Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Skylla]

Mr. Bachman:

If we thought you were truly ignorant as to which remarks were condescending, we would gladly point them out to you.

[wenglund]

Wade writes:I think that on some level you are right. I really like Bruce Hafen's discussion in his book the Believing Heart. Certainly what I suggest is not for everyone. And perhaps I come out too strongly looking like I am advocating that.

What I do think is that there is more emphasis on "Follow the Prophet" than there is on the notion of personal revelation and personal responsibility to God. And it is too easy for us to say that we can best understand the scriptures by seeing what the brethren have to say about them, when in fact, we best understand the scriptures (and by extension the mind of God) by approaching God.

I also (when I teach lessons in my unit) don't get up and preach this, because it simply isn't reflective of where everybody is at in the gospel of Jesus Christ. And for the people who choose to avoid ambiguity by making everything black and white, my objective is never to abuse them of that notion or to attempt to force them into my views of reality. People do not have to move beyond where they are on a spectrum of belief and faith, but for those who have become confronted by the ambiguities that exist, my way of looking at it might provide a useful perspective in trying to deal with the gap between what is and what we think should be. Ben

I think, for the most part, we agree. To me, when appropriate, I am all for shifting the balance somewhat from "blind obedience to the prophet" to more "personal revelation".

I say "when appropriate" because I think there are times when blind obedience may be appropriate and other times when complete reliance on personal revelation may be appropriate. For example, in the fundamental stage of spiritual development, where the lack of spiritual awareness, knowledge, and compentancy, renders one very dependant, it may be appropriate, pedagogically, to expect a measure of blind obedience (not unlike a parent telling their child, who seems unable to understand the reasons that may be given for not doing certain things, to not do them because the parent says so). Likewise, as one spiritually matures, and begins to grow in experience, understanding, and competencies, one becomes more independant and inter-dependant, and thus it then may be appropriate, androgonoly, to expect an increase in reliance on personal revelation.

I would suspect that most of the saints (including myself) may be spiritual young adults, thus requiring a healthy balance between "follow the prophet" and "reliance on personal revelation".

To tie this back into one of the issues of this thread, I hypothesize that some members, for whatever reason, fail to mature beyond the "blind obedience" or "fundamental" stage, and when they get into their spiritual teens (chronologically, not developmentally), may, during that somewhat rebelious and confounding period, where the desire for independance can be quite strong, unavoidably become very conflicted (their entrenched habit of "blind obedience" waging an internal battle against their desire for independance), at times causing a loss of faith and perhaps even an entire rejection thereof. Sometimes, this internal battle may be so severe and traumatic (if not perpetual) as to leave the struggling or former members terribly scared and hurt, which may in turn lead to harsh and mis-directed accusations and even mis-placed and unnecessary vengence (like what may manifest itself on various LDS-related message boards, not the least of which is RFM).

Just a thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Not quite me]

To tie this back into one of the issues of this thread, I hypothesize that some members, for whatever reason, fail to mature beyond the "blind obedience" or "fundamental" stage, and when they get into their spiritual teens (chronologically, not developmentally), may, during that somewhat rebelious and confounding period, where the desire for independance can be quite strong, unavoidably become very conflicted (their entrenched habit of "blind obedience" waging an internal battle against their desire for independance), at times causing a loss of faith and perhaps even an entire rejection thereof. Sometimes, this internal battle may be so severe and traumatic (if not perpetual) as to leave the struggling or former members terribly scared and hurt, which may in turn lead to harsh and mis-directed accusations and even mis-placed and unnecessary vengence (like what may manifest itself on various LDS-related message boards, not the least of which is RFM).

Just a thought.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One question, Wade: Can you envision a situation in which a "spiritually mature," non-fundamentalistic member of the church might reasonably conclude that the church is not what it claims to be and has misrepresented itself?

[wenglund]

Or my comments could indeed have reflected your post. Just a thought.

...yes, just as the Flat Earth Society could indeed have reflected geological reality. ;-)

As the ultimate authority on what I said and meant, it is reasonable to conclude that I would be in a better position than you to know one way or the other. Yet...you seem determined to hold onto your false perceptions, thereby, again, making reasonable and rational discussion with you somewhat less workable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Not quite me]

...yes, just as the Flat Earth Society could indeed have reflected geological reality. ;-)

As the ultimate authority on what I said and meant, it is reasonable to conclude that I would be in a better position than you to know one way or the other. Yet...you seem determined to hold onto your false perceptions, thereby, again, making reasonable and rational discussion with you somewhat less workable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ya got me, Wade. You're exactly right.

[wenglund]

One question, Wade: Can you envision a situation in which a "spiritually mature," non-fundamentalistic member of the church might reasonably conclude that the church is not what it claims to be and has misrepresented itself?

Your question has a familiar ring to it (sounding remarkably similar to questions I have been asked by a certain participant on Shade's message board).

Be that as it may, I think a spiritually mature saint may, for various reasons (including via their own personal logical inductions), loose faith in the restored gospel of Christ, and thus "reasonably" not believe what the Church claims about itself. However, I don't think they can reasonably conclude that the Church has, per se, misrepresented itself. In fact, I think such a view would be unreasonable, as well as less unworkable for all parties concerned.

But, given your apparent inclination to cynically and mistakenly read things into what others say and do, it wouldn't surprise me if you felt just the opposite. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Not quite me]

Your question has a familiar ring to it (sounding remarkably similar to questions I have been asked by a certain participant on Shade's message board).

Be that as it may, I think a spiritually mature saint may, for various reasons (including via their own personal logical inductions), loose faith in the restored gospel of Christ, and thus "reasonably" not believe what the Church claims about itself. However, I don't think they can reasonably conclude that the Church has, per se, misrepresented itself. In fact, I think such a view would be unreasonable, as well as less unworkable for all parties concerned.

Fair enough.

But, given your apparent inclination to cynically and mistakenly read things into what others say and do, it wouldn't surprise me if you felt just the opposite. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yet again with the insults. Sigh

[wenglund]

Yet again with the insults. Sigh

That you think my observation was an "insult", ironically confirms my observation. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Not quite me]

That you think my observation was an "insult", ironically confirms my observation. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have tried over and over to give you the benefit of the doubt. You repeatedly take shots at people like me, labeling them as spiritually immature or unable to think critically, and then when someone speaks up about such statements, you label them cynical and irrational. But you're just trying to help, apparently.

[structurecop]

Be that as it may, I think a spiritually mature saint may, for various reasons (including via their own personal logical inductions), loose faith in the restored gospel of Christ, and thus "reasonably" not believe what the Church claims about itself. However, I don't think they can reasonably conclude that the Church has, per se, misrepresented itself. In fact, I think such a view would be unreasonable, as well as less unworkable for all parties concerned.

I would think that someone who reasonably does not believe what the Church claims about itself must also believe that it has per se misrepresented itself, or there are some very delude old men sitting around in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple.

[wenglund]

I would think that someone who reasonably does not believe what the Church claims about itself must also believe that it has per se misrepresented itself, or there are some very delude old men sitting around in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple.

Actaully, I think reasonable people would simply strike it up as a difference of beliefs. There is no more call for disbeliever to consider the believer as misrepresentative or deluded any more than it would be for the believer to think the same about the disbeliever. As I see it, reasonableness would demand mutual respect for the differing beliefs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I have tried over and over to give you the benefit of the doubt. You repeatedly take shots at people like me, labeling them as spiritually immature or unable to think critically, and then when someone speaks up about such statements, you label them cynical and irrational. But you're just trying to help, apparently.

I submit that as with many walks of life (emotional, intellectual, psychological), many of us (me included) may be developmentally delayed to one degree or another and in certain ways, though perhaps not all, in matters of spirituality. I don't see that as a particularly controversial observation, nor do I see that as insulting in any way (I certainly don't think I am insulting myself by acknowledging certain spiritual deficiencies and developmental delays).

And, to me, my making GENERIC reference to POSSIBLE spiritual developmental delays in SOME people, may not reasonably be interpreted as a personal insult--let alone an insult at all, but rather by way of description, explanation, and possibly even for perscription (yes...in an effort to help).

There is a reason(s) you mistakenly took my GENERIC observation personally, and CHOSE to view it as insulting. I believe that reason(s) has, at least in part, something to do with what I previously mentioned specifically about you (also by way of explanation).

But, again, you seem bound and determined to interpret it otherwise--thus, again, making reasonable discourse between us less workable. So, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cksalmon]

It seems like the "does-the-church-misrepresent-its-history?" thread has sneaked in the back door.

Has this thread run its course?

[Bach]

I'm in the process of writing up a much more on-topic reply to Greg Smith, so there's at least one person who would like to see this thread stay alive.

[cksalmon]

I'm in the process of writing up a much more on-topic reply to Greg Smith, so there's at least one person who would like to see this thread stay alive.

Personally, I'd like to see us get above 400. But, perhaps that just a really stupid, ego-centric thread-starter speaking. What, exactly, is the highest number of responses on FAIR/MA&D?

At any rate, any talk of epistemology related in any way to the OP is fair game here.

I've learned a lot.

Best.

CKS

[Greg Smith]

I haven't been following this thread for a while, but I have to say, at a glance these are interesting disproofs:

But Tal's creative points would certainly be applied by many members of the Church. I think the responses to the BoA difficulties shows how malleable belief can be.

Oh, sure, I suspect that anything CAN be rationalized by SOMEONE. Witness the flat earthers, for example, or young earth creationism.

Tal's assertion was merely that I couldn't even conceive of a hypothetical case that would threaten my belief/knowledge; I provided him with several that I thought would do the job.

At the very least, they would throw me totally back to step one, "don't pass Go, don't collect $200..."

But not for everyone, and maybe not for you, Greg. I'll take your word for it that this type of finding would break your faith.

How nice for it to be assumed that I'm being honest. Seriously. I mean, often as a Mormon I'm either deluded or dishonest.

Uncle Dale seems to think there is/was a better Spaulding manuscript out there somewhere. Maybe this is a corollary to the "missing parchment" theory for the BoA, eh?

I think the "missing parchment" ideas as set out by John Gee has considerably more to recommend it than the second Spaulding manuscript idea. There is, as I recall, at least eyewitness testimony of dozens of feet of manuscript. (And, as a layman, I find it hard to credit that even a single "scroll" would contain only the parchment fragments that the Church now has in its possession.)

That's the problem with Book of Abraham stuff generally, in my opinion--the tools needed to assess it require 15 years of university study. :-) We're all (except for a very few) taking a lot of people's word for it, regardless of which side of the issue one comes down on. I find the text itself far more interesting than the translation issue, simply because I can weigh the text and doctrines more or less independently.

(Not that I'm not interested in the translation issue, but I'd be loathe to stake everything on that one issue where I'm getting the data second hand at best....)

I wonder how many critics have READ the View of the Hebrews or Spalding's manscript? Man, there's a few hours of my life I want back. I was all prepared for it to be disturbing. Hardly. You could no more get the Book of Mormon out of Ethan Smith's work than you could get King Lear out of an episode of Three's Company.

And, if Joseph was using Ethan's stuff, he sure missed all the good stuff that Ethan found so persuasive. Joseph would have to be a pretty careless reader of Ethan. And, he'd have enormous chutzpah, since Joseph was the first person to mention Ethan's work in conjunction with the Book of Mormon in the early 1840s IIRC. Yeah, real smart, point out the source of your forgery as evidence that your forgery is genuine. C'mon, Joseph's gotta be more clever than that. If he can convince witnesses they see angels, and fool people with Dan Vogel's Amazing Tin Plates, surely he could get someone ELSE to 'discover' Ethan Smith and draw the proper conclusion (Orson Pratt was a bookish sort...)

Far easier, I think, to merely credit Joseph with being a religious genius or something.

What if you left the Church and realized that you are essentially the same person? Maybe you overestimate how much the LDS faith benefits you. (This has been my personal experience, BTW.)

Well, I've seen myself behaviorally (in the Church throughout) before and after revelation, and before and after the grace of Christ. Frankly, it isn't a pretty picture. If you think I'm obnoxious now, you should see version 1.0....

Again, lots of people would manage to resolve this problem. This could be evidence of Joseph and co. "working it out in their minds." Maybe it would be a deal-breaker for you, though. I believe you.

I think it would be a deal breaker. For me, the working it out in their minds argument wouldn't fly because it would put Joseph and the witnesses of the translation in a clear position of misleading about the process and its mechanics.

I look forward to Bach's response that is in the offing.

Kind regards,

Greg (tan, rested, and tumorless so far)

[Greg Smith]

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

You're welcome to give any advice you like. Somehow, I suspect it will be more than "one bit."

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.

Well, I've observed your public writing, and the public and private behavior of Dan Peterson and Lou Midgley. They have struck me as far more reliable than you are. For starters, they can accurately characterize LDS doctrine, and you seem to be repeatedly unable to. And, you seem unable to fairly represent the views of your opponents (including Dr. Peterson).

Therefore, I don't find it much of a stretch to believe that their report that you've mischaracterized them on another issue, since I've seen you mischaracterize the LDS position on issues numerous times.

But, if you've been unfairly described in this instance, you have my deepest apologies. I wouldn't want any misunderstanding on my part to give you grounds to disrail the thread.

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.

I said nothing about not being "by the book." I said that I did not have the impression, given the thread on RfM, that their preparation was what I would have considered to be adequate. I wish I had the thread text, but I quit archiving cool RfM threads months ago--which is a pity since they disappear into the void so quickly, with so much fodder lost forever. It was something about an Alvin R. Dyer book, but the details escape me.

But, you have to have pity on us poor France Paris missionaries--we're just bitter.

(Though, I must confess that I often consoled myself with the fact that part of the equalized support funds contributed for missionaries in South America was going to buy me French pastry. Truly, the laborer is worthy of his hire, and God DOES have a sense of poetic justice....)

It is true that we baptized many hundreds of people, opened branches, etc., but I don't suppose even you

"Even me"? Gee, yet more evidence that you would NEVER misrepresent someone, right? :-)

What's this "even me" stuff?

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...

Again, the lack of distortion is gratifying. I said nothing at all about delusion.

(Actually, one of my paternal Smith ancestors was converted by Wilford during the Benbow farm mission--he was a friend of Benbow's--so I very comfortable that such things can 'take' for the long haul....)

I hope that whatever was done did not contribute to the poor long-term retention statistics in many of the South American missions, which reflect a problem in the Church generally--it has been my observation that those baptized quickly without mental/intellectual aspects of revelation (which necessarily take time, generally) do not remain active as reliably, but perhaps that's more of a phenomenon of Western Europe. As always, exceptions to such things can be found, but banking on the exceptions is usually poor policy in any event.

But, no matter--I would be delighted if all your converts remained active despite my worries. Now, if you'd just stop tallying how many people you've taken OUT of the Church for your readers on RfM, my worries would be even further allayed.

As I said, if your method of asking people about their prayers regarding the truth claims of the Book of Mormon is how it was done in your mission, I would have disagreed with it. It certainly isn't how we did it, nor what the scriptures teach.

In fact, teaching that the mind and heart would both receive information via revelation and that this was essential was so de rigeur in France that we had a handy analogy as to why relying on only one or the other might be a mistake: one might feel or desire to eat dozens of the aforementioned French pastries, but one might know mentally/intellectually that it was a bad idea. Likewise, one might know something intellectually, but strongly desire emotionally not to do it (eg remain faithful to a spouse). Having both heart and mind plays a role in the "law of witnesses," if you will.

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),

Don't worry, it doesn't.

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.

I suppose that does spare you the trouble of responding to my comments. I've done the best I can with what's there; if you really think I have misread what you meant, you'll have to clarify.

----

Speaking of reason, I find your hypothetical "disconfirming evidences" a bit bizarre.

You're welcome to find them tourquoise if you like. You asked for hypothetical examples and claimed I couldn't come up with any. I found you several, and could come up with lots more if pressed.

Unless you're claiming I don't know my own mind? Or I'm lying?

The Dude gets it; why can't you?

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.

The point of the gospel is to fix the spiritually defective. Claiming to be spiritually defective and thus ineligible for help would seem to be like selling a drug to treat pneumonia, but not having it work in people with infections. Potentially true, but hardly useful, and not worth spending much time on in any event.

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.

You're misrepresenting me. (Dare I think that I will gain the illustrious company of Drs M and P?)

I didn't say that the Book of Mormon producing positive changes was evidence of historical reality. I said that having it NOT do so would seem to argue AGAINST it's historical reality, since the historical claim is that real people lived these real doctrines, and had real changes in them, which real other people can really do.

Put another way, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar may not be historical just because Caesar existed. But, if no man such as Julius Caesar ever existed, then the historicity of the play can be ruled out.

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:

You may not see why it would phase me or someone else. I don't see why many of the things which allegedly send people out of the Church send them out. But, they do. For me, I think a 1615 Book of Mormon would do the job nicely. (I actually had this discussion months ago with a family member, actually, and we both agreed on this one.)

I do not doubt that someone can come up with something to reject ANY datum they don't like or don't want to accept.

In fact, you demonstrate this nicely by bringing up all sorts of reasons why I can't or shouldn't hold the opinions about faith-breaking hypotheticals that your theory requires that I hold.

But, yet another beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Bach]

Two weeks already? Yeesh.

Different, I agree, but not impossible. Future events may verify things (though recall bias is a risk, and one which everyone will have to navigate for themselves). Signs which follow belief may be confirmatory.

And, revelation doesn't just happen to individuals. Presidencies in the church seek revelation together, as do spouses. Some of the more dramatic revelations of my life have been to me and my wife separately and yet simultaneously. Another person's witness confirms and strengthens our confidence in our own.

If you think that future events could hypothetically confirm revelation, do you also allow for the possibility that future events could disconfirm the same? If not, why not? It seems to me that, if you want to make revelation somehow verifiable, you have to subject it to some sort of more-or-less 'scientific' scrutiny.

I stand corrected regarding group revelation. I still think that the fuzziness of the process causes it some problems in application, though. Furthermore, the fact that only a miniscule minority of the population has apparent access to it means that it is still differentiable from sight, hearing, etc.

The source of revelation may be inerrant, but (as I've illustrated at length) I don't necessarily think the conclusions I draw from it must be inerrant. (And, as per Brigham Young--a closet post-modernist on this point, who knew?--our mortal state makes perfect understanding impossible at this stage.)

Besides, revelation typically does not conflict with the other epistemologies--"mind and heart," is the D&C description. Part of the process of 'studying things out in your mind' requires the use of the other epistemologic routes.

Interaction between sources of knowledge and minds is the fundamental thrust of the branch of philosophy we're discussing here. If the conclusions you draw from a source -- however perfect the source may be! -- are not inerrant, then your epistemology cannot be inerrant. (Although I don't think you, Greg, are trying to make that point; I'm just raising what I think are interesting problems for people who claim absolute revealed knowledge while denigrating secular epistemologies.)

"Mind and heart", eh? So is it fair to say, then, that logical soundness is a necessary characteristic of revelation? I find that interesting. The epistemology of revelation via the Holy Ghost then doesn't seem very much distinguishable from the epistemology of, say, what my cousin Geoffrey told me over the phone last night (so long as I similarly add "logical soundness" as a necessary condition for my believing it to be true). They're both seemingly designed to be unfalsifiable, and neither seem to be very useful.

On whatever grounds we decide rights exist, I don't think they can be made rationally coercive. The whole idea of people having "rights" is a fairly novel one, in some ways, and I don't think you can logically deduce rights without presuming certain axioms. Those axioms may seem self evident to you and me, but history would suggest that they are not. Why OUGHT such axioms to be adopted, and not others?

In the realm of political philosophy, I consider myself a Rawlsian. (I hope that this affiliation will relieve me of having to write up a few paragraphs about where I think rights come from.)

I don't need to justify my beliefs, nor do I expect that my beliefs will compel people to change theirs. You will note that I'm not on a JW board justifying my beliefs or attacking theirs.

My only hopes would be:

a) that those who share my belief in revelation not be swayed from that belief by sophistry or bad arguments

that those who might value the addition which revelation can make to their lives would consider it as an option where they might not otherwise.

I still see this sentiment as being at odds with "values voting" -- i.e., attempting to use the political arena to foist your values on other people. (I'll talk more about why I think this way later in this post.) It seems especially out of place when juxtaposed with the Church's aggressive missionary program.

I don't grant that it is arbitrary, though, because it has not been my experience that it IS arbitrary.

In fact, my sense that people have "rights" is really more arbitrary. I've always had it, it's probably a product of my culture and intellectual upbringing, etc., whereas my 'spiritual reasoning,' if you will, has undergone development quite out of my own expectations.

Revelatory knowledge certainly is arbitrary on the level of societies, because it's based on a controversial epistemology. Rights, on the other hand, are not arbitrary on that level, because the very existence of societies presupposes such axioms -- for example, the presence of rational political discourse implies that people can at least agree that political discourse is a good thing. On a deeper level, you're right, and conceptions of rights are arbitrary -- tantamount to believing in "witches and unicorns" as MacIntyre would say -- but this isn't the level at which political decisionmaking should take place, so I don't think it's really relevant.

And, again, I'm not sure we have a right to eliminate a deeply held belief from expression simply because others cannot directly access it. Things like the civil rights movement, for example, flew in the face of the deeply held beliefs of many, but were also themselves the products of deeply held beliefs that might be justified by appeals to objective data, but are not ultimately derived from them.

Why shouldn't people be slaves, after all? At bottom, because it feels wrong or we intuit that it is wrong by processes that are not wholly rational. (There are plenty of societies--cf ancient Greece) where slavery was considered entirely proper and rational.

The justifications for slavery -- that members of other races are inferior with respect to X, Y, and Z -- could very well have been fatally impugned solely by appeals to publically available knowledge. Don't forget that religious justifications for slavery were among the last to persist once the secular reasons were discredited. I just don't see how disallowing personal revelation as admissible evidence would make political decision-making somehow incomplete.

But, I cannot be as happy, finally, living in a society that permits slaves as in one that does not--and so, I ought to be able to oppose it simply on those grounds. If not, then what's the point of democracy if I'm not allowed to advocate for those things which (in my judgment) will make me and others the happinest? If areas of my judgment are to be ruled non-admissible because they are non-rational and non-self-evidence, that seems to rather beg the question AND privilege someone else's happiness over mine on non-rational and non-self-evident grounds.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that religious people shouldn't be allowed to oppose whatever they find "sinful", whether that be slavery, homosexual relationships, blood transfusions, clinical psychiatry, miscegenation, or whatever. I only find it abhorrent that societal decisionmaking is done using non-public knowledge.

But, there are plenty of science things that go against 'common' epistemologic assumptions: quantum mechanics, or aspects of chaos, for example. Those who appreciate the "truth" of the matter are simply using "better" epistemologic tools--this is the case of the flat earther, who claims simply that you have misunderstood the evidence, or that there is better evidence that you haven't accessed yet.

There's a difference between nuclear physicists and Flat Earthers -- nuclear physicists are able to demonstrate that they have a higher grasp on some concept than the rest of us. (Sometimes this demonstration is pretty spectacular, too -- the H-bomb was a pretty convincing demonstration of abstruse knowledge, for instance.)

But, as far as QM goes, I have to take it on faith and trust. I can't do the math, and haven't seen the experiments. I have, in fact, more personal reasons for trusting revelation than I do QM.

You may very well take QM on "faith". Most people who accept it do so on other grounds (usually "trust", which I would probably count as a public epistemology, depending on how we defined it).

I agree that they [i.e., things that we can agree about on the level of societies - Bach] should factor in. But, I must admit that this conviction is one for which I can give no "rational" justification, ultimately. And, I don't see how 'factoring them in' means other things have no value whatever in the conversation.

It isn't that non-publically available knowledge never has value in political conversations; it's only that such knowledge should never be used as justification for political decision-making. I think I've been successful in my efforts to not trammel on free speech.

[Daniel Peterson]

I hardly ever talk about "Mormons" . . .

I often have talked about Mormon truth claims

and, again,

[Greg Smith]

Two weeks already? Yeesh.

Yes, your vacation from me was tragically brief. :-)

If you think that future events could hypothetically confirm revelation, do you also allow for the possibility that future events could disconfirm the same?

Sure.

It seems to me that, if you want to make revelation somehow verifiable, you have to subject it to some sort of more-or-less 'scientific' scrutiny.

I think this is true if one wants a publicly verifiable revelation, but as I've already indicated, I don't think that's the point.

Alma 32 certainly has a scientific cast to it. Each person runs their own experiment, so to speak. Only each person and God can decide what's really a "fair" trial; I think it difficult for anyone else to look into the system. Which, again, is intentional.

I stand corrected regarding group revelation. I still think that the fuzziness of the process causes it some problems in application, though.

Well, it depends on how "fuzzy" the revelation is. In my experience, those events have been some of the more dramatic ones, and often unlooked for. It wouldn't persuade an outside observer, but it isn't meant to.

Furthermore, the fact that only a miniscule minority of the population has apparent access to it means that it is still differentiable from sight, hearing, etc.

Mormon doctrine would hold that everyone has access to it; most just don't choose to avail themselves of it, or are unaware of it. I certainly don't deny it's "different" from sight, hearing--but, I don't find it any less compelling than those things. Living in a community of the congentially deaf might make hearing much less trusted socially (or less used, since only coarse transmitted vibration might be felt) but that doesn't mean that sound conveys less data just because most people can't or don't access it.

Interaction between sources of knowledge and minds is the fundamental thrust of the branch of philosophy we're discussing here. If the conclusions you draw from a source -- however perfect the source may be! -- are not inerrant, then your epistemology cannot be inerrant. (Although I don't think you, Greg, are trying to make that point; I'm just raising what I think are interesting problems for people who claim absolute revealed knowledge while denigrating secular epistemologies.)

Yeah, I don't think I'm making that claim. Even if the revelation was perfect, the human instrument interpreting and acting on it--me--is not. Besides, as I've said, my epistemologic belief system embraces both the secular (I was trained in the biologic sciences) and 'sacred,' if you will. I don't think LDS doctrine accomodates well to disparaging the 'secular' approach, though where one draws that line has varied by Church member/leader, of course. But, as President Packer put it:

Each of us must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits but requires it. An individual who concentrates on either side solely and alone will lose both balance and perspective. - Boyd K. Packer, "I Say Unto You, Be One," 12 February 1991

"Mind and heart", eh? So is it fair to say, then, that logical soundness is a necessary characteristic of revelation? I find that interesting.

Yeah, I think so, though I'm not a logician so I suppose there might be nuances here that I don't get. Logical, clear, plain in the "common sense" use of them, anyway.

It "makes sense," anyway, and things seem to click into place. It's something of an "information dump," sometimes.

The best analogy I can draw is working a particularly nasty calculus problem. The dang thing seems insoluable, and then suddenly there is that moment where things "click" into place. One minute, you're baffled, and in the next you see things you didn't see before, relationships become clear, and you can almost "see" the solution and "know" that you're right even before you've gone to the work of actually working the problem out on paper.

But, again, that's only an analogy, and revelation involves the addition of new data to the problem--sort of like during the exam when you're sweating the problem and the professor stands up and says, "Oh, sorry, I forgot to provide the value for y2 in the first question." Suddenly, things are much clearer! :-)

The epistemology of revelation via the Holy Ghost then doesn't seem very much distinguishable from the epistemology of, say, what my cousin Geoffrey told me over the phone last night (so long as I similarly add "logical soundness" as a necessary condition for my believing it to be true). They're both seemingly designed to be unfalsifiable, and neither seem to be very useful.

This presumes, of course, that your cousin Geoffrey is inerrant, omnipotent, and always has my best long term interests at heart. The "falsifiability" will vary. If I ask if there's life after death, the verification will come--eventually! Or, if I ask where to go to find something I need, that is rather quickly verifiable. Some other things (Is making choice x a bad idea? YES!) may never be "proven," because not taking courses of action makes those counterfactuals never come to pass.

I just don't see how disallowing personal revelation as admissible evidence would make political decision-making somehow incomplete.

That's because you don't think that revelation provides any information that cannot be had from another source. But, if it can--for example, if it can really tell us when God thinks a particular course is spectacularly bad public policy--then it is hard to criticize the believer who gets antsy when asked to jettison it.

Besides, I'm not sure anyone CAN wholly jettison their "non-rational" convictions even if they want to or claim to. This is the myth of objectivity. At the very least, such things will influence the type of data we find persuasive, the evidence we give the most weight, etc.

Since the randomized controlled trial (RCT) cannot be performed in many political issues because of either logistics, cost, human rights issues, or the timeframe in which decisions must be made, far better to have our biases out in the open for everyone (including us) to see.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that religious people shouldn't be allowed to oppose whatever they find "sinful", whether that be slavery, homosexual relationships, blood transfusions, clinical psychiatry, miscegenation, or whatever. I only find it abhorrent that societal decisionmaking is done using non-public knowledge.

So, I can oppose something, I just can't do anything about it in the political arena if my actions are governed by my abhorence? Or, I can't abhor something and do something about it only when I have a good SECULAR reason for doing it?

So, the anti-abolitionists who opposed slavery on moral grounds should have done nothing until science proved that there is no inherent human inferiors based on race?

This strikes me as strange, as well as weakening freedom of conscience and religion far too much. Perhaps I misunderstand you.

This would seem to exclude all people of faith from taking meaningful public action, except the secularists, who have merely by fiat decided that only their biases are acceptable bases for public policy since all can share them?

You may very well take QM on "faith". Most people who accept it do so on other grounds (usually "trust", which I would probably count as a public epistemology, depending on how we defined it).

I think I would call "faith" equal to "trust," in this sort of analogy. I simply see the faith as stronger than you do, it is trust in God and in His ability to fulfill His purposes in my life, including getting the necessary data through my thick skull.

You see "faith" as quite ephemeral and somewhat gossamer; for me it is a much more tangible, definite thing. But, that's a product of experience, and reflects no defect or failing on your part.

It isn't that non-publically available knowledge never has value in political conversations; it's only that such knowledge should never be used as justification for political decision-making. I think I've been successful in my efforts to not trammel on free speech.

What is the point of political conversations if not to contribute, in some way, to political decision-making?

Again, I must point out that the claim that non-public knowledge shouldn't be used to make political decisions seems to me to draw on non-public knowledge.

If you mean that non-public knowledge shouldn't be the EXCLUSIVE reason for a public policy decision, I'd be comfortable with that, since I think that:

a) one must embrace both reason and revelation; and

b> revelation will (in most instances) square with other sources of data--one will rarely be unable to find nothing else to support revelation.

To play devil's advocate against myself, though, the problem with this stance is:

a) what is the point of prophets, for example, if they cannot sometimes tell us things that we really couldn't know any other way?

b> the data which confirms revelation may arrive too late to be helpful--if in 1840 I decided to wait for scientific proof that cigarettes cause cancer before I obey the Word of Wisdom, I would be out of luck. :-)

c) it is easy enough (as you note above with the slavery example) to find justifications of a variety of sorts (either religious or secular) for paths we wish to take for ideologic reasons. Thus, this would seem to lead to people trying to cloak their convictions, beliefs, or biases under another banner of 'reason' or 'science.' (And, this happens for secularists and religionists equally, I warrant.)

I'd much rather hear the President of the United States (for example) say "I'm not approving federal funding for stem cell research because I think the means whereby those cells were acquired are immoral and an affront to God" instead of something along the lines of, "Well, the existing cell lines we have should be adequate for our purposes..."

At least with the first, I know where he's coming from, and even if I disagree, I can at least attempt to persuade him on the grounds that REALLY affect his decision. With the second example, all the evidence in the world that the cell lines we have AREN'T adequate will not be enough to persuade the President, or alter policy, because it is not the true basis for that policy.

In short, I think non-rational biases will always be present, like it or not. Let's get them all out in the open, and not simply drive some of them underground, where they taint the discussion with other pseudo-reasons in the form of arguments brought out simply because they are "permissible surrogates."

It's rather like talking with a young earth creationist. Despite their recourse to 'evidence' of problems with evolution, all the evolutionary data in the world will not convince them, because they are not making their opposition based on evolutionary data. So, let's be upfront about their problem--they have a certain reading of Genesis that makes the evolutionary conclusion unacceptable to them.

So, the only hope you have of reaching that segment of the polis is to address their religious concerns. Everything else is a waste of time.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the parameters you're setting out.

Let's pick a hot-button topic: abortion. Now, let's say I find it morally repugnant--what are my options? Can I advocate for it's restriction to certain well-defined cases? Why or why not?

Furthermore, take Person B, who finds the idea that someone might tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion morally repugnant. Are they allowed to advocate for free access to abortion in all trimesters? Why or why not?

Maybe this specific will nail down to what extent we agree (which may be closer than I initially thought).

Kind regards,

Greg

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

This challenge has been brought to my attention for response.

Bachman is very fortunate that the so-called "Recovery" board doesn't maintain a full archive of past posts. Only the past two or three weeks are available. Accordingly, his description of me as a "sociopath" is lost to posterity (unless, as is his wont, he repeats it sometime), as are numerous other insults that he has directed at me and others. I've collected a few gems from among his many smug dismissals, but have been anything but systematic about it. Moreover, to be perfectly candid, I realized too late the fascination of his prose, and thus missed the chance to have preserved any of his early achievements.

Nonetheless, I remember very clearly Bachman's repeated claim a year or two back that both Louis Midgley and I had somehow signaled to him in conversation our lack of interest in the question of whether or not Mormonism is true, and he has quite frequently connected us (and other Latter-day Saint scholars, notably Davis Bitton) with anti-realism, postmodernism, Heideggerianism, and his own zany vision of Immanuel Kant in order to depict us, quite falsely and demagogically, as indifferent to "Reality." (He likes to capitalize "Reality.") I have a few of those items on file.

It's really quite surreal to see Bachman affecting injured innocence here.

[juliann]

If he can lose his memory of the disgusting things he has said that easily ...why the heck can't he lose his memory of Mormonism?

[selek]

If he can lose his memory of the disgusting things he has said that easily ...why the heck can't he lose his memory of Mormonism?

Or at least of the means to operate his Internet connection?

Surely the credibility of the internet (and all those Elvis sightings) would be enhanced were he to fall silent for a few days.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Peterson writes:

Nonetheless, I remember very clearly Bachman's repeated claim a year or two back that both Louis Midgley and I had somehow signaled to him in conversation our lack of interest in the question of whether or not Mormonism is true, and he has quite frequently connected us (and other Latter-day Saint scholars, notably Davis Bitton) with anti-realism, postmodernism, Heideggerianism, and his own zany vision of Immanuel Kant in order to depict us, quite falsely and demagogically, as indifferent to "Reality." (He likes to capitalize "Reality.") I have a few of those items on file.

And of course, post-modernists aren't 'indifferent to "Reality"' either.

Ben

[Bach]

If you think that future events could hypothetically confirm revelation, do you also allow for the possibility that future events could disconfirm the same?

Sure.

And, if I say that this disconfirming experience has happened to me, is my disbelief in revelation as justified as someone else's belief in it?

Well, it depends on how "fuzzy" the revelation is. In my experience, those events have been some of the more dramatic ones, and often unlooked for. It wouldn't persuade an outside observer, but it isn't meant to.

That's fine as a personal epistemology, I think.

Mormon doctrine would hold that everyone has access to it; most just don't choose to avail themselves of it, or are unaware of it. I certainly don't deny it's "different" from sight, hearing--but, I don't find it any less compelling than those things. Living in a community of the congentially deaf might make hearing much less trusted socially (or less used, since only coarse transmitted vibration might be felt) but that doesn't mean that sound conveys less data just because most people can't or don't access it.

This is true. I would say, though, that using sounds as a justification of policy would be wrong in a state in which a vast majority of citizens are deaf and don't believe that someone else's hearing is a reliable perception.

The epistemology of revelation via the Holy Ghost then doesn't seem very much distinguishable from the epistemology of, say, what my cousin Geoffrey told me over the phone last night (so long as I similarly add "logical soundness" as a necessary condition for my believing it to be true). They're both seemingly designed to be unfalsifiable, and neither seem to be very useful.

This presumes, of course, that your cousin Geoffrey is inerrant, omnipotent, and always has my best long term interests at heart. The "falsifiability" will vary. If I ask if there's life after death, the verification will come--eventually! Or, if I ask where to go to find something I need, that is rather quickly verifiable. Some other things (Is making choice x a bad idea? YES!) may never be "proven," because not taking courses of action makes those counterfactuals never come to pass.

I think this borders on circular reasoning, because you have to use the epistemology in question to determine whether or not the Being that is inerrant, is omnipotent, and always has your best interests at heart exists (and has these attributes) in the first place. Also, I can make cousin Geoffrey epistemology just like spiritual epistemology if Geoffrey claims that he's infallible and omnipotent.

That's because you don't think that revelation provides any information that cannot be had from another source.

Yes, and that's exactly the pertinent thing here, that there ARE many people who don't think that your revelation does this.

I'm honestly befuddled that you don't think political decisions have to be made on common evidential ground. If we don't adopt that requirement as a general rule, then all sorts of things would be permissible. Suppose that a large majority of your fellow citizens come to the conclusion, based on a personal epistemology, that the world would be a better place if every religion but Catholicism were made illegal. How could you possibly defend yourself if you maintain that personal epistemology is an acceptable way to formulate policy? It would be frighteningly easy to take away the rights that you and your loved ones enjoy.

Besides, I'm not sure anyone CAN wholly jettison their "non-rational" convictions even if they want to or claim to. This is the myth of objectivity. At the very least, such things will influence the type of data we find persuasive, the evidence we give the most weight, etc.

This is true, but the more people are able to engage in discourse -- and common ground in reasoning processes helps with this -- the more that a dialectic will distill away biases.

Since the randomized controlled trial (RCT) cannot be performed in many political issues because of either logistics, cost, human rights issues, or the timeframe in which decisions must be made, far better to have our biases out in the open for everyone (including us) to see.

This is fine. I don't disagree that people should be able to voice their opinions, even if those opinions state that personal beliefs should dictate public policy decisions. I'm only saying that personal beliefs shouldn't actually be the justification for political measures.

So, I can oppose something, I just can't do anything about it in the political arena if my actions are governed by my abhorence? Or, I can't abhor something and do something about it only when I have a good SECULAR reason for doing it?

You can do what you like, but outside of the political sphere.

So, the anti-abolitionists who opposed slavery on moral grounds should have done nothing until science proved that there is no inherent human inferiors based on race?

They should have pointed out that the justifications for slavery were unsupported. (I assume that there was never compelling evidence that some races are inferior.) I don't think that what I advocate suffers a blow in this regard. What you're stumping for, though, appears to run into a problem in the following hypothetical: if a large majority of the population today opposes the freedom of African-Americans on "moral" grounds, should we adopt slavery as national policy? I don't think you'd be able to protest that very convincingly.

This would seem to exclude all people of faith from taking meaningful public action, except the secularists, who have merely by fiat decided that only their biases are acceptable bases for public policy since all can share them?

No. Religious people are still allowed to form associations and the like. I don't think you're correct in implying that a liberal system of governance is merely an 'atheistocracy', either; surely some non-religious people have non-publically justifiable beliefs, but these, too, are inadequate grounds for making policy decisions. Your observation that all people can share the "biases" I'd build a government on is a pretty benign criticism.

What is the point of political conversations if not to contribute, in some way, to political decision-making?

Just because people should be allowed to say some things doesn't mean that they should be able to follow through on those words. It's proper for a government to allow someone to say "Jews should have no rights", but it isn't proper to allow a person to deprive a Jew of his rights.

Again, I must point out that the claim that non-public knowledge shouldn't be used to make political decisions seems to me to draw on non-public knowledge.

Well, that's what we're debating right now, isn't it?

If you mean that non-public knowledge shouldn't be the EXCLUSIVE reason for a public policy decision, I'd be comfortable with that

I think that the proposed policy should be able to stand up on its own without religious justifications. Religion can be a prime motivator of policy so long as the policy is publically justifiable anyway. Maybe we actually agree here?

a) what is the point of prophets, for example, if they cannot sometimes tell us things that we really couldn't know any other way?

I'll answer this question with another: if they can only tell us things that we can't know any other way, how would we know if they were wrong?

b> the data which confirms revelation may arrive too late to be helpful--if in 1840 I decided to wait for scientific proof that cigarettes cause cancer before I obey the Word of Wisdom, I would be out of luck. :-)

Revelation can be behind the times, too. The 1978 pronouncement on race came 15-20 years after the Civil Rights movement, for example.

c) it is easy enough (as you note above with the slavery example) to find justifications of a variety of sorts (either religious or secular) for paths we wish to take for ideologic reasons. Thus, this would seem to lead to people trying to cloak their convictions, beliefs, or biases under another banner of 'reason' or 'science.' (And, this happens for secularists and religionists equally, I warrant.)

People can try all they want, but it doesn't always work well. The whole idea of science is that it slowly pares away bias from truth.

I'd much rather hear the President of the United States (for example) say "I'm not approving federal funding for stem cell research because I think the means whereby those cells were acquired are immoral and an affront to God" instead of something along the lines of, "Well, the existing cell lines we have should be adequate for our purposes..."

At least with the first, I know where he's coming from, and even if I disagree, I can at least attempt to persuade him on the grounds that REALLY affect his decision. With the second example, all the evidence in the world that the cell lines we have AREN'T adequate will not be enough to persuade the President, or alter policy, because it is not the true basis for that policy.

I disagree. By showing that the cell lines we have aren't adequate, we can force him to come up with another justification. If he can't come up with one that works, then we've uncovered the fact that he has ulterior motives.

In short, I think non-rational biases will always be present, like it or not. Let's get them all out in the open, and not simply drive some of them underground, where they taint the discussion with other pseudo-reasons in the form of arguments brought out simply because they are "permissible surrogates."

If the pseudo-reasons are justifiable, then no harm, no foul. If they aren't, it won't be very hard to expose them. "Permissible surrogates" can run, but they can't hide very well.

Let's pick a hot-button topic: abortion. Now, let's say I find it morally repugnant--what are my options? Can I advocate for it's restriction to certain well-defined cases? Why or why not?

You can advocate whatever you like, but don't expect it to become law unless you provide justification for it that others can agree to.

Furthermore, take Person B, who finds the idea that someone might tell a woman that she CANNOT have an abortion morally repugnant. Are they allowed to advocate for free access to abortion in all trimesters? Why or why not?

Same as above ^.