Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Tarski]

Tarski's illustration of the two packs of cards is an interesting example of this. Evidently it is impossible under probability theory to prove that pack A is the better choice; but that doesn't mean it isn't.

Sort of.

The question is more one of providing a foundation for probability that is both rational and squares with our intuition about this example. Once a probability space has been chosen, the mathematics proceeds in a perfectly satisfactory way. In other words, this is more a philosophy question than a math question.

Also, in the name of fairness, I should mention that Professor Putnum's analysis has probably been challenged but I didn't keep up with that conversation. I can even think of a few possible objections to his analysis myself. Nevertheless, I think the overall lesson is correct.

For more on the limits of science and rationality (which I still think are our most powerful tools) see the book

Impossibility by John D. Barrow

(not really his best effort though).

[riddled1]

If the answer is "no", then how does reconciliation of other's witness of truth work? If I believe the LDS tradition is the only true way, then why doesn't God direct people toward the church instead of giving them a testimony of their current path?

Further, what of those that do pray to know the truthfulness of the BofM and don't get the same answer you or I recieve? The ambiguity of it all lends itself ever more to irrelevance in my mind. There are too many hoops to jump through to make my testimony of the church be a testimony of exclusivity.

[Zakuska]

Seems to me the LDS epistemology is the same Epistomolgy that Chirst himself used...

John 5

36

[Greg Smith]

If the answer is "no", then how does reconciliation of other's witness of truth work? If I believe the LDS tradition is the only true way, then why doesn't God direct people toward the church instead of giving them a testimony of their current path?

My take on this is here in longer form.

Further, what of those that do pray to know the truthfulness of the BofM and don't get the same answer you or I recieve? The ambiguity of it all lends itself ever more to irrelevance in my mind. There are too many hoops to jump through to make my testimony of the church be a testimony of exclusivity.

I don't think this is intended to be a circumstance in which you can "crack open the machine" and see what's going on. I can't judge other people. It's not really my business what they get told or not. Or, whether they misunderstand or not. Only we and God can judge our diligence, sincerity, "real intent," etc.

This was the whole point of the Restoration:

that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—

20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

21 That faith also might increase in the earth;

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 1:19 - 21)

This is why Tal's mockery of "one prophet" getting revelation for the earth is a caricature. LDS doctrine has always been about revelation to each individual about any matter, including (especially concerning) pretended prophets.

Thus, the question is not "so-and-so should believe because of my experience," but "Is my experience sufficient to motivate me to action?"

But what about people who use "spiritual methods" and get misled?

So what? The question is, have spiritual methods as I am practicing them been a good guide to my actions? Have I been guided aright when I followed them? Did I get things I wouldn't have gotten/could not get in any other way?

Kind regards,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

I can concede that my experience is an anomale.

That is my point. I have no doubt--as I've indicated--that at least some believers in at least some (I would say most, or the vast majority) religions are going to appeal to revelatory-type epistomology.

But, these are generally the anomalies, or outliers--if I read their own literature properly. (And, even saying 'Allah will lead you' might well be a far cry from personal revelation--e.g. the dog peeing on the idol might be Allah 'leading me,' but it isn't personal revelation.)

(Though if I were inventing a polytheistic pantheon, I think it would be great to have a "trickster god" who always revealed his/her will to the world via animals disposing of their bodily wastes in various ways. It would take soothsaying to a whole new level. Forget those entrails and the flight of birds--did Fido throw up in my shoe today?)

By contrast, any meeting with Mormon missionaries is going to focus very heavily on the necessity of revelation.

Compare, for example, the various theistic "proofs" for the existence of God by Anselem and the like--all of which leave me utterly cold. Mormons don't really indulge in that kind of thinking because we don't need to, by and large.

I'm not sure "posing" as a sincere seeker of truth is really a good way to learn things. Why not just put the dilemma to a Muslim, and ask them point-blank? Most people are happy to answer sincere questions about their beliefs.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Kevin Christensen]

Noggin corrects me:

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

It was riddled1. My error. I edited my previoous post to make the correction.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Pahoran]

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.

No, that is not what I believe. If you'd like to know, just ask me and I'll tell you. Please desist from being so arrogant as to presume to describe my beliefs for me. Quite apart from the bad manners involved, you make an awful botch of it.

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.

The "hatred" doesn't even exist except in your own mind. I don't hate you. I don't even spend any time thinking about you in any way at all. I take issue with some of your assertions. I'm sorry you find that hateful.

Muslims have no doubt that they worship the true deity.

Of course they do. I can't imagine a group of believers who thought they were worshipping the wrong one.

But no, Pahoran is unable to fashion a thought that allows for revelation to support this Muslim belief.

You have not the first clue what thoughts I can fashion. The reality is as follows:

1) I have seen this claim before.

2) I have investigated it.

3) I have found it to be baseless.

In fact, when I see your false dilemma arguments on this topic, it becomes apparent that it is you who is "unable to fashion a thought that allows for" religious belief to exist on any other basis than direct personal revelation.

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.

That sounds remarkably like an admission. Are you sure that is what you intended to say?

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.

You don't capitalise a word midsentence only because you believe it represents "a god worthy of punctuation." You capitalise it because it's a proper noun. This is a simple matter of ordinary English. To refuse to capitalise it is a deliberate act of bad manners.

Do Muslims pray to a god?

They certainly do; five times a day if they are observant Muslims.

Do they have still quiet moments of introspection that are filled with substance and peace and fulfillment and guidance?

I'm not sure about the "guidance" part, but I'll certainly grant the rest.

Is this not revelation?

Not in any meaningful way, no.

Revelation is the imparting of actual information not ordinarily otherwise available.

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.

And you can't imagine that anyone could have such a belief absent direct revelation, is that it?

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.

But if we look at what the Muslim literature actually says, instead of relying upon mere supposition and trying to make it sound scientific by calling it "probability," we find that (1) yes, Muslims believe that Allah leads people to Islam, and (2) no, they don't see direct personal revelation as a factor.

I studied Islam.

Really? For how many years and in what context?

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'm glad you asked a Muslim and didn't merely assume. Now, was he a recognised Muslim scholar, or a Pakistani taxi-driver? For some reason, I'm reminded of Ed Decker going to Hong Kong, walking into a dry cleaning shop, showing the store clerk the Chinese characters for "wizard gate" and asking him how to pronounce them.

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.

Unfortunately, your "interaction with Islam" is not available for our inspection.

Fortunately, the Muslim literature is.

And the unassailable fact is that it does not support your argument. They do not have a concept of conversion as the receipt of direct personal revelation. This is foreign to their culture and ethos. Muhammad is the "seal of the prophets," i.e. the very last one, and the Qur'an is God's final and perfect revelation to mankind. Muslims pray, but they do not see prayer as a dialogue as we do. However "absurd" it might seem to you, they really do think it's all there in the Qur'an.

Words mean different things in different contexts. For Latter-day Saints, conversion means gaining a conviction of the truthfulness of the restored Gospel; for Muslims, it is understood as something quite different, namely, submission to the will of God.

Note that there is at least one strand of Evangelical Protestant thought that also holds that God doesn't answer prayers, and that God's final and perfect revelation, after which none is possible, has already been given, in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, any and all answers can only be sought in the Bible, and potential converts are taught not to expect answers to prayers. So the Muslim position is not quite as unimaginable as you seem to think.

It cannot be doubted--and has never been disputed--that many Muslims devoutly believe their religion to be true. To assume that such belief can only be gained by direct personal revelation is wrong; therefore, said belief is not evidence of such revelation. Of course potential Muslim converts are admonished to pray; prayer is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. These facts do not support the anti-Mormon assumption that Muslims believe because they experience direct personal revelation. They have other criteria for confirming their belief.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

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?

For me personally, no and I know for my family members, no and from my experience of 45+ years in the Church the LDS I have talked to about this would say no as well.

That there are some LDS who hold this position...that wouldn't surprise me.

[Calm]

It's dishonest in a way, but I am going to seek out another Muslim contact and pose as a honest truth seeker

It is completely dishonest and very insulting. Just ask him or her straight out without the games.

[Calm]

The daily ritual prayers offered by Muslims are not the same thing as what LDS consider prayers. They are for the purpose of worship.

http://www.islamawareness.net/Salah/explained.html

They have another name for personal supplications "du'a".

[Noggin]

The "hatred" doesn't even exist except in your own mind. I don't hate you. I don't even spend any time thinking about you in any way at all. I take issue with some of your assertions. I'm sorry you find that hateful.

No, I am not claiming that you spend any time thinking about me. I sincerely hope you don't. But your posts towards people who do not think like you do drip with disdain. Oh well. Letâ??s see what you wrote:

Of course they do. I can't imagine a group of believers who thought they were worshipping the wrong one.

You have not the first clue what thoughts I can fashion. The reality is as follows:

1) I have seen this claim before.

2) I have investigated it.

3) I have found it to be baseless.

You have found it to be baseless. I have found an instance where it isn't.

We disagree. Good enough.

In fact, when I see your false dilemma arguments on this topic, it becomes apparent that it is you who is "unable to fashion a thought that allows for" religious belief to exist on any other basis than direct personal revelation.

We disagree, fair enough.

You don't capitalise a word midsentence only because you believe it represents "a god worthy of punctuation." You capitalise it because it's a proper noun. This is a simple matter of ordinary English. To refuse to capitalise it is a deliberate act of bad manners.

For me, bad manners, it is not. For you and I suppose many others here, it is bad manners. Fair enough. But it represents my refusal to acknowlege an entity I do not feel any fealty towards at the moment. I have my reasons. God is a non entity not worthy of punctuation in my opinion right now and frankly, I really do not care too terribly if it offends anyone. This is another power play of yours, Pahoran. You were the one who made a point to call me out on capitalizing the word allah. I doubt you would have complained if it was any other grammatical error. Just leave my punctuation preferences and how I am made to appear because of them to me.

Noggin wrote:

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.

Pahoran responded:And you can't imagine that anyone could have such a belief absent direct revelation, is that it?

My particular scenario, as I mentioned, was one where I sought out how a potential convert with a religious background comprising a former personal god, was supposed to know for sure that Islam is True, as in the only approved religion of god it claims it is. I was told that allah would answer my prayers. I fully explained it in the last several posts. I credit myself with the inability to explain it well enough. We don't seem to be able to get on the same page as to all of this, so I suppose I should just leave it alone and recognize that I have done a poor job in explaining myself and what I experienced as I studied Islam.

But if we look at what the Muslim literature actually says, instead of relying upon mere supposition and trying to make it sound scientific by calling it "probability," we find that (1) yes, Muslims believe that Allah leads people to Islam, and (2) no, they don't see direct personal revelation as a factor.

There you go. Nice. Does it occur to you that I could have thrown in the word "probability" without trying to make what I experienced appeal to science? Are you this warm and fuzzy with your friends?

Noggin discloses that he studied Islam and Pahoran responds:

Really? For how many years and in what context?

Yes really. I came out of Mormonism and for at least 18 months wandered from religion to religion searching for god's only approved truth. If not Mormonism, I assumed, then surely it existed somewhere else. I am sorry that apparently I had to study Islam for "years" and in some special context approved only by you for my studies of Islam to be valid. Actually, what's this? Why am I apologizing... I'm not sorry.

I'm glad you asked a Muslim and didn't merely assume. Now, was he a recognised Muslim scholar, or a Pakistani taxi-driver? For some reason, I'm reminded of Ed Decker going to Hong Kong, walking into a dry cleaning shop, showing the store clerk the Chinese characters for "wizard gate" and asking him how to pronounce them.

No, they weren't recognized scholars. Just the regular ones who bow down to the earth 5 times a day. I am sure that will meet with your sizzling disapproval, furrowed brow and all.

Unfortunately, your "interaction with Islam" is not available for our inspection.

Unfortunately for whom? As if I did my own personal research on Islam for the benefit of anyone else but myself.

And the unassailable fact is that it does not support your argument. They do not have a concept of conversion as the receipt of direct personal revelation.

Well? If you ask the right questions and show them that one cannot prove Islam by merely appealing to the Koran, they (I should say, some) might well take out a different approach. That was my experience. I asked if allah cares about humans, they said he does. I asked if their god was capable of leading a former christian to Islam, they said he was... and does and would answer my prayers. They said there is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet and I could know that as sure as I know everything else in my life. I told them that I could not convert to Islam unless I truly felt a connection with the god of Islam. They said it would come. They said they definitely had this in their lives.

I was told Islam is the religion which was given to Adam, the first man and the first prophet of allah. I asked how I could know that was true since I used to believe Mormonism was the religion given to Adam and there should be some method to verify this. I was told that allah would answer my prayers. That was good enough for me. Here is something I just found online that supports what I am saying. From IslamWorld:

[allah] is the only one deserving man's worship as it is only by His will that prayers are answered. If man prays to a tree and his prayers are answered, it was not the tree which answered his prayers but Allah who allowed the circumstances prayed for to take place. One might say, "That is obvious," however, to tree-worshippers it might not be. Similarly, prayers to Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna, to Saint Christopher, or Saint Jude or even to Muhammad, are not answered by them but are answered by Allah.

source: http://www.islamworld.net/true.html

Clearly, the god of Islam answers prayers. How is this not revelation again?

Pahoran continues:

This is foreign to their culture and ethos. Muhammad is the "seal of the prophets," i.e. the very last one, and the Qur'an is God's final and perfect revelation to mankind. Muslims pray, but they do not see prayer as a dialogue as we do.

How do you explain the quote from IslamWorld then?

Words mean different things in different contexts. For Latter-day Saints, conversion means gaining a conviction of the truthfulness of the restored Gospel; for Muslims, it is understood as something quite different, namely, submission to the will of God.

Try it out, Pahoran. Put the zeal for debate you show here to the test. Ask the pointed questions to a Muslim friend of yours. Tell them to show you how you can know Islam is the only true religion without using the Koran. Put the screws to him/her. Ask them if allah will answer your prayers. When you get down to brass tacks, and you show them that the Koran is fallible, they are left with nothing else but an appeal to their god.

You'll see. They will appeal to their god. eventually. It's not Moroni 10:3-5, but you'll encounter them telling you that

1. You will just know and

2. Their god will lead you to the truth.

3. Their god will answer your prayers

If one day you do not know Islam is true, and then you pursue Islam, pray to allah to know if it is true and then find yourself another day completely believing Islam is the only true religion, how else can that be considered anything but revelation?

The point that I make is that the truth seeking convert with a background that includes a personal god (like Mormon or Evangelical Christian) will, in his attempt to convert to Islam, seek out the god of Islam as a natural occurance. Islam does not say allah is a silent god.

Note that there is at least one strand of Evangelical Protestant thought that also holds that God doesn't answer prayers, and that God's final and perfect revelation, after which none is possible, has already been given, in the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, any and all answers can only be sought in the Bible, and potential converts are taught not to expect answers to prayers. So the Muslim position is not quite as unimaginable as you seem to think.

Right. But that does not change the experience I had in investigating Islam.

It cannot be doubted--and has never been disputed--that many Muslims devoutly believe their religion to be true. To assume that such belief can only be gained by direct personal revelation is wrong; therefore, said belief is not evidence of such revelation. Of course potential Muslim converts are admonished to pray; prayer is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. These facts do not support the anti-Mormon assumption that Muslims believe because they experience direct personal revelation. They have other criteria for confirming their belief.

Muslims believe that allah exists, he does lead non Muslims to Islam and that he answers prayers. I donâ??t know how else to explain this to you.

Noggin

[Calm]

Clearly, the god of Islam answers prayers. How is this not revelation again?

If someone prays that they will have something to eat that nigh and are answered by a friend dropping off a meal for them, would you call that "revelation"?

Serious question since you seem to be saying this would be revelation--any answer to any prayer appears to be revelation to you.

Not so to me and most LDS, I would suggest.

Prayers can be answered in multiple ways. One way involves revelation. Perhaps to you all ways are revelation, but that is not how LDS define it and in critiquing how LDS see other religious experiences, it would be best to use the same definitions for the same terms.

[Pahoran]

You don't capitalise a word midsentence only because you believe it represents "a god worthy of punctuation." You capitalise it because it's a proper noun. This is a simple matter of ordinary English. To refuse to capitalise it is a deliberate act of bad manners.

For me, bad manners, it is not. For you and I suppose many others here, it is bad manners. Fair enough. But it represents my refusal to acknowlege an entity I do not feel any fealty towards at the moment. I have my reasons. God is a non entity not worthy of punctuation in my opinion right now and frankly, I really do not care too terribly if it offends anyone. This is another power play of yours, Pahoran. You were the one who made a point to call me out on capitalizing the word allah. I doubt you would have complained if it was any other grammatical error.

But Noggin, you just admitted that you do it to intentionally show disrespect. How is that not bad manners? Did your mother teach you that it is good manners to intentionally show disrespect to others, or to the things they hold sacred?

Just leave my punctuation preferences and how I am made to appear because of them to me.

Furthermore, you also told us that you do it to make a point. Do you really expect us to just swallow your point and shut up? Are you so precious that no-one is allowed to take issue with any point you choose to make? Just who is really indulging in a "power play?"

My particular scenario, as I mentioned, was one where I sought out how a potential convert with a religious background comprising a former personal god, was supposed to know for sure that Islam is True, as in the only approved religion of god it claims it is. I was told that allah would answer my prayers. I fully explained it in the last several posts. I credit myself with the inability to explain it well enough. We don't seem to be able to get on the same page as to all of this, so I suppose I should just leave it alone and recognize that I have done a poor job in explaining myself and what I experienced as I studied Islam.

Yes, and you have imported LDS categories into the conversation by assuming that "answer prayers" equates to "give direct personal revelation." This assumption is unsafe.

There you go. Nice. Does it occur to you that I could have thrown in the word "probability" without trying to make what I experienced appeal to science? Are you this warm and fuzzy with your friends?

The word "probability" requires that some kind of mathematical measuring is going on.

Yes really. I came out of Mormonism and for at least 18 months wandered from religion to religion searching for god's only approved truth. If not Mormonism, I assumed, then surely it existed somewhere else. I am sorry that apparently I had to study Islam for "years" and in some special context approved only by you for my studies of Islam to be valid. Actually, what's this? Why am I apologizing... I'm not sorry.

You don't have to be sorry. IOW, your study was informal, which explains why you did not start by getting a list of religious terms and their definitions. When they used a word or phrase, you understood it in the light of your LDS background, instead of asking them what they meant by it. That's not a particularly reprehensible error, but it is an error.

No, they weren't recognized scholars. Just the regular ones who bow down to the earth 5 times a day. I am sure that will meet with your sizzling disapproval, furrowed brow and all.

Do you think I disapprove of talking to people about their beliefs? What have I posted that gives that impression? I only disapprove of quoting non-authorities as if they were authorities.

Unfortunately for whom? As if I did my own personal research on Islam for the benefit of anyone else but myself.

Unfortunately for this discussion. We don't have access to your raw data, only to your reaction to it, but you are scolding us for not accepting your reaction as the Pure and Total Truth of the subject.

Well? If you ask the right questions and show them that one cannot prove Islam by merely appealing to the Koran, they (I should say, some) might well take out a different approach. That was my experience. I asked if allah cares about humans, they said he does. I asked if their god was capable of leading a former christian to Islam, they said he was... and does and would answer my prayers. They said there is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet and I could know that as sure as I know everything else in my life. I told them that I could not convert to Islam unless I truly felt a connection with the god of Islam. They said it would come. They said they definitely had this in their lives.

That's nice.

Now what, if anything, does that have to do with the question presently under dispute?

I was told Islam is the religion which was given to Adam, the first man and the first prophet of allah. I asked how I could know that was true since I used to believe Mormonism was the religion given to Adam and there should be some method to verify this. I was told that allah would answer my prayers. That was good enough for me. Here is something I just found online that supports what I am saying. From IslamWorld:

[Allah] is the only one deserving man's worship as it is only by His will that prayers are answered. If man prays to a tree and his prayers are answered, it was not the tree which answered his prayers but Allah who allowed the circumstances prayed for to take place. One might say, "That is obvious," however, to tree-worshippers it might not be. Similarly, prayers to Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna, to Saint Christopher, or Saint Jude or even to Muhammad, are not answered by them but are answered by Allah.

Clearly, the god of Islam answers prayers. How is this not revelation again?

You did not trouble yourself to find out by what is meant when they assert that God answers prayers. You assume that they mean what we mean: that in prayer we have a conversation with deity. They mean something quite different: that in prayer a mortal worships or supplicates God, and God blesses those who worship him.

Try it out, Pahoran. Put the zeal for debate you show here to the test. Ask the pointed questions to a Muslim friend of yours. Tell them to show you how you can know Islam is the only true religion without using the Koran. Put the screws to him/her. Ask them if allah will answer your prayers. When you get down to brass tacks, and you show them that the Koran is fallible, they are left with nothing else but an appeal to their god.

Rather than pestering people with leading questions until they tell me what I want to hear, I think I will rely upon their uncoached claims. For instance, your own source says:

There are so many sects, cults, religions, philosophies, and movements in the world, all of which claim to be the right way or the only true path to Allah. How can one determine which one is correct or if, in fact, all are correct? The method by which the answer can be found is...

Now we pause at this point to ask the reader: if the standard anti-Mormon claim at issue is correct, how should this sentence end? Should it not suggest that Allah will personally reveal the truth to the investigator in answer to his or her prayers?

We continue:

The method by which the answer can be found is to clear away the superficial differences in the teachings of the various claimants to the ultimate truth, and identify the central object of worship to which they call, directly or indirectly. False religions all have in common one basic concept with regards to Allah. They either claim that all men are gods or that specific men were Allah or that nature is Allah or that Allah is a figment of man's imagination.

IOW, it's essentially an intellectual exercise.

You'll see. They will appeal to their god. eventually. It's not Moroni 10:3-5, but you'll encounter them telling you that

1. You will just know and

2. Their god will lead you to the truth.

3. Their god will answer your prayers

But nothing about personal revelation.

If one day you do not know Islam is true, and then you pursue Islam, pray to allah to know if it is true and then find yourself another day completely believing Islam is the only true religion, how else can that be considered anything but revelation?

You are trying your best to force Muslim teachings into LDS categories, but it doesn't work. You are at all times entitled to draw your own conclusions, but please refrain from presenting your conclusions as their teachings.

The point that I make is that the truth seeking convert with a background that includes a personal god (like Mormon or Evangelical Christian) will, in his attempt to convert to Islam, seek out the god of Islam as a natural occurance. Islam does not say allah is a silent god.

As far as the LDS concept of prayer/revelation as a conversation (Terryl Givens's "dialogic revelation") is concerned, oh yes it does.

Muslims believe that allah exists, he does lead non Muslims to Islam and that he answers prayers. I donâ??t know how else to explain this to you.

Muslims don't believe that Allah answers prayers by personally communicating with the supplicant. You merely assume that they do because that's what "God answers prayers" means to you.

I don't know how else to explain this to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tal Bachman]

Benjamin, I read your reply. My apologies, I thought you were LDS.

Tarski, here are a few comments for what they're worth (?) on your post from a few pages back.

I'll postpone the Steven Weinberg thing for now since I don't have time to watch his talk.

Another problem I see is that there is a false dichotomy between what we describe as feeling and other forms of cognition. For example, what does one make of the sense of conviction and certainty one feels when one reads an airtight mathematical proof? Could that feeling be mistaken? Sure! Why is there even such a sensation? Does the brain instantiate a proof itself in such a case--I think not. This was Penrose's mistake in Emperors New Mind. Seeing that something is true is not the same as the brain computationaly instantiating a proof of said theorem. This is true even if the reason one "sees" that it is true is becuase of having recently seen a proof (maybe the proof is subtly wrong).

---Hmmmyessss...I think I mentioned Damasio in my other post. He always discusses how emotions/feelings play a part in cognition. As I'm sure you know, there is even some (disconcerting) reason to believe that "conscious decision-making" is in fact "post hoc rationalization of an unconscious decision". The Libet experiments deal with this; Ramachandran mentions this phenomenon quite a bit; Wegner has an entire book called "The Illusion of Conscious Will".

Anyway, not to get off track - what I mean to say is that acknowledging that "reason vs. emotion" is a false dichotomy I think is not incompatible with the conclusion that one is far more likely to discover things about the world using particular methodological tools, over "unstructured" hunches, guesses, inclinations, burnings in bosoms, astrological readings, etc. One can acknowledge that the non-rational part of ourselves exists, that it is important, vital in fact, while still recognizing that "I feel it's true, therefore I know it's true" isn't as true a statement as one which claims knowledge after, say, many decades of the most rigourous testing...Do you agree with that?

Also, I think that the number of things that we must, in the course of a lifetime, accept because of our mere sense or feeling that it is true is quite great. One cannot do exhaustive research or follow to the end every logical consequence of ones everyday beliefs to ferret out any possible inconsistencies. Rationality has its limits and making a choice based on a feeling is just par for the course in this life.

---Yes, this is true. Fortunately, the cost of error is usually not very great in everyday situations. But sometimes the potential costs of certain decisions - like decisions about how we will govern every aspect of our lives - is very great.

For example, we might choose, based on our feelings, to treat people of a certain race worse than we do others; we might choose to devote our lives or money to a political or religious movement that is simply a fraud. We might choose to die for those movements, or to expose those we are guardians over to danger for those causes, with the sincerest of intentions. So I think (moving from your descriptive statement to one prescriptive) where the costs are so potentially great, we ought to put serious thought into our choices, not just for our own good, but for the good of those who look up to us, and even for the strangers who will be affected by our choices. Does that make sense?

Anyway, after pages and pages one of the most rational men to ever live essentially gives up finding a rational basis for the choice and yet he feels, somehow knows, that choosing deck A is correct.

I'd like to read Putnam's idea in its entirety, but just from what you mention, I'm having a hard time understanding why Deck A wouldn't be a far more rational choice, even if one only got one chance, than a deck which we know contains hardly any aces. There is simply a higher likelihood of any person selecting an ace from a deck with more aces in it...(?). What you say of this example, and the mention of Hume, worry me a bit, in that Hume appears to be the originator of the idea that any non-deductively derived conclusion is irrational, whereas from what I can tell this is not true at all. Inductively derived conclusions may be invalid ("the sun has always risen in the morning, therefore it will rise tomorrow morning"), but they are not necessarily for that reason irrational, for just the reason of probability which you mention (and especially if we aren't deductivist ideologues).

Finally, one has to take the seriously the person that says they only use the word "know" because in certain cases it is unseemly not to. For example, I would never explain to my child that I only think she will be a good person when she grows up. Naturally I don't actually know that but I feel fine saying "I know you will be a good person when you grow up". This is an emotional/sacred thing and religious assertions can be seen in the same way. Does this mean that I think the belief in Mormonism is justified? No it doesn't. But it does mean that simply battering a religious person with "you don't really know" is of only limited value.

You mention Mormonism, but I suppose I am not sure how your example is analogous to Mormon knowledge claims. For example, even you yourself say that you know you don't really know whether your daughter will be a good person, but the same could not be said of a Mormon who claims to know that there was a global flood, or a Muslim who claims to know that Mohammed flew, etc. The word might be the same, but what we mean by it is quite different, isn't it?

It is obviously true, in many cases, that saying, "let's be honest - you don't really know that only 144,000 people are going to heaven, or that Mary was the product of an immaculate conception, or that Joseph Smith always told the truth about his experiences" is "of only limited value", at least in terms of changing a true believer's mind. But not even the prospect of martyrdom will change a true believer's mind. That seems only to come when the true believer reaches a point where he is less concerned with remaining a true believer full stop, than in discovering where he might be mistaken. But to close off such conversation because the unique psychological state of the true believer usually renders that believer impervious to facts or logic, I think is kind of overdoing it...

I'll try to watch that Weinberg thing when I can; but I just want to say before I split that that increasingly famous Weinberg comment about how people need religion to do evil, is completely ridiculous! I guess he's never heard of Marxism or Nazism, neither of which were religious in the sense he meant.

[Tarski]

I'd like to read Putnam's idea in its entirety, but just from what you mention, I'm having a hard time understanding why Deck A wouldn't be a far more rational choice, even if one only got one chance, than a deck which we know contains hardly any aces. There is simply a higher likelihood of any person selecting an ace from a deck with more aces in it...(?).

It's been a long time since I read it and I remember being astounded at how he ended up. The trick is to unpack what the word "likely" really means in this situation. According to Putnum this is not easy at all. I'll see if I can find the article.

I suspect that any disagreements between us will be largely academic since I think we would probably agree on our assessment of the facts regarding religion and Mormonism. Having run the gamut from Kant to Heidegger to Rorty and most recently Dennett I feel less willing to take sides on philosophical issues. I can kinda work my way into a position of sympathy for several different view points. I suppose I am also a bit weary of debating specific philosophers and feel that my best bet is to be pragmatic and open minded and to stick to common sense and science when it comes to factual issues (which, of course, bear on the truthfulness or falsehood of mormonism).

For example, the idea of debating about Kant or Heidegger is not appealing to me these days.

I'll try to watch that Weinberg thing when I can; but I just want to say before I split that that increasingly famous Weinberg comment about how people need religion to do evil, is completely ridiculous! I guess he's never heard of Marxism or Nazism, neither of which were religious in the sense he meant.

I think I agree. Actually, if you watch the whole conference you will find much to agree with but you will also find yourself think that these guys are extremely arrogant and perhaps a bit misguided.

[juliann]

Benjamin, I read your reply. My apologies, I thought you were LDS.

Like we couldn't see that dodge coming. He left you speechless and completely disoriented, eh?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Benjamin, I read your reply. My apologies, I thought you were LDS.

I am LDS. Not only am I LDS, I am what might be termed a TBM. I go to church on Sunday, I teach Gosepl Doctrine classes and Priesthood lessons from time to time (I am probably the favorite substitute since I can be called at 10 PM on Saturday night). And so on. It is one of the interesting things of my living outside of Utah, and that is that the diversity that is the LDS church is much more apparent in the "mission field". And dsepite your attempt to try and relegate me to some sort of theological "other", I remain LDS, and my being a part of the LDS community is both well known here in this forum, as are my personal views.

Anyway, not to get off track - what I mean to say is that acknowledging that "reason vs. emotion" is a false dichotomy I think is not incompatible with the conclusion that one is far more likely to discover things about the world using particular methodological tools, over "unstructured" hunches, guesses, inclinations, burnings in bosoms, astrological readings, etc. One can acknowledge that the non-rational part of ourselves exists, that it is important, vital in fact, while still recognizing that "I feel it's true, therefore I know it's true" isn't as true a statement as one which claims knowledge after, say, many decades of the most rigourous testing...Do you agree with that?

I am not sure that I agree with this. Because what it really does is present a separation between what is used to describe the natural world and what is used to describe the rest of our experience. The natural world is nice because it can resist our assumption. If we present the notion that the world is flat, all we have to do is to discover that it is round to overturn our assumption. But you don't get this with notions of good or evil - despite the fact that these kinds of issues place a central role in our lives. Whether or not you like to think about them, most (if not all) of humanity deals with issues of morality and ethics, decisions of good and evil. And these kinds of issues never come with the kind of certainty that we get looking at a mathematical proof. And even when we invoke "reason", there is always a subjective layer of valuation going on. There is always a choice of narrative or metanarrative in which everything gets framed. And so reason is always framed by subjective decisions.

For example, we might choose, based on our feelings, to treat people of a certain race worse than we do others; we might choose to devote our lives or money to a political or religious movement that is simply a fraud. We might choose to die for those movements, or to expose those we are guardians over to danger for those causes, with the sincerest of intentions.

This is true. We might also decide (based on our feelings) that our wives are more important than some other people, or our children. We might decide (on the basis of feelings) that racism is an inherently bad thing. That market economics which favor the few over the many is ethically wrong. That the death penalty is a bad thing. And so on. These are judgement calls. And we base them on something other than science. That we think we are doing so rationally (despite the fact that they aren't based generally on any explicit process or set of formulas to determine these values) simply shows that we (i.e. you) aren't universally skeptical of making decisions based on feelings, merely certain kinds of decisions. In fact, your points above about being racist show that you maintain some kind of ethical stance, but how did you get that stance? What was the method you used to arrive at your ethical and moral base? And here, your own statement seems quite problematic. It becomes more of an "what I do is rational, what you do isn't" sort of scenario. You note:

So I think (moving from your descriptive statement to one prescriptive) where the costs are so potentially great, we ought to put serious thought into our choices, not just for our own good, but for the good of those who look up to us, and even for the strangers who will be affected by our choices. Does that make sense?

Why is it that you feel the need to suggest that an LDS approach (complete with an appeal to Moroni's "challenge" isn't something that is seriously considered or given a great deal of thought and contemplation? And what do you mean by the word "good"? How do you know that a statement that "X is good" is true? Can this statement be different for different people in different cultures with different languages and different econmic states, who function under different laws in different socities?

Your own language is contradictory, filled with the same kinds of challenges that you claim to be overcoming. And so it rings rather hollow to me. You reject ambiguity is all that it amounts to, and claim that your own views have none. But this is transparent to many of us.

Ben

[Smith]

"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.

Just wondering why you refuse to Capitolise Allah mid sentence yet do it with Muslim and Islam as shown above and various other places I have noticed? Double standards? Inconsistent application?

[riddled1]

My take on this is here in longer form.

I don't think this is intended to be a circumstance in which you can "crack open the machine" and see what's going on. I can't judge other people. It's not really my business what they get told or not. Or, whether they misunderstand or not. Only we and God can judge our diligence, sincerity, "real intent," etc.

This was the whole point of the Restoration:

This is why Tal's mockery of "one prophet" getting revelation for the earth is a caricature. LDS doctrine has always been about revelation to each individual about any matter, including (especially concerning) pretended prophets.

Thus, the question is not "so-and-so should believe because of my experience," but "Is my experience sufficient to motivate me to action?"

But what about people who use "spiritual methods" and get misled?

So what? The question is, have spiritual methods as I am practicing them been a good guide to my actions? Have I been guided aright when I followed them? Did I get things I wouldn't have gotten/could not get in any other way?

Kind regards,

Greg

This makes more sense to me. The personal revelation trumps that of the populous majority. I have felt similar in the past, but felt discouraged by the leaders of the church saying that the prophet will never lead the church astray and that we should trust in their guidance. While I believe prayer is paramount in the genesis of that trust, I took it to mean they are the authority and to come to different conclusions equals apostasy.

[Noggin]

Hello Pahoran

In the last post you did, a couple of the quotes you presented as coming from my keyboard were not mine... but since they kind of made me look intelligent, I hesitate to point that out here. **wink**.

**edit many hours later** I made an error with that last statement. Pahoran was quoting from my source and I carelessly overlooked that. My apologies! **end of edit**

So, here I am. Basically done with this conversation for now. I fired off an email to a very informal Muslim acquaintance I have with a few pointed questions on how they perceive converts can know that Islam is true. I did this to see how a Muslim response might match up to what a few non scholarly Muslims told me a year ago. I recognize that it appears I am force feeding my previous perception of what revelation is into the Islam conversion experience. If I am wrong, I am wrong. If I get a response, I will post it.

One last thing, it's a favor more than anything really. I hate to trouble you with a favor at this stage of the conversation considering how things have gone. Could you please read below and explain to me your perception as to how a non Muslim who later converts to Islam can possibly hold this level of conviction in his heart without any personal revelation from the god of Islam? :

The Prerequisites of the Declaration of Faith [to Islam]

Br. Jamaal al-Din Zarabozo wrote:

There is no question that the mere saying of," I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger," is not sufficient for salvation. In fact, the hypocrites used to make this statment quite often yet Allah describes them as liars and says that they shall abide in the lowest abyss of the Hell-fire.

As many scholars state, though, this statment or testimony is the key Paradise. The famous Follower Wahb ibn Munabbih was once asked, " Isn't the statment of la ilaha illa-llah the key to Paradise?" He answered, "Yes, but every key has ridges. If you come with the key that has the right ridges, the door will open for you. Yet if you do not have the right ridges the door will not open for you."

[Noggin writes: Here are the ridges:]

THE CONDITIONS OF La ilaha illa-llah..........PART II

[The Prerequisites of the Declaration of Faith]

Br. Jamaal al-Din Zarabozo wrote:

The FIRST of these condition is KNOWLEDGE. That is , one must have the basic and general knowledge of what is meant by the shahadah. One must understand what tha shahadah is affirming and what the shahadah is denying. Allah says in the Quran, "So know that there is no God save Allah, and ask forgiveness for your sin" (Muhammad 19). Similarly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Whoever dies knowing that there is no one worthy of worship except Allah shall enter Paradise." (Recorded by Muslim.)

The SECOND condition of the shahadah is CERTAINTY (or al-yaqeen). This is the opposite of doubt and uncertainty. In Islam, in fact, any kind of doubt is equivalent to Kufr or disbelief. We must, in our hearts, be

absolutely certain of the truth of the shahadah. Our hearts must not be wavering in any way when we testify to the truth of, "There is none worthy of worship except Allah."

The THIRD condition of the shahadah is ACCEPTANCE (or al-qabool). If a person has the knowledge of and certainty in the shahdah, this must followed by acceptance, with the tongue and heart, of whatever that

shahadah implies. Whoever refuses to accept the shahadah and its implications, even if he knows that it is true and certain about its truth, than he is a disbeliever.

The FOURTH conditionof shahadah is SUBMISSION and COMPLIANCE (or al-inqiyad). This implies the actual physical enactment with our deeds of our shahadah. In fact, this is one of the main meaning of the word Islam itself, "the submission to the will and commands of Allah." This is what Allah commands in the Quran, "Turn unto Him repentant, and surrender unot Him" (al-Zumar 54).

The FIFTH condition is TRUTHFULNESS, as opposed to hypocrisy and dishonesty. This means that when we say the shahadah, we are saying it honestly. We actually mean it. We are not lying when it comes to our

testimony of faith.

The SIXTH condition is SINCERITY (or ikhlas). That is, when we make the sahahadah, we must do so solely for the sak of Allah. We must not do it for any other reason. And we nust not do it for anyone else's sake. In this manner, the meaning of sincerity is opposite of Skirk or ascribing partners with Allah.

The SEVENTH condition is LOVE. That is, the believer loves this shahadah, he loves in accordance with the shahadah, he loves tha implications and requirements of the shahadah and he loves those who act

and strive for the sake of this shahadah.

The EIGHT condition of the shahadah is that the person who makes the shahadah must DENY EVERY OTHER OBJECT OF WORSHIP. Although that is claer in the words of the testimony of faith, it does not seem clear to everyone who makes that testimony.

The NINTH condition of the shahadah is that the Muslim ADHERS to the shahadah until he dies. This is must if the shahadah is to mean anything for you in the Hereafter.

source: http://www.islamworld.net/condfa.html

Pahoran, this is a very deep and significant level of knowledge that in my opinion cannot come through merely reading the Koran. Pardon my obstinance, but there has to be much more to the conversion process than textbook study. A potential convert with a background comprised of a personal god will naturally appeal to allah for guidance. I already quoted how Islam perceives that allah answers prayers.

Do you read the above and still say that a truth seeker who is not presently Muslim can phase from not knowing that Islam is true into a level of belief as outlined above without any personal revelation? To me, what they are describing above is a change of heart, mind, and even culture.

Or, if you say that this level of personal conviction is possible without any interaction of a god, then that appears to weaken the conversion process claims of all other religions. Because people are converting whole heartedly over to Islam, apparently without any aid from on high. If this conviction to Islam is merely on account of a book, then this might describe the impressionable condition of the human mind and will. Perhaps then, conversion to all religion, like you claim to Islam, does not require any revelation at all. Maybe religion is not much more than mental conditioning.

Noggin

[cksalmon]

My next question is directed especially at Ben McGuire and Greg Smith, the two most prolific respondents on this particular thread, I think. And perhaps even more especially directed at Ben McGuire, as his responses tally with my own, at least in muted fashion, on a number of issues (leaving aside his predilection for postmodern interpretive assets, if he'll allow me: I flirted with postmodernism in seminary--but now a large number of volumes by Derrida and Mark Taylor sit languishing on my bookshelves, un-reread, lo, these several years).

If the knowledge ascribed to the LDS revelatory experience is, indeed, not unassailable, what practical difference does such an admission make regarding epistemology and, more specifically, purportedly justified epistemic knowledge that God has confirmed X re: the LDS faith? Is such an admission merely theoretical? Is it merely a lack of contraindicative evidence that compels rationale assent to the purported (used non-pejoratively, I assure you) revelation of X? Or, am I wrong to paint the picture with the brush of rationale assent in the first place?

For the purpose of elucidation, rather than evangelism, what would bridge the gap between the propositions

(1) I assent to my belief in God's revelation of X

and

(2) I question my belief in God's revelation of X

and

(3) I deny my belief in God's revelation of X?

Best to all.

CKS

[Smith]

For the purpose of elucidation, rather than evangelism, what would bridge the gap between the propositions

(1) I assent to my belief in God's revelation of X

and

(2) I question my belief in God's revelation of X

and

(3) I deny my belief in God's revelation of X?

Freedom of choice.

[cksalmon]

Freedom of choice.

Okay, but my question was not about the metaphysical nature of man's will, but about more practical matters: evidence and epistemology. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that you affirm (1) merely on the basis of a free will choice to do so, despite any and all other factors.

Best.

CKS

[Benjamin McGuire]

Heh. These discussions can be fun can't they?

CKS writes:

If the knowledge ascribed to the LDS revelatory experience is, indeed, not unassailable, what practical difference does such an admission make regarding epistemology and, more specifically, purportedly justified epistemic knowledge that God has confirmed X re: the LDS faith?

I am reminded by a scene from a movie (which I suspect you have seen) that came out a few years back. Agent K tells the about to be Agent J:

1500 years ago everyone knew the Earth was the center of the Universe, 500 years ago everyone knew the Earth was flat, 15 minutes ago you knew that we were alone in the Universe. Imagine what you will know, tomorrow.

If I step back from personal experience for a minute, and talk about the confirmation of faith by God - as it appears in Mormon canon - we get a range of expressions. Some of them seem (at least on the surface) to be rather self evident. One of my favorites of these is Lehi. He has a transformative experience (much, say, like Joseph Smith) but instead of being told he has to wait for the book, he is given the book on the spot (1 Nephi 1:8-11, emphasis added):

And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his aluster was above that of the sun at noon-day. And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read.

So there we are. Lehi prays. He is carried away, yada, yada, a being comes to him, brings him a book and tells him to read. From my own postmodernist leanings, you can imagine that this small piece of text provides an excuse for a great deal of contemplation. There is another utterly fascinating moment not far from this one. Laman and Lemuel have come to Nephi asking him for an interpretation of the vision of the Tree of Life which Lehi has just described to all of them. Nephi asked God to receive the revelation - not necessarily as confirmation, but to receive the revelation for himself. And we get this tidbit in Nephi's comments to his brothers (1 Nephi 15:26-29 emphasis added):

And they said unto me: What meaneth the river of water which our father saw? And I said unto them that the water which my father saw was filthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water. And I said unto them that it was an awful gulf, which separated the wicked from the tree of life, and also from the saints of God. And I said unto them that it was a representation of that awful hell, which the angel said unto me was prepared for the wicked.

Isn't this fascinating? Lehi has a revelation. But the revelation isn't something set in stone. It is something experienced. I see the reading of the book in the first chapter as the same way. Lehi isn't just given knowledge. He has to read this book - and that comes with all of the other things that we normally associate with reading - interpretation, the search for meaning, reader response, and so on. If Nephi were to have read the book, we would assume - just as with the visual revelation, that he would have come away from that reading with a markedly different understanding of the contents. It is what happens when two people read the same thing.

What is the point of all of this? We as individuals (and even organizations like the LDS church) are not monlithic, stagnant and one dimensional. Over time we change, and to read the book at one point in our lives does not provide us with some absolute meaning that never changes. If we read the book again at a different point, it will be a new experience for us.

So you ask:

Is such an admission merely theoretical?

And I suggest that it isn't merely theoretical. And with that conclusion, I can point to examples of people who at one time were convinced and absolutely certain that they were justified in their beliefs, only to find later that their convictions were not nearly so deep-rooted. But they had changed in the interem. And I think that it is safe to say that there isa far less likelihood for people to abandon their beliefs based on such an event while they are in close proximity to the event. The Book of Mormon shows this also to be the case, although, frankly, some of the examples which can be drawn from it do have a close proximity - take Laman and Lemuel who, at the end of Chapter 3 see an angel, and as soon as the angel is gone immediately go back to a state of disbelief. It may well be that there is some license taken with the text by its author at this point - this is not an uncommon feature of these kinds of texts. Israel behaves the same way with Moses (remember the Golden Calf?). Zecharias (father of John the Baptist) is struck dumb for asking for a sign in the Holy of Holies on the day of Atonement when the angel appears to him (wasn't the appearance of the angel in the Holy of Holies enough to cause belief?). And so on. So, the fact that we have anecdotal evidence that confirms our suspicions that this isn't merely a theoretical admission helps I think solidify the position for me.

You continue:

Is it merely a lack of contraindicative evidence that compels rationale assent to the purported (used non-pejoratively, I assure you) revelation of X?

I think that this becomes the case over time.

I am reminded a little bit of something I quoted earlier by Natoli:

In the life of the postmodernist, the problem is not that we might wander and that we therefore would be faced with contesting views none of which can validate itself as The Truth. The problem is that we might elevate some narrative to Truth status and stop wandering. We might invest some observation (cultural, corporate, federal, textual, personal, historical) with full determinate status.

You see, Lehi and Nephi might just as well represent one of us in two different places in their life. The two encounters with revelation might disagree on issues - might even be in a sense fundamentally conflicting views of the same revelation. Some see this as being too risky. There is a popular notion in the LDS church (and by 'popular', I am not trying to suggest that it is a majority view, merely that I have heard it voiced regularly, even here on these forums) that all that is really necessary is to gain a testimony (by the power of the Holy Spirit) of the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon and the Prophet who leads the LDS church, and then simply do what they tell you to do. The problem is that this is what Natoli is talking about. If we encounter what we believe is truth (via revelation or whatever) even if it is absolute truth at the moment that we encountered it, it may not be absolutely truth to the us that exists at some point down the road, in another place and time. In other words, unless we are constantly seeking this kind of revelation, this kind of interaction with God, we are continuously growing more and more distant from the moement and place where we "knew" something. We may stop wandering, but in stopping wandering we don't manage to fix the truth in place. We have simply stopped following it.

I don't usually discuss these kinds of issues - because, quite honestly, it is hard to find someone interested in asking these questions that you are asking. So, I hope you have patience with me as I try to explain my point of view. My analogies may not be terribly useful or accurate.

To summarize though, an experience that might be seen as the basis for rational belief at the moment in which it occurs, may not be as suitable as the basis for rational belief at a different place and time.

For the purpose of elucidation, rather than evangelism, what would bridge the gap between the propositions

(1) I assent to my belief in God's revelation of X

and

(2) I question my belief in God's revelation of X

and

(3) I deny my belief in God's revelation of X?

There is a fascinating incident in the D&C where we see this idea in action. It isn't the best example for me because it doesn't illustrate my views to any great extent, but I think it clearly shows (1) and (2) standing next to each other. (Sect 6, esp. vss. 22-23):

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things. Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?

Ostensibly, Oliver is asking for another witness - another revelation of the truth. He has therefore (1) assented to his belief in God's revelation of X, and (2) is questioning that belief. For me, it is quite clear that what we believe at point A in our lives may be completely contradictory to what we believe at point B. And this takes me to the quote from the movie at the beginning of my comments.

But wait - I can hear them saying - doesn't God's truth remain consistent? Probably it does. But we don't get absolute truth. We are incapable of receiving it. What we get is filtered by ourselves (our culture, our language, our society, or economics our politics, and so on). And this changes, and so to return to Lehi's book at a later time, or to see the vision of the Tree of Life again, will be to experience something again for the first time. (Reminds me of that line in the sequel to Men in Black: "This is the last suit you will ever wear.... again"). On the flip side of the coin, this realization is introducing ambiguity into what might otherwise be a stable, grounded life. And for this reason, my perspective will not (probably) be popular. But, in embracing ambiguity, we become quite changed, and reliant on God's presence in our lives in a whole new way. Elder Hafen (Seventy) discusses this idea (using different words of course) in his book The Believing Heart where he likens the situation to the LDS Hymn "Lead Thou Me On" (one of my personal favorites). You can find the text of it here.

At any case, I have rambled on too long.

I realize that this may not have answered your questions, but perhaps it will lead to more aware discussion.

Ben

[Pahoran]

Benjamin, I read your reply. My apologies, I thought you were LDS.

And you think he wrote something that negates that? My apologies, I thought you used to be LDS.

Regards,

Pahoran