Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Bach]

Hoenstly, I never talked about "feelings", I told people what the Bible says, namely God answers prayers and Moroni's invitation. I never told them how THEY would be answered, just like no one ever told me how I would be ansered. I did see the stuff Tal is talking about, but I never did it.

To add more anecdotal experience to the fray: the missionaries that baptized me directly referenced a "burning bosom", etc.

[cksalmon]

To me, anyone who has a testimony that Christ is the Savior and Son of God MUST concede that a spiritual witness (which can be a feeling) CAN [be] reliable because such a testimony as they have can come by no other way.

I wouldn't agree. I do approach the subject a bit more academically than some, though certainly not all.

I do have certain, shall we say, unimpeachable truth claim commitments: (1) that God exists, (2) that the Israelite story of God is basically true, and (3) that Jesus of Nazareth believed himself to be the fulfillment of the Israelite metanarrative, and was justly approved in believing such.

Notice that I leave myself open to perhaps justified criticism at each level. I do see these as open questions, which is perhaps what, in part, makes them such exciting and relevant questions.

I'm out on a limb here, too. But, I'd dare say, not for exactly the same reasons as, perhaps, you are.

I believe these things because I dare think they may, and indeed probably, are true. I can posit no absolute assurance that they are, in fact, so.

Perhaps, I've been too unduly influenced by my liberal Catholic friend at work? I.e., commitment to an exclusive worldview in the best hopes that it is, in fact, true, rather than certain, purported, knowledge that it is, indeed, true?

I dare say this is the legitimate Christian position on the matter. Affirmation of given truths, by faith, rather than an unassailable conviction that X is, in fact, true, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary that might be raised. And, a legitimate spirit of questioning. Truth, it would seem, is up to the assault.

Best.

CKS

[Olavarria]

To add more anecdotal experience to the fray: the missionaries that baptized me directly referenced a "burning bosom", etc.

I know what you mean, Ive seen people do the exact same thing. Personally, Ive never felt a burning in the bussom; that would hurt. All I ever said was, "ask God if its true, dont take my word for it".

[The Dude]

I know what you mean, Ive seen people do the exact same thing. Personally, Ive never felt a burning in the bussom; that would hurt. All I ever said was, "ask God if its true, dont take my word for it".

I said that too. "Don't take my word for it, ask God." And like Bach, I told them they might expect a burning in the bosom, or maybe something else. Sometimes I related a personal experience to illustrate the other things that might happen:

One time, when I was in the Missionary Training Center near BYU, I ditched my companion (big no-no) and went outside on the lawn to pray about something that had been tearing my heart out for weeks. Just as I finished, the bell tower on BYU campus chimed the tune "all is well, all is well" from a well-known LDS hymn, and a burning in my bosom commenced. Ahh, my prayer was answered and my heart was calmed for the night. How sweet that God answered my prayer, eh?

I related this much of the experience on more than one occasion.

(I didn't relate to investigators what "concern" I was actually praying about, since it was embarassing to me that my concern never was quite resolved the way I hoped. I had a girl waiting for me, but she only waited a few weeks more, after that prayer, before becoming engaged to a returned missionary in her BYU ward. Oh, but then she dumped him a month or so later and joined the Navy... after sleeping with my best friend a few times who also joined the Navy. Then she married another cadet. Then she divorced him and married someone else. If that "all is well, all is well" feeling really came from God, He must have been telling me I was better off without her and He would gladly take care of this concern for me, His humble servant!)

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay. I haven't quite left yet. But I'm leaving right after this post.

(1)

Where did I say that my emotions are indicators of truth? I'm not following your criticism here.

Don't be sidetracked by the matter of your own emotions. Although I do wonder how you know that "having a feeling is not a sufficient observation for the existence of God" -- did you count it? did you physically sense it? did you find it at an archaeological site? did you observe it in a chemistry lab? did it leave traces on your lawn? -- that topic can wait.

The question here was whether feelings or emotions (as the critics here want to characterize what believing Latter-day Saints would describe as the revelation of the Spirit) are an epistemologically sound way of concluding that God lives or that certain spiritual/religious/doctrinal propositions are true. Thus, for you to come along and point to the proposition that having a feeling is not a sufficient observation for the existence of God as evidence that having a feeling is not a sufficient observation for the existence of God is, quite precisely, logically circular, and a textbook illustration of the fallacy of begging the question.

(2)

I understand, cksalmon, where you're personally coming from, and can respect it. But I believe that many hundreds of millions of faithful Christians, now and over the past twenty centuries, have relied upon a different basis than Thomist-approved epistemology for their faith. And I think God honors them for it.

When Jesus said to Peter that flesh and blood had not revealed Jesus's messiahship to Peter, but, rather, that it had been revealed by his Father in heaven, was Jesus misspeaking? Did he mean to say, instead, that it had become clear as a result of Peter's careful reading of the available evidence and his use of standard Aristotelian syllogistic logic?

[charity]

I have a hard time, like, taking a person, like, seriously, who, like, you know, like, speaks in, like, 60's vernacular. You know?

[The Dude]

I have a hard time, like, taking a person, like, seriously, who, like, you know, like, speaks in, like, 60's vernacular. You know?

I know. Good point.

[cksalmon]

I have a hard time, like, taking a person, like, seriously, who, like, you know, like, speaks in, like, 60's vernacular. You know?

Yes, I understand. My transcription of a live, unscripted, broadcast should certainly sway your analysis of the relevant points under discussion. Thankfully, when you're being recorded live, you'll do much better. Bereft a script, and speaking extemporaneously, you'll acquit yourself much better. And if you should happen to verbally bobble, we'll discount any and all of your points immediately. I mean, it's only fair, right?

Your parody notwithstanding, would you like to contribute something useful to the thread? Perhaps I could call you and get an extemporaneous comment?

Best.

CKS

[gitxsanartist]

On what basis do you believe the Bible? On what basis do you believe in Christianity?

Because the evidence is overwhelming, compelling, and indisputable?

To some degree a leap of faith must be taken. But somewhere it is written that "By their fruits ye shall know them".

What is the biggest draw in christianity and mormonism, it is the good uplifting things that it teaches. Take that away and you are left with nothing.

[charity]

ck, I would not speak anywhere I was going to be taped. I hve a terrible tendency toward spooonerisms.

You want me to address his ideas. Okay. Here's one: "And you know, if you feel something is true, that means you have absolute proof that it's true." Most of what we "feel" is true in this life, we don't have absolute proof of. But it makes us feel better to think we do.

[Noggin]

... I believe that many hundreds of millions of faithful Christians, now and over the past twenty centuries, have relied upon a different basis than Thomist-approved epistemology for their faith. And I think God honors them for it.

When Jesus said to Peter that flesh and blood had not revealed Jesus's messiahship to Peter, but, rather, that it had been revealed by his Father in heaven, was Jesus misspeaking? Did he mean to say, instead, that it had become clear as a result of Peter's careful reading of the available evidence and his use of standard Aristotelian syllogistic logic?

It doesn't work across the religious board though. I just got done talking with a Muslim who told me that he knows the Koran is god's word because of how perfect the book is and how the book makes him feel and behave on account of reading it. Pretty much, they (theists of all types) all say this.

Meditation, prayer, chanting, hymn singing, contemplation, introspection and a host of other intense modes of soul searching are well proven to produce intense responses in a vast variety of religions and also in all non religious groups. Attend your next local Amway/Quixar meeting for a demonstration. Intense responses do not signify anything that could possibly ratify, verify, or hold up any claim of exclusivity as The One True doctrine or creed of a One True God.

If there was one god and that entity wanted us to believe in it, it's strange he left so much open to interpretation. Play the numbers out. 6.5 billion humans today and only 12 million Mormons "know" the truth. That means 99% of the world's population is unenlightened. I smell a wacky conspiracy theory.

Noggin

[charity]

noggin, the 6.5 billion population versus 12 million members of the Church is a recurrent wacky stat. Let's see. 6.5 billion people on the earth, and only about 400 million know that AIDS is caused by a virus. Can't possibly be true.

How many people know the truth of something versus how many don't has nothing to do with the truth itself.

[The Dude]

How many people know the truth of something versus how many don't has nothing to do with the truth itself.

You are ignoring part of noggin's premise: "If there was one god and that entity wanted us to believe in it, it's strange he left so much open to interpretation. "

I would add that LDS "truth" sure looks a lot like "false" without a huge dose of something extra. Faith, congitive dissonance, confirmation bias... take your pick of special pleas.

[juliann]

Defensive mormons will answer Tal's point by insisting that it's "more than a feeling" and then drawing an analogy to the taste of salt. Can you describe the taste of salt? No. So there you have it and Tal is wrong.

Must not be many defensive Mormons. I have never heard that analogy and I've been online for many years. Unfortunately, there are salt free reasons TB is wrong.

[charity]

I didn't ignore him. It's just that the "if God wanted us to know" argument is toothless. It is part of the same thing. If we were supposed to understand viruses, we'd have microscopic vision. If this, if that.

[juliann]

What is the biggest draw in christianity and mormonism, it is the good uplifting things that it teaches. Take that away and you are left with nothing.

Well...we are left with print on paper. CK...I think trying to take away the Holy Spirit which can only be described (and trivialized) as "feeling" is a losing position for anyone espousing a God. This is what I call suicide Bible bombing....one must blow up themself to destory someone else. It doesn't look very practical in the long term.

[The Dude]

Must not be many defensive Mormons. I have never heard that analogy and I've been online for many years. Unfortunately, there are salt free reasons TB is wrong.

The analogy comes from a talk by Boyd K Packer called "The Candle of The Lord." I've heard the analogy discussed many times by Mormons and critics.

Boyd K:

http://ldslastdays.com/talk_candle.htm#salt

Richard P:

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/salt.htm

Enjoy.

I didn't ignore him. It's just that the "if God wanted us to know" argument is toothless. It is part of the same thing. If we were supposed to understand viruses, we'd have microscopic vision. If this, if that.

Maybe Noggin is thinking along the lines of: "If God wanted everyone to know about Mormonism, we would be sending missionaries all over the world." And you think God does want that. So why exactly is this premise toothless?

[charity]

A toothless argument because God is doing what He wants to do. He wants this life to be a test. I know you have heard that before. He doesn't want to give the test with cheat sheets taped to every desk. A real test. With real grades at the end.

And it just makes no sense at all for the children in the classroom to bellyache and mullygrub about it.

[juliann]

The analogy comes from a talk by Boyd K Packer called "The Candle of The Lord." I've heard the analogy discussed many times by Mormons and critics.

Boyd K:

http://ldslastdays.com/talk_candle.htm#salt

Richard P:

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/salt.htm

One talk from 1983? And I still have been online for many years and not heard this. The countermos regularly cherry pick things from random talks that members rarely mention. How about a link to a few online discussions of salt by those apologists? I doubt anyone knows many "apologists" in IRL and I really doubt that the average member would have any interest in salt and faith.

[The Dude]

One talk from 1983? And I still have been online for many years and not heard this. The countermos regularly cherry pick things from random talks that members rarely mention. How about a link to a few online discussions of salt by those apologists? I doubt anyone knows many "apologists" in IRL and I really doubt that the average member would have any interest in salt and faith.

Wow. You say you never heard of this -- I guess I'll just believe you, Juliann. It would be far too petty of me to start a poll and ask everyone else on the board if they have heard (or made) this analogy.

(or you can search "+salt +taste" and see who else has mentioned this on the board)

[maklelan]

Just to guard against the off chance that someone might be tempted to adhere to this argument:

Having a feeling is a sufficient observation for the claim "there are feelings". It is NOT a sufficient observation for much else, including the existence of God.

I would question the broadness with which the word "feelings" is being tossed around. I think it needs to be defined before anything conclusive gets nailed down. I was never told I would feel something akin to acid reflux when I prayed. I was told it would be a feeling, but different than anything I'd ever felt before, and the spiritual confirmations I have received I call "feelings" because I lack another word for it. I don't think it falls within the five sense that I can identify. When people say it's like trying to describe the taste of salt it's not to say they said there would be feelings and there were, it's a demonstration of qualia. People have experiences that they cannot describe. I usually use the analogy of trying to describe the color red to a blind person. They lack the experience to be able to understand, and everyone lacks the ability to express in words the experience of seeing red. How do you know that if you looked through my eyes, the color red would look completely different?

When I prayed about the Bok of Mormon I felt something I've never felt before, and I have absolutely no way to describe it, but all I can say is that the "feeling" filled me so full of absolute certainty. I can't do much better than that, but the nature of qualia leaves me expressing a sensation that you can only relate to by comparison to experiences you have had. Science thinks it has nailed down what humans can experience, but to say any sensation or feeling is impossible is a fallacy, because it would arrogate to contemporary science omniscience, by saying what cannot be defined cannot be. Things happen every day that science cannot explain. I'll give you an example. Referral pain. If I press a trigger point in any muscle in your body, another part of your body will hurt, and it's always consistent. 95% percent of your headaches are caused by knots in the front of your neck or the tops of your shoulder blades. All I have to do is find where certain knots refer pain to and I can get rid of any headache you have. People say to me that they have been diagnosed with Carpal Tunne Syndrome, but I play with a couple muscles in their neck called scalenes and it goes away. Doctors can't explain it. It doesn't follow muscular, nervous, fascial, cardiovascular or any other kinds of systems or pathways. We just don't know. Basically, I can give you a feeling (it hurts), and no one can explain why it's there.

I know the church is true. Do I say that because I think I'm gonna convince you of anything, or to validate my testimony? Of course not. It's my own personal conviction, and I don't need to convince anyone that what I feel is legitimate. Do I feel this way in spite of the evidence? No, I think the evidence is increasingly in favor of my faith.

Wow. You say you never heard of this -- I guess I'll just believe you, Juliann. It would be far to petty of me to start a poll and ask everyone else on the board if they have heard (or made) this analogy.

This is actually a pretty well know analogy. I've heard it several times and I've only been a member for six years. I even read it once in a Spanish Liahona from the 80's.

[Noggin]

noggin, the 6.5 billion population versus 12 million members of the Church is a recurrent wacky stat. Let's see. 6.5 billion people on the earth, and only about 400 million know that AIDS is caused by a virus. Can't possibly be true.

How many people know the truth of something versus how many don't has nothing to do with the truth itself.

So then you are arguing that the god of Mormonism is an exclusive god and Mormonism is his country club. You are the one saying that it is just dandy for only 1% of humanity to know The Truth. Only a special few.. only the top 1 percent of all his creation at one given time stamp in history are allowed to saunter down his buffet tables and swing step to his crooners? And the rest of humanity is left out on its ear? But wait that can't be it... I am just trying to get a feel for what you are saying.

Because last I checked, god wants all of his children back... else I wasted 2 years as a missionary trying to fulfill that prophetic decree. Yep, all of them. And the zeal with which Mormonism attempts this is practically unprecedented. Supposedly, god knows them all, isn't that the claim? Knows their hairs even. Consider the lillies of the field kind of a thing going on there. If Mormonism is The Truth, and it is important that god lead his hairy headed kids to it, what is god doing? It appears that he might be getting it wrong.

What is god doing leading perfectly good candidates to the other religions? Millions are having significantly high and holy pentecostal outpourings (undeniable ones even) of the spirit witnessing to them that such and such non Mormon religion is True. If god can lead them there, what is he doing, and why is he doing it? He should be leading them to Mormonism, according to the Mormon theology and scripture. But they aren't going to Mormonism. They are joining other churches.

Let's face it, LDS conversion rates in North America have all but stagnated. And since hundreds of thousands of highly qualified Actively Truth Seeking North American are joining other religions on account of severe and significant pentecostal outpourings (ratifications) of the spirit, you just have to wonder about... those... numbers.

I can't imagine god's Only True Church being so exclusive that only a few lucky ones, who as a majority, just so happen to be born in Idaho or Utah or BIC, can get in. But I suppose that is how it makes much sense for you.

Noggin

[maklelan]

So then you are arguing that the god of Mormonism is an exclusive god and Mormonism is his country club. You are the one saying that it is just dandy for only 1% of humanity to know The Truth. Only a special few.. only the top 1 percent of all his creation at one given time stamp in history are allowed to saunter down his buffet tables and swing step to his crooners? And the rest of humanity is left out on its ear? But wait that can't be it... I am just trying to get a feel for what you are saying.

Because last I checked, god wants all of his children back... else I wasted 2 years as a missionary trying to fulfill that prophetic decree. Yep, all of them. And the zeal with which Mormonism attempts this is practically unprecedented. Supposedly, god knows them all, isn't that the claim? Knows their hairs even. Consider the lillies of the field kind of a thing going on there. If Mormonism is The Truth, and it is important that god lead his hairy headed kids to it, what is god doing? It appears that he might be getting it wrong.

What is god doing leading perfectly good candidates to the other religions? Millions are having significantly high and holy pentecostal outpourings (undeniable ones even) of the spirit witnessing to them that such and such non Mormon religion is True. If god can lead them there, what is he doing, and why is he doing it? He should be leading them to Mormonism, according to the Mormon theology and scripture. But they aren't going to Mormonism. They are joining other churches.

Let's face it, LDS conversion rates in North America have all but stagnated. And since hundreds of thousands of highly qualified Actively Truth Seeking North American are joining other religions on account of severe and significant pentecostal outpourings (ratifications) of the spirit, you just have to wonder about... those... numbers.

I can't imagine god's Only True Church being so exclusive that only a few lucky ones, who as a majority, just so happen to be born in Idaho or Utah or BIC, can get in. But I suppose that is how it makes much sense for you.

Noggin

How many people believed in Christ when he was crucified? That argument is an etic framework that means absolutely nothing.

[Noggin]

I would question the broadness with which the word "feelings" is being tossed around. I think it needs to be defined before anything conclusive gets nailed down.

I was told it would be a feeling, but different than anything I'd ever felt before, and the spiritual confirmations I have received I call "feelings" because I lack another word for it.

And that is to be commended. Meaning, I am not knocking it. I just have to ask how you account for the similar related tales from the other religions with an exclusivity claim?

When I prayed about the Book of Mormon I felt something I've never felt before, and I have absolutely no way to describe it, but all I can say is that the "feeling" filled me so full of absolute certainty.

And this story has been told to me now by many other theists of more than a few faiths I have now studied. Scientology being one of them. You laugh. It's true. Go talk to a scientologist. They are dead serious about the life changing "Bam! It just hits you and washes right through you from head to toe-- it's like nothing you have ever experienced!" type of accounting as to how they justify going to the local scientology "church" each week instead of a Mormon one or a Catholic one or an Eckankarist one or a Muslim one.

Noggin

How many people believed in Christ when he was crucified? That argument is an etic framework that means absolutely nothing.

but you require that I accept that christ was divine for my argument to fall apart.

**warning, a compliment follows**

nice word, btw, Maklelan... "etic" I had to look it up!

et

[The Dude]

nice word, btw, Maklelan... "etic" I had to look it up!

et