Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Smith]

I'm curious to hear from someone who has undergone the experience at t-0 what could bridge the gap between (1) and (2), or between (2) and (3), or, indeed, between (1) and (3). In other words, having undergone the revelatory experience at t-0, is there any possibility of expressing (2) or (3) at some later time?

If there is, what would move one from (1) to (2), or from (2) to (3)? What is allowed to override, if anything, the confirmation expressed at t-x?

Ah yes, I understand the question better now.

I would say yes there is something that would bridge the gap (1) - (2), First off someone's unsurity about just what inspiration from the HG is, but, I think that as the person learns to recognise then the likelihood of moving to (2) lessens. Second I stick with freedom of choice because we can still choose to listen or to ignore what was communicated just like a child who was instructed to clean their room may or may not do it knowing full well exactly what they were told.

I would also say yes for moving from (1) - (3), it is possible. Still because of freedom of choice. One can deny anything. Any liar will agree (I think). But I think that one can through constant disobedience subsequent to T1, through constant ignoring of promptings, through constant desire to follow one's own will, reach a point where you deny what you once held sacred.

Does that answer you?

[Analytics]

You didn't miss this sentence did you?

"Thoughts and feelings." An entirely different matter. Which is why what I suspect is a weak attempt at parody from Tal is just that--parody, or caricature.

Good for a few laughs, if not very accurate or useful to understanding.

If, of course, understanding is the goal?

Kind regards,

Greg

No, I didn't miss that statement. In fact, I wrote it. And the reason why I wrote it was to provide a fair and authoritative descreption of what LDS epistemology actually is so we could focus on the actual concept rather than the way Tal attempted to express it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I wrote:

How do you know that a statement that "X is good" is true?"

Tal responded:

---We don't always know, Benjamin.

I am not sure what you mean with this response. "We don't always know" implies that sometimes we do know. You may not know, but, in any particular instance, I suspect most people do. If you ask people "Is the statement that Chocolate is good true?", do you think most people are going to say that this statement ins't true? You see, despite the fact that we have no way of demonstrating the truth of this statement "Chocolate is good", most people would probably agree with it. But can this statement be defended in any kind of universal way? So can we "know" something is "true" without having a need to justify it?

I'm not sure what in fact was unclear or "contradictory" in the language I used in my posts, but I did not "reject ambiguity:. I'm not even sure what "rejecting ambiguity" would mean, since - barring one's achievement of omniscience - it seems that certain things will be forever ambiguous.

You declared on the one hand that we should only trust "reason", and then later declared that something was "good". Yet the idea of something being good, as you yourself admit entails a great degree of subjectiveness.

More specifically, if you really believe that "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" - a statement which to me has all sorts of problems - is a true statement (whatever you would mean by the word "true"), that's okay, you can believe that.

The problem here is that many (if not most) LDS wouldn't use this term - "feelings" to describe their encounter with the divine. Nor does this notion appear in the canon of the church in the way that you are using it. When Joseph Smith encounters God, it isn't by simply a "feeling". And so the question is, is the LDS encounter with deity sufficiently beyond "feeling" to justify the claim of knowledge? And not just this claim, but rational belief.

Ben

[Not quite me]

I wrote:Tal responded:I am not sure what you mean with this response. "We don't always know" implies that sometimes we do know. You may not know, but, in any particular instance, I suspect most people do. If you ask people "Is the statement that Chocolate is good true?", do you think most people are going to say that this statement ins't true? You see, despite the fact that we have no way of demonstrating the truth of this statement "Chocolate is good", most people would probably agree with it. But can this statement be defended in any kind of universal way? So can we "know" something is "true" without having a need to justify it?You declared on the one hand that we should only trust "reason", and then later declared that something was "good". Yet the idea of something being good, as you yourself admit entails a great degree of subjectiveness.The problem here is that many (if not most) LDS wouldn't use this term - "feelings" to describe their encounter with the divine. Nor does this notion appear in the canon of the church in the way that you are using it. When Joseph Smith encounters God, it isn't by simply a "feeling". And so the question is, is the LDS encounter with deity sufficiently beyond "feeling" to justify the claim of knowledge? And not just this claim, but rational belief.

Ben

If you approach "truth" from the scriptural perspective, it entails "things as they really are," which to me suggests some sort of absolute truth. The problem is that the subjective experience you describe doesn't really approach that standard; rather, I can say I know "things as they really are to me."

We indeed see through a glass darkly. All we have are our perceptions and experiences and, yes, feelings. Even encounters with the divine are filtered through our language, our experience, and our biases.

Ultimately, I believe that an LDS testimony is based on reason and logic, to a degree. We believed that prayer would confirm our belief, and it did. Seems like a reasonable conclusion. The remaining question is how reliable the witness is and what it says about truth.

[Noggin]

...And to tell you the truth, [regarding the usage of the word inscrutable,] I'm having flashbacks of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", where Arthur keeps saying a particular word that drives "The Knights Who Say 'Nee'" absolutely bananas, but no one can figure out what the word is, or why it should cause such a hassle.

It doesn't matter who you are on this forum... that part of the post is just plain funny. And I'll only add that there are times where trying to argue a point on this forum is like being sent into the forest to cut down a tree with a herring.

[johndoe]

I'll try. I'm better with universals than particulars, but I suppose that's the philosopher part of me coming out.

Let's take sort of a standard test case: the LDS revelatory experience re: BoM antiquity. You can flesh that out in whatever ways are appropriate to you personally.

So, we have three theoretically possible responses (at some indefinite point [let's call it t-xâ??"time-x"] after having experienced an LDS revelatory experience about BoM antiquity at t-0â??i.e., "time zero"):

(1) A person may remain in the grip of the perceived import of that experience, such that he can properly say at any given t-x, "I assentâ??or, I continue to assent to my belief that God has revealed to me BoM's antiquity."

(2) Another possible response at some t-y, let's say, might be, "I question my belief that God actually did reveal to me BoM's antiquity." Or, perhaps better, "I'm not sure that God did reveal to me BoM's antiquity."

(3) A third possible response at some t-z might be: "I deny my former belief that God actually did reveal to me BoM's antiquity"; or, "God did not reveal to me at t-0 BoM's antiquity."

I'm curious to hear from someone who has undergone the experience at t-0 what could bridge the gap between (1) and (2), or between (2) and (3), or, indeed, between (1) and (3). In other words, having undergone the revelatory experience at t-0, is there any possibility of expressing (2) or (3) at some later time?

If there is, what would move one from (1) to (2), or from (2) to (3)? What is allowed to override, if anything, the confirmation expressed at t-x?

Hope that hasn't further muddied the waters.

Best to you.

CKS

I'll take a stab at this.

I have been on the receiving end of this type of revelatory experience, and my response was (and continues to be) (1). In the past, I would have thought it impossible to have undergone the experience and subsequently move from (1) to either (2) or (3). Disclaimer: Those who have moved from (1) to (2) and/or from (1) to (3), please understand that I am refering to myself and my experience alone. I don't claim to know what anyone else has experienced, or what would be a reasonable or possible evolution of someone else's beliefs.

For me, the experiences that have led to my belief have been so clear in my mind that I couldn't imagine ever denying them. However, as time has gone on, I have changed my stance. I was reviewing these experiences in my mind the other day, moved in part by this thread to reflect on them. As I did so, I was struck by two observations:

1. There was not just one experience, but a chain of experiences spread out somewhat evenly over the course of a fairly long time period.

2. The further back in the past, the more difficult it was to recall the specific details of the experience, and by this I refer to the details which cannot be adequately expressed in words.

I have also had spiritual ups and downs in my life, and it seems to me that during the downs, it is even harder to recall those experiences from memory in a way that is vivid, i.e. that would be akin to reliving them.

As a result, I now think that I could indeed move from (1) to (2), and even from (1) to (3) (through (2)). All it would take would be my voluntary and continued (for some time, I don't know how long) rejection of the influence of the Spirit in my life now. Without continued influence from God, I can see the memories fading, their validity being questioned and eventually explained away. After all is said and done, I would say that we are dependent on God for our faith, i.e. we could not choose to hold onto faith while at the same time continuously making choices that indicate a rejection of the influence of the Spirit in our lives. By this, I am not intending to imply that all those who have moved from (1) to (3) have necessarily done so because of sin. I am simply giving an opinion on what would be necessary in my case.

The scriptures tell us that faith is a gift of the Spirit (or at the very least that it can be). I would like your perspective on this teaching. If faith in at least some cases is given by the Spirit, what role do you feel reason and logic play? What would the relevant epistemology be?

[Tal Bachman]

Some folks have said that my summation, "I feel it is true, therefore, I know it is true", is a caricature of the Mormon view of how people can know that Mormon truth claims are true.

Maybe, maybe not - but there is another possibility: that my summation is exactly what Mormon epistemic claims, in the end, boil down to; but putting them this succinctly exposes just how untenable they really are; and for that reason, it is much safer for one's faith to simply label it a "caricature" and then move right on to thinking about how "disingenuous" I am, than to spend a few moments wondering if perhaps, some of the things we believe might derive from an original error of having (uncritically?) taken as true a very problematic claim.

One reason to suspect there might be something to the last option is the habit we all have of claiming that we were "misunderstood" (even when we weren't) after we've said something stupid, and it's been repeated back to us, albeit perhaps in slightly different words.

For example, George says, "I can't stand Mexicans - they're dirty and lazy". Jim says in response, "You are a racist". But George says, "I am definitely NOT a racist. I never said any such thing. I just said that I can't stand Mexicans, and they're dirty and lazy". The funny thing is, you can hear conversations kind of like that all the time, especially during back and forth debates. "Out of X and Y, X is the lousiest option" - "So you're saying you'd vote for Option Y?" - "No, I'm not saying that", etc. I have even heard tell of certain folks who claim their opinions are being misrepresented, when people simply quote back to them the exact words they themselves said...! Sometimes when we see a photograph of ourselves, we don't look as we imagined ourselves to be; in those cases, what do we usually do? We usually throw away the photograph...! Could that be analogous to some of the reactions to, â??I feel it is true, therefore, I know it is trueâ??

To the point: the quotes from scriptures, and Mormon prophets and apostles, stating that the Holy Ghost speaks to us through feelings - that it gives us knowledge through feelings - are so numerous, that I can't help but feel that posters demanding I produce such quotes have made themselves look foolish. No, no one that I know of has ever summed it all up using the words I used - but to reject the summation on that basis might be equivalent to rejecting, say any tidily expressed formula. Explaining something more concisely doesn't necessarily signal "inaccuracy"...It's like hearing someone talk for ten minutes, and then saying, "So what you're saying is, you don't want to go". And the person says, "Yes, that's what I'm saying". You've just wrapped the whole ten minutes up into five words.

So...I guess my first instinct is to ask, "How many quotes do you want which say just what my summation says? One? Three? 500? And even if I produced them all, and they all said essentially what my summation says, are we still going to be playing the game where we pretend a quote doesn't mean what it obviously means, because the speaker used different words to get across the exact same thought?"

After an exhaustive two second search on lds.org, for example, I waded through all the many, many pages of talks called up until I got to the very first page, on which I found a talk by Pres. Packer entitled "Personal Revelation", Oct. 1994 GC. Here's what Packer says:

To one who thought that revelation would flow without effort, the Lord said:

â??You have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.â?

(...)

The Holy Ghost speaks with a voice that you feel more than you hear. It is described as a â??still small voice.â? 14 And while we speak of â??listeningâ? to the whisperings of the Spirit, most often one describes a spiritual prompting by saying, â??I had a feeling â?¦â?

Revelation comes as words we feel more than hear. Nephi told his wayward brothers, who were visited by an angel, â??Ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words.â? 16

How many more do I really need? And would they really make any difference to someone who needs my summation to be inaccurate?

[Tal Bachman]

"We don't always know" implies that sometimes we do know. You may not know, but, in any particular instance, I suspect most people do. If you ask people "Is the statement that Chocolate is good true?", do you think most people are going to say that this statement ins't true? You see, despite the fact that we have no way of demonstrating the truth of this statement "Chocolate is good", most people would probably agree with it. But can this statement be defended in any kind of universal way? So can we "know" something is "true" without having a need to justify it?

---Benjamin, not sure I'm following you exactly. Do you think that a statement like "chocolate is good", is equivalent to an epistemic claim like, say, the one heard normally at LDS testimony meetings, or found in Moroni 10?

You declared on the one hand that we should only trust "reason", and then later declared that something was "good". Yet the idea of something being good, as you yourself admit entails a great degree of subjectiveness.

It's funny - it's so rare that I don't know what to say in response to someone, that your posts have caught me off guard. I actually don't know what to say to them, since I don't really follow exactly what point it is you're trying to make.

First of all, I wouldn't express my own views as meaning "we should only trust reason"; sometimes we don't have that luxury, as I mentioned in one of my posts on this very thread. Sometimes instinct is the best we have. Sometimes intuition is - like Tarski said, we just don't always have the luxury of, you know, conducting background checks on a kid who wants to mow our lawn. Nor does it even make sense to spend valuable resources doing so, when the costs of selecting an incompetent lawn boy are so low...But maybe most importantly, no one claims their hunch about a prospective lawn boy is equivalent to a revelation of knowledge from God about the nature of the cosmos, and which will then influence every single aspect of your existence.

So I feel like I would be happy to converse with you if you are amenable to focusing on what I thought this whole thread was about, namely, whether Mormon epistemic claims ought to be credited.

By the way, there is no incompatibility between having personal preferences, or being a subject, and the use of reason that I've ever heard of, so I confess I am not entirely sure I'm following you here.

More specifically, if you really believe that "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" - a statement which to me has all sorts of problems - is a true statement (whatever you would mean by the word "true"), that's okay, you can believe that.

The problem here is that many (if not most) LDS wouldn't use this term - "feelings" to describe their encounter with the divine. Nor does this notion appear in the canon of the church in the way that you are using it. When Joseph Smith encounters God, it isn't by simply a "feeling". And so the question is, is the LDS encounter with deity sufficiently beyond "feeling" to justify the claim of knowledge? And not just this claim, but rational belief.

Even if it were true (though it isn't) that most LDS would not ever use the word "feeling" in describing how they came by their claimed knowledge that Mormonism is the only true religion ever (I can't even believe you could say such a thing, so central are Paul's "fruits of the spirit" to Mormon descriptions of how the Holy Ghost works), I am not certain that the use of non-identical wording necessarily ought to be seen as tantamount to conceptual disagreement....(?). But the truth is, and I think everyone reading this probably knows it, that not just for Mormons, but for members of most religions (J Dubs are one exception), how we feel when encountering the divine is maybe the most important thing of all about those moments. That is as true for me now even, as it was when I still thought that the religion I had devoted my life to was all it claimed. It is just that, I am not sure that that feeling should be taken to mean anything more than that we are having that feeling, you know? Like, if I feel overwhelmed spiritually when I walk through the woods, does that mean I should worship trees, like the next-door eco-freak does? I'm not so sure...

In any case, if you look above, you'll see the result of my very first two-second search on lds.org on the role of feelings in the revelation of knowledge, at least according to Pres. Packer.

Perhaps I can also point out to you that drawing an analogy between what Joseph Smith claimed to experience in the Sacred Grove - a literal, personal visitation from the Presider over the universe, and Jesus of Nazareth, who is supposedly the Presider's literal son - strikes me as quite a bit different than a "burning in the bosom"; and so, I don't see how your analogy works at all. I mean, just one big difference - Joseph Smith claimed that his visitors not only showed up in person, but actually verbally communicated a sharply defined message, quoting particular scriptures, commenting on other religions, etc., etc. But that is not what "most Mormons" would ever claim happened when they "received their testimonies", is it? In my experience anyway, after my whole life as a devout member and seeing hundreds into the church in Argentina, most descriptions of the acquisition of a testimony, or knowledge that Mormonism is all it claims, are right in line with Pres. Packer's comments, and also the old missionary scriptures, Galatians 5:22.

[Not quite me]

Some folks have said that my summation, "I feel it is true, therefore, I know it is true", is a caricature of the Mormon view of how people can know that Mormon truth claims are true.

Maybe, maybe not - but there is another possibility: that my summation is exactly what Mormon epistemic claims, in the end, boil down to; but putting them this succinctly exposes just how untenable they really are; and for that reason, it is much safer for one's faith to simply label it a "caricature" and then move right on to thinking about how "disingenuous" I am, than to spend a few moments wondering if perhaps, some of the things we believe might derive from an original error of having (uncritically?) taken as true a very problematic claim.

One reason to suspect there might be something to the last option is the habit we all have of claiming that we were "misunderstood" (even when we weren't) after we've said something stupid, and it's been repeated back to us, albeit perhaps in slightly different words.

For example, George says, "I can't stand Mexicans - they're dirty and lazy". Jim says in response, "You are a racist". But George says, "I am definitely NOT a racist. I never said any such thing. I just said that I can't stand Mexicans, and they're dirty and lazy". The funny thing is, you can hear conversations kind of like that all the time, especially during back and forth debates. "Out of X and Y, X is the lousiest option" - "So you're saying you'd vote for Option Y?" - "No, I'm not saying that", etc. I have even heard tell of certain folks who claim their opinions are being misrepresented, when people simply quote back to them the exact words they themselves said...! Sometimes when we see a photograph of ourselves, we don't look as we imagined ourselves to be; in those cases, what do we usually do? We usually throw away the photograph...! Could that be analogous to some of the reactions to, â??I feel it is true, therefore, I know it is trueâ??

To the point: the quotes from scriptures, and Mormon prophets and apostles, stating that the Holy Ghost speaks to us through feelings - that it gives us knowledge through feelings - are so numerous, that I can't help but feel that posters demanding I produce such quotes have made themselves look foolish. No, no one that I know of has ever summed it all up using the words I used - but to reject the summation on that basis might be equivalent to rejecting, say any tidily expressed formula. Explaining something more concisely doesn't necessarily signal "inaccuracy"...It's like hearing someone talk for ten minutes, and then saying, "So what you're saying is, you don't want to go". And the person says, "Yes, that's what I'm saying". You've just wrapped the whole ten minutes up into five words.

So...I guess my first instinct is to ask, "How many quotes do you want which say just what my summation says? One? Three? 500? And even if I produced them all, and they all said essentially what my summation says, are we still going to be playing the game where we pretend a quote doesn't mean what it obviously means, because the speaker used different words to get across the exact same thought?"

After an exhaustive two second search on lds.org, for example, I waded through all the many, many pages of talks called up until I got to the very first page, on which I found a talk by Pres. Packer entitled "Personal Revelation", Oct. 1994 GC. Here's what Packer says:

How many more do I really need? And would they really make any difference to someone who needs my summation to be inaccurate?

In the end, just about every religious person I have talked to traces their belief to some sort of experience that awakened them spiritually, though they use different terms for it. Using the word "feelings" to describe the witness of the spirit seems, indeed, a dismissive caricature to people who have experienced these witnesses, but what they're really saying (IMHO) is that the experience is so intense, so real, that the word doesn't adequately describe the experience.

But really, that's what we are talking about: thoughts and feelings. We feel through our senses something extraordinary, and we rightly or wrongly attribute it to God. But if it is from God, what is wrong with stating the obvious: that he speaks to us through our feelings? When the feelings are intense or consistent enough, we say we know. I'm not so sure why this is so troubling to people.

[Tal Bachman]

But if it is from God, what is wrong with stating the obvious: that he speaks to us through our feelings? When the feelings are intense or consistent enough, we say we know. I'm not so sure why this is so troubling to people.

---I don't know why it's so troubling (unless one senses that in the end, the summation I suggested is indefensible).

It sure isn't troubling to Pres. Packer, as you can see from the quotes I listed above. And that's one thing you can say about Pres. Packer - he actually just says it. You know? There's none of this weird parsing of words and redefinitions and elaborate mindgames and stuff. He just says it. Feminists don't belong (of course they don't), intellectuals don't belong (ditto), we gain a testimony by repeating it to ourselves (basically, yeah), revelations of knowledge come through "feelings" (no controversy there, really)...he just says it. I kind of admire him for it, there's no b- I mean, baloney!

[Noggin]

But really, that's what we are talking about: thoughts and feelings. We feel through our senses something extraordinary, and we rightly or wrongly attribute it to God. But if it is from God, what is wrong with stating the obvious: that he speaks to us through our feelings? When the feelings are intense or consistent enough, we say we know. I'm not so sure why this is so troubling to people.

I am befuddled at the overall hackling that several faithful LDS posters have expressed in opposition to the notion that their testimony is feelings based. I have asked 5 of my close family members recently how they know the Mormon church is true. More than 3/4 of them said

1) because it works for them

2) because the holy ghost bore witnessed to their heart after or during a prayer or testimony they gave

I then asked if it would be true to say that they know the church is true because they feel it is true... and all of them said that it would be a true statement. This was an extremely small sample of 6 people but I am pretty sure, if we took the Packer quote that Tal provided above to 1000 or 10,000 members, and asked them if they would disagree with Elder Packer, most of them would not disagree. There would be an overwhelming consensus to support that.

Just a wild hunch there.

I'd bet anyone a milkshake on it.

Noggin

post script: (meant as a jocular comment) I sincerely hope you have a master plan in place for what I am about to tell you, NQM. You have committed the unpardonable sin of not capitalizing the letter "h" when you wrote the word "he" referring to deity. Any moment now you can probably expect the swarming badgering of a couple of posters here who, may zeus help you, could likely place you on their ignore list and cease all contact with you. You are brave.

[Greg Smith]

No, I didn't miss that statement. In fact, I wrote it. And the reason why I wrote it was to provide a fair and authoritative descreption of what LDS epistemology actually is so we could focus on the actual concept rather than the way Tal attempted to express it.

I just don't understand why a statement saying "thoughts and feelings" is somehow supposed to support Tal's assertion that "If I feel it's true, it must be true."

If the Holy Ghost acts through A + B, insisting that Mormons believe things only because of A (feelings) is misleading.

If the question is whether there is emotion or 'feelings' involved in revelation, then I would say "of course," but that's hardly been questioned. The point is that A is not sufficient.

Thanks for the clarification,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

---I don't know why it's so troubling (unless one senses that in the end, the summation I suggested is indefensible).

It sure isn't troubling to Pres. Packer, as you can see from the quotes I listed above. And that's one thing you can say about Pres. Packer - he actually just says it. You know?...revelations of knowledge come through "feelings" (no controversy there, really)...he just says it.

And, of course, if the claim is that feelings are involved in revelation, this is a no brainer.

(One would not object if one said that a cake contained flour. But, one objects if it is claimed that if I have flour, I have a cake. It takes other things to make cake, not JUST flour.)

But, the point is that they are not ALL that is involved--as President Packer teaches with equal clarity:

The Holy Ghost communicates with the spirit through the mind more than through the physical senses. This guidance comes as thoughts, as feelings, through impressions and promptings. - Boyd K. Packer, “Revelation in a Changing World,” Ensign, Nov 1989, 14

or

If I am worried about a subject, thinking about a subject, going to talk about a subject, I have learned to have ten one–hour sessions as compared to a ten–hour session. A subject must mature in your mind.

Boyd K. Packer, cited in Lucile C. Tate, Boyd K. Packer: A Watchman on the Tower (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1995),137.

or

We should remember what He said to Oliver Cowdery about working a problem out in our minds. (See D&C 9.) - - Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975), 245–247.

Note: study, mind, thoughts, impressions. Not just feelings. So, your "I feel its true, so I know its true" caricature is just that: a caricature.

So, the big difference between us on this point, seems to be that as far as you can tell, 279,863 religions aren't what they claim to be, and as far as I can tell, 279,864 aren't. One out of nearly three hundred thousand, Juliann.

Hmmm. Pretty decisive argument, I'd say.

After all, it's abundantly clear that anything with many more wrong answers than right answers MUST not have a right answer at all, and even if it did we couldn't know it, right?

After all:

1) the solution for x^2 + 2x +1 = 0 has an infinite number of false answers, and few (if any!) proper answers. Might as well not try to resolve it. Anyone who does claim to have the answer must be an ignorant, arrogant fanatic.

2) Edison reportedly tried 10,000 methods to creating a viable storage battery. Good things that the infinitely greater number of methods that WOULDN'T work managed to dissuade him from the quixotic quest to find a method that WOULD. This is why we have no functional storage batteries today. If only Edison had had Tal to straighten him out, he could have avoided such a fruitless expenditure of time, money, and effort. And, what an unconscionable bigot he must have been--to claim that HIS method would work, and a multitude of other possible efforts did not work.

Yup, I'm convinced.

Besides, you do realize that it is possible that one of those 300,000 could be right, don't you? Yet, this same "argument from statistical incredulity" could be applied to every single religion--even the right one.

But it is even worse - because by virtue of crediting and subscribing to JS's D&C autobio, you also necessarily believe that the creed of every other religion on earth is an "abomination".

Of course, Divinity was speaking to Joseph regarding the sects in his area (unless, of course, you thought the young Joseph was seriously considered converting to Islam, Hinduism, or Scientology?). But, let's not let that historical tidbit cloud our moral indignation.

And, if one wanted to be honest and fair, one would also point out that the LDS Church doesn't believe ANY creeds are appropriate. What did "creed" mean? Well, Webster 1828:

1. A brief summary of the articles of Christian faith; a symbol; as the Apostolic creed.

How did Joseph Smith understand creeds?

I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth; I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;" which I cannot subscribe to. - Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 6:57.

Hmmm. What do you know? All the creeds have some truth. Shows how horrible, just horrible those Mormons are. Really intolerant bunch. Which probably rules out the secondary definition from Webster's 1828:

That which is believed; any system of principles which are believed or professed; as a political creed.

Since the creeds contain some truth (according to Joseph) it cannot be all beliefs that are the problem (since some people surely believe in God, this cannot be the problem).

(But, then, Tal knew this: or used to. But, it doesn't work so well with sloganeering and ridicule, I suppose. Hard to fit it on a bumper sticker, donchaknow.)

But, creeds restrict people, ultimately, because they restrict what God can reveal, in Joseph's view. If God's highest desire for us is to communicate directly with His children--as Mormon epistemology holds--then small wonder anything that would impede that process would be an "abomination."

What is an "abomination" anyway? Well, it is a common label in the Bible (e.g. Proverbs 15).

Its Old Testament usage focuses extensively on laws of dietary and ritual purity (as well as idol gods). What was the purpose of Mosaic purity laws? To separate people from the wicked world, and prepare them to 'meet God', as Moses desired.

So--no surprise here--anything which prevents people from that rendez-vous with God is abominable.

So who, really, is more prone to denigrating?

You are--because you caricature the beliefs of others, when you know that they are far more nuanced and charitable than you are willing to grant. And, you trade on your former-insider status to act as if you understand these things and can explain them fairly. Your approach to this issue betrays either:

a> ignorance,

b> stupidity, or

c> deliberate obtuseness.

And, for the record, I don't consider you stupid. Or ignorant. But, I stand to be corrected, of course.

You can disagree with our beliefs, or beliefs you used to hold. We all do that. But, the mock innocence "I' just tellin' it like it is folks" act gets pretty old.

If you can't portray beliefs such that an advocate would say, "Yes, you have well characterized my position," then a reasonable person might stop to think that their understanding was inadequate to the task of attacking that position.

So, how about it, Tal? You claim to know all about Mormonism, and to be able to accurately describe it. Why don't you do so in a manner that the active Mormons will agree with? Don't tell us what we believe, or "prove" that your version is right--let us tell you when you've got it right.

Unless you think I'm a liar, and I really don't know what I believe?

Kind regards,

Greg

[Not quite me]

Greg,

I think the problem here is that you believe we are trying to tell you what you believe, when I think we are trying to summarize what we believed, in the perhaps mistaken assumption that what we believed and were taught and experienced was common to other Latter-day Saints. I know I expressed pretty much the same thoughts that Tal has on this board back when I was a believer, and no one found my remarks to be an offensive caricature.

As I said, most religious people I have talked to describe some sort of spiritual awakening that is, in the end, a product of intense feeling. Yes, there's study and prayer and contemplation involved, but the basis of a testimony is supposed to be spirit talking to spirit, and that indeed involves feelings.

I can't speak for Tal, but if my remarks came across as a snide caricature or an attempt to belittle your beliefs or anyone else's, I apologize. That was not my intent.

[Greg Smith]

I'll try. I'm better with universals than particulars, but I suppose that's the philosopher part of me coming out.

Let's take sort of a standard test case: the LDS revelatory experience re: BoM antiquity. You can flesh that out in whatever ways are appropriate to you personally.

So, we have three theoretically possible responses (at some indefinite point [let's call it t-x—"time-x"] after having experienced an LDS revelatory experience about BoM antiquity at t-0—i.e., "time zero"):

(1) A person may remain in the grip of the perceived import of that experience, such that he can properly say at any given t-x, "I assent—or, I continue to assent to my belief that God has revealed to me BoM's antiquity."

(2) Another possible response at some t-y, let's say, might be, "I question my belief that God actually did reveal to me BoM's antiquity." Or, perhaps better, "I'm not sure that God did reveal to me BoM's antiquity."

(3) A third possible response at some t-z might be: "I deny my former belief that God actually did reveal to me BoM's antiquity"; or, "God did not reveal to me at t-0 BoM's antiquity."

I'm curious to hear from someone who has undergone the experience at t-0 what could bridge the gap between (1) and (2), or between (2) and (3), or, indeed, between (1) and (3). In other words, having undergone the revelatory experience at t-0, is there any possibility of expressing (2) or (3) at some later time?

If there is, what would move one from (1) to (2), or from (2) to (3)? What is allowed to override, if anything, the confirmation expressed at t-x?

Ok, got it. I was misunderstanding the sequence.

0) I would start the sequence even prior to t-0--call it t(-x).

One has some matter about which one wants revelation. One will very likely have doubts, even grave ones. Study, reflection, prayer are all required. Humility is a necessity, though that can develop in the process.

This may start from very small beginnings:

even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. (Book of Mormon | Alma 32:27)

To me, this "give place" always involves a willingness to alter behavior. A mere academic or intellectual engagement is not sufficient (though it is necessary, to the extent we are capable).

This willingness to act will produce the beginnings of evidence:

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. (Book of Mormon | Alma 32:29)

1) So, what happens at t-0? One has "the revelatory experience." This (efforts of Tal and Analytics notwithstanding) consists of both the communication of thought, information, data, rational contents AND (not OR) feelings of peace, clarity, love. (I here distinguish between "emotions" and "feelings.") This goes back to some of the earliest documents on revelation in the Church, D&C 8 and 9. They are foundational.

That experience may be accompanied by joy, happiness, and a variety of other "emotions," but at least in my experience such things are a consequence of the answer, and not the answer itself. (ie. I am happy that I have an answer and that God has deigned to answer me; I do not 'feel happy' and THEN decide that this is my answer.)

At any rate, while one is having this experience, denying its occurrence is (for me) simply not an option. (As Parley P. Pratt said, as he first read the Book of Mormon and received a testimony of it, he comprehended that it was true as surely as a man comprehends he exists.)

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand. (Book of Mormon | Alma 32:34)

Note, again for Tal and Analytics' benefit, the emphasis on the soul swelling ("feelings," if you like) and "understanding being enlightened" and "mind expand." Between this and D&C 8,9, claiming "feelings = LDS knowledge" is just silly.

I realize (as per Not quite me's gracious post, for which I thank him/her, and assure him/her they have no need to apologize) that even some Mormons might only talk about feelings. That's their perogative. But, the scriptures seem replete with both, and I have always had both, so any claim that Mormons must all think that "feelings" = revelations (with no additions) is a mistake. Current and former members may be legitimately and honestly so mistaken, but they should realize that their conclusions against "feelings only"-type revelations say nothing at all to those of us who accept the full scriptural witness on this point.

2) So, how can you proceed from "knowing" God is telling you something, to beginning to doubt it, or at least have uncertainty?

… neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit. (Book of Mormon | Alma 32:36 - 37)

If one does not continue with the process of t(-n), then after t(0), we will begin to drift away from epistemologic certainty. That is, we must continue to act in accord with the knowledge we have been given. If we do not, that knowledge will fade.

This might seem strange, but life is full of examples of similar things.

Consider falling in love (in fact, the mystics' idea of God as lover has a lot to teach us on this score, I think).

When a man loves a woman (cue Percy Sledge), he, well, "can't keep his mind on nothing else." The beloved occupies him, almost obsessively.

A brief glance at romantic poetry or tales, or any modern pop song will suggest that there is a compulsion, almost, to make avowals and promises of eternal, life-long fidelity to the beloved, come what will.

On the face of it, this would seem a bit strange? Surely in the midst of the experience of being "in love," the furthest thing from one's mind is the desire or inclination to be separated from the beloved, to harm the beloved, or to be in any way unfaithful to one's present experience.

Yet, on some level we seem to intuit that this will not--cannot last. We are inclined to make promises, vows, covenants.

In what do these vows consist? We promise to be faithful to the person forever (or until death do us part), never to betray them, to forsake all others, to take them as they are regardless of what life throws at us.

Now, when a new groom and new bride leave the chapel or temple having been married, infidelity or unkindness or a wandering eye are likely the furthest things from their minds. Yet, it is in those moments that they make promises--not about how they will "feel," or even what they will think, but about how they will act.

Time passes, life goes on (Ob la di, ob la da), and the couple goes on. The experience of being in love (the "feelings" if you will) do not last, or are not permanent. This is not to say we do not "love" them, but the heady experience is not omnipresent. (As CS Lewis observed, and a good thing too, or we would never get anything done!) One can remember it, one can remember the information, but the experience is not there.

The husband wakes up one day, finds his wife looking not her best, she snaps at him, and he snaps back. More attractive others appear on the scene and temptation ensues. Tragedy strikes one partner, making things more difficult for the other spouse. At any rate, a time comes when the feelings are not there, and one sincerely may not want to act as one "should." Yet, it is for precisely such moments that one has promised--I will act this way, even when I don't want to, or even when I don't think I've been fairly treated.

If one keeps the covenant, the promises, of action, love will come back (better than ever). The rough patch will be traversed. Happily ever after…

So (to return to Alma) one must continue to act in accord with what one has learned, even when one is not continuing to experience that revelation right now. The feelings will not be there. One can only remember, and act or not. (Free agency, as one other poster put it.)

If you continue to act, you will get more revelation. This will reconfirm your knowledge. But, if you do not continue to act, you will begin to doubt.

You will, eventually, "forget" the experience you had, or explain it away, or rationalize it, or look back on your foolish youth before you "saw the light." (Only a fool believes in true love forever. Only a na

[cksalmon]

Fundamentally, revelation is a dialogue, and that dialogue is with God. Do we trust Him? Even more importantly, perhaps, can He trust us to do what we say we will, only on the basis of memory and integrity?

Ben's was still better.

Kind regards,

Greg

Hey Greg--

Very illuminating. Thanks for the thorough response. I'm attempting to compare the LDS experience with the epistemological categories in Esther Lightcap Meek's little book Longing to Know. Your comments were quite helpful.

Best.

CKS

[Analytics]

---I don't know why it's so troubling (unless one senses that in the end, the summation I suggested is indefensible).

Allow me to play angelâ??s advocate. The problem with the statement is that it implies that in general, affirmative feelings are knowledge-producing revelation. Thatâ??s not true. Not all feelings are revelations, and not all revelations are feelings.

When we were missionaries, we had to help people feel and recognize the spirit. We did this by claiming that any positive feeling they had during our message was the spirit witnessing to them that the message was true. To a cynical outsider, this might seem to prove your claimâ??that any positive feelings they have are the Holy Ghost testifying that the church is true.

The problem with that, however, is that at that moment the Holy Ghost really is testifying that it is true. We told people that their feelings were the Holy Ghost telling them itâ??s true. But that doesnâ??t mean that if you feel itâ??s true then you know itâ??s true. What it means is that if you feel itâ??s true and you know that those feelings are from the Holy Ghost, then you know itâ??s true.

As your testimony continues to grow, you can distinguish the promptings of the Holy Ghost from mere thoughts and feelings. The Holy Ghost, well, feels different.

[juliann]

why do we privilege certain kinds of knowledge over others?

I think the question is why some don't allow that privilege. What drives a person who cannot allow competing worldviews to the point that they feel obligated to attack them?

As a Web phenomenon, the chorus of voices represented by ex-member testimony not only stabilizes the construction of reality for those who actively participate in its creationâ??that is, those who place their stories on the Webâ??it also reinforces that construction for those seeking information on different NRM experiences, as well as for those looking merely to validate the superiority of their own religious position.

Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 124.

It is impossible to ignore the demand that "feelings" be used so that it can be demeaned and then dismissed by countermopologists. It is obvious that no amount of talking is going to move them from that (see Analytics last line, "As your testimony continues to grow, you can distinguish the promptings of the Holy Ghost from mere thoughts and feelings. The Holy Ghost, well, feels different.") No matter how much they are forced to acknowledge they will always revert to what they started with. They have to. To acknowledge anymore than that is to admit defeat (competing worldviews). What do they feel is such a threat that they have to resort to such transparent tactics? It isn't difficult to see:

There is something else Joseph accomplished--something that is obliquely suggested by the very difficulty of knowing whether to define the people who now revere him as a church, a religion, a culture, an ethnicity, a global tribe, or something else. Joseph succeeded in creating a community with no real parallel--and few precedents--in the history of the world. The Prophet's brother Hyrum tried to capture the unique quality of this society when, a few months before Joseph's death, he said: "Men's souls conform to the society in which they live, with very few exceptions, and when men come to live with the Mormons, their souls swell as if they were going to stride the planets."

It is the quality of this community, not its rate of increase, that is the more vital fact--and the more enduring mystery--of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Terryl L. Givens, â??Lightning Out of Heavenâ?: Joseph Smith and the Forging of Community,â? BYU Studies 45, no. 1 (2006): 7.

(Thars that mystery ward for ya, Tal! Did I talk like a black person as well as you do?)

Their problem...that is not going to go away which is why we have people like Tal engaging in hatespeech against Mormons by name on their protected message boards.

Suppose I put a loaded gun to your head and then begin to argue, on moral grounds, why you ought to give me some of your money. Rather quickly, you would begin to feel there was something phony about my argument. If I really want to try to persuade you, I should put the gun down. As long as I hold the gun, my arguments are not merely annoying but somehow beside the point, inappropriate to the situation. In such a context, making an argument at all just does not make illocutionary sense. The very fact of entering into a discussion ought to imply that â??no force except that of the better argument is exercised.â?

William C. Placher, Unapologetic Theology: A Christian Voice in a Pluralistic Conversation (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989), 76-77.

If there was a better argument, they wouldn't keep riding their one trick "feelings" pony.

[juliann]

I'm happy to talk about knowing and stuff; but really, we can't talk about anything unless you and I agree to respond to what each other writes - not about other positions which we don't subscribe to. If we don't, we'll only look like weirdos, or at least, weirder than we already look.

Do you need me to count how many times you have been asked to stop misrepresenting Mormons in this thread alone? If you have difficulty with the word inscrutable does double standard mean anything to you? Dripping disdain disguised by sophomoric pretended surprise looks...sophomoric.

If it means anything to you, I am happy to be held accountable for what I've written elsewhere, explain it to you, respond to it, apologize for it as the case may be, whatever. I'm not being disingenuousness - I'm serious.

You can start by apologizing for your bilious and personal shredding of LDS scholars. Your quotes have been brought over here so you can stop the "who me?" anytime now. Your scholar of the month appears to be Armand Mauss...that "pitiful man", a "broken apologist for a fraudulent church". This is especially rich since you bounced onto this board with racist talk. Rodney King and "chilluns" in the same paragraph. Impressive to see how you characterize those black folk... not to mention enlightened. Again, who do you think you are kidding?

But do keep lecturing on manners. It is a sight to behold. I think a thread comparing both sides of your mouth is in order. Your claim that you never talk about Mormons is pretty hilarious. You really do need to tell RFM to hide your stuff after a day or two. I'm sure they would.

And to tell you the truth, I'm having flashbacks of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", where Arthur keeps saying a particular word that drives "The Knights Who Say 'Nee'" absolutely bananas, but no one can figure out what the word is, or why it should cause such a hassle.

What a coincidence! I was having a similar vision! Yours, however, is only based on feelings. I have a true website link!

"Arthur and the Black Knight"

from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

(Or: Reflections on my experience in dealing with Anti-Mormons)

King Arthur comes to a bridge guarded by the Black Knight. He attempts to cross.

Black Knight: None shall pass!

Arthur: What?

Black Knight: None shall pass!

Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good sir knight, but I must cross this bridge.

Black Knight: Then you shall die!

Arthur: I command you, as king of the Britons, to stand aside!

Black Knight: I move for no man.

Arthur: So be it!

They fight, Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's arm.

Arthur: Now, stand aside worthy adversary.

Black Knight: Tis but a scratch.

Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off.

Black Knight: No it isn't.

Arthur: Well what's that then?

He points to the Black Knight's severed arm on the ground.

Black Knight: I've had worse.

Arthur: You liar.

Black Knight: Come on you pansy!

They fight again. Arthur cuts off the Black Knight's right arm.

Arthur: Victory is mine!

Arthur kneels to pray.

Arthur: We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy ...

The Black Knight kicks Arthur in the head.

Black Knight: Come on then!

The Black Knight repeatedly kicks Arthur.

Arthur: What?

Black Knight: Have at, you!

The Black Knight kicks Arthur again.

Arthur: (Exasperated) You are indeed brave, sir knight, but the fight is mine.

Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?

Arthur: Look, you stupid *******, you've got no arms left.

Black Knight: Yes I have.

Arthur: Look!

Arthur points to the Black Knight's severed arms on the ground.

Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound.

The Black Knight kicks Arthur in the rear.

Arthur: Look, stop that.

Black Knight: Chicken!

He kicks Arthur again.

Black Knight: Chicken!

Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg.

The Black Knight kicks Arthur again.

Arthur: Right.

Arthur chops off his right leg. Black knight continues hopping on one leg.

Black Knight: Right! I'll do you for that!

Arthur: (Astounded) You'll what?

Black Knight: Come here.

Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?

Black Knight: I'm invincible!

Hopping on one leg, the Black Knight rams Arthur with his shoulder.

Arthur: You're a looney

Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs!

The Black Knight rams Arthur with his head.

Black Knight: Have at, you! Come on then!

Arthur chops off his final leg. The Black Knight is reduced to a limbless torso sitting on the ground.

The Black Knight looks at his limbless body, then at Arthur.

Black Knight: Alright, we'll call it a draw.

Arthur ignores him.

Arthur: (to his servant) Come, Patsy.

Arthur crosses the Bridge. The Black Knight calls after him, twisting his torso trying to see Arthur's receding figure.

Black Knight: Oh, oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow *******! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-04.htm (language warning)

[juliann]

Maybe, maybe not - but there is another possibility: that my summation is exactly what Mormon epistemic claims, in the end, boil down to; but putting them this succinctly exposes just how untenable they really are; and for that reason, it is much safer for one's faith to simply label it a "caricature" and then move right on to thinking about how "disingenuous" I am, than to spend a few moments wondering if perhaps, some of the things we believe might derive from an original error of having (uncritically?) taken as true a very problematic claim.

You do realize we could substitute you for Mormon and have the same results. Please research "double standard". Meanwhile, perhaps you could begin by defending your definition of reality. (You might get around to it faster if you would start responding to Ben with something more meaningful than telling us you don't get it. We know that. )

The reality of everyday life is taken for granted as reality.

Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Anchor Books, 1967), 189.

Tal says: For example, George says, "I can't stand Mexicans - they're dirty and lazy". Jim says in response, "You are a racist". But George says, "I am definitely NOT a racist. I never said any such thing. I just said that I can't stand Mexicans, and they're dirty and lazy". The funny thing is, you can hear conversations kind of like that all the time, especially during back and forth debates.

Yeah, we know.

[edited for typos]

[Nightingale]

juliann to Tal:

"Your claim that you never talk about Mormons is pretty hilarious. You really do need to tell RFM to hide your stuff after a day or two. I'm sure they would."

It's a challenge to read this huge thread and try to keep up with all the points. I don't recall reading these words from Tal. Could you kindly point out the location to save me some time? I'd like to see it in context.

Too, I know it's not too PC to "defend" RfM here but I seriously can't see them engaged in some conspiracy to protect a poster from those who disagree with his/her statements. The mere action of posting indicates that you want people to read your opinion and understand that by virtue of putting your comments out there on the Net, some will. Much as many Mormons may dislike RfM (understandably) I highly doubt that admin there plays silly, if not unethical, games like that.

PS: Oh, I think I found it (Whew, I'm cross-eyed from all that scrolling. NB: Searching for "Mormon" on this site is not helpful in narrowing things down, duh).

This could be the passage juliann was referring to:

Tal:

"I hardly ever talk about "Mormons"...

I often have talked about Mormon truth claims, and how I think they ought to be evaluated. Is an individual, a truth claim, or a truth claim, an individual? I may have all the respect in the world personally for the Muslims, Moonies, or Mormons I know - but just like you, I may view what they believe in as false. I mean, even what you believe about Mormonism will be at variance with what other devout members believe. But you taking issue with what they think, isn't equivalent to you taking issue with them, is it? There are only certain types of folks who become unable to distinguish criticism of claims from persecution of individuals."

OK. That's all I wanted, just to see the comment in context.

Because on the surface of it, it sounded like Tal was saying something that was not necessarily true. But in the context here, I get what he means. I've seen that many times in posts on another board - that people have certain opinions about Mormonism but there are plenty of Mormons in their life whom they love. Thus, it's a far different thing to discuss and dissect and dispute a belief system or concept than to level criticism at a loved one who is, after all, merely following a path they believe in. The loved one, we love. The path - that is the object of our scrutiny and diverse opinions.

[Tal Bachman]

Greg, thanks for taking the time to write out your reply. I read what you wrote carefully. I understand your point that it isn't the "official" claim that only feelings are involved in the knowing process.

Couple of comments if you don't mind:

The whole point of Mormon epistemic claims is to describe a process which necessarily includes some thought, some conclusion; that is a given - otherwise, they couldn't even be considered "epistemic claims", you know?

The question to me really is, what exactly is the process, according to authoritative Mormon sources, which underlies or culminates in that eventual conclusion? It is certainly not an examination of, say, the Book of Abraham versus The Breathing Permit of Hor as a test case of prophetic translation power, or a look over the various versions of the First Vision, or a consideration of Smith's handling of his polygamous relationships as an indicator of possible untrustworthiness, or a look at all the witness comments and testimonies, or the (sometimes vast) changes in hitherto "eternal" Mormon doctrine and ritual, or an Everest of apparent giveaways in the Book of Mormon of 19th century authorship, or anything of that sort at all.

On the contrary, all of us who went on missions would invite investigators - in the very first discussion no less, to read the Book of Mormon, and - and what? Pray about it. And what was supposed to happen then? They were supposed to "feel the spirit". And how did people "feel the spirit"? We turned to Galatians 5:22...

"How did you feel when you prayed, Brother Gonzales?"

"I felt at peace, happy".

"That was the HOLY GHOST telling you that" (that what?) "that the Book of Mormon is true, that God and Jesus really did appear to Joseph Smith, that the church he founded in 1830 really was the formerly lost 'true church of Jesus Christ'", ET CETERA.

Right?

Now, if that is not, "That you feel it's true, means you know it's true", what is it?

But, I think, what follows might be the greatest evidence of all that my summation is accurate (conceding whatever shortcomings a summation that concise might inevitably have). And that evidence involves you.

I ask you: What logical argument, what physical, measurable, quantifiable evidence, could ever convince you, right now, that Joseph Smith's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was NOT what it claimed to be?

What?

Think about it for a sec...

My guess is, you can not think of one single evidence or argument, not even a hypothetical. Am I right? If I am, then at the very least, Greg, you must concede that your "knowledge" of the gospel must have very little to do with anything that could ever touch reason.

The closest I imagine you could come to imagining some "evidence" which you would take as conclusive of fraud, is to say that God himself would have to reveal to you that it was a fraud, with the same force and clarity with which he once revealed to you that it was not.

If that is right, it must be noted that this possibility in truth is, according to you, an actual IMpossibility, since it indicates that you have already entirely locked yourself into the beliefs that God himself once told you it was true, and that God would not have lied about that then...so that even in the act of claiming a hypothetical way of knowing it was false, you are conceding that you can only deny - even in the hypothetical world - that any such possibility could ever exist. It's like the equivalent of a "hypothetical" where "A" and "Not A" equal each other - it doesn't even make sense.

So what I'm asking is, isn't the fact that there is (I'm guessing here) no physical evidence so devastating, no logical argument so airtight, that it would ever cause you to consider whether your opinion of the church might be incorrect, all the evidence you really need that what you think is knowledge might better be described as conviction?

But knowledge and conviction are two very different things, aren't they, even though we often confuse them...

By the way, our feelings, passions, etc., may fuel the formation of our opinions and our convictions; but do they - really - transmit knowledge?

Sorry to cut this short but I'm out of town and am short for time. I'll respond to the rest of your thoughtful reply later.

Tal

[Greg Smith]

Greg, thanks for taking the time to write out your reply. I read what you wrote carefully. I understand your point that it isn't the "official" claim that only feelings are involved in the knowing process.

Happy day. I trust we shan't see the claim that it is only about feelings again, then.

Couple of comments if you don't mind:

The whole point of Mormon epistemic claims is to describe a process which necessarily includes some thought, some conclusion; that is a given - otherwise, they couldn't even be considered "epistemic claims", you know?

Dang. Now you're backpeddaling. No, this is not the case. One draws a conclusion, but that is AFTER the revelation, or as a result of it. And, that revelation contains both feelings AND the communication of rational information to the mind/intellect/whatever.

The question to me really is, what exactly is the process, according to authoritative Mormon sources, which underlies or culminates in that eventual conclusion?

It is certainly not an examination of, say, the Book of Abraham versus The Breathing Permit of Hor as a test case of prophetic translation power, or a look over the various versions of the First Vision, or a consideration of Smith's handling of his polygamous relationships as an indicator of possible untrustworthiness, or a look at all the witness comments and testimonies, or the (sometimes vast) changes in hitherto "eternal" Mormon doctrine and ritual, or an Everest of apparent giveaways in the Book of Mormon of 19th century authorship, or anything of that sort at all.

I and others dispute much of your interpretation of the data here, but we'll let all that pass.

On the contrary, all of us who went on missions would invite investigators - in the very first discussion no less, to read the Book of Mormon, and - and what? Pray about it. And what was supposed to happen then? They were supposed to "feel the spirit". And how did people "feel the spirit"? We turned to Galatians 5:22...

"How did you feel when you prayed, Brother Gonzales?"

"I felt at peace, happy".

"That was the HOLY GHOST telling you that" (that what?) "that the Book of Mormon is true, that God and Jesus really did appear to Joseph Smith, that the church he founded in 1830 really was the formerly lost 'true church of Jesus Christ'", ET CETERA.

Right?

Wrong. This is a good example of how telling only part of the story can distort the picture completely. It's also a good example of how if one asks the wrong (or insufficient) questions, one gets only the answers one expects. (A better, more 'open ended' question would, in my view, have been, "What was your experience in praying?" That doesn't immediately shift the discussion into the realm of only 'feelings.')

Maybe that's how you did it. Of course, there was also a thread on RfM, I believe, in which some of your baptismal practices on your mission were discussed, which I would have whole-heartedly disagreed with: many of those people did not seem to me to be anywhere near adequately prepared, which is what one would expect if one is teaching them to rely exlusively on "feelings."

At any rate, not in my mission, at least not when I taught, and certainly not how I was trained to do it. I asked Bro. "Gonzales" to:

a) read and STUDY the Book of Mormon (an intellectual exercise)

b> to compare the truths taught in the Book of Mormon with truths he already believed from other souces (the Bible, anything that he had found helpful in his life thus far, etc.) - again, a rational process

c) to put into practice the principles taught in the Book of Mormon, and to act upon them, to "test them," to see what he would learn by so doing

d) to keep commitments such as attending Church, praying, reading the scriptures, abandoning major sins.

Only after having done this, could he reasonably expect a response. And, that response would include the fruits of the spirit (listed in Galatians 5:22-23, as you say. But, what are those fruits?

* love, joy, peace (feelings, for shorthand)

* longsuffering, gentleness, goodness (these are hardly "feelings." They are character traits, they are behaviors or mental qualities. How does one "feel" longsuffering? (As opposed to suffering for a long time. :->)How does one "feel" gentleness? Rather, one's character, thought-processes, and behaviors are altered by these things.

* Meekness, temperance: "meekness" is hardly a mere feeling. It is a way of acting, and a way of THINKING about things, a way of ordering information. (e.g. I have data about my successes or 'strengths', for example: yet how do I interpret that data? Meekness--a gift of grace more than anything--will change that. It will change our thoughts and our attitudes, not merely "feelings." I may find that I am unable to think about things as I used to, and find myself thinking of other things quite irresistably) "Temperance" is a lot about behavior, etc.

So, one can analyze one's behavior and thoughts and come to quite rational, quite 'objective' conclusions about what the Spirit is doing in our lives. (And, this only touches lightly on the communication--dialogic revelation--of actual information, for which there are other vast spiritual parallels.)

I think you had and continue to have blinders on about this issue, however honestly arrived at. You may well have been sincerely mistaken. That's no crime.

Both elements are present in Galatians 5:22, for all to see, if you look. That you did not teach them represents perhaps a failure in the training you received. But, please stop imputing your inadequate understanding to the rest of us.

Now, if that is not, "That you feel it's true, means you know it's true", what is it?

As you presented it, that _would_ be as you say it is, but as I've indicated, your exegesis of even that single verse is inadequate, to say nothing of the scriptures and teachings of the apostles and prophets taken as a whole.

But, I think, what follows might be the greatest evidence of all that my summation is accurate (conceding whatever shortcomings a summation that concise might inevitably have). And that evidence involves you.

Then you're gonna be disappointed. I trust if I answer this question you won't do what you did to Dan Peterson, which is say I gave some other answer than I'm going to give? Promise?

I ask you: What logical argument, what physical, measurable, quantifiable evidence, could ever convince you, right now, that Joseph Smith's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was NOT what it claimed to be?

What?

Oh, I can think of a number of things:

* For example, finding a copy of the Book of Mormon, printed in (say) 1615 would certainly do it. (It would explain all that pesky Jacobean English that Royal Skousen has found.)

* Or, something like the Spaulding manuscript, to which Joseph had clear access, and with a lot more robust evidence of 'copying' than the rather sorry theories based on Spaulding or View of the Hebrews could.

* Having it fail to alter my character flaws and personality defects would also count (I realize that's not objective to anyone else, perhaps, but it would be for me).

* discovering I have a brain tumor that has been giving me all this "revelation," which following surgery makes all the revelation disappear

* finding multiple drafts of the Book of Mormon manuscript, "working papers" for Joseph or co-conspirators.

Think about it for a sec...

What on earth makes you think I HAVEN'T thought about it quite a bit, even a lot?

My guess is, you can not think of one single evidence or argument, not even a hypothetical. Am I right? If I am, then at the very least, Greg, you must concede that your "knowledge" of the gospel must have very little to do with anything that could ever touch reason.

No, you're dead wrong.

The closest I imagine you could come to imagining some "evidence" which you would take as conclusive of fraud, is to say that God himself would have to reveal to you that it was a fraud, with the same force and clarity with which he once revealed to you that it was not.

This is a good example of the fallacy of failure of imagination. :-) The above would also convince me, of course, but it is hardly the only thing.

If that is right, it must be noted that this possibility in truth is, according to you, an actual IMpossibility, since it indicates that you have already entirely locked yourself into the beliefs that God himself once told you it was true, and that God would not have lied about that then...so that even in the act of claiming a hypothetical way of knowing it was false, you are conceding that you can only deny - even in the hypothetical world - that any such possibility could ever exist. It's like the equivalent of a "hypothetical" where "A" and "Not A" equal each other - it doesn't even make sense.

I trust I have been clear enough that I need not treat this paragraph in any detail, since it's founded on utterly false premises.

So what I'm asking is, isn't the fact that there is (I'm guessing here) no physical evidence so devastating, no logical argument so airtight, that it would ever cause you to consider whether your opinion of the church might be incorrect, all the evidence you really need that what you think is knowledge might better be described as conviction?

But knowledge and conviction are two very different things, aren't they, even though we often confuse them...

They might be different, I suppose, in some people or some cases. In my case, I have conviction because I have knowledge. And, conviction came after repeated testing of that knowledge.

By the way, our feelings, passions, etc., may fuel the formation of our opinions and our convictions; but do they - really - transmit knowledge?

Not alone. But, as I continue to insist, it ain't all about the feelings.

For example, let's imagine I drop my car keys in a snowdrift somewhere while walking all over the city. I know they were in my pocket when I left the house, but several hours later I realize they're gone. I can't find them, and have no idea where they're at.

Let's say I pray to God, and He shows me a visual image of exactly where those car keys are, hours later, buried in the snow. Let's say I go walk right to them, dig exactly where He's shown me, and there sit the car keys.

Only feelings? Nope--communicaton of real world data. Confirmable? You bet.

When I prayed about the Book of Mormon, I got more information than I could swallow. Rather like trying to sip from a fire hose.

There is much that I won't say about such experiences publicly, but I can assure you that your characterization of that experience is so far off base as to be playing football.

I look forward to your further reply; however, I'm leaving town within the next 24 hours, and will have no web access for 2 weeks. So, if I don't reply, it's not that I'm avoiding you. I delegate Juliann in the interim to keep you honest.

Kind regards,

Greg

[edited to get rid of extraneous smiley. I'm not THAT cheerful]

[wenglund]

Tal,

When you were a member of the Church, was your beliefs based solely on "feelings" (emotions like one might feel when listening to a skilled motivational speaker, or when your child does something that touches your heart, or during a moving concert or theatrical production, etc.) and devoid of "knowledge"?

Whatever the case may have been with you, would you conceed the possibility, if not probability, that other members of the Church may have beliefs that are based on more than just "feelings" and consist of "knowledge"?

Your answer may provide some illumination as to why you are no longer a believing members, and others (such as Greg and I) continue to be believing members.

You said: "But knowledge and conviction are two very different things, aren't they, even though we often confuse them...".

Doesn't this depend upon how one defines "knowledge"?

How do you define "knowledge", and how do you distinguish it from "conviction"? And, has your position on what constitutes "knowledge" changed since leaving the Church?

Can you accept that others may legitimately define "knowledge" differently than you?

You also asked: "By the way, our feelings, passions, etc., may fuel the formation of our opinions and our convictions; but do they - really - transmit knowledge?"

Again, doesn't that depend upon how one defines "knowledge"?

Can you say you know you love your wife and kids absent feelings and passions "transmitting" that knowledge?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tal Bachman]

Hey Greg, one bit of advice if I may...

Regardless of what you may think of my views on what Mormon epistemic claims boil down to, I'd be very careful about taking the word of folks, especially folks who seem to be far more concerned about themselves than the "one true religion" they're supposedly most concerned with, about what I may or may not have said; and in cases where allegations are being made - like, allegations that I misrepresented someone - I encourage you to ask the accuser to see some proof; and where proof isn't forthcoming, I suggest you withhold judgment, or even, harbour a suspicion that certain accusers don't deserve much credit. All such accusers are free to post their proof here (not just repeated allegations), so as to embarrass me to the fullest extent, making plain to all the world my perfidy; I suppose I can only hope that the moderators will allow me to respond fully.

After all, the only reason I came on here a few days ago was because some dude called "Freedom" was on here insisting he and I were "friends" and that he knew all about what things were like in my house, etc., and it was all baloney. When identities, self-images, reputations, marriages, pasts and futures, the prospect of popularity, etc., are all interlinked with some ideology and organization which embodies it, it is easy to feel so upset or excited when discussing it, that we sometimes don't see things clearly. That is one of the values I suppose of free exchanges of ideas.

Also, I am curious to know what things you think I did on my mission that weren't exactly "by the book", or whatever it was you meant. Everything I did on my mission was with the express permission or request of my mission president, I was a stickler for going by the actual discussions and following the Missionary Guide, etc., and always insisted that the missionaries in my zones do the same. It is true that we baptized many hundreds of people, opened branches, etc., but I don't suppose even you would go so far as to say that there is an inverse relationship between the number of convert baptisms and how genuine the conversions were (though, you never know). If so, then I suppose you would have to say that The Day of Pentecost, and Wilford Woodruff at John Benbow's farm, were actually exercises in delusion rather than conversion...And if it matters to you, the areas where I worked, three months after I left the field, were turned into a brand new mission (the Argentina Resistencia mission), and one zone I ran, where we formed several branches and baptized hundreds, was turned into a missionary district. This suggests to me that the converts hung around at least for some time...

On your other post, you seem to have misunderstood the point of my comments to Juliann regarding the number of false religions, but since I think it is fairly clear in the original, it might be better to just refer you back to it.

Speaking of reason, I find your hypothetical "disconfirming evidences" a bit bizarre. For one thing, the BOM failing to produce changes in you might only mean that you were spiritually defective; or that it does cause changes in you, may only mean it caused changes in you, not that it was a recitation of actual historical events. After all, loads of fictional works have changed people's lives - the Koran, "Atlas Shrugged", "Dianetics", etc. What I'm saying is, it seems to me that "causes positive changes" means "useful", not necessarily everything it may claim to be. Besides, by that argument, anyone who reads and prays over the BOM, but does NOT feel that it induces any positive changes, would thereby be justified in concluding it was a fraud - but you wouldn't say that, would you? If not, I don't see how your hypothetical disconfirming evidence is really that at all.

By the way, I don't think the discovery of a 1615 Book of Mormon should phase you at all, nor anyone else who would like to continue believing Joseph Smith's stories about the book's provenance. Here are a few approaches you might see:

1.) There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that Joseph Smith, who grew up in a small town in New England, ever knew of, let alone had access to, this 1615 Book of Mormon; we don't really know how to explain it (sort of the Adam/God approach); but "the ultimate question about the Book of Mormon isn't 'when was its original publishing date', but whether it brings people to the fullness of the gosepl'", etc., etc.

2.) It is highly doubtful that the copy is genuine; a number of experts have found reason to believe that it was a forgery gotten up by anti-Mormons after the Book of Mormon's 1830 publication; (The "it's a later anti-Mormon forgery" theory, kind of a revamping of how B.H. Roberts dealt with the Kinderhook Plate affidavits [check your Official History of the Church if you don't believe me - I think it's in Volume 5])

3.) (Add-on to Number One) It is clear from the existence of this book, that the Lord originally chose someone before Joseph Smith to translate the work which would serve as 'the cornerstone' of the restored gospel; it is also clear by the fact that the gospel was not restored in 1615, that this person chose not to be faithful enough to be entrusted with this task. (We must remember that even Joseph almost lost the right to translate). The Lord clearly revoked his commission to whoever the unfaithful chosen one was, and waited until the birth of Joseph, who indeed was faithful enough to complete the task. (The "Postponed Restoration" Theory)

4.) While tests appear to establish that the paper dates from the 17th century, this only need mean that E.B. Grandin had on hand paper that old in his print shop, and simply used it for some of the copies. There are numerous examples of this...blah blah blah. Also, it is also very likely that Grandin simply made a printer's error in setting the year. After all, as Royal Skousen has show, numerous other printing errors were made...(The "Printer Did It" Theory)

Sorry to cut this short again but gotta run,

T.