Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[charity]

noggin, your sneering condescension indicates that nothing I say will get through. You've got your mind made up, and you won't be swayed by the facts. But for anyone else who is reading who hasn't set his brain in Portland Cement, here goes:

1. God loves all His children.

2. God is doing the best His children will allow Him to do for them.

3. The Holy Ghost is available to witness to anyone who seeks a witness.

4. The holy Ghost witnesses to truth.

5. Many people take the truth they have been given and apply it wrong.

6. There is eternal justice and it will all work out for the best in the end.

No cognitive dissonance. No problem.

[Noggin]

Mee too!

(but I did it after the first time Maklelan used it tonight...)

I was just on the other proof for BofM thread you and he are exchanging glancing blows on and I caught how he used the word "emic" as in "emic framework" and I had to look that one up too. He's one smart cookie (if charity is reading this, please note that no sneering was done while writing this post).

[maklelan]

Mee too!

(but I did it after the first time Maklelan used it tonight...)

I accidentally used the antonym earlier today. Etic means analyzing a system or practice without participating in it, and emic is to analyze it from within. An etic framework is one that is designed by the person for the sytem they are analyzing. It's often falalcious because the framework is usually designed to fit a purpose other than the comprehensive and objective definition of the system. Magic, for example, is a term people define differently all over the place, but if you go run one of those definitions by someone who practices some kind of magic (wiccan or whatever) they'll probably tell you it's completely different. People look at other religions and design frameworks to help them understand these religions, but more often than not they are drawng a border to intentionally exlude or include specific principles that may or may not be a part of the system. Often this is done with the intention of proving a thesis about the system. Thesis: Mormonism is not Christian. Evidence: Christian = this, Mormonism = that. If both definitions come from the same source (that is probably outside of one of those systems), one or both definitions is going to be crafted so as to exclude the other. Christianity is believing in my perception of Christ, and my definition of your belief in Christ does not agree with my belief in Christ, ergo you are not Christian. I can prove anything I want if I make all the rules and define all the terms. . . even yours. I see this in most arguments being produced in religious debates. I'm trying to point it out so I can see how people react, but I wasn't sure if people would get was I was going for. It happens everywhere, though: Non-Mormon: "You believe in this!" Mormon: "What? Are you crazy? No we don't." Non-Mormon: "Yes you do. I know. I've studied it."

[Greg Smith]

I think Tal has a legitimate point. Feelings are not the path to a solid epistemology, at least not as such is understood in the broader society.

Why, if you believe that they are, are feelings such an indisputable part of some LDS's epistemological certainties. One may argue, I suppose, that the feelings involved were more than just feelings; they were, in fact, spiritual confirmation of a given event or person X. But then how would one distinguish between one's positive spiritual confirmation and merely a very strong and persuasive feeling about X?

Tal would have a point if "feelings" wasn't here the victim of the logical fallacy of equivocation.

"Feelings" can mean a number of things:

* emotions

* intuitions

* sensation (as in heat, cold, tactile, etc.)

* 'gestalt'

* etc.

This is, bar none, my #1 personal pet peeve of the ex-Mormon crowd--their seeming inability to properly articulate LDS doctrine and thought on this matter. But, on some levels, I don't fault them: I don't think they ever really "got it," so it often isn't malicious. (The alternative, that they did get it and now lie about it I find really too horrible to contemplate in most cases.)

"Feeling" the spirit isn't just--or primarily--about emotion. So, when I say I "feel" the spirit, I don't mean any of the things that Tal means.

(It is for this reason that I don't use the word "feel," because I think it is ripe for misunderstanding. It's not really a scriptural term used with any frequency anyway....)

God will tell you in your mind and your heart, Oliver Cowdery was told early on. (D&C 8,9) I am heartily sick of being told that when I talk about "revelation" I am only talking about feelings. I'm not. Maybe some people like Tal ARE, but I never have meant that, and I never told the people that I taught on my mission such things.

In fact, I made sure that they understood that I wasn't saying that. They seemed to appreciate it.

Joseph Smith, of course, got himself in enormous trouble for claiming revelation that did not conform to the mystical pattern. He did not, as mysticism scholar Evelyn Underhill said of the mystics, “persist…[in saying] that God in his absolute Reality is unknowable—is dark—to man’s intellect.” (Note again that the intellect plays a key role in LDS revelation.) Apostates like Tal find it offensive in the extreme for someone to claim revealed knowledge of objective reality, since this can’t be relativized or hypothesized away—only accepted or rejected. (And, mockery is of course among the best ways to reject something and make yourself look clever and sophisticated while doing so...)

In contrast to the mystics, the revelation enjoined upon every LDS member, and upon which I base my continued membership in the Church, is a conversation. It is a discussion. It is a transfer of information.

To be sure, many members will talk about how they “felt” when they prayed. It is to fundamentally misunderstand these experiences, however, if we assume (as Bachman does) that this talk of “feeling” means simply—or only, or primarily—“emotion” or the even more loaded "warm fuzzies" treated with such disdain at RfM.

We are stymied, in a sense, because we have no good word to use as shorthand for what happens that doesn't’t also have other secular connotations which Bachman (or other critics or questioners of far more serious mind and sincere interest than him) could misinterpret if he chose.

Bachman would likely ascribe all my talk of revelation to wish-fulfillment, or self-delusion, or “cognitive dissonance” or whatever the pop-psych explanation du jour is. Fortunately, he is not the one for whom my conversations are intended.

It would have to be a strange bit of wish-fulfillment, since I’m often told things I really don’t want to hear at all, and instructed to do things I would rather avoid. More often than not, I have been told things that never previously crossed my mind. And, I’m always astonished at how authoritative that Voice is. There is much about it which I will not say, but much more which could be said.

Despite what I cannot say, I will say this, at least: one of the most significant products of such experiences is their ability to transform my behavior and character. I am too familiar with the experience of trying mightily to alter some behavior, thought, or fault and not succeeding. But, a few moments of dialogic revelation (as Terryl Givens so aptly called it), and fundamental, deep-rooted parts of my nature that have resisted my best efforts are altered for the long term. Is there emotion with this? Of course—but that emotion is partly a reaction to what has happened, it is not simply the happening itself.

[And, if you'd like to point out that my character is no great advertisement at present, all I can plead is that things used to be far, far, worse, so be grateful for small mercies....]

Quite simply, Bachman has no idea what he is talking about, save as it applies to him. I don’t intend this to persuade or belittle him. It is, however, intended to challenge the blithe ease with which he attempts to explain experiences he has never had in people he has never met. If he wishes to discount his own experiences, that’s his prerogative. It’s a bit arrogant, isn’t it, to assume that his experience must parallel all the revelations to all Mormons (or even all believers of any stripe) everywhere?

If a wealthy benefactor walked up and handed me a million dollars, I’d doubtless have a few stirrings of happiness—but, I would hardly then presume that there never was any money to begin with, and that it was all "mere emotion." When Christ can remake a lifetime of error in me, I think I’m more suited than Bachman to decide if this is merely neurons firing in the dark or emotionally getting 'swept away.'

I come closest to successfully explaining when I say that God “told me” that Jesus is His Son and that Joseph was a prophet. And, I mean “told” in the same sense as “I haven’t told Tal about my experiences, yet he somehow deems himself an expert on them.” ;-)

----

The point which people have difficulty with is that such experiences are not intended to convince other people. Indeed, I would be worried if they did.

God knows us, and knows what it would take to persuade us. He knows whether our consideration of the matter has been fair or unfair. He knows whether we have given enough effort to the matter or not--and, I suspect that we will generally know as well. We know whether our desires in such things are pure or tainted, and will have to wrestle such things out in our own souls. That question can't be answered by anyone else.

One sometimes is tempted to wonder if the hyperventilation over this issue by some serves to distract them from the knowledge, deep down, that they haven't been as serious about it as they might. Worth considering for ourselves, even if we cannot answer that question for another.

----

So, can one have "absolute knowledge?" Sure, to the extent that's possible for anything in life.

But, not initially. And not merely by having "spiritual experiences." As Jesus said, such things must be coupled with changes in behavior (John 7:17) which will eventually lead to knowledge.

And, "signs follow them that believe." You want signs? Miracles, even? You can have them--will have them, even. But, they'll not serve as an intellectual club to bash others into acquiescence. There's no shortcut, and no way to let the public 'peak in' on such things.

But, before such conviction comes desire, hope, and belief. Can such hopes and desires "create" experiences? Yes, potentially--one must be honest and admit it.

How can one be sure? That's up to you and God. He knows what it will take to convince us that we are not self-deluding.

This is why noggin's concern (and I think it a legitimate one) about "all those other theists out there, with their convictions" doesn't really influence me at all. They're not my business. God's potential conversations with them are His business, not mine.

That many different people with contradictory ideas have apparent certainty will raise the threshold, appropriately, of what it will take to reasonably convince me. But, God and the individual can work all that out. He gets it.

But, I am persuaded that God communicates with men and women of good will in any faith, so I’m very comfortable with at least some believers in at least some other faiths having similar experiences, even if I haven’t heard of many that really match my own. (I find the whole mystical tradition fascinating, yet utterly foreign ground, for example.)

God loves them as well as me, and there is much of value in other religions that I believe He would endorse and encourage. I’d be surprised if it were otherwise.

(And yes, Juliann, I've heard the "salt"; "taste" talk reference before too.)

Kind regards,

Greg

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

This is a very irritating way to open a post. I hope you will not continue to use such rhetoric.

And, just for the record: Maybe it doesn't bother anybody else here, but I find the use of lower case g for the God of Mormonism, or the God of Christianity, or the God of monotheism in general, an extraordinarily juvenile and deliberate act of denigration. It is a puerile attempt to gain by poor capitalization what one ought to be seeking to achieve legitimately, by means of evidence and logical argument.

Standard English usage capitalizes the word God. That was good enough for Bertrand Russell. It's certainly good enough for you.

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.

You can make your points without being a condescending and deliberately offensive boor.

[Noggin]

noggin, your sneering condescension indicates that nothing I say will get through. You've got your mind made up, and you won't be swayed by the facts. But for anyone else who is reading who hasn't set his brain in Portland Cement, here goes:

1. God loves all His children.

2. God is doing the best His children will allow Him to do for them.

3. The Holy Ghost is available to witness to anyone who seeks a witness.

4. The holy Ghost witnesses to truth.

5. Many people take the truth they have been given and apply it wrong.

6. There is eternal justice and it will all work out for the best in the end.

No cognitive dissonance. No problem.

Do you want to review these facts with me line by line? Since some certain very smart posters are forcing me to the dictionary tonight with their stellar vocab, and I already have www.dictionary.com open, let's go and review what a fact is defined as:

here are the first four defs:

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:

2. something known to exist or to have happened:

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened

It is hardly a fact that god loves all of his children, let alone that he/she/it exists alltogether. Actually, upon observation of recent genocidal world atrocities, one might say god has it out pretty bad for millions of his children.. if'n god actually exists. It can be swayed just as factual that god is a mean god who hates many of his children as it can be that he is a loving god that rewards some of his children.

Shall we go on examining with the rest of your facts? and honest, I wasn't sneering.

Noggin

[Chris Smith]

Juliann mentioned that she feels CKS is taking away the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that's what has happened here. I believe-- and CK Salmon would probably agree-- that our experience of the Holy Spirit can play a legitimate role as an indicator of truth. For example, if someone prophesies over me and gives definite, verifiable predictions or information, that's one thing. But a "feeling" is non-verifiable. It is extremely difficult to discern between a feeling and a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.

[Noggin]

I'm a boor if you say I am a boor. After all, you are the authority on it. Why is it when I make a half decent point, you always show up to knock me down a few spots? You and what's his name... Pahorn. Pahorn called me a communist just yesterday.

and if the board rules require that I use a capital G with God, then I'll correct it, otherwise just put me on your ignore list and you won't have to be subjected to my abusive typings.

Noggin

[maklelan]

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?

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.

I believe that people from all kinds of faiths can receive spiritual confirmation that God lives and that they're living good lives. Feeling good in Church is not an exclusive thing, and neither is a testimony of God and Jesus, but how many of them are praying about the Book of Mormon?

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm a boor if you say I am a boor. After all, you are the authority on it. Why is it when I make a half decent point, you always show up to knock me down a few spots? You and what's his name... Pahorn. Pahorn called me a communist just yesterday.

and if the board rules require that I use a capital G with God, then I'll correct it, otherwise just put me on your ignore list and you won't have to be subjected to my abusive typings.

Okay. If your anti-theistic animus is so intense and so petty that attempting to present evidence and logical argument doesn't gratify your hostility and you want to persist in abusing standard English usage in order to poke a finger in the eye of those whose beliefs you despise, you're exactly the kind of person I will happily ignore. Asking that you follow standard English usage in this matter is a pretty minimal request for basic civility. That you decline to do so speaks volumes, in my opinion.

[maklelan]

**warning, a compliment follows**

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

et

[The Dude]

I should let you know that I learned the word in Hamblin and Peterson's Celestial Ascents class, although Hamblin said "emic" and "enic," which is not entirely correct. I always had an inkling that there was some way to define what I was thinking, and I'm glad Dr. Hamblin pointed me in the right direction.

Lucky you. I've only learned german words from Hamblin and Peterson. Like "Schadenfreude"

[Noggin]

Since I am now on your illustrious "ignore" list, I can now explain one item to anyone else who might be following the recent developments. The person who just accused me of being a condescending boor cannot see that the post that I was responding to was, in a bit of the same flavor, a tad condescending also. Am I hostile to the theist claims? Yes. Can I tone it down? I try. I honestly do. There are many posters here who set me back on my heels without name calling and micro tantrums. They do it with logical rebuttal and reason. I am always happy to adjust how I think if it merits it. And truth be told, Charity has on more than one occasion set me back on my heels in that fashion. That poster (don't know if Charity is male or female) has used logic and reason to stir up something for me to really reflect on later.

I do have little tolerance for blind faith right now. I am working on it.

Noggin

edit later to add further thoughts:

Okay. If your anti-theistic animus is so intense and so petty that attempting to present evidence and logical argument doesn't gratify your hostility and you want to persist in abusing standard English usage in order to poke a finger in the eye of those whose beliefs you despise, you're exactly the kind of person I will happily ignore. Asking that you follow standard English usage in this matter is a pretty minimal request for basic civility. That you decline to do so speaks volumes, in my opinion.

How did I miss that post?

I mean, come on, you've got the testostorone-meter pegged and redlining already. So I made a response that you did not agree with. So I refer to diety in an unapproved fashion. Is the feeling of importance so way off the scale over there at your keyboard that you are convinced that you can require others to type the way you want them to type?

As for the note about me being a condescending boor, it is well touted opinion among your critics that you are just that. Please. You even wear it like a badge. It's on your sig line on every post you write. You are proud of how you portray your offense towards those you despise. You dish it out thick but then cheekily become offended when I punctuate a word wrong or make a point with too much flair for your liking. Perhaps in me, you see a side of you that you are working on for improvement and since you cannot control it (opine your critics), you choose to ratchet up the hyperbole and strike a stake to the heart wherever you think you see it in others. No charge for the pop psychology session there.

I have hardly done anything but make an assertion and back it up with less than dull scenery that expresses my individual outlook on the topic of the theology.

Noggin

[juliann]

Juliann mentioned that she feels CKS is taking away the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that's what has happened here. I believe-- and CK Salmon would probably agree-- that our experience of the Holy Spirit can play a legitimate role as an indicator of truth. For example, if someone prophesies over me and gives definite, verifiable predictions or information, that's one thing. But a "feeling" is non-verifiable. It is extremely difficult to discern between a feeling and a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.

Then what is the point of having the HS? Again, the only way to counter "feelings" is to pull the rug out from under all of Christianity.

And for the salty guys....the statement made said there were many references to the taste of salt/spirit analogy. I searched your terms, Dude....and most of the hits were in recipes. Chaos just put up the posting stats...I don't think there were more than 2 or 3 of those thousands of threads that even mentioned it...and some of those few came from non-Mormons (and one was a direct reference to this same speech, not an independent reference to the analogy). Granted, this is a trivial point and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong...but from what I have seen on this board and others, I do not see that as a common analogy at all. I don't think it is a particularly effective analogy given the direction of anti-Mormonism since 1983, so I would hope it is not being used by many apologists and I just haven't noticed.

[Chris Smith]

Then what is the point of having the HS? Again, the only way to counter "feelings" is to pull the rug out from under all of Christianity.

Maye we're talking past each other? The Holy Spirit operates in more ways than just making people feel good. It also miraculously heals people, gives prophecies that are objectively true, etc. A former pastor of mine had an audio tape on which some prophets from out-of-town had prophesied over him (they had never met him before). Included in the prophecy were some "inside jokes", so to speak. Things that these men simply could not have known. The Holy Spirit is also able to speak in much more concrete ways than just a feeling: sometimes he uses words, sometimes visions, sometimes dreams. My mom had an experience in which she had a dream that an angel was talking to her roommate (letting her know that my mom was going to be leaving) and then in the morning the roommate said, "I know you're going to be leaving," and helped her pack. It was the answer to my mom's prayers. These are concrete and verifiable experiences of Holy Ghost intervention. My own experiences of the Holy Spirit are less concrete, but still more profound than just a "feeling"... I had an experience when I really believe that the Holy Spirit spoke to me verbally, though I was young enough that I am open to the possibility that the experience was of my own manufacture.

My point, basically, is that to exclude "feelings" as an arbiter of truth isn't to exclude the work of the Holy Spirit; rather it is to recognize, in humility, that we humans have difficulty knowing which of our feelings are "inspired" and which are just emotional frenzy. I believe that on many occasions the Holy Spirit has moved in my heart and made me feel good. On the other hand, I do not allow myself to use those experiences as evidence for belief in God. They take on meaning only within the framework I have chosen to live my life in. Since they could still be easily explained within a rationalist or LDS framework, I do not use them as evidence that my current framework is "true". Does that make sense? By contrast, other works of the Holy Spirit are not as easily explained outside a theistic framework, so these can begin to contribute evidentiary support for theism.

Blessings,

-CK

[Daniel Peterson]

Amusing footnote for CKS:

Over on a certain other board -- the same board where it was revealed that the unitary FARMS mind believes that Mormonism is the fulfillment of Qumranic Judaism -- one of the many critics who believe that I'm some sort of cross between a knave and an idiot is faulting me on account of this very thread:

I am beginning to see that they have a hard time dealing with arguments from non-theists too. Just look at how DCP responded on a Tal Bachman-related thread tonight. It was ridiculous. He goes after the one Evangelical who spoke up instead of the guy who started the thread. Why? Because just about all they know over there is the faithful, â??say the Bible is not proven and accuse them of hypocrisyâ? bit. That doesnâ??t work with non-evangelicals; sometimes I wonder if FAIR would even exist if it were not for Evangelicals.

As far as I can determine, you're the non-evangelical non-theist who opened the thread.

I'm sorry that you had to learn about your atheism this way.

[Freedom]

oh dear, another Tal thread. Yes he has a lot to say about mormonism, about religion, about lots of things he is struggling to reject. He is at war with himself. I know him well, I have spoken with him recently. It is like a sickness with him. All conversations end up as an attack against God. No matter the subject matter. I don't mind people not accepting the church and identifying the problems with it through effective research but in my opinion, Tal is not fighting the church, he is fighting a personal battle. It is almost at the point of a mental illness. His wife shrugs her shoulders and leaves the room. His kids say 'is that all you can talk about?'.

Mormonism is more than a feeling, it is a way of life that brings peace. It brings one to God. Einsteinâ??s theories were â??feelingsâ??. His breakthroughs were produced without research, without any education. He worked in an office because he had failed his university entrance exams. He just thought things through and followed his feelings. His feelings fundamentally changed the way we look at the world. If we assume Tals interpretation of the Mormon feeling is accurate and must be rejected, then we must reject science. We are greater than the other living things on this planet because of our ability to feel and think.

[Mordecai]

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.

What about the context in which the feeling is obtained? If the feeling comes arbitrarily or in the middle of a mob's religious fervor, I wouldn't give any credibility whatsoever. If the feeling, which really is unique and may best be described as, "A warm light from Heaven, shining directly on one's heart," occurs in a particular situation, it might rightly be considered evidence. (Yes, this description of what the Spirit feels like is not too much unlike saying, "Salt tastes salty," but that's really the best I've got.) For example, a suicidal person, just before they attempt suicide, may get that feeling and just "know" that there is a God who loves them and that everything will be O.K., even though they were raised as an Atheist. Another example might be a teenager, skeptical, perhaps jaded by religion, stepping through the door of a family member's funeral, suddenly "knowing" that this person is not gone at all, this accompanied by said "warm light." Another example might be a borderline agnostic praying and getting no answer, until they simply say to themselves, "Ya' know, I think maybe I'm just being too prideful here, demanding an answer from God instead of humbling myself enough to just obey the commandments first." Are these types of experiences proof? Of course not. However, they are very powerful, if you experience them first-hand. Personally, if Someone died for me, I'd prefer to be loyal and if I'm not absolutely 100% certain, I'm willing to just roll with it as best I can until I am. I'm going with the "warm fuzzies" myself, as well as the sense of clarity, the sudden "knowledge" that I've been imbued with and the apparent evidences for the Book of Mormon and the like. Anyway, feelings can actually mean things and aren't just some incidental result of random mutations and selective pressures. We should value our own intuition, our senses of humor and our spirituality, in my view.

[GRW]

Einsteinâ??s theories were â??feelingsâ??. His breakthroughs were produced without research, without any education. He worked in an office because he had failed his university entrance exams. He just thought things through and followed his feelings.

This line of thought is modern mythology. Einstein did in fact fail exams for one school, but then attended another, where he graduated in 1900 as a teacher in Math and Physics. He worked at the patent office (1902 to 1909) not because was uneducated, but because he couldn't find a teaching post. He earned a doctorate in 1905, while working at the patent office. Anyone else here ever work there way through graduate school doing something not related to their degree?

And to say he followed his "feelings" is very misleading. He followed his instincts, perhaps, but they were very well-educated instincts--formally educated and perhaps more importantly, informally educated by the reading he did on his own time.

[GRW]

Several people have made the argument that a spiritual conversion is not simply about feelings. I don't disagree, but can you at least admit that scripturally and otherwise, the church does teach that feelings are at least a possible component of a spiritual witness? After all, the whole "burning in the bosom" thing is not simply a cultural phenomenon--it's how God supposedly pointed out to Oliver Cowdery that he had already been told what was true. Along with Gal. 5:22, it is possibly the most frequently used scripture to describe how the Spirit speaks.

A deeper problem for me, though, is that if you can't describe how the Spirit answers, then how can anyone know if they've received an answer? "Oh, you'll know," is not a good answer, because it leaves all possibilities on the table. In other words, no matter how an investigator describes the experience, you can assure them that it's from God as long as their conclusion conforms to yours.

As I see it, the bottom line is this: a spiritual witness is of no value to anyone but the person receiving it. Therefore, a testimony borne to others based on your spiritual witness carries no argumentative weight, since you are human and just as prone to error as I am. You have had a spiritual experience and so have I, and we are both equally likely to be wrong in our interpretation of those experiences.

[Avatar4321]

This thread seems to be addressing a point I've been making most repeatedly lately. The accusation that truth is based on feelings is blatantly false. It's based on the Witness of the Holy Ghost.

I can understand why the critics want to dismiss the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is just a feeling, then they can justify their unbelief.

But the Spirit isn't just a feeling, He certainly works through what we feel alot. But demeaning the Holy Ghost to be merely some fuzzy feeling demonstrates to me that they really have little to know experience with the Holy Ghost.

The power, Glory, and most importantly the love the Holy Spirit eminates can be overwhelming sometimes. But when He speaks, and we listen, the knowledge is real and clear.

The fruits of the Spirit may be peace, joy, love etc. But that is result of His presence. Not the end all of it.

I think if you continue to trivialize the Holy Ghost as mere feelings, you do yourself a great disservice because you trivialize the Holy Ghost. And those who trivialize God, are going to have a very hard time getting Him to actually respond to you.

When I was first studying to know whether the Church was true, I had no clue how to determine whether it was true or not. I didn't take the missionary discussions because I was raised in the Gospel. I don't even remember being taught how to recognize the Holy Spirit. I never seriously studied the scriptures so I didn't really have the scriptures as a guide, and when I did read the scriptures I didn't really comprehend much. I know I must have read the scriptures in D&C at some point, but I know I didn't really pick them up or understand them.

My point is that I didn't know what to expect. I didn't know whether God was real and whether He would let me know if He was out there. But I was willing to exercise faith to find out because I wanted to know the truth. Logically I understood that if there was an all powerful God who created the earth, He would have the power to talk to His creations. We can talk to our Creations after all, course they don't really talk back or have the ability to listen. But hey we are talking about what is supposed to be an All powerful God, so there seemed to be very little reason to doubt that He was unable to speak and unable to make it so we understand.

So I tried prayer. I figured at some point, the Lord would find a way to let me know if He wanted to. And He did nothing, I can be patient and keep studying and seeking. After all there are alot of things out there to learn so why not learn it?

Anyway, I can tell you I didnt know what to expect. But I definatel didnt expect the sheer power having the Spirit present. To describe it as a feeling just doesn't do it justice. Especially when the Lord speaks. Feelings might be able to be dismised, but can the very voice of the Lord? It may be a still small voice, but it is powerful and can cut to the core. It was like being hit in the head with a four by four. It opens your eyes to a brand new world.

If you haven't experienced the Holy Ghost, I can understand why you are skeptical. Heck i tend to be one of the biggest skeptics in the world at times. But when the Holy Ghost comes upon you, you can deny it as much as you can deny that the sun is hot. It's just impossible.

Sometimes it would be nice if it weren't true. Life might seem easier. I know it's not really easier, but it can come accross that way sometimes. The grass is always greener you know? There are alot of things i would probably have done if it weren't for that witness. and I likely would have destroyed myself doing them.

So you may be skeptical, I would be too if I didn't have first hand experience. You can totally disbelieve me. But that doesn't change that fact that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can know.

I beg of you don't try to dismiss God so casually. We are promised a witness from God Himself if we exercise some faith. But if you take it for granted, if you really dont want to learn. If you arent willing to follow it when it comes. The Lord isn't going to give it to you. And not because He doesn't want you to know, you just wont be ready for it. You wont even recognize it when it comes. I still don't know why the Lord, in His grace, was willing to witness to me as strong as He did. Maybe Im just so stubborn that I needed it that badly to be willing to stop and listen.

God, Himself, will teach you the truth. Do you understand the significance of a promise like that? Dont dismiss it as just some feelings.

[GRW]

So you may be skeptical, I would be too if I didn't have first hand experience. You can totally disbelieve me. But that doesn't change that fact that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can know.

I am not skeptical of your claim to have had a remarkable spiritual experience. I believe that you did, in part because I have had many of them myself.

Where we differ is in the interpretation of those experiences. One of the epiphanies I have had over the past several years involved reading the account of the conversion and deconversion of a Scientologist. I was stunned by the fact that his descriptions of his spiritual journey shared so much in common with my own. I began reading other conversion stories, for various religions, and I came to realize that the Mormon experience of conversion is not unique. See here for a few examples.

Some will sound familiar, some won't. But the common theme is that millions of people each year have what, for them, is a profound spiritual experience, and each of them interprets these experiences differently.

[selek]

I'm a boor if you say I am a boor. After all, you are the authority on it. Why is it when I make a half decent point, you always show up to knock me down a few spots? You and what's his name... Pahorn. Pahorn called me a communist just yesterday.

If the posts were half as substantive as you are wont to claim, niether DCP nor Pahoran would be able to "knock you down a few spots"- your points would be able to withstand the scrutiny. Since by your own admission they do not....

Also, I find it interesting that you object to having your points addressed by luminaries such as DCP and Pahoran. I thought discussion (the give and take of ideas) was the entire point of this board, as opposed to merely providing an empty forum for the lunatic rantings of our critics. Am I mistaken?

and if the board rules require that I use a capital G with God, then I'll correct it, otherwise just put me on your ignore list and you won't have to be subjected to my abusive typings.

I don't know that such capitalization is required by the board rules, but as DCP pointed out, it is a matter of being correct (as to all things English) and of basic courtesy and civility.

Are you that desperate to prove DCP correct (in his tendency to classify your behavior as boorish) that you must provide him with additional examples of the same?

[urroner]

boor -

1. a churlish, rude, or unmannerly person.

2. a country bumpkin; rustic; yokel.

Noggin, if seems to me that while you might not be a country bumpkin, you are being churlish or rude. Am I wrong here?

[consiglieri]

From "The Church is Not True" podcast archive (an interview with Tal Bachman):

RE: LDS epistemology re: LDS faith claims:

I think Tal has a legitimate point. Feelings are not the path to a solid epistemology, at least not as such is understood in the broader society.

Why, if you believe that they are, are feelings such an indisputable part of some LDS's epistemological certainties. One may argue, I suppose, that the feelings involved were more than just feelings; they were, in fact, spiritual confirmation of a given event or person X. But then how would one distinguish between one's positive spiritual confirmation and merely a very strong and persuasive feeling about X?

Best.

CKS

Hi, CKS,

I think, like, you know, that maybe this guy called, you know, Tal Bachman, you know, isn't like, somebody I would put, you know, like a whole lot of faith in.

(Couldn't resist.)

I think the problem is more one of terminology than anything else. On the one hand, a "feeling" is regarded as something fleeting and not grounded in reality, but in how you "feel" which is something transitory and changing. If you just "feel" something is true one day, you might "feel" it is not true the next. In that sense, a "feeling" can be easily ridiculed as a flimsy basis for religious belief.

On the other hand, when I say that the the Holy Ghost bore witness to me that every word in the Book of Mormon is the word of God when I prayed through it at the age of 18, I could describe the sensation as a "feeling." But if one were to understand my use of the term "feeling" in this context as a transitory "feeling" such as described above, it would be a confusion of the definition.

To be more technically accurate, I would have to say that information was communicated to me from a divine source through a sense other than the five customary senses used by the human being to perceive outside stimuli. This "sixth sense" is no less valid than any of the other five senses, and may actually be even more valid insofar as communicating truth. Hence, I am tempted to say that I "know" that I received a testimony from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. I "know" it because I received that information through a sense, though not one of the five senses. Some may think this makes my personal experience more open to dispute than if it had come through one of the five senses.

I think this likely to be incorrect, inasmuch as Joseph Smith said he saw and heard in the sacred grove, but the fact that he claims to have received divine knowledge through two of the five normal senses does not appear to have rendered his testimony immune to disputation.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri