Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Tal Bachman]

Tarski, really good post; I'll respond to it when I get a moment. (By the way, I kind of have a soft spot for Stuart Hameroff...)

Pahoran, you are absolutely right that I came on and tried to tell everyone how to run the board, if inviting people to have civil and rational one-on-ones, whether on a place somewhere on this site acceptable to the moderators or somewhere else, is equivalent to telling everyone how to run this bulletin board.

But I think that "if" is where you're going to have problems. That you do regard those two things as equivalent might even be taken by some to indicate that you're not exactly an ideal candidate for the kind of conversation I had in mind...

Gotta run,

T.

[Pahoran]

I think you're right, but could there be mathematical models or questions where the answer is unknowable? I think that for us the answer is yes. I wonder if even God could have unknowable questions posed to Him or whether His knowledge definately transcends Turing machines. Can God solve the Halting problem?

I'll make sure to ask him, if ever I get to discuss anything so trivial with him. Given that he designed a base 64/4 data storage system that is better than our 256/2 system, I'm sure God knows all that is to be known about IT.

(For anyone who wants to know, the "halting problem" is the problem of predicting when a program will halt when its only halt condition is to read a particular pattern in a data stream. The content of the data stream is unknown and the only way to read it is via your program. Thus, the only known way to find out is to use the program to read the data stream, and so, of course, when you get to that pattern, your program halts.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zeta-Flux]

asbestosman,

I posit that God can't solve the Halting problem simply because to *solve* it means to solve it in the mathematical system for which it has been shown to be impossible to solve it in. Whether or not the Halting problem has any relation to any "real-life" question is another issue (and here by "any relation to real-life" I mean: I don't know that the universe obeys the laws we think apply to the Halting problem, in every specific way).

And by the way, that quotation from Wikipedia is unfortunately incorrect. The natural numbers actually have multiple models. So, for example, the statement "Every natural number is preceded by only finitely many natural numbers" is compatible with those axioms, as is the converse. (I.e. there are models of the natural numbers, where there are natural numbers AFTER the usual ones-- i.e. the model is larger than the usual/standard one). I think what they were trying to convey is that it is possible to list ALL statements about the natural numbers; and then we accept statement #whatever if and only if it is consistent with all the statements we have previously accepted; and we work through the statements one by one. As Wikipedia pointed out, there is no decision procedure, for such an algorithm.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

Edited to fix spelling!!

[Noggin]

It is a well-known and oft-repeated claim of Internet anti-Mormonism that Muslims routinely assert that they have testimonies based upon personal revelation, analogous to LDS testimonies. This claim is completely false and utterly without foundation. Some utterly unscrupulous anti-Mormon fabricated it out of whole cloth, and the whole herd of "independent thinkers" have been mindlessly regurgitating it ever since.

I hope you will not make that mistake again.

Regards,

Pahoran

Incorrect. If you talk to a Muslim, I mean really talk to one and pin them down as to how you are to know that their religion is true and everyone else's religion is false, sooner or later you will get a testimony from this person. Sooner or later they will send you appealing to allah. Usually after you demonstrate that the Koran is not perfect. They will tell you that you will be lead to Islam if you believe it is within Allah's power. BY being lead, it was revealed to me that I could know like I know everything else. One day you will not know Islam is truth and then, if you are diligent, you will know it like you know everything else.

That is what was explained to me.

I clarified it. I asked, you mean I'll just "know"? How is that possible? The answer came back that, yep, I'd just know. Is it exactly like Mormon revelation? Probably not exactly. But since they view Mormonism et al as completely errant, they do not want their method of how they know Islam is True to match how Mormons know Mormonism is True. But they do know that Islam is Truth and Mormonism is in grievous error. So we cannot discredit their method of knowing. To suggest that they just sort of stumble through the dark hoping on a hunch that they are right is precarious. The same is said about all religions. And oddly, each religion tells the other that they really really for reals know the truth about god and there process is the only special means of really really knowing for reals.

You claim that antimormons make this claim mindlessly. The rebuttal you offer has been going on just as long and is viewed to be just as mindless.

[Zeta-Flux]

Incorrect. If you talk to a Muslim, I mean really talk to one and pin them down as to how you are to know that their religion is true and everyone else's religion is false, sooner or later you will get a testimony from this person. Sooner or later they will send you appealing to allah. Usually after you demonstrate that the Koran is not perfect. They will tell you that you will be lead to Islam if you believe it is within Allah's power. BY being lead, it was revealed to me that I could know like I know everything else. One day you will not know Islam is truth and then, if you are diligent, you will know it like you know everything else.

That is what was explained to me.

I clarified it. I asked, you mean I'll just "know"? How is that possible? The answer came back that, yep, I'd just know. Is it exactly like Mormon revelation? Probably not exactly. But since they view Mormonism et al as completely errant, they do not want their method of how they know Islam is True to match how Mormons know Mormonism is True. But they do know that Islam is Truth and Mormonism is in grievous error. So we cannot discredit their method of knowing. To suggest that they just sort of stumble through the dark hoping on a hunch that they are right is precarious. The same is said about all religions. And oddly, each religion tells the other that they really really for reals know the truth about god and there process is the only special means of really really knowing for reals.

You claim that antimormons make this claim mindlessly. The rebuttal you offer has been going on just as long and is viewed to be just as mindless.

Noggin,

By "analogous to LDS revelation" I think Pahoran was referencing the fact that we specifically ask God the question "Is this the correct Church with the priesthood authority?" I think Pahoran is correct in his claim. Others might think God has told them their Church is true, or have received revelation/communion from/with God and taken this as evidence that their Church is true; but very, very few in any of the relgions you listed actually ask God this direct question instead of working through inductive logic.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[Greg Smith]

How about I tell you mine? This will let you know that I understand. Probably one of the more pivotal times of my life happened when I was preparing to leave on my mission. Long story short, suffice it to say I was the all american pie in the sky Mormon boy. I had trusted that the church was true but wanted a witness. I was sincere, I was humble, I asked in prayer. An answer came into my body that the church was true. I had read the quote from Joseph Smith about revelation being akin to pure intelligence flowing into you so I was expecting that. One moment I believed the church was true (acting on a hunch) and the next moment I knew it was true. BUT. The feeling came afterward. There was joy in the realization that god had communicated with me. It made me feel loved. I felt connected with the heavens. I felt special. I felt, ah, alive and it was quite the experience.

Thank-you for that, which obviously doesn't have the same meaning for you that it did, but it still is not lightly mentioned, I suspect. There are some points in common, but other things that I would certainly add in my own account. But, perhaps you would too.

Pure intelligence flowing into a brain is not a sign? One minute I doubted or did not know the church was true and the next minute I did? That is a sign.

Actually, no, I would not class it as a sign. A sign (as I understood the New Testament's use of the term) was a request for some kind of objective, physical miracle.

The critics were always asking Jesus, "Show us a sign." I don't get the impression they were saying, 'Please give us pure intelligence flowing into our minds.' They wanted something overt, such as Jesus promise at the end of Mark:

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (New Testament | Mark 16:17 - 18)

So, when I say "sign," I was thinking in that context. An internal experience, however impressive, is not a "sign," as I intended the term. Sorry for the confusion.

But I did not waiver until I met Pedro the Jehovah's Witness who, through a series of discussions, revealed to me that he, likewise, "knew" that I was in error and the Watchtower Society was gods only true church on earth.

We spoke at great length. I did not lead him on. He explained to me how he knew and it was eerily similar to my experience. He spoke of how he converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses and his struggle to believe their message was, how did he say it, like Jacob wrestling with the angel. He woke up one morning and poof! all doubts about the watchtower society were gone. He was filled with great joy and he never looked back.

Let's assume for the moment that your experience was genuine--actual revelation.

And, let's assume that Pedro's is too.

My reaction to this story (had I been in your place) would have been, "How wonderful! God has been working with this sincere seeker of truth, and directed him to something that has improved his life, made him happy, brought him closer to God, etc. He already knows how to hear the voice of God in his life, and has practice obeying it."

Pedro could no doubt say the same thing about you or me, but no matter.

The next step would be, does Pedro read the Book of Mormon and pray about it? If you like, you can read Pedro's material, and pray about it. After all, you're convinced of the Book of Mormon, which says that the Holy Ghost will bear witness of all truth, so you have a starting point. He has faith in Christ, which means the Book of Mormon should at least be somewhat accessible to him.

Now, it's entirely possible that either you or Pedro potentially drew some erroneous conclusions, despite the overall reality and validity of your respective revelations. (This is why I say there are relatively few things about which I am certain, and many more about which I am confident but wouldn't call 'knowledge' if pressed to it.)

It may be (say) that you being sent on a mission was the best way God could find to put you in touch with Pedro, someone who could touch you. You misunderstood some of the fine details, but the basics were there--you weren't willing to serve a mission without certainty about the Mormons, God knew it because you explained it, and so He sent you off as best He could with your circumstances and agency intact.

Or, conversely, the Witnesses were the best way of getting Pedro enthusiastic about Christianity, praying regularly, reaching out to others, in a mindset where he'd actually spend time with two weird Americans talking about God. He was supposed to be a JW, but not forever. You had more to teach him.

(Five points to Griffindor if you figure out which potential explanation I favour...)

I shrugged it off.

That, in my view, is the only unfortunate part of the story.

I parted ways. And I never forgot it. My companion and me were spooked by it and nervously we even role played the next morning in spanish about what it would be like dying and going before the judgment seat of Christ only to have Christ tsk tsk and gently say,

But why would you not listen to my servant Pedro? He clearly witnessed my truth to you that day?

My answer would be, "But Lord, you spoke to me directly when I prayed to you. You did not bear witness in the same way of that which Pedro taught."

Did you pray about Pedro's message? Was the experience with the Book of Mormon repeated? If not so, it is difficult to know what you might have been told that would break this seeming "deadlock."

(In the interests of disclosure, I'll say that I've prayed about other faith's concepts, doctrines, texts, etc. when I felt it necessary.)

Was he willing to read the Book of Mormon, study it, and pray? If so, what was the answer? If not so, it is difficult to know what he might have been told that would break this seeming "deadlock."

We had a good laugh at that one we did. But.

It haunted me until a decade and a half later I finally had to go and study with other religions to see if this experience happened elsewhere. I found out that it did and does, Greg.

I certainly believe it does, because (as I've said) God speaks to everyone who sincerely seeks Him. As the D&C says:

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 84:46 - 48)

The Spirit teaches everyone, and moves everyone along who will listen. It is not an "all or none" or a "once and for all" sort of thing. Eventually, they'll speak to the Father, and the Father will teach them about the renewed covenant. If they haven't heard of that renewed covenant, it may be hard to teach them about it immediately--but, they get moved along, put into places and circumstances where they can be taught.

I think sometimes young LDS people do not appreciate that point enough, especially if they have remained somewhat sheltered from other cultures or faiths in heavily-Mormon areas.

Thus, God answers (and people process such answers) in their context and situation. And, He'll lead us along to more when we're ready, if we let Him. (See Alma again.)

(That applies to me as well as others. It's entirely possible in the theoretical sense--though I have no inkling so far--that God may some day tell me to become, say, a Pentecostal. And, I have to be ready to go if He tells me.)

For a long while I remained LDS with the troubled outlook that god existed but he did not really care what religion one belonged to as long as they were faithful to its tenets of faith. That worked for a long, long time. And woo hoo. Look at me now, a non theist, hardly worth an ounce of envy.

I think God does care, but He cares even more about first establishing a communicative, revelatory relationship with His children. With that in place, they can grow. Most people (in LDS thinking) have been on earth in locations or times when no "fulness of the gospel" was around. But, this doesn't mean God leaves them comfortless. Religion and the Church are simply tools--to get the Spirit into our lives, to get us into communication with God, and to change our lives thereby through Christ. (It is no accident that the 'light of Christ' is given to, and works with, everyone in LDS doctrine.) The ordinances speed and enhance that process, but the doctrine of vicarious ordinances seems to show that God can work around their absence in people's lives if He has to, though they are ultimately needed on an "house of order," 'administrative' level, if you will. :-)

Is any of this making sense?

Absolutely, and I appreciate that this was obviously a wrenching experience. As I said, I can only regret that what seems to have been an important opportunity--that it 'haunted you' for a long time suggests its significance, I warrant--didn't bear the fruit that it could have.

Or, hasn't yet, at least. Envy aside, even non-theists have great potential.

Kind regards,

Greg

[asbestosman]

I posit that God can't solve the Halting problem simply because to *solve* it means to solve it in the mathematical system for which it has been shown to be impossible to solve it in. Whether or not the Halting problem has any relation to any "real-life" question is another issue (and here by "any relation to real-life" I mean: I don't know that the universe obeys the laws we think apply to the Halting problem, in every specific way).

Ah, I see. Perhaps I should have phrased my question thusly: "Can God tell whether or not any arbitrary Turing machine will halt given any abitrary inputs?"

By any I mean can God answer the question no matter which TM and which input were chosen?

True, the universe may not obey those laws and Turing Machines (with infinite memory) may not even exist. However, the question is applicable as to what sort of things can be definitely solved by computers in principle. If a Turing Machine can't do it, our computers can't do it either. Guaranteed.

And by the way, that quotation from Wikipedia is unfortunately incorrect. The natural numbers actually have multiple models. So, for example, the statement "Every natural number is preceded by only finitely many natural numbers" is compatible with those axioms, as is the converse. (I.e. there are models of the natural numbers, where there are natural numbers AFTER the usual ones-- i.e. the model is larger than the usual/standard one). I think what they were trying to convey is that it is possible to list ALL statements about the natural numbers; and then we accept statement #whatever if and only if it is consistent with all the statements we have previously accepted; and we work through the statements one by one. As Wikipedia pointed out, there is no decision procedure, for such an algorithm.

Interesting point, but is it still correct that an oracle of sorts could know all true propositions and none of the false ones for a particular model of the natural numbers? It appears that such is a possibility. Then the question remains: can God transcend the problem of Goedel's theorem by being an oracle? What if a Urim and Thumim is an oracle?

[Pahoran]

Tarski, really good post; I'll respond to it when I get a moment. (By the way, I kind of have a soft spot for Stuart Hameroff...)

Pahoran, you are absolutely right that I came on and tried to tell everyone how to run the board, if inviting people to have civil and rational one-on-ones, whether on a place somewhere on this site acceptable to the moderators or somewhere else, is equivalent to telling everyone how to run this bulletin board.

But I think that "if" is where you're going to have problems. That you do regard those two things as equivalent might even be taken by some to indicate that you're not exactly an ideal candidate for the kind of conversation I had in mind...

Gotta run,

T.

Tal,

there is an assumption of self-importance in view when you bowl in here and start making grand offers to "improve" the board in line with your preferences. One of the things that helps to keep our focus is that there are no "personalised threads." No part of this place is about you or me or how important any of us is or thinks we are.

If such were not the case, I'd be starting a thread dedicated to letting you explain how you managed to attain the rank of Eagle Scout in Canada.

Furthermore, you have no history on this forum. It owes no part of its appeal to your contributions. All you bring to the table is what you have placed on record elsewhere, which may not be limited to offerings like the following, but it certainly includes them:

I know the ladies can sound irrational too, but how many women have you ever met who are as nuts in the same way that, say, Dan Peterson is nuts? How many women can create alternative realities as idiotic, angry, deep, ego-fueled, and convoluted as a dude can, and then actually believe in them so much, that they don't even flinch when people are getting raped and tortured and killed for believing it? Come on--this is where we excel, bro. The Bolsheviks? The Nazis? The Branch Davidians? The Mormons? How many girls helped come up with those? . . . Call me old-fashioned, but I just don't think women overall are stupid enough to actually think they can justify their silly positions with monstrous absurdities like those trotted out by Louis Farrakhan or Hugh Nibley. No--for lunacy on this grand a scale, you need males. I don't expect that to change." (Tal Bachman, "Recovery from Mormonism" board, 21 February 2006)

Three points about that:

1) Dan Peterson is a highly valued poster here. Like I said before, if we wanted this board to be a clone of the places where your admiring groupies sigh over you, it would be; the fact that it isn't ought to be a good enough hint to you that we don't. Anti-Mormons are a dime a dozen, but we've got Dan. And we appreciate having him. If it comes down to a choice between you and him, it will be a choice that will make itself.

2) In order to gain any credibility on the "civil and rational" front, you are first going to have to live that down. It will take considerable time and several generous servings of humble pie.

3) If you can't tell the difference between Hugh Nibley and Louis Farrakhan, then you probably need to do a considerable amount of listening and a whole lot less spouting.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zeta-Flux]

Ah, I see. Perhaps I should have phrased my question thusly: "Can God tell whether or not any arbitrary Turing machine will halt given any abitrary inputs?"

By any I mean can God answer the question no matter which TM and which input were chosen?

Seeing as how I believe God sees all time, all at once, the answer I'd give is "Yes, He can see whether any machine will halt."

True, the universe may not obey those laws and Turing Machines (with infinite memory) may not even exist. However, the question is applicable as to what sort of things can be definitely solved by computers in principle. If a Turing Machine can't do it, our computers can't do it either. Guaranteed.

Interesting point, but is it still correct that an oracle of sorts could know all true propositions and none of the false ones for a particular model of the natural numbers? It appears that such is a possibility. Then the question remains: can God transcend the problem of Goedel's theorem by being an oracle? What if a Urim and Thumim is an oracle?

Hmmm... I don't know about that. Mayhaps a bit too deep for the likes of me (but I like your idea).

[Pahoran]

It is a well-known and oft-repeated claim of Internet anti-Mormonism that Muslims routinely assert that they have testimonies based upon personal revelation, analogous to LDS testimonies. This claim is completely false and utterly without foundation. Some utterly unscrupulous anti-Mormon fabricated it out of whole cloth, and the whole herd of "independent thinkers" have been mindlessly regurgitating it ever since.

I hope you will not make that mistake again.

Regards,

Pahoran

Incorrect.

No, correct.

If you talk to a Muslim, I mean really talk to one and pin them down as to how you are to know that their religion is true and everyone else's religion is false, sooner or later you will get a testimony from this person. Sooner or later they will send you appealing to allah.

No. They won't. (And that's Allah, BTW.)

Usually after you demonstrate that the Koran is not perfect.

Really? And how do you propose to do that? Do you speak classical Arabic? What are your criteria for perfection?

They will tell you that you will be lead to Islam if you believe it is within Allah's power. BY being lead, it was revealed to me that I could know like I know everything else. One day you will not know Islam is truth and then, if you are diligent, you will know it like you know everything else.

That is what was explained to me.

So you are appealing to an unverifiable conversation with an individual, are you?

Well, I'm appealing to the literature. What Muslims actually publish about their faith, as opposed to what they say when some halitosis-infected individual is getting in their faces demanding a "how do you know" and insistently rejecting everything they say until they come up with something he imagines resembles what he wants to hear.

I clarified it. I asked, you mean I'll just "know"? How is that possible? The answer came back that, yep, I'd just know. Is it exactly like Mormon revelation? Probably not exactly. But since they view Mormonism et al as completely errant, they do not want their method of how they know Islam is True to match how Mormons know Mormonism is True.

Thank you for this admission. From this, I understand the following:

1) No matter how much you bullied them, you couldn't get them to come out and say "pray to ask Allah if the Holy Qur'an is his final and infallible word," which would be a genuine parallel to the LDS method for obtaining a testimony.

2) You attribute this, not to the fact (because it is a fact) that they don't propose gaining belief in this way, but to them consciously trying not to describe their method in terms similar to ours.

IOW, you assume that you know their minds better than they do.

How very--humble, or something.

But they do know that Islam is Truth and Mormonism is in grievous error. So we cannot discredit their method of knowing. To suggest that they just sort of stumble through the dark hoping on a hunch that they are right is precarious. The same is said about all religions. And oddly, each religion tells the other that they really really for reals know the truth about god and there process is the only special means of really really knowing for reals.

Yes, but that is not what we are arguing about. I say that Muslims don't seek "Mormon style" testimonies. You hotly and indignantly tell me I'm "incorrect" and then ramble on about how they believe that their religion is true. So they do, but (1) I never disputed that, and (2) that is not what I was talking about anyhow.

You claim that antimormons make this claim mindlessly. The rebuttal you offer has been going on just as long and is viewed to be just as mindless.

Ah, the famous passive voice method, beloved of those who don't what to admit who is doing the viewing. How about we make the entire passage active voice and see what we get, shall we?

You claim that anti-Mormons make this claim mindlessly. The rebuttal you offer has been going on just as long and those anti-Mormons view it to be just as mindless.

Of course they do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chaos]

Pahoran, you are absolutely right that I came on and tried to tell everyone how to run the board, if inviting people to have civil and rational one-on-ones, whether on a place somewhere on this site acceptable to the moderators or somewhere else, is equivalent to telling everyone how to run this bulletin board.

But I think that "if" is where you're going to have problems. That you do regard those two things as equivalent might even be taken by some to indicate that you're not exactly an ideal candidate for the kind of conversation I had in mind...

You are the one having problems. Don't come on our board and argue with my moderators about your special ideas after you have been told several times to stop. You lost your ability to start new threads cause of that. The next thing you can do is apologize to our posters that you have smeared if you want to spend time with them. Last you aren't going to last long if you have to call in Hitler, Warren Jeffs and your other cast of criminals to prop yourself up. Look up Godwins Law and memorize it or you will be losing more. - Chaos

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law.http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?act=Post&CODE=02&f=11&t=21045&qpid=1208105296[/

[asbestosman]

I'll make sure to ask him, if ever I get to discuss anything so trivial with him. Given that he designed a base 64/4 data storage system that is better than our 256/2 system, I'm sure God knows all that is to be known about IT.

It may be a trivial question in the big scheme of things, but just asking such questions helps me to think deeper about mathematics and also to try to gain another perspective at what it might mean to be like God.

By the way, I think it interesting that someone has used DNA to make a massively parallel computer to solve the Travelling Salesman problem.

(For anyone who wants to know, the "halting problem" is the problem of predicting when a program will halt when its only halt condition is to read a particular pattern in a data stream. The content of the data stream is unknown and the only way to read it is via your program. Thus, the only known way to find out is to use the program to read the data stream, and so, of course, when you get to that pattern, your program halts.)

There are a few technical details (such as the fact that one can use an emulator and detect when a halt occurs), but you are correct in that the general case can only be answered by actually running the program (even if it is run in an emulator). There exist automatic program scanners that can do quite a bit to verify the correctness of software including whether a program might enter an endless loop or whether it might terminate in a bad place. But these cannot solve the halting problem for the general case.

[GRW]

Im sorry you seem to interpret them different, but when the Spirit of the Lord clearly states that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, it's hard to interpret them any other way. Did your scientologist friend have God speak directly too?

Not a friend, just an account I read. And no, he did not claim God spoke directly to him in a voice.

Also, I really do not doubt that you've had such an experience, nor am I criticizing your interpretation of it. I am asking how you explain the fact that other people have heard what they believe is God speaking to them, and telling them very different things.

There are a variety of possibilities; such as:

-- God leads people in different directions, depending on their needs

-- Some are deceived, but you are not; or you are deceived and others are not

-- God's communications are intended as a confirmation of true principles, and not necessarily literal truth

-- It's not God at all, but our own minds

[Avatar4321]

Hi Greg, I'll jump in with this. There are millions of non mormons who say the same thing to their apostate comrades. You sound much like those Jehovah's Witnesses who patiently chide away at the forer JW's on the JW forum. Or the Catholics. It's quite common for the still faithful Catholic, Muslim, JW or Evangelical Christian to say much if not all of what you are saying here for reasons why you choose to remain faithful. After all, with the problems in each of these religions, there has to be some sort of glue to hold the smart ones in tightly into the fold. Those who take the time to learn the history, the weaknesses, the arguments of their respective religion... some of them will falter and leave Catholicism, JW, Evangelical Christianity, Islam and a good many will turn to their god and seek after him for assurance.

And you know? In each of these religions, the assurance comes time and time again. Powerful witnesses. There are a million Greg Smiths in each of the world religions. Each of them equally convinced that they are in the One True Religion. Each of them ironclad assured, as god is their witness, that they have not erred in choosing to stay instead of walk out the door for good.

Noggin

You and others like you keep making this claim, I have yet to meet anyone from any other religion who claims to believe it because God revealed to them it was true. Ive studied many religions. There isnt one that teaches you can receive revelation and find out for yourself from God whether its true or not other than the Chruch of Jesus Christ. Find me some official text from any religion advocating this.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Tal writes:

Suppose there is such a set apart from the world - something like a set of Platonic forms somewhere out there, or else, just "the will" which exists in God, etc. Here are my follow-up questions: What on earth is the "argument" from your ground, for granting that some ideology, some religion, or some mystic dictator, or pope or priest or prophet, literally has consistent access to it?

Why would I want to argue or grant this? In fact my interest shouldn't be in whether or not some ideology, some religion, etc., has consistent access, the question is whether or not I have access. Anyone elses's access is largely irrelevant.

You have NO explanation for why any such assertion of contact should ever be credited, and as I mentioned on my other post, I think (since any explanation would have to make primary recourse to logic and what we can appreciate of reality), any answer you could give what essentially refute the very point you're trying to prove. Can you see that?

Do you see why this becomes irrelevant given my preference for personal interaction with the divine? I don't need to credit the contact anyone else makes.

(Also, doesn't your talk about the cultural evolution of hierarchies of values even seem to hint that crediting some claim of contact with the cosmos, or Ultimate Good, or God, or the Virgin Mary, or Allah, is unjustified?)

No.

By contrast, what I would say in response to your question is this: "I would like to believe that there is an external set of morals and ethics that exists apart from the world, but if there is, I know of no way we could ever reliably know just what it consisted of, and no reason to believe that any other mortal has continuous access to it.

And I would agree with this. The point of course is that this becomes an issue that your "reason" cannot deal with - even if it does exist. Your "reason" is then an inadequate guide to the external world. You might counter by suggesting that all you need to know you can know from reason, but that seems to be begging the question.

"So, my belief in morals and ethics must be grounded not in wishes about how things were, but rather, in an appreciation of how things actually seem to the best of our (justified) understanding. And how they seem is that our moral sense comes from within us. Perhaps it was instilled originally by a creator; perhaps it is the result of evolution; but whatever its provenance, it is there, and it is there in nearly every human being on the planet.

And of course, most of the moral decisions and ethical decisions are made from positions of self interest aren't they ....

Anyone can make any claim they want, and ascribe it to communication from the gods - but it seems like it requires a high degree of foolishness to believe such claims in most cases, if not all, because there is simply no good reason to believe that the creator of the universe is consistently revealing his will for everyone on earth through one 'appointed' man or woman. There just isn't. So, why not make the best we can of what we really seem to have?

There are several things to deal with here. The first is that LDS epistemology (as in the title of this thread) doesn't limit the creator of the universe to revealing his will through one apointed man or woman. In fact, the epistemology of the LDS church starts from a basis that the most important revelation from God to man occurs on an individual basis. If God appears to me (ala Joseph Smith), doesn't this seem to be a reasonable basis for belief in a Creator God who interacts with his creation?

By the way, I also love the stories about intuitions telling people to disregard things - at least when they have happy endings. The Dallin Oaks story about getting accosted by some thug was pretty cool - he said he had an instant vision that if he grabbed the gun, the gun would go off killing the thug. He seemed to imply that had that happened, he would not have been called to the Quorum (I don't know why that should be; I'd consider him a hero if he blew away some gun-toting thug!). There are all kinds of other stories like that. What about the one in the New Yorker magazine, about the LA cop who instantly drew and shot at a trench-coated man approaching him, who he killed, who they found out a few seconds later, was carrying a flame-thrower to blast them with?

Yes. I have had these kinds of experiences on a fairly regular basis.

The difference, of course, is all a matter of interpretation.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

CKS writes:

Is the LDS revelatory experience (ala Greg Smith's useful elucidations above) productive of absolute knowledge? That is, given that some experience, in excess of mere "feelings" has occurred, what is the rationale for arguing to unassailable knowledge thereby (if one does so, in fact, argue)?

I would say yes and no. I would say yes if you are asking whether or not a revelatory experience produces knowledge that we feel is sufficient to cause action (i.e. I know that God exists, I know that I need to do X, Y, Z, etc.). I say no in that as human beings we filter the revelation we receive through cultural, social, linguistic, economic, political filters. We do not receive absolute knowledge that is external to us and our place in the world. And as our place in the world changes, our knowlege - even if based on a single experience - can also change.

If such knowledge is unassailable, what is the rationale for treating it as such? Or, if you don't treat it as such, how do you treat it and why?

If I understand your question, I tend to view this along the lines of notions raised in cognitive dissonance theory. Revelation provides a certain amount of weight to our beliefs caused by that revelation, and as such they are not unassailable, but, given the right conditions can be altered, eliminated, contested, and so on.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Tal writes:

---Of course that is LDS doctrine, Kevin - just as much as it is doctrine that in the end, there is only one authorized mouthpiece to reveal the will of Jesus Christ to the world, to the point where any revelation received by any church member, or any other person of any other religion, which conflicts with the "revealed will of the Lord through the prophet", can be known by that fact, to not be accurate, or at least, to be incomplete. When the revelations of Warren Jeffs (or Thomas Monson for that matter) and Gordon B. Hinckley conflict, whose do you stick with? GBH's, of course.

But this is a straw man to some extent, because this isn't what the LDS church teaches at all. I am reminded by a comment made by Brigham Young (from the pulpit no less) -

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

You see, the LDS epistemology is that what the prophet reveals should be confirmed by individuals speaking with God. The Book of Mormon makes this patently clear in an early narritive when Nephi asks God to understand the meaning of the vision of the Tree of Life which his father had, while his brothers Laman and Lemuel as Nephi. Who are the members of the LDS church who blindly follow the prophet emulating? Nephi? Or Laman and Lemuel? The notion that the prophet is a perfect, constantly functioning oracle of the Divine is a notion spread by members of the church, but the prophets themselves (as Brigham Young above) provide us with an entirely different point of view.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie writes:

The vast majority of LDS believers have never received a revelatory experience in which an actual being appeared or spoke in audible words.

This may be true - I don't have the data to confirm or reject this. We certainly have numerous accounts of this. And I have experienced this. And so, .... my concern isn't with the vast majority of LDS believers. I am interested in my own epistemological basis, and I am interested in what the LDS canon says.

So when weâ??re talking about how the Moroni model is interpreted, it seems misleading to start talking about those sort of revelations.

I don't think so. Because we aren't talking about individuals here, we are talking about an LDS epistemology. And from a standpoint of the Canon of the LDS church, this notion - this intepretation of feelings - is inadequate.

Back to Ben â??

I donâ??t think the Moroni verse makes it plain that he is talking only about the spiritual claims within the book. Moreover, he says â??by the power of the HG ye may know the truth of all thingsâ?. He doesnâ??t say â??ye may know the truth of spiritual claims onlyâ?. ALL things. So while you may disagree with the traditional LDS who thinks that God â??tellsâ? him/her the BoM is â??trueâ??, that means that JS actually had ancient gold plates that he translated, and those plates were actually written by real people who once lived on this continent, it seems they are just as justified in that interpretation as you are.

Should Moroni need to make it plain?

I donâ??t care how you interpret it, but I think that if you are interpreting outside the traditionally understood framework you should carefully specify that.

No. I don't need to do this. I am not sure exactly what the traditionally understood framework is for this verse - but I can guarantee that Joseph Smith did not read it the way that you suggest it should be read "traditionally".

By â??external worldâ? I mean claims about events or facts that either occur or did not occur, or are accurate or not accurate, independent of any personâ??s belief in it.

No, I don't mean this at all. Words cannot be considered to convey the world around us. They don't even imitate it.

When you begin discussing morality, you are discussing â??internal realitiesâ? that exist dependent upon oneâ??s beliefs.

No, I am not. If a God exists, there can also exist external "real" moralities, even if what we call ethics and morality isn't the same thing.

I think itâ??s important to clarify which kind of â??truthâ? or reality we are talking about, hence my use of the term â??external realityâ?. Many religious claims are spiritual claims, but they are usually embedded in claims that would exist or not exist in the external reality, apart from anyoneâ??s belief or lack of belief. It is the claims regarding external reality that I am discussing. (thatâ??s why if we agree to shift the conversation to the BoM being â??trueâ? only means that it teaches true spiritual principles it changes the conversation entirely).

Actually, I think this is simply a way for you to avoid dealing with these other issues - because it creates problems for your "reason" just as it does for Tal's.

Ben

[riddled1]

I'm gathering from this lengthy discussion is that we Mormons truly regard our revelatory experiences as unique and special and that it is doubted that other persons of other religions experience such things regarding the truthfulness of their beliefs. Is my understanding correct in this?

[Kevin Christensen]

riddled1 writes:

I'm gathering from this lengthy discussion is that we Mormons truly regard our revelatory experiences as unique and special and that it is doubted that other persons of other religions experience such things regarding the truthfulness of their beliefs. Is my understanding correct in this?

Speaking for myself, no. See for example my essay in JBMS 2:1 on The Book of Mormon and NDE Research, or Richard Bushman's essay "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith" or Mark Kolko's Sunstone essay on "Mysticism and Mormonism", or Alma 29 or Moroni 7, or my three part essay here:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060215model.html

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Noggin]

You and others like you keep making this claim, I have yet to meet anyone from any other religion who claims to believe it because God revealed to them it was true. Ive studied many religions. There isnt one that teaches you can receive revelation and find out for yourself from God whether its true or not other than the Chruch of Jesus Christ. Find me some official text from any religion advocating this.

Then you, and Pahoran believe that those in other religions simply guess, act on a hunch, stumble and fumble in the dark hoping that what they worship really truly does maybe have some substance.

Before I get longwinded, I'll just say that the hatred Pahoran spews towards me for trying to make this point half way confuses me. It's unbecoming of a practicing theist of any sort, it is unwarranted and I suggest that he might sleep better if he'd get a better hold on himself. If I am a halitosis infected bully, Pahoran is cut out of my same cloth. I am not surprised anymore with the responses I get. I used to be but now I come to expect such response. Pahoran and Dr. Peterson frequently cluck away at the RFM board members for their descent down the slippery slope of hate and disdain, I wonder if they can see their own descent when they attempt to hold conversations with people who do not believe as they do. They are no different in many ways. The hatred is not warranted.

Muslims have no doubt that they worship the true deity. But no, Pahoran is unable to fashion a thought that allows for revelation to support this Muslim belief. Greg Smith can do it, quite easily actually. And I have conceded that they are not praying to allah exactly like Moroni 10:3-5 else they'd likely be Mormons instead of Muslims. But they do know they are right and they claim allah supreme and all other gods fake. "Allah" (and I refuse to capitalize it midsentance since I do not believe allah is a god worthy of punctuation, but a mere mental conditioning tactic... would I capitalize the word, oh I don't know.... "brainwash" every time I use it?), does intervene in these people's lives and that mental conditioning force conditions them to believe.

Do Muslims pray to a god? Do they have still quiet moments of introspection that are filled with substance and peace and fulfillment and guidance? Is this not revelation? Allright, it's not classic Mormon revelation, as I conceded already. But it is revelation enough to convince them pray 5 times a day instead of going to a Mormon temple once a month. I was lead to believe that they know without doubt that Islam is true.

People who convert to Islam testify that they are lead to Islam by a guiding force. We cannot say that an active and honest truth seeker studying Islam and considering it to devote his life to, would not ultimately appeal to the god of that religion for guidance and assurance. The probability shows that a convert would appeal to the god of Islam. That is the point I am making.

I studied Islam. I asked a Muslim how I was to really know if Islam was true, and ultimately I was told that I would just know if I honestly pursued it... allah "would not fail me". I asked if Muslims ever prayed to their god for direction, they said "all the time" and I was admonished, as a potential convert to Islam, to do likewise. I don't know how these questions could possibly be construed as manipulative. Converts to Islam especially if they have a christian background with a personal god are going to approach a conversion to Islam in this fashion. What do you believe... that a Muslim is going to tell the convert something like:

Just trust me, Islam is true read the Koran... it's all there... But whatever you do, don't pray to allah for guidance and assurance that Islam is the only true religion, allah will not respond to you?

That is absurd. And completely opposite with my interaction with Islam.

Noggin

[Greg Smith]

Muslims have no doubt that they worship the true deity. But no, Pahoran is unable to fashion a thought that allows for revelation to support this Muslim belief. Greg Smith can do it, quite easily actually. And I have conceded that they are not praying to allah exactly like Moroni 10:3-5 else they'd likely be Mormons instead of Muslims. But they do know they are right and they claim allah supreme and all other gods fake.

Just to clarify, while I certainly concede that they COULD make appeals to revelatory experiences, that's not been my experience in speaking with a fair number of Muslims.

(As anyone who saw the riots in France can attest, Muslims are prominent there, and are probably the largest group of beliving, practicing theists in the country.)

I don't think I ever talked to anyone who invoked anything like revelation. They simply asserted that the Qu'ran's manifest perfection and beauty ought to be enough--almost a rationalistic basis for belief.

Now, they may well have other approaches, but I haven't personally seen it. I'm also not aware of any Muslim writing on the topic, but am harldy an expert.

From what I've read of Dr. Peterson on this issue, "revelation" does not seem to loom large in Muslim thinking, but perhaps I misunderstood him.

And, just for the record, if I spoke Arabic, I'd be calling "Allah" the supreme God too, since this is what Arab Christians call God.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

I'm gathering from this lengthy discussion is that we Mormons truly regard our revelatory experiences as unique and special and that it is doubted that other persons of other religions experience such things regarding the truthfulness of their beliefs. Is my understanding correct in this?

Not for me. See my previous post.

I do think we emphasize and seek such things more prominently, however, as part of both our worship and missionary activities.

And, I do think many Mormons (erroneously) make the assumption which you suggest. But, it isn't scriptural.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Noggin]

Just to clarify, while I certainly concede that they COULD make appeals to revelatory experiences, that's not been my experience in speaking with a fair number of Muslims.

(As anyone who saw the riots in France can attest, Muslims are prominent there, and are probably the largest group of beliving, practicing theists in the country.)

I don't think I ever talked to anyone who invoked anything like revelation. They simply asserted that the Qu'ran's manifest perfection and beauty ought to be enough--almost a rationalistic basis for belief.

Hi Greg,

All I am saying is if you approach the religion as a potential convert with a background consisiting of a personal god, eventually, you can be directed to appeal to allah for guidance and ultimately you will know Islam is True as you know everything else and as was told to me, "allah will not fail you".

Now, they may well have other approaches, but I haven't personally seen it. I'm also not aware of any Muslim writing on the topic, but am harldy an expert.

I can concede that my experience is an anomale. This only spurs me on to talk to more Muslims and I guess, pose as a potential convert and see what other Muslims will say or how they will direct me. I know at one point in my interaction a Muslim did try to convince me that Islam was true on account of the Koran that is infallible. I showed how that was a brand of circular logic and unconvincing and that led to being told that allah will guide me and I will just know.

From what I've read of Dr. Peterson on this issue, "revelation" does not seem to loom large in Muslim thinking, but perhaps I misunderstood him.

Again, perhaps my experience was not normal. I do think that a unique set of circumstances present themselves when a Muslim attempts to explain to an ex christian (or ex mormon) how he is to know that Islam is True. More and more, as Islam gains popularity in the west, this set of circumstances will be dealt with time and again.

It's dishonest in a way, but I am going to seek out another Muslim contact and pose as a honest truth seeker, and extract how I, an ex personal god theist, am to know Islam is true. If he says something like:

Just read the Koran, Islam is completely self-evident, self-verifying, but don't bother asking allah as he won't reveal anything to you

I'll rest my case.

Noggin

[Noggin]

Noggin writes:

QUOTE

I'm gathering from this lengthy discussion is that we Mormons truly regard our revelatory experiences as unique and special and that it is doubted that other persons of other religions experience such things regarding the truthfulness of their beliefs. Is my understanding correct in this?

Speaking for myself, no. See for example my essay in JBMS 2:1 on The Book of Mormon and NDE Research, or Richard Bushman's essay "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith" or Mark Kolko's Sunstone essay on "Mysticism and Mormonism", or Alma 29 or Moroni 7, or my three part essay here:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060215model.html

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Noggin did not write that. Or.. I should say that I do not recall writing that.

Noggin