The Plan of Salvation: A Sufficient Theodicy

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I've listened to his whole audio where the Bushman quote was given, and I don't think it was materially being misrepresented.  I think the essence of the quote works in the way it was being used.  

I have heard it as a well and disagree.

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We have also seen in history how people who believe in nothing or believe only casually waste away. People want truth. To throw it out to appeal to those who do not accept it is to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I think this is a simplified misunderstanding of what people who "believe in nothing or believe only casually" really think and the complexity of what they are experiencing.  I could just as easily stereotype religious people, but its not fair to make these kinds of gross oversimplified stereotypes. 

[The Nehor]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I think this is a simplified misunderstanding of what people who "believe in nothing or believe only casually" really think and the complexity of what they are experiencing.  I could just as easily stereotype religious people, but its not fair to make these kinds of gross oversimplified stereotypes. 

It is a simplified understanding but we can only talk about situations like this in generalities unless we are dealing with one specific person..The Savior’s story about the seeds being planted is also a simplification so I am okay with that.

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think he is frustrated because Bushman, who is LDS and one of the top scholars on American religion even said that:

 "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained."

Those are not my words; rather, I was just highlighting that I agree with this statement in my original post.  

I agree.  I think people who are more oriented towards appeals to authority seem more sensitive when an authoritative figure makes a statement that they personally disagree with.  

For me, there are many things Bushman has said that I agree with, and many more that I disagree with.  He's just a flawed human like the rest of us.  But I do appreciate his overall candor and desire to bring for rigorous history to Mormonism.  I think those are admirable goals to have.  

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think parent-child relationships work particularly well as an analogy because the child is naturally ignorant of many things that a parent understands. When we are young, we often don't understand the reasons for our parents' rules and behavior. Things often seem unjust and unfair to children, which to adults seem to be perfectly just and fair. Some children are able to patiently follow the rules and counsel of righteous parents until they are mature enough to better understand them. Other children get so caught up in their emotional responses to perceived injustices that they prematurely sever their relationship with their parents.

We all see this happen from time to time with children we know. But we sometimes forget that in comparison to God we are very much still adolescents. We are mostly in the dark, and yet we naively think that we can approach things with purely human rationality and intellect and divine the moral and metaphysical realities of the universe on our own. 

I don't like the parent/child analogy nearly as much, because of the inherent imbalance of power between the two positions.  You're assuming ignorance on once side, when the shoe is just as possibly on the other foot from my perspective.  I could make an argument that a large conservative institution is much more likely to be ignorant of and out of touch with the needs of individuals.  

But how can your attempted rational approach to the morality questions really not just boil down to an appeal to authority and the use of God as a crutch to support your own personal biases.   At the end of the day, you can't prove what God wants any more than any other human on this planet.  Because arguments about what God wants are just a mirror of what each person subjectively believes based on their experiences and orientations in life. 

[Calm]

 

Quote

  I have been using the phrase “reconstruct the narrative” in recent talks because that is exactly what the Church is doing right now.  The Joseph Smith Papers offer a reconstructed narrative, so do some of the “Gospel Topics” essays.  The short First Vision film in the Church Museum of History mentions six accounts of Joseph’s experience and draws on all of them.  That is all reconstructing the narrative.  I got the phrase from a young woman who reported that she and her husband had both been through faith crises.  She had come back; he had remained alienated.  But both of them had to reconstruct the narrative.  We have to include, for example, the fact that that the first words to Joseph in the First Vision were:  “Your sins are forgiven.”  That makes us look again at his life and realize how important a part forgiveness played.  Similarly, we now have assimilated seer stones into the translation story.  A picture of a seer stone now appears in the Church History Museum display.  That would not have happened even five years ago.  The list goes on and on.

I consider Rough Stone Rolling a reconstructed narrative.  It was shocking to some people.  They could not bear to have the old story disrupted in any way.  What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts.  If we don’t we will weaken our position.  Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material.  Many think they were deceived and the church was lying.  That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians.  We are all having to reconstruct.   In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.  I still believe in gold plates.  I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration.  I think he was sincere in saying he saw God.  The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

If anyone has questions about what I believe, I would be happy to hear from him or her.  I believe pretty much the same things I did sixty years ago when I was a missionary.

Richard

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/07/richard-bushman-and-the-fundamental-claims-of-mormonism.html

Edited December 17, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

At the end of the day, you can't prove what God wants any more than any other human on this planet.  Because arguments about what God wants are just a mirror of what each person subjectively believes based on their experiences and orientations in life. 

This is why if you think you are getting revelation and God never tells you anything you disagree with or that makes you uncomfortable or even outright hate you should be suspicious that you are making a god in your own image.

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think where push comes to shove is what that means. Often what some (not you) mean by "prioritize people" is "ignore moral teachings." But of course this is typically done selectively based upon what issues are most popular in society at the time. So those who cry "prioritize people" often are just as judgmental of other individuals outside of that area. Someone who yells about prioritizing someone struggling with say fornication might be aghast that a racist isn't shunned. That very same person might at the same time be saying, "don't judge me because I sin differently than you do."

Again, not making any general point with this. Just noting that "prioritize" people tends to often have a pretty strong political component. (My experience, I should add, is that most wards do a pretty good job at least trying to fellowship even those struggling with socially unacceptable practices - but that usually it's a few people within the ward who make things rough) 

My somewhat cynical view is that the sin most people can't abide is members who are overly judgmental. Understandably but they're struggling in their weaknesses just the same as the rest of us are.

Good comments.  I would say that we should refine our collective coral teachings down to core values instead of specific rules and requirements.  For an Orthodox Jew a moral teaching might include how many steps to take on the sabbath day or how to dress and what to eat.  I do think we need some core values and principles to organize around, but I don't think specific rules and prescriptions are as easily defined and that individual circumstances will vary so much that we need to be very careful about these ideas and we should reevaluate them regularly to determine what works best in the face of changing circumstances.  

You bring up some good points about remembering to make sure we apply these ideas to all forms of bias that we might have.  I try to do this, but I'm not perfect and I'm sure I fall short of that at times.  I've encountered this kind of bias on this message board in the past, as some threads have made fun of young earth creationists or the Mormons pushing for a North American BoM origin.  I personally don't find those arguments persuasive, however, I try to be sympathetic to the views of those people, and I've been criticized by others on this board for trying to defend these views as well.  

I do personally take this idea of putting people first, very seriously.  It is one of my personal core values.

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Then I asked if you thought Bushman agreed with your arguments. You never answered and just doubled down on the quote.

See if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning.

Helpful Hint: Appealing to Authority that does not agree with you in the first place to support your argument is a losing rhetorical strategy.

I can't personally speak for Bushman's opinion's on every matter, but can say that I agree with his statement that "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained."  On this one topic, I think Bushman's statement aligns with my belief that the narrative is not true.  

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a simplified understanding but we can only talk about situations like this in generalities unless we are dealing with one specific person..The Savior’s story about the seeds being planted is also a simplification so I am okay with that.

I'm not a theist, and don't believe in an interventionist God or even a conscious deity figure. 

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is why if you think you are getting revelation and God never tells you anything you disagree with or that makes you uncomfortable or even outright hate you should be suspicious that you are making a god in your own image.

I think that is a good point that people should consider, but only one of the tools of skepticism that religious believers could use to evaluate their bias.  

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, you did not just do that.

What is your argument even--that I can't agree with a Bushman statement?  I am in agreement with what HE said about the church's narrative, that doesn't mean I assume he and I have the same opinion on every subject.  Furthermore, what is weird and creepy is you coming out of right field and responding to me stating that you picture me as a little kid.

Weirdo...

Edited December 17, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I kind of regret using that term and would specify that there is no shame or harm in being a “little one” and admit the phrase has obvious diminuitive connotations that could come across as insulting or patronizing but a lot of people go through “little one” stages in their faith and it is not limited to those who are new or who are conventionally struggling with their faith. But other then that, yeah.

The problem with this view, the Nehor, is many who up and leave the Church have not been little ones in any sense, even the sense you are using it.  There have been many big ones who have decided it doesn't work.  the real fear of course is not that the little ones, as in those who are new the faith or are particularly vulnerable.  the fear is that any member will hear and reconsider.  

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't like the parent/child analogy nearly as much, because of the inherent imbalance of power between the two positions.  You're assuming ignorance on once side, when the shoe is just as possibly on the other foot from my perspective.  I could make an argument that a large conservative institution is much more likely to be ignorant of and out of touch with the needs of individuals.  

But how can your attempted rational approach to the morality questions really not just boil down to an appeal to authority and the use of God as a crutch to support your own personal biases.   At the end of the day, you can't prove what God wants any more than any other human on this planet.  Because arguments about what God wants are just a mirror of what each person subjectively believes based on their experiences and orientations in life. 

Your missing my point. Someone who leaves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints begins with the assumption that God exists. And he or she naturally felt, before their separation with the Church, that God is a good and moral being who institutes good and moral teachings, doctrines, practices--as outlined by the standard works and teachings of modern prophets. However, when individuals stumble upon perceived moral inconsistencies in the Church's doctrines, practices, policies, etc., they often feel a host of negative emotions that cause them to lose their faith. 

What I'm saying is that if they were more perceptive, they would realize that the gospel theory which they already accept has built-in assumptions that naturally limit their ability to reach any reliable conclusions about the unusual perceived moral inconsistencies that likely trouble them. Hence, their overly emotional response is logically inconsistent with the gospel paradigm that they once espoused, which suggests to me that they never fully understood the moral implications of the paradigm in the first place. 

You said,

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

But how can your attempted rational approach to the morality questions really not just boil down to an appeal to authority and the use of God as a crutch to support your own personal biases. At the end of the day, you can't prove what God wants any more than any other human on this planet.  Because arguments about what God wants are just a mirror of what each person subjectively believes based on their experiences and orientations in life. 

I'm not outlining what I think are sufficient grounds for belief. Instead, I'm targeting what I feel are insufficient grounds for disbelief, especially when someone starts out with the assumptions of a believing Latter-day Saint. Moreover, I'm not saying that the Church's truth claims aren't testable. I'm just saying they can't be reliably tested on these type of moral grounds. 

I would grant the same privilege to any theory, even if I disagreed with it. Let's say, for instance, that someone thinks God made the earth in 6 days but did so in such a way that it only seemed like it was billions of years old, and that God implanted misleading evidence to make it seem like animals and plants evolved over time. And let's also assume that after God created the earth in 6 days, he made it so that the earth and the living organisms upon it really would evolve and transform in a way that seemed like a continuation of the evolutionary process that was implanted into the creation, but which never actually existed. With this type of assumption in play, it makes it very difficult to attack a Young Earth Creationist's view based primarily on geological science or evidence in favor of biological evolution. That doesn't mean that this version of the YEC theory should be believed; it just means that it can't be reliably tested on these scientific grounds. One's rejection or acceptance of it would have to rely upon more testable sets of evidence. 

Once again, for the sake of clarity, I don't actually espouse the YEC view. I'm just using it for the sake of comparison to show how my approach works similarly for theories or beliefs that I'm not inclined to accept. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Your missing my point. Someone who leaves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints begins with the assumption that God exists. And he or she naturally felt, before their separation with the Church, that God is a good and moral being who institutes good and moral teachings, doctrines, practices--as outlined by the standard works and teachings of modern prophets. However, when individuals stumble upon perceived moral inconsistencies in the Church's doctrines, practices, policies, etc., they often feel a host of negative emotions that cause them to lose their faith. 

What I'm saying is that if they were more perceptive, they would realize that the gospel theory which they already accept has built-in assumptions that naturally limit their ability to reach any reliable conclusions about the unusual perceived moral inconsistencies that likely trouble them. Hence, their overly emotional response is logically inconsistent with the gospel paradigm that they once espoused, which suggests to me that they never fully understood the moral implications of the paradigm in the first place. 

So their "overly emotional" response I take it, means their decision to leave the Church?  That is, take your previous example of the priesthood ban, if someone sees that as blatant racism which they simply can't see God allowing to have happened if the Church is what it claims to be, that person is really just not being perceptive enough and has failed to assume that there is a God who had decided to allow/command racism for his own purposes that we simply can't see because we ain't God?  

It seems to me what you are setting up is justification to say you can judge, or presume, things about others because you assume you are right and they are wrong.  

10 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You said,

I'm not outlining what I think are sufficient grounds for belief. Instead, I'm targeting what I feel are insufficient grounds for disbelief, especially when someone starts out with the assumptions of a believing Latter-day Saint. Moreover, I'm not saying that the Church's truth claims aren't testable. I'm just saying they can't be reliably tested on these type of moral grounds. 

I would grant the same privilege to any theory, even if I disagreed with it. Let's say, for instance, that someone thinks God made the earth in 6 days but did so in such a way that it only seemed like it was billions of years old, and that God implanted misleading evidence to make it seem like animals and plants evolved over time. And let's also assume that after God created the earth in 6 days, he made it so that the earth and the living organisms upon it really would evolve and transform in a way that seemed like a continuation of the evolutionary process that was implanted into the creation, but which never actually existed. With this type of assumption in play, it makes it very difficult to attack a Young Earth Creationist's view based primarily on geological science or evidence in favor of biological evolution. That doesn't mean that this version of the YEC theory should be believed; it just means that it can't be reliably tested on these scientific grounds. One's rejection or acceptance of it would have to rely upon more testable sets of evidence. 

Once again, for the sake of clarity, I don't actually espouse the YEC view. I'm just using it for the sake of comparison to show how my approach works similarly for theories or beliefs that I'm not inclined to accept. 

well your argument works for any religion then.  If someone leaves any religion to convert to Mormonism then that one would suffer the same problem as you describe--he/she questions his/her assumptions.

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What arguments from him are you so upset about?  I can tell there's some history between the two of you I'm missing, but I don't get why the points raised in this thread are so objectionable.  

Below is my original post that he apparently finds to be so terrible and is, as he stated, just "flawed delusions of reality."  The fact that I choose to align my personal beliefs/ideologies based on science means that I am now just "wallowing in a status as a defender."  I was simply responding to this thread about how I came to my own conclusions WRT disbelief in the church.

If my posts and the way I express my thoughts are so annoying and painful for him, then why respond to me in the first place and then "wallow" on about my supposed "wallowing?" I think his responses reek of insecurity, anger, frustration, and desperation.   

"For me personally, my disbelief in the church wasn't just about social/ethical issues or some moral inconsistencies here or there; rather, it emerged primarily from several huge problems in the church's underlying narrative and truth claims, which, IMO, cannot be reconciled. Even Richard Bushman said the following:

Richard Bushman: "I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change."

http://ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/

Likewise, I think "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- and as it relates to the church's truth claims -- I have arrived at my own conclusion that these claims are not true and that there is no reasonable evidence (other than feelings) to substantiate them.

Based on the compilation of all of the major problems with the church's truth claims, I think when using Occam's Razor a person can reasonably come to his/her own conclusion that the church's truth claims are not what they are...and simply cannot be sustained or reconciled. For some people, relying on just warm and special feelings is not enough evidence or justification to support such extraordinary truth claims.

Finally, I compare my disbelief in the church's truth claims to other fairytales, myths, or stories I once believed as a child. At one time as a child, I believed in myths or imaginary characters (as most of us did), but as I grew older, logic and science began to play an even more important role in coming to my own conclusions. I agree with Richard Bushman when he said: "The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained." For me it wasn't just about "moral intuitions and stances," or that church issues were "logically immoral;" rather, it was about the narrative itself not being compatible with science and logic; it's more about applying logic, reason, and science to how I view the world and any religious institution's claims, teachings, or policies."

Edited December 17, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[Ryan Dahle]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So their "overly emotional" response I take it, means their decision to leave the Church?  That is, take your previous example of the priesthood ban, if someone sees that as blatant racism which they simply can't see God allowing to have happened if the Church is what it claims to be, that person is really just not being perceptive enough and has failed to assume that there is a God who had decided to allow/command racism for his own purposes that we simply can't see because we ain't God?  

Yes I'm talking about people who leave primarily because they have highly emotional responses to apparent moral inconsistencies. In essence you got it. There certainly could be moral grounds upon which God would allow/command the priesthood ban for his own purposes.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems to me what you are setting up is justification to say you can judge, or presume, things about others because you assume you are right and they are wrong.

I think you are especially adept at reading things into others comments that they didn't intend and most certainly wouldn't agree with. 

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

well your argument works for any religion then.  If someone leaves any religion to convert to Mormonism then that one would suffer the same problem as you describe--he/she questions his/her assumptions.

My argument works for any theory, really. However, you seem to be conflating an inability to reliably test an aspect of a theory with the overall grounds for accepting or rejecting it. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

What is your argument even--that I can't agree with a Bushman statement?  I am in agreement with what HE said about the church's narrative, that doesn't mean I assume he and I have the same opinion on every subject.  Furthermore, what is weird and creepy is you coming out of right field and responding to me stating that you picture me as a little kid.

Weirdo...

Have you considered taking an elementary school level class in metaphor? I think that may help you grasp what I was communicating. Good luck.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Your missing my point. Someone who leaves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints begins with the assumption that God exists. And he or she naturally felt, before their separation with the Church, that God is a good and moral being who institutes good and moral teachings, doctrines, practices--as outlined by the standard works and teachings of modern prophets. However, when individuals stumble upon perceived moral inconsistencies in the Church's doctrines, practices, policies, etc., they often feel a host of negative emotions that cause them to lose their faith. 

What I'm saying is that if they were more perceptive, they would realize that the gospel theory which they already accept has built-in assumptions that naturally limit their ability to reach any reliable conclusions about the unusual perceived moral inconsistencies that likely trouble them. Hence, their overly emotional response is logically inconsistent with the gospel paradigm that they once espoused, which suggests to me that they never fully understood the moral implications of the paradigm in the first place. 

I definitely agree that one of the problems is that original assumptions people have about how God operates and other theological teachings, when these assumptions start to break down for someone and they find examples in their life that create a cognitive dissonance, that is largely a problem with the original assumptions that were set in the first place.  This could largely be alleviated if the church as an institution would mature in the complexity of how it teaches its doctrines.  Especially if there were wise leaders that could help people transition from an orientation towards literal truth and black and white trust in external authorities paradigm, into a finding authority within yourself and appreciation for metaphorical truth paradigm.  

The church as an institution is failing at helping people who go through these shifts in paradigm find a home within the community.  It is a huge problem for the church, and it is why I believe they are bleeding some of their best and brightest members.  I don't think this is the fault of the members, but a fault of the culture and the programs of the church.  I think this is also due to the relatively young time-frame that this tradition of Mormonism has existed, and potentially in a couple hundred more years of development, we will see a more mature approach to faith development, but that unfortunately doesn't help the current generations.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not outlining what I think are sufficient grounds for belief. Instead, I'm targeting what I feel are insufficient grounds for disbelief, especially when someone starts out with the assumptions of a believing Latter-day Saint. Moreover, I'm not saying that the Church's truth claims aren't testable. I'm just saying they can't be reliably tested on these type of moral grounds. 

I would grant the same privilege to any theory, even if I disagreed with it. Let's say, for instance, that someone thinks God made the earth in 6 days but did so in such a way that it only seemed like it was billions of years old, and that God implanted misleading evidence to make it seem like animals and plants evolved over time. And let's also assume that after God created the earth in 6 days, he made it so that the earth and the living organisms upon it really would evolve and transform in a way that seemed like a continuation of the evolutionary process that was implanted into the creation, but which never actually existed. With this type of assumption in play, it makes it very difficult to attack a Young Earth Creationist's view based primarily on geological science or evidence in favor of biological evolution. That doesn't mean that this version of the YEC theory should be believed; it just means that it can't be reliably tested on these scientific grounds. One's rejection or acceptance of it would have to rely upon more testable sets of evidence. 

Once again, for the sake of clarity, I don't actually espouse the YEC view. I'm just using it for the sake of comparison to show how my approach works similarly for theories or beliefs that I'm not inclined to accept. 

The problem with your example is that many of the YECs speculative theories are testable via science, and they fail every test.  Only the goal post shifting pseudo science acolytes who don't understand the rigor of biological evolution and carbon dating are persuaded by the rubbish that the YECs are peddling.  

Not every speculative theological religious teaching is something that science can inform us about.  People can always claim that the laws of physics and biology don't apply to God, especially if you believe in an all powerful deity.  But Mormonism also has this element within its theology that God is bound by the laws of the universe, so there is some interesting tension between these two positions.  

 

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Yes I'm talking about people who leave primarily because they have highly emotional responses to apparent moral inconsistencies. In essence you got it. There certainly could be moral grounds upon which God would allow/command the priesthood ban for his own purposes.

I think where some people like myself feel like this is an unfair characterization, is that I could claim that your attachment to Mormonism is "highly emotional" and the implication along with that statement is that its also irrational and immature of you to hold a position of belief.  

[Ryan Dahle]

 

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem with your example is that many of the YECs speculative theories are testable via science, and they fail every test.  Only the goal post shifting pseudo science acolytes who don't understand the rigor of biological evolution and carbon dating are persuaded by the rubbish that the YECs are peddling. 

I think you only have a problem with my example because you are extending it beyond its intended purpose. If something is testable via science, then by all means we should test it, as far as is reasonably possible. I think many aspects of the Latter-day Saint truth claims are testable via academic disciplines (science, history, archaeology, linguistics, literary studies, etc.), and I'm certainly a proponent of testing those avenues.

However, for me, the individual empirical test outlined in Alma 32 has the highest evidentiary value. Everything really hinges on that test. 

 

[Ryan Dahle]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think where some people like myself feel like this is an unfair characterization, is that I could claim that your attachment to Mormonism is "highly emotional" and the implication along with that statement is that its also irrational and immature of you to hold a position of belief.

Except, my argument isn't just about labeling an opposing viewpoint as highly emotional simply to discredit it. It is about the fact that the subject matter (unusual moral inconsistencies) isn't very testable in light of the Plan of Salvation's inherent starting assumptions. I'm only drawing attention to the fact that these are a highly emotional topics because I think the emotional responses provide pretty good evidence that there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on. And also because I think the emotional response makes it difficult for these people, in this specific situation, to reassess the issue. 

I'm not saying that emotions are inherently untrustworthy (sometimes they are and sometimes they're not). I'm just trying to figure out the process that leads people to make what I think are logical errors in specific situations. 

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

 

I think you only have a problem with my example because you are extending it beyond its intended purpose. If something is testable via science, then by all means we should test it, as far as is reasonably possible. I think many aspects of the Latter-day Saint truth claims are testable via academic disciplines (science, history, archaeology, linguistics, literary studies, etc.), and I'm certainly a proponent of testing those avenues.

However, for me, the individual empirical test outlined in Alma 32 has the highest evidentiary value. Everything really hinges on that test. 

 

I would agree, and I think that is why we're seeing the church evolve its narratives away from literal, historical claims into spiritual claims that can't be evaluated through academia.  

As for Alma 32, I like that paradigm for religious and spiritual claims.  It seems to work well as long as people aren't trusting their intuitions over their intellect.  I see some problems with Alma 32 if people aren't logically evaluating the fruits of their decision making.  Essentially Alma 32 could work to someones detriment if they aren't being rigorous and skeptical in their approach.  For example, someone in a cult could use the Alma 32 method and because they feel good about their involvement in the cult, could use that feeling as evidence that the cult is good for them.  

 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Except, my argument isn't just about labeling an opposing viewpoint as highly emotional simply to discredit it. It is about the fact that the subject matter (unusual moral inconsistencies) isn't very testable in light of the Plan of Salvation's inherent starting assumptions. I'm only drawing attention to the fact that these are a highly emotional topics because I think the emotional responses provide pretty good evidence that there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on. And also because I think the emotional response makes it difficult for these people, in this specific situation, to reassess the issue. 

I'm not saying that emotions are inherently untrustworthy (sometimes they are and sometimes they're not). I'm just trying to figure out the process that leads people to make what I think are logical errors in specific situations. 

I'm confused by your claim that the "Plan of Salvation" has a set of morals and starting assumptions that are somehow testable?  By testable are you saying that the assumptions should be logically consistent?  

I'm also not sure what you're asserting about how emotion can contribute to a fundamental misunderstanding.  My experience is that all religious decisions have an emotional component and that this emotional component is the essence of a person's orientation and fidelity to the relationship.  This goes back to my comparison of a religious relationship to a friendship and/or romantic relationship.  

Are you asserting that religious experience should be a logical evaluation, like a Mr. Spock approach, and that you can somehow evaluate which religion has the most rational theology in a very objective and systematic way?  (This kind of paradigm might seem naive and strange to many of the philosophically oriented people on this message board.)  

[Ryan Dahle]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would agree, and I think that is why we're seeing the church evolve its narratives away from literal, historical claims into spiritual claims that can't be evaluated through academia. 

I don't see that trend at all. The Church has always emphasized the preeminence of a personal spiritual witness of its fundamental truths, and yet it certainly isn't moving away from its acceptance of the Book of Mormon's historicity--which is where a lot of the testability in scientific disciplines comes in. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for Alma 32, I like that paradigm for religious and spiritual claims.  It seems to work well as long as people aren't trusting their intuitions over their intellect.  I see some problems with Alma 32 if people aren't logically evaluating the fruits of their decision making.  Essentially Alma 32 could work to someones detriment if they aren't being rigorous and skeptical in their approach.  For example, someone in a cult could use the Alma 32 method and because they feel good about their involvement in the cult, could use that feeling as evidence that the cult is good for them.  

I agree that Alma 32 needs to be correctly interpreted and contextualized for it to be useful. However, I don't think it is a matter of intuition over intellect. For me, it is about the distinctness, discernability, consistency, and intrinsic worth of Alma's predicted experiences. Anyone could claim the same thing that Alma is claiming to support any position, so in the end it really depends on our individual abilities to perform his experiment and compare it to any competing but similar experiments. The best thing about the experiment, in my view, is that it is empirical and essentially reproducible. Because it is these things, it is highly testable on an individual level.

Late Edit: I would agree, however, that ultimately evaluating whether or not the spiritual sensations that the gospel predicts (unique peace, joy, and enlightenment) are ultimately satisfying is a personal choice. So on a very basic level, intuition and personal choice must come into play about the worth of the experiences. Someone could, in theory, have the experiences, experience them consistently in the way the gospel predicts, and choose to not want/desire them. It's also possible to come up with some other explanation to interpret them, considering that humans can come up with almost any explanation for anything. So how well it does against competing explanations is also a factor. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Ryan Dahle