" who acts as mediator between God and the Mormon. It says that all knowledge not obtained through "the Prophet" is suspect, that only "the Prophet" can guide us to truth, and that only "the Prophet" can answer our questions regarding the meaning of scripture.

These two conflicting models of epistemology are often at odds with each other, and it is hard to defend such a paradoxical theory of knowledge.

I agree that those two modes can be in conflict, but I don't go as far as to say that they are inherently paradoxical (that is, with each other), and I think they can work together nicely. I thought you were going to go a different direction, one which I've outlined before. I think your first category can be further divided into two types.

The first type of mystical experience is that one gets direct propositional content from God. Propositions are, in a sense, beamed directly into the mind, grasped and assented to. The second type is indirect. One has an ineffable mystical experience whilst performing a religious activity and the association between the mystical experience and the religious activity somehow picks out specific religious claims and grants the subject reason to believe that the claims are true.

Most people in the Church describe experiences of the second type - e.g. "I had a powerful feeling while reading the Book of Mormon, therefore I know the Book of Mormon is true"). My own experiences were only ever associative in this way. In fact, it seems to me that a lot of Church material advances the second type as being the nature of most mystical experience (this isn't clear cut, as the language used by people to describe any such model is usually vague and ambiguous). The problem with this indirect, associative model is sorting out why certain propositions in the environment at the time of any putative experience of this sort should be given preference over any others. For example, why, upon having a powerful experience while reading King Benjamin's speech, should I conclude that the Book of Mormon is what the Church claims it is and not that merely some general non-religious-specific principles, like charity, are right?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Brade

[DBMormon]

But to bring this back around, I wouldn't have the Church focus its time on the prickly historical issues

I wouldn't either, just acknowledge them along the way through the curriculum

teach primary in a lesson of the Joseph getting the plates that he also used a seer stone found while digging a well. one sentence.

in YM/YW talk about how joseph used to treasure hunt in a lesson on how the Lord wants us to spend our time and correlate that with Joseph having to give this endeavor up

Mention the Kinderhook plates in a lesson of Holy ghost and all of satans imposters to the spirit to. just quick thoughts... I have to run. check in later

[why me]

On the other hand, the church has a very different epistemology which says that gospel and spiritual truth is obtained through "the Prophet" who acts as mediator between God and the Mormon. It says that all knowledge not obtained through "the Prophet" is suspect, that only "the Prophet" can guide us to truth, and that only "the Prophet" can answer our questions regarding the meaning of scripture.

This is not true at all. If this were true, it could be claimed that the lds were in a cult. The prophet has direct revelation for the church. However, each member can receive revelation for his or her life and for their family. And this revelation is often personal. The prophet can speak for the church when he claims revelation or speaks as a prophet. Most of what the prophet says during the day or for that matter any GA is personal opinion.

[why me]

I wouldn't either, just acknowledge them along the way through the curriculum

teach primary in a lesson of the Joseph getting the plates that he also used a seer stone found while digging a well. one sentence.

in YM/YW talk about how joseph used to treasure hunt in a lesson on how the Lord wants us to spend our time and correlate that with Joseph having to give this endeavor up

Mention the Kinderhook plates in a lesson of Holy ghost and all of satans imposters to the spirit to. just quick thoughts... I have to run. check in later

This can be done and should be done. Most lds history that the critics nitpick is often very faith promoting if interpreted differently.

[Brade]

This is not true at all. If this were true, it could be claimed that the lds were in a cult. The prophet has direct revelation for the church. However, each member can receive revelation for his or her life and for their family. And this revelation is often personal. The prophet can speak for the church when he claims revelation or speaks as a prophet. Most of what the prophet says during the day or for that matter any GA is personal opinion.

Can a member receive revelation that his or her family should believe that the Book of Mormon is not a history of any real people?

[Kevin Christensen]

Personally, I love LDS epistomology, but it happens that what I see is quite different that what Bade sees. And as a direct consequence, what I see in the LDS faith community is quite different as well.

On the spiritual side of things, rather than restrict and over simplify it down to "burning in the bosom," I've found around 30 distinct ways that our scriptures describe the operation of the spirit. I found that I could organize the according to whether they manifested primarily as feelings (peace, joy, burning, guilt, consolation, calmness, enlarged soul, etc.) or as thinking (enlightenment, understanding, opened eyes, righteous judgement, etc.) I could also approach things from the perspective of comparative religious experience, following Ian Barbour's categories. (From my essay on A Model of Mormon Spiritual Experience.

Those I shall discuss in this paper (following Barbour) can be seen as generally framing a movement:

(a) From responses to external impressions regarding:

Order and creativity in the world

The common mythic symbols and patterns underlying most religious traditions

Key historical events that define separate traditions and bind individuals

(b) Through the innermost experiences of the individual:

Numinous awe and reverence

Mystical union

Moral obligation

Reorientation and Reconciliation with respect to personal sin, guilt, and weakness, the existence of evil, suffering, and death, and tensions between science and faith.

© Then returning to the external world as human action:

Personal dialogue where you begin interpret external events as God speaking to you, and you answer through your own actions.

Social and Ritual behavior

These matters cannot objectively prove the existence of a God (whether personal or impersonal), but, as I hope to demonstrate, they do constitute the core of religious experience for believers. They provide the ground of experience on which reasoned and feeling assessments of the validity and worth of faith are based. They encompass the ways in which spirituality is manifest in history and symbol. They are the wine—and doctrine the wine-bottles. To argue and contend about doctrine is to emphasize the wine skin over the wine. In Alma’s terms, it is to emphasize what you think you “know” over what ultimately gives “cause to believe” (Alma 32:18).

And on claim that the church "says that all knowledge not obtained through "the Prophet" is suspect, that only "the Prophet" can guide us to truth, and that only "the Prophet" can answer our questions regarding the meaning of scripture," I'm thinking, "What?"

I've written at length comparing Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions to Alma 32, and find a lovely fit in epistomology. Kuhn talks about how paradigms can be assessed in terms of puzzle definitions and solution, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise. Alma 32 does the same.

D&C 1 expressly says of the LDS leaders : "inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed, And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble, they might be made strong and blessed from on high to recieve knowledge from time to time." Some of that chastening says "Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning even by study and ALSO by faith." (D&C 88:118). There are individuals of course, who look solely a favored prophet, such generalizations do not account for what the scriptures declare and what a wider survey of LDS membership demonstrates.

Dehlin's list of course involves a great deal of self-selection. And in every instance there are very well informed people who know about all of the same information and yet have a different perspective on it.

So understanding what makes the different perspectives ought to be essential. Dehlin's perspective nowadays involves labeling "apologists" as applying "mental gymnastics" and "ad hominem." Mental gymnastics is not a sport for mental couch potatoes. And the charge of "ad hominem" has itself become and ad hominem argument, that directs attention away from the actual perspectives offered.

I've found a great deal of insight into what makes perspectives from Kuhn's explanation of how paradigms are established by means of "standard examples." What stories or issues does a person rely on to make general statements? How generally do they actually apply? How comprehensive and coherent are they? If someone like Palmer, for instance, makes general statements about the witnesses experience, does he do so based on first hand, eye-witness accounts? Or do they have a pedigree that comes late and has passed from hand to hand? How compehensively do flat statements about "steel" and "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon define the problem and the overall state of the evidence? How is it, for example, that Dehlin can talk to Michael Coe about the Book of Mormon for five hours without once ever quoting a Book of Mormon passage? And why are most of the standard examples discussed from the 1940s (Brodie) and Fifties (Ferguson)?

And of course, there are things like the Perry Scheme. There are nine stages in the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. At what stage are then individuals selecting from to establish how Mormons in general think? What stage do individual critics display in making their complaints?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 20, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[DBMormon]

That is an accusation that can and will be made regardless of what the Church does. Even your proposal isn't impervious to that criticism. It is important that you understand this, and that you realize that it isn't the role of the Church to answer accusations. Rather, the role of the Church is to bring people to Christ and enable them to become like him.

I agree the church's role is to bring "ALL" unto christ..... but that needs to take on other tasks or at least deal with it differently when "SOME" are leaving for for reasons that could be prevented.... If they leave the church is not bringing them unto Christ. They may still find Christ or God in their own way but many who leave the LDS faith become unattached to any religion and even lose faith in God completely. the two phrases that goes through my head through this entire thread is "preventable losses" and "Unacceptable losses"

Book of Abraham - during the intro to studying this book in Gospel Doctrine just a blip about what is known and what isn't.

Polygamy/Polyandry - Seminary - while studying old testament and again while studying Jacob in BOM in adult Sunday School

Blacks and the Priesthood - I did a lesson on this in youth Sunday School for the older group. I talked about it in the context of how our leaders recieve revelation

DNA and the Book of Mormon - use this topic to clarify the premise that all indians are Laminites and help memebers to understand while this may or may not be true, it is not doctrine

Masonic influences in the temple ceremony - Temple Prep class. The temple is foreign to almost all until this happens and they recieve their own endowment.

Multiple, conflicting versions of the First Vision - bit and pieces of each can be used throughout curriculum so that it is not firiegn. That one comes to assume Joseph told his story multiple times in multiple settings to different kinds of peopl

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon (e.g. horses, steel, etc.) discuss at times throught BOM classes in seminary and Sunday School in the sense of what we know and what we don't. don't let people get caught off guard later in life

Past church positions on science, age of the earth, evolution, etc. - lesson on what a prophet/apostle is and isn't - I did this in a ward council rencently discussing Elder Christofferson's recent conference talk - fifth Sunday using his talk has been recommended

Changes in the temple ceremony - again we are led by revelation - perhaps a brief mention and principle taught when we discuss in temple prep

Issues with the authenticity or credibility of the priesthood restoration - I am unaware of the problems with this topic

Joseph's use of peep stones in the translation of the Book of Mormon- already discussed

Adam-god theory - again lesson on what is doctrine and prophets are not perfect - plenty of bible instances to teach a principle and many ways to make it spiritual and get people to rely more on their own spirituality

Mountain meadows massacre - brief synopsis in D&C curriculum

Loss of Credibility of the Three Witnesses - use several of their staements in teaching about the testimony of BOM and that should reinforce this is not an issue

Kinderhook Plates - already discussed

Joseph Smith's history of treasure digging - already discussed

[wenglund]

As one who has effectively left the Church, though not technically, I think Wade has the right idea. The Church, the people who administer in it, ought to spend their time shoring up the relevant sort of spirituality. I even happen to think that the academic topic of spirituality ought to receive more apologetic attention.

I think that the apologetic project often amounts to a waste at best and a detriment at worst by focusing too much energy on quibbling over this or that historical matter and by advancing what often enough amount to nothing more than mere possibilities. I take this view because of my own experience, which is that I was happy to go along with the Church, despite being familiar with much of the controversial historical matters, so long as I accepted, or at least seriously entertained, the sort of epistemology advanced by the Church. Once I found myself sufficiently at odds with that sort of epistemology, the history, in a manner of speaking, was allowed to do its work.

Or, to put it another way, by rejecting the Church's claims for the sorts beliefs and commitments one should adopt from certain sorts of experiences, I was left with the history to assess whether I should believe the Church's foundational claims and be committed to the Church with my time and money; and, clearly, I don't believe, absent spiritual conviction, that the best available historical evidence weighs in favor of belief and commitment.

But to bring this back around, I wouldn't have the Church focus its time on the prickly historical issues because I think a better strategy for the health of the Church (that is, its members) is to strengthen commitment to the relevant sort of religious epistemology; and I think if people are sincerely committed to the right sort of religious epistemology, then historical evidence be damned.

Exactly!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Part of the problem is that the LDS Church is caught indeterminately between two epistemologies. One is the mystical epistemology, which says that gospel and spiritual knowledge are obtained mystically through prayer and the "burning bosom." This mystical epistemology creates a direct line of knowledge between God and the Mormon, which does not pass through any human intermediary. This is the epistemology represented by the First Vision, and through "Moroni's challenge."

On the other hand, the church has a very different epistemology which says that gospel and spiritual truth is obtained through "the Prophet" who acts as mediator between God and the Mormon. It says that all knowledge not obtained through "the Prophet" is suspect, that only "the Prophet" can guide us to truth, and that only "the Prophet" can answer our questions regarding the meaning of scripture.

These two conflicting models of epistemology are often at odds with each other, and it is hard to defend such an ambivalent theory of knowledge.

First, they aren't two separate epistemologicies, but rather two of many methodologies within the LDS Epistemology.

Second, to those of us who correctly understand the gospel, these methodologies are complimentary and to varying degrees provide a check and balance.

You, of course, are entitled to your oft idiosyncratic perception. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

First percentage is it was a factor in their faith crisis the second is it was a primary factor in their crisis

Book of Abraham 81% 26%

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. To keep things somewhat manageable, let's take the first item in Dehlin's list and have you look through the Church curriculum for each age group and have you tell us at what point(s) you would advise mentioning whatever it is you think ought to be mentioned about the Book of Abraham, and how it is to be mentioned.

I believe this is a critical exercise that may help you to think things through more in-depth and hopefully get the point I have been trying to make.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 20, 2012 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

look through the Church curriculum for each age group and have you tell us at what point(s) you would advise mentioning whatever it is you think ought to be mentioned about the Book of Abraham, and how it is to be mentioned.

This will take time so I hope you have patience.... I don't. I am from the fast food, get it now, throw it away when it is broken generation. In the mean time I will conitnue to reply here as we go

[wenglund]

Also why the church is in charge of spiritual there has to be in ones mind enough reason to see something as plausible. Santa Claus for me was a very spiritual thing and yet once proof tipped the scale then I could no longer believe. Many see in these issues and the way they are handled, enough proof or evidence to discontinue belief..

Plausibility is determined in at least two general ways: God's ways and man's ways.

The gospel is rightly designed to use God's ways (Moroni 10 and Alma 32) to determine the plausibility of the spiritual. This is based on the reasonable assumption that God knows better than man about the spiritual and what works best in terms of the spiritual.

If people discontinue belief in the spiritual, it is likely that, as Brade astutely points out, they have either lost trust in God's ways and/or have used and prefered man's ways instead of God's ways--they are mistakenly using the ways and things of man to judge God and the things of God. In short, people lose belief in the things of God by losing trust in the ways of God and/or by trusting more in the ways of man, all in contravention to the design of the gospel.

Yet, that seems to be the very thing you are suggesting that the Church do.

Let me ask you a question - Why am I still in the church and active and have a testimony in the midst of these struggles and others have simply picked up and left. Many of these folks loved the church, very involved, had spiritual experiences... What is the difference... I don't know but curious over your answer(s)

It is not my place to judge. However, I suspect it may have something to do with you still having more trust in God and the ways of God than them. It may also be that your use of, or the results of your use of the ways of man, may have been more compatible with the ways of God than them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 21, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

This will take time so I hope you have patience.... I don't. I am from the fast food, get it now, throw it away when it is broken generation. In the mean time I will conitnue to reply here as we go.

I think the plausible results of the exercise may be sufficiently illuminating as to warrant my patience. So, take all the time you need. Feel free to post bits and pieces of your work as you proceed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Also, I would encourage you to enlist the help of other like-minded advocates (John Dehlin et. al.) so as to ease your labor and hopefully bring my point home to more people.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

Also, I would encourage you to enlist the help of other like-minded advocates (John Dehlin et. al.) so as to ease your labor and hopefully bring my point home to more people.

I have no connection to these like minded fellows. I will tackle it alone, and though I will work with the B of A, it from my viewpoint appears to be the hardest one to do that with but I love challenges.

Edited April 20, 2012 by reelmormon

[altersteve]

I wouldn't either, just acknowledge them along the way through the curriculum

teach primary in a lesson of the Joseph getting the plates that he also used a seer stone found while digging a well. one sentence.

in YM/YW talk about how joseph used to treasure hunt in a lesson on how the Lord wants us to spend our time and correlate that with Joseph having to give this endeavor up

Mention the Kinderhook plates in a lesson of Holy ghost and all of satans imposters to the spirit to. just quick thoughts... I have to run. check in later

My bishop last week gave a talk in sacrament meeting and in it he mentioned the Kirtland Safety Society, and used it as a parable to teach that though the Church is led by human beings who will screw up and make mistakes, Christ still puts His trust in such fallible creatures to lead His Church. We must therefore learn to place our trust in Him, because only He can make us perfect. I thought it was very profound.

[Brade]

Plausibility is determined in at least two general ways: God's ways and man's ways.

The gospel is rightly designed to use God's ways (Moroni 10 and Alma 32) to determine the plausibility of the spiritual. This is based on the reasonable assumption that God knows better than man about the spiritual and what works best in terms of the spiritual.

If people discontinue belief in the spiritual, it is likely that, as Brade astutely points out, they have either lost trust in God's ways and/or have used and prefered man's ways instead of God's ways--they are mistakenly using the ways and things of man to judge God and the things of God. In short, people loose belief in the things of God by loosing trust in the ways of God and/or by trusting more in the ways of man, all in contravention to the design of the gospel.

Yet, that seems to be the very thing you are suggesting that the Church do.

It is not my place to judge. However, I suspect it may have something to do with you still having more trust in God and the ways of God than them. It may also be that your use of, or the results of your use of the ways of man, may have been more compatible with the ways of God than them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand this post wasn't directed at me, but I feel the need to chime in here and say that, though I understand why you put it the way you did (because you believe the sort of thinking at issue is God's way), I do not. It would be question begging to say to me "Brade, you abandoned God's way of thinking" since whether this mode of thought is indeed God's way is at issue.

[why me]

Can a member receive revelation that his or her family should believe that the Book of Mormon is not a history of any real people?

I don't think so. But one can receive a revelation or a spiritual confirmation that it is true. Such was the promise in the book of mormon. Now I do know who have claimed on the catholic board that they prayed and got a negative response. But I have to wonder if they sincerely prayed about the book or if they prayed at all about the book. I think that it would be the latter.

[DBMormon]

I don't think so. But one can receive a revelation or a spiritual confirmation that it is true. Such was the promise in the book of mormon. Now I do know who have claimed on the catholic board that they prayed and got a negative response. But I have to wonder if they sincerely prayed about the book or if they prayed at all about the book. I think that it would be the latter.

aren't we supposed to pray if these things are not true? and the holyghost shall manifest the truth of it unto you. the truth if it's not true.... lol just kidding play on words... Moroni 10:3-5

[why me]

I agree the church's role is to bring "ALL" unto christ..... but that needs to take on other tasks or at least deal with it differently when "SOME" are leaving for for reasons that could be prevented.... If they leave the church is not bringing them unto Christ. They may still find Christ or God in their own way but many who leave the LDS faith become unattached to any religion and even lose faith in God completely. the two phrases that goes through my head through this entire thread is "preventable losses" and "Unacceptable losses"

Book of Abraham - during the intro to studying this book in Gospel Doctrine just a blip about what is known and what isn't.

Polygamy/Polyandry - Seminary - while studying old testament and again while studying Jacob in BOM in adult Sunday School

Blacks and the Priesthood - I did a lesson on this in youth Sunday School for the older group. I talked about it in the context of how our leaders recieve revelation

DNA and the Book of Mormon - use this topic to clarify the premise that all indians are Laminites and help memebers to understand while this may or may not be true, it is not doctrine

Masonic influences in the temple ceremony - Temple Prep class. The temple is foreign to almost all until this happens and they recieve their own endowment.

Multiple, conflicting versions of the First Vision - bit and pieces of each can be used throughout curriculum so that it is not firiegn. That one comes to assume Joseph told his story multiple times in multiple settings to different kinds of peopl

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon (e.g. horses, steel, etc.) discuss at times throught BOM classes in seminary and Sunday School in the sense of what we know and what we don't. don't let people get caught off guard later in life

Past church positions on science, age of the earth, evolution, etc. - lesson on what a prophet/apostle is and isn't - I did this in a ward council rencently discussing Elder Christofferson's recent conference talk - fifth Sunday using his talk has been recommended

Changes in the temple ceremony - again we are led by revelation - perhaps a brief mention and principle taught when we discuss in temple prep

Issues with the authenticity or credibility of the priesthood restoration - I am unaware of the problems with this topic

Joseph's use of peep stones in the translation of the Book of Mormon- already discussed

Adam-god theory - again lesson on what is doctrine and prophets are not perfect - plenty of bible instances to teach a principle and many ways to make it spiritual and get people to rely more on their own spirituality

Mountain meadows massacre - brief synopsis in D&C curriculum

Loss of Credibility of the Three Witnesses - use several of their staements in teaching about the testimony of BOM and that should reinforce this is not an issue

Kinderhook Plates - already discussed

Joseph Smith's history of treasure digging - already discussed

The problem is: there isn't any one answer to the issues you have listed in your post. And the critics would be the first to argue what is said about these issues by the church with their own interpretations and accusations. And you would find yourself back to square one with how the church should acknowledge what they did just a little differently to accommodate the critic interpretation. It would never end.

However the creditability of the three witness and the other 8 witnesses are pretty much intact. The never denied what they saw or felt with their hands. However, when reading the critic sites one would get the impression that these men were duped, tricked and all denied their testimony. Not true. What should the church do? Accommodate the critics and their interpretation?

[why me]

aren't we supposed to pray if these things are not true? and the holyghost shall manifest the truth of it unto you. the truth if it's not true.... lol just kidding play on words... Moroni 10:3-5

Yea, but reading the comments by the mormon haters, I knew that they didn't pray over it nor did they read the book. Or if they did pray, it was a mocking prayer. When the heart is full of contention, difficult for the holy ghost to manifest himself.

[DBMormon]

The problem is: there isn't any one answer to the issues you have listed in your post. And the critics would be the first to argue what is said about these issues by the church with their own interpretations and accusations. And you would find yourself back to square one with how the church should acknowledge what they did just a little differently to accommodate the critic interpretation. It would never end.

However the creditability of the three witness and the other 8 witnesses are pretty much intact. The never denied what they saw or felt with their hands. However, when reading the critic sites one would get the impression that these men were duped, tricked and all denied their testimony. Not true. What should the church do? Accommodate the critics and their interpretation?

I don't need answers provided - just an acknowledgment of awareness of it.

Awareness is all I have asked... answers as most have stated are better provided by other organizations. FAIR SHIELDS FARMS ect...

Edited April 21, 2012 by reelmormon

[Cobalt-70]

This is not true at all. If this were true, it could be claimed that the lds were in a cult. The prophet has direct revelation for the church. However, each member can receive revelation for his or her life and for their family. And this revelation is often personal. The prophet can speak for the church when he claims revelation or speaks as a prophet. Most of what the prophet says during the day or for that matter any GA is personal opinion.

But there is a hierarchy. The father (never the mother, unless the father is absent) might be "the Prophet" of the family. But any knowledge received from God by the father is suspect to the extent that it contradicts knowledge received by "the Prophet" of the church. Ultimately, "the Prophet" of the church is said to have all the keys, including the right to define knowledge for the family and the individual. Thus, in this epistemology, knowledge and power are the same thing.

I say this epistemology conflicts with the mystical epistemology, because under the "follow the Prophet" epistemology, mystical experiences can be subversive--something that Joseph Smith soon found out after he moved from New York to Kirtland in early 1831, and he had to deal with people, other than himself, who were receiving revelations through their own seer stones.

[Cobalt-70]

I agree that those two modes can be in conflict, but I don't go as far as to say that they are inherently paradoxical (that is, with each other), and I think they can work together nicely. I thought you were going to go a different direction, one which I've outlined before. I think your first category can be further divided into two types.

They can only work together if one dominates the other. Either the hierarchy is supreme, or mystical experience is supreme, but not both. Today, the hierarchy is supreme, as it has been since early 1831.

The first type of mystical experience is that one gets direct propositional content from God. Propositions are, in a sense, beamed directly into the mind, grasped and assented to. The second type is indirect. One has an ineffable mystical experience whilst performing a religious activity and the association between the mystical experience and the religious activity somehow picks out specific religious claims and grants the subject reason to believe that the claims are true.

Most people in the Church describe experiences of the second type - e.g. "I had a powerful feeling while reading the Book of Mormon, therefore I know the Book of Mormon is true"). My own experiences were only ever associative in this way. In fact, it seems to me that a lot of Church material advances the second type as being the nature of most mystical experience (this isn't clear cut, as the language used by people to describe any such model is usually vague and ambiguous). The problem with this indirect, associative model is sorting out why certain propositions in the environment at the time of any putative experience of this sort should be given preference over any others. For example, why, upon having a powerful experience while reading King Benjamin's speech, should I conclude that the Book of Mormon is what the Church claims it is and not that merely some general non-religious-specific principles, like charity, are right?

Mormon leaders have made general comments about the first idea. This would be Smith's reference to "pure knowledge," and the contents of his dreams or visions like the First Vision and the visit of Moroni. Once in a while, you hear Mormons have dreams or visions, but it is very rare now. Most of our canon came the other way. In D&C 9, Smith acknowledged that his revelations worked by him figuring out ideas in his own mind, and then receiving a yes or no answer. It is, for sure, an imperfect epistemology, because "maybe," and "you're close, but let me suggest something slightly different..." are excluded as possible answers.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Xander]

Yea, but reading the comments by the mormon haters, I knew that they didn't pray over it nor did they read the book. Or if they did pray, it was a mocking prayer. When the heart is full of contention, difficult for the holy ghost to manifest himself.

Or when your mind is so full of judgment.

You're in no position to state, as a matter of fact, that these people didn't sincerely pray or read. This is just something Mormons like to tell themselves when faced with the undeniable fact that most people who take up the Mormon test of truth, don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries. I told myself the same thing when I was on my mission. Those who join are only those who really prayed and really read. But this is circular reasoning.

Heck I remember in the beginning I wanted the Church to be true so badly, that I deluded myself into thinking any little feeling I had at the time must have been God's answer. I thought the Joseph Smith experience was so cool, I wanted to experience something like it as well. I couldn't wait to go home and pray about it and I had absolute confidence that I'd receive some kind of undeniable experience. In hindsight, I felt nothing that had to be classified as "spiritual."

I confronted my bishop about this and then again when I was at the MTC, but I was always told that God's time isn't necessarily our time, and so he will answer me when he gets around to it. In the meantime, they had no problem with my belief that the Church was true, being based on other things (i.e. the Mormon family made me feel good, I liked the way they treated me, etc).