Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Hawkmoon]

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

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Valley Girl, but I know what you mean.

[Greg Smith]

(Greg, I like the direction you're taking this thread.)

I like your handle, since JS Bach is obviously the greatest musical genius of all time. (I poured about 7 of my 12 years of classical piano training into doing Bach as much as I could, and anything else only reluctantly.)

Okay, so the Spirit is slightly distinct from "emotions"; I'm sorry if I talked as if they're identical.

That's OK--as I said, much of what is said about this is done either maliciously (trying to trivialize what LDS members take very seriously), or is confused by the short-hand language that people in the Church use. I don't need to parse things so closely when I'm talking to someone with similar experiences to draw on.

However, it still seems that the Spirit is very much like emotions in the respect that's most pertinent to the discussion -- they are both personal experiences that can't be communicated effectively, and operate on a realm independent of logic (I don't say that as a put-down).

I appreciate that this is not a put-down. I would not say that it is "independent of logic"--the logic is often powerfully clear to me, and to others involved in the experience. But, if one wants a logical syllogism without also having the communicated information, that isn't going to happen.

The information can be communicated, but only by means of the same tool--the Spirit.

The same is true of music. If someone was born deaf, how would I convey what a Bach three-part invention experience is like, or the totality of what Bach conveys? I could show you the dots on the page, talk about musical frequencies, harmonies, counter-point, etc. You might even be able to describe it in quite rigorous, even mathematical terms--but, the essense, the nature of the experience would be lacking. A great deal of the enjoyment of Bach is intellectual, rational--but, it also can't be reduced to that alone without missing something. Anyone who loves Bach will get this; anyone who doesn't won't have a clue what I'm talking about.

When that "revealed knowledge" is based on a claim that necessarily operates on only an individual level, it's hard to resist the urge to belittle it.

I find that a very strange reaction. If someone has never been in love before, one cannot understand what that experience is like. One cannot "transmit" the feeling of first love to anyone--that sort of breathless, giddy, "it's spring all over in December" feeling. One can see someone gripped by it, see its effects, even if one is bemused by it--why would one belittle it? That would strike me as something of sour grapes about it--"I've never had that experience, so such experiences are pointless, or imaginary, etc."

Joseph's key message, it seems to me, always seems to have been that such experiences were not exclusively his province. He went to great lengths to insist that knowledge given him would be given to anyone else who asked.

What's to stop me from saying that the Spirit told me that only Hinduism is correct, or that pantheism is the way to go?

There's absolutely nothing stopping you from saying it. There's nothing a priori from making it not true. But, the question is: Is it? Only you can decide.

Furthermore, on what grounds could you possibly criticize my claim? What you offer is just too radically indeterminate of an epistemology to be at all useful.

I'm not really too anxious to criticize your claim. Why should I? (I think there's something enormously strange about people who spend their times attacking the beliefs of others, rather than presenting thing own affirmative assertions about the world, science, or whatever. Don't tell me why I'm wrong; tell me why you're right, and I'll figure the rest out. :->)

You seem to want a public epistomology; you want to crack open the machine and expose its workings to any passer-by. That isn't what's being offered here.

This is enormously useful as an epistemology for my sake. It seems to me that there are two options:

1) Either there is at least one god/divine being; (or)

2) There isn't.

If #2, all is moot. If #1, there are two options:

3) God(s) will communicate with me in some way as to be sufficient to communicate useful information that will reliably improve my lot as opposed to not having had such communication

4) God cannot/will not do so because of His/Her/Their reasons, or human inadequacy to the task.

If #4, all is moot.

You'd have reasons other than your own emotions to believe that those million dollars were real.

Exactly. Just like I have reasons outside of emotions to believe that God really gave me information I couldn't get in any other way, corrected things I couldn't change despite long effort, etc.

That's fine, but you should realize that this goes both ways. Your experiences may lead to you to believe that some or other Church is true to you, but to say that it's true in general requires that you step outside of the individualized, intuition-based method of acquiring knowledge.

Again, I reject "intuition" as a label for the method, but I get where you're coming from.

Absolutely, this stance gives me no way to compel people to my point of view. I may be certain in my own mind; I cannot compel certainty in anothers. Which is exactly how it ought to be, it seems to me. I can attempt to persuade really only by offering what I believe, and suggesting they consider it in their own explorations.

God can still tell me, in general, that the LDS Church is sufficient and necessary for salvation. That expands a specific case (what God tells me) to a global (presumably because God won't lie). It doesn't give me license or ability to compel people, but it makes it far more than I "well this is right for me." If I ask questions about absolute matters, I can get absolute answers (to the extent any human can pose and/or process such questions/answers.)

Yet this is precisely what the Church continually tries to do when it says that the Church is true for everyone. I don't think that's fair.

Why? Joseph Smith says God came to him and told him this was the proper Church. God tells me that that is true. The means of getting that information remains personal and individual, but the implications may well be global.

If I look in a covered box, and see that it contains a dead cat, the dead cat's presence is true for everyone.

No one else may know about it--unless they believe what I'm told, or look in the box themselves. Someone else might look in the box, and mistake the dead cat for a sleeping one, or a large hamster, or a turnip. Someone might lie about what they saw in the box. Some might claim to have looked when they haven't.

The only way to be sure is to look in the box yourself (or have someone you trust not to lie and not to be mistaken look for you).

Only I can know whether I honestly looked, and what I honestly saw, and how certain/uncertain what I saw was. But, it doesn't change the reality of what's in the box, or the reality that I might be right about its contents while many others are sincerely but legitimately mistaken.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Bach]

This is a little more than a bit tiring... I mean, do you really have to interrupt nearly every thread Dr. Peterson is involved in with this kind of drivel? On a side note-- I think we should perhaps refer to you as Mini Tal or Mini Bachman?

My reply to Dr. Peterson was intended to broaden this thread to its original scope -- i.e., LDS epistemological concerns in general, not just the criticisms of some Christian sects. If you want to take issue with my tone or whatever, that's fine -- and you're probably right; it's difficult for me to not sound snarky when I get the slightest hint that other people in the debate aren't being paragons of civility (although I do try to fight that urge, believe it or not) -- but I can't see a good reason that I should apologize for the substance of my post.

[Greg Smith]

Personally, I think it's a very interesting argument that someone has pointed out, that missionaries or members can be with a non-member who is reading the BoM and pretty much tell them that any feeling they've had is the Holy Spirit, as long as it seems to be agreeing that the BoM or the Church is true, and then turn around and use soemthing like the Salt argument with critics. It begs the question, if we insert the Salt analogy into the missionary situation, how does the missionary know that an investigator is tasting salt when they have some spiritual experience?

Again, I think the question pre-supposes that the experience is merely about feelings.

But, if revelation is about communicating information, then it is entirely plausible that God could tell me (the missionary), "I'm speaking to them right now."

One can only know what one is told, true. But, if one trusts God, and God tells us something, one can with some confidence learn about others.

Or, as J. Reuben Clark used to insist, we can tell that a prophet (or anyone else) is moved upon by the Holy Ghost only when we too are so moved.

Can people be mistaken or manipulative about such things? Of course. Again, each individual has to decide for themselves.

But, there is no inconsistency in claiming that God can tell us that He appeared to Joseph Smith and that He is presently telling someone else that very same thing in the same room.

Kind regards,

Greg Smith

[Deborah]

I found some synonyms for feeling in the online thesaurus:

activity, awareness, consciousness, enjoyment, excitability, excitation, excitement, feel, innervation, motility, motor response, pain, perceiving, perception, pleasure, reaction, receptivity, reflex, responsiveness, sensation, sense, sensibility, sensitivity, sensuality, tactility, tangibility, titillation, touch

I highlighted the words which expand the meaning of feeling as a person of faith might use the term when speaking of "feeling the Spirit" for example.

My testimony is based on awareness, consciousness, perception and receptivity. This implies very much something much deeper than a warm fuzzy. It also requires some effort on my part and a review of the physical evidence, whether it be the Book of Mormon or analyzing the logic of a doctrine that is taught.

I think a mistake is made in that critics assume that the "feeling" is based on nothing more than wishful thinking, which seems to be the implication of many of the statements. The spirit testifies of truth, but only after the homework has been done. GRW alluded to Einstein and his instincts and that those instincts were very well-educated instincts. Well I would argue that there are spiritual instincts which are also well-educated by study, prayer and obedience to commandments and which are just as powerful in discovering truth.

[Bach]

Joseph Smith said that the Holy Ghost was the sensation of pure intelligence flowing through you. I'd say that the Holy Ghost teaching a person gives him or a her a sense of clarity or perhaps even an "ah-HA" (not the band... heh heh...) moment. We all can recognize those feelings, and if our brain is reasonably well organized and we're not insane, those moments come when something fits together neatly and logically.

Or at least when it seems to, right?

I don't doubt that there's a correlation between a thought being true and our feeling good about that thought, but I still don't understand how our feeling good about an idea can mean that it must be true. This is especially so when one considers that there are plenty of counterexamples to that claim.

Finding truth through logic is dependent on truisms and things that are self-evident. It would be exceedingly difficult if we had to analyze every little thing to make sure it's true, instead of relying on our underlying ability to recognize truisms and simply just know when certain things are true. I think Descartes was on to something in part, when he felt he knew the truism, "I think, therefore I am," and also felt, "God exists," although that alone is not nearly sufficient. It does illustrate, though, the reality that to a degree, we each have of an innate sense clarity and truth at various times.

I don't think we need to analyze everything to death, either, but some things in life are so important that they require special scrutiny. The existence/nonexistence of supernatural powers fulfills that requirement, I think.

Obviously, everything must actually, logically fit together. You need to have a lot of ah-HA moments, where your doctrines keep 'adding up' properly, instead of running into brick walls of contradiction.

True. One must learn by study and also by faith and we need to ponder and act on our beliefs to test them. The Holy Ghost acts as a guide and fills in a hole or two along the way. Sometimes, a person gets an objectively measurable sign or miracle as well or at least gets a witness whom we simply "know" is telling the truth, when they report on their first-hand experience with a miracle.

Feeling the Spirit isn't a necessary condition for other things in life to be true; burning bosoms don't make valid syllogisms any more correct. Why not, then, say that logical consistency alone is a sufficient epistemology? It seems like the whole Holy Ghost requirement has been tacked on to something that worked just fine without it.

[Hawkmoon]

My reply to Dr. Peterson was intended to broaden this thread to its original scope -- i.e., LDS epistemological concerns in general, not just the criticisms of some Christian sects. If you want to take issue with my tone or whatever, that's fine -- and you're probably right; it's difficult for me to not sound snarky when I get the slightest hint that other people in the debate aren't being paragons of civility (although I do try to fight that urge, believe it or not) -- but I can't see a good reason that I should apologize for the substance of my post.

Forgive me if I find your effort to “broaden this thread” a tad disingenuous. This isn’t the fist time you have hijacked a thread to inform us what Dr. Peterson really means rather than let him do so. It invariably leads to the following exchange:

Bach: It seems that you're tacitly acknowledging that your position is weak and that you really don’t believe what you have claimed.

DCP: Perhaps you would be wise to allow me to make my argument, rather than continually attempting to make it for me?

Bach: I know what your position is; it's just that your replies are incongruous with it. It also didn't appear that you were going to give a more in-depth reply than that if you weren't goaded further.

DCP: Not that it will make a difference, but for our audience, let me once more reiterate my position in this regard…

Bach: Look if you don't care to elaborate on your position, that’s fine. However, I wish you wouldn’t be snarky when I'm just trying to tease out what you really think.

DCP: I believe I have already done so several times. This is tiring. I’m gone.

Furthermore, I didn’t mention the “tone” of your reply nor asked you to “apologize” for it. So, in order for me to be clear, and for you not to inform me what I really meant, let me re-iterate it; I find it tiring having you hijack threads in order to tell us what Dr. Peterson really means rather than let him do so. Are we clear now?

[Bach]

I like your handle, since JS Bach is obviously the greatest musical genius of all time. (I poured about 7 of my 12 years of classical piano training into doing Bach as much as I could, and anything else only reluctantly.)

That's OK--as I said, much of what is said about this is done either maliciously (trying to trivialize what LDS members take very seriously), or is confused by the short-hand language that people in the Church use. I don't need to parse things so closely when I'm talking to someone with similar experiences to draw on.

I appreciate that this is not a put-down. I would not say that it is "independent of logic"--the logic is often powerfully clear to me, and to others involved in the experience. But, if one wants a logical syllogism without also having the communicated information, that isn't going to happen.

Yeah, and I suppose that's what bothers me. I don't know of any other logical system that isn't at least communicable in theory, so I'd maintain that there is a bit of a gap between this and what people usually call "logic". (That semantic debate doesn't look like it would be very useful, though, so I'm not going to develop it further, if you don't mind.)

The same is true of music. If someone was born deaf, how would I convey what a Bach three-part invention experience is like, or the totality of what Bach conveys? I could show you the dots on the page, talk about musical frequencies, harmonies, counter-point, etc. You might even be able to describe it in quite rigorous, even mathematical terms--but, the essense, the nature of the experience would be lacking. A great deal of the enjoyment of Bach is intellectual, rational--but, it also can't be reduced to that alone without missing something. Anyone who loves Bach will get this; anyone who doesn't won't have a clue what I'm talking about.

I enjoy your analogy, and think I understand what you're talking about, but I don't think Bach's music and the Church are appropriately analogous. Even the most avid Baroque music lovers don't claim that St. Matthews Passion is "true".

I find that a very strange reaction. If someone has never been in love before, one cannot understand what that experience is like. One cannot "transmit" the feeling of first love to anyone--that sort of breathless, giddy, "it's spring all over in December" feeling. One can see someone gripped by it, see its effects, even if one is bemused by it--why would one belittle it? That would strike me as something of sour grapes about it--"I've never had that experience, so such experiences are pointless, or imaginary, etc."

I think a key difference between feelings of love and the LDS epistemology is that feelings of love don't claim to say anything about anything outside of themselves. If all that Joseph Smith said was, "I have had feelings that God exists," then I would have no problem with it. It's the saltation from "I have these feelings/intuitions/perceptions" to "therefore, God really does exist!" that's illegitimate (and potentially pretentious), in my eyes.

There's absolutely nothing stopping you from saying it. There's nothing a priori from making it not true. But, the question is: Is it? Only you can decide.

I'm very happy that you leave me this option. There's a strong tendency for Mormons to No True Scotsman anyone who doesn't happen to get the "right" answer.

I'm not really too anxious to criticize your claim. Why should I? (I think there's something enormously strange about people who spend their times attacking the beliefs of others, rather than presenting thing own affirmative assertions about the world, science, or whatever. Don't tell me why I'm wrong; tell me why you're right, and I'll figure the rest out. :->)

I think that criticizing other people's beliefs is an acceptable practice so long as it's not merely done out of maliciousness. As long as people make faith-based decisions that affect the lives of others -- and they will, if the recent past is any indicator -- then I think it's within a person's right to challenge those faiths.

Absolutely, this stance gives me no way to compel people to my point of view. I may be certain in my own mind; I cannot compel certainty in anothers. Which is exactly how it ought to be, it seems to me. I can attempt to persuade really only by offering what I believe, and suggesting they consider it in their own explorations.

I see this as the epitome of reasonableness. Thanks.

I have to say, though, that I wish that this reasonable pluralism would extend to the Church's involvement in political affairs. That's the only reason I harp on this subject as much as I do.

God can still tell me, in general, that the LDS Church is sufficient and necessary for salvation. That expands a specific case (what God tells me) to a global (presumably because God won't lie). It doesn't give me license or ability to compel people, but it makes it far more than I "well this is right for me." If I ask questions about absolute matters, I can get absolute answers (to the extent any human can pose and/or process such questions/answers.)

Sure, but this all assumes that it really is God that's whispering in your ear, and not Satan, the CIA, or a confluence of your brain chemistry and linguistic community, or whatever.

[Bach]

Furthermore, I didnâ??t mention the â??toneâ? of your reply nor asked you to â??apologizeâ? for it. So, in order for me to be clear, and for you not to inform me what I really meant, let me re-iterate it; I find it tiring having you hijack threads in order to tell us what Dr. Peterson really means rather than let him do so. Are we clear now?

I don't think that it's very controversial for me to say that Dr. Peterson supports the Church against criticisms of its epistemology (which is the extent of what I put into Dr. Peterson's mouth). I maintain that all I've been trying to do is spur meaningful discourse. Further, I note-- not without relish -- that you now seem to be playing the role of hijacker.

[Mordecai]

Or at least when it seems to, right?

I don't doubt that there's a correlation between a thought being true and our feeling good about that thought, but I still don't understand how our feeling good about an idea can mean that it must be true. This is especially so when one considers that there are plenty of counterexamples to that claim.

Well, the Mormon claim is that you have to be "tuned-in." This is also true of people who are insane, for example. When they laugh, we ignore them, knowing they have no credibility with regard to humor. This may sound like a useless response, until you actually TRY it and notice a real difference in your sense of what is true and not true, simply because you're willing to obey some simple commandments as a test. That, in itself, isn't the end all, either. We do need to test God, basically, and prove Him. Abraham's faith was made perfect by works. When Abraham agreed to do something seemingly insane, simply trusting God, an angel appeared and taught Abraham about God's mercy and how there is no need for Abraham to kill children to appease God. A person willing to take steps forward, HOPING that God will fill in the holes regarding things like the atonement and a resurrection, should expect to have God give them reliable and measurable reasons to believe. An angel appearing to Abraham and his son (nice to have two witnesses), was a great thing and may have been what perfected Abraham's faith.

I don't think we need to analyze everything to death, either, but some things in life are so important that they require special scrutiny. The existence/nonexistence of supernatural powers fulfills that requirement, I think.

I agree. I have had doubts at times. Still, I had hope, too. Now I have more reason to believe. I hope to continue to get more knowledge and measurable evidence.

Feeling the Spirit isn't a necessary condition for other things in life to be true; burning bosoms don't make valid syllogisms any more correct. Why not, then, say that logical consistency alone is a sufficient epistemology? It seems like the whole Holy Ghost requirement has been tacked on to something that worked just fine without it.

Well, with the Spirit, scriptures or words can come to mind seemingly foreign to our stream of consciousness or provide information that we hadn't previously imagined. It's that stroke of inspiration that nudges us directions we would've taken much longer to arrive at otherwise and maybe perhaps never. The Spirit fills in the holes we couldn't fill ourselves, like getting a comprehension of God's level of love for his children. I couldn't have imagined the level of love God has for us without the Holy Ghost. (Well, I still can't, but at least I know that I'm too limited to thoroughly understand, and I have a strong sense that God's love is far stronger than I am able to grasp at this time.). I also wouldn't have gotten certain realizations about how to interprett scriptures and would've kept reading them exactly the same way I had before. But, I got new ways of thinking, seemingly out of the blue that broke old carnal cycles of seeing things ended abruptly. After that initial inspiration, I would fit it together with everything else and say, "Ah HA!" Also, the Holy Ghost has tended to give me a sense of confidence, even before I get more information that confirms its truth, where things finally add up and/or a miracle occurs after the fact. It enables me to act without fear or distrust, when I need to act, like when I testified on my mission. I couldn't have done that the way that I did with my tendency to fear doing or saying the wrong thing, if it were not for divine intervention, in my view. The Holy Ghost gave me confidence in things that I hadn't yet pieced together to the degree I have today. Now that I am more knowledgable, I can look back with even greater confidence that I was testifying of good and true things based on more than the Holy Ghost alone. It's the enabling power of the atonement, really, so I can get things done prior to knowing the future or having all the knowledege the universe.

[Bach]

Well, the Mormon claim is that you have to be "tuned-in." This is also true of people who are insane, for example. When they laugh, we ignore them, knowing they have no credibility with regard to humor. This may sound like a useless response, until you actually TRY it and notice a real difference in your sense of what is true and not true, simply because you're willing to obey some simple commandments as a test.

I think that what I said earlier:

There's a strong tendency for Mormons to No True Scotsman anyone who doesn't happen to get the "right" answer.

is appropriate here, no matter how good your intentions may be (and I'm sure that they are).

That, in itself, isn't the end all, either. We do need to test God, basically, and prove Him. Abraham's faith was made perfect by works. When Abraham agreed to do something seemingly insane, simply trusting God, an angel appeared and taught Abraham about God's mercy and how there is no need for Abraham to kill children to appease God. A person willing to take steps forward, HOPING that God will fill in the holes regarding things like the atonement and a resurrection, should expect to have God give them reliable and measurable reasons to believe. An angel appearing to Abraham and his son (nice to have two witnesses), was a great thing and may have been what perfected Abraham's faith.

How long does this testing process go on for? Until the person gets the "right" answer? I'm sorry, but I just can't see the benefit of that.

Well, with the Spirit, scriptures or words can come to mind seemingly foreign to our stream of consciousness or provide information that we hadn't previously imagined. It's that stroke of inspiration that nudges us directions we would've taken much longer to arrive at otherwise and maybe perhaps never. The Spirit fills in the holes we couldn't fill ourselves, like getting a comprehension of God's level of love for his children. I couldn't have imagined the level of love God has for us without the Holy Ghost. (Well, I still can't, but at least I know that I'm too limited to thoroughly understand, and I have a strong sense that God's love is far stronger than I am able to grasp at this time.). I also wouldn't have gotten certain realizations about how to interprett scriptures and would've kept reading them exactly the same way I had before. But, I got new ways of thinking, seemingly out of the blue that broke old carnal cycles of seeing things ended abruptly. After that initial inspiration, I would fit it together with everything else and say, "Ah HA!" Also, the Holy Ghost has tended to give me a sense of confidence, even before I get more information that confirms its truth, where things finally add up and/or a miracle occurs after the fact. It enables me to act without fear or distrust, when I need to act, like when I testified on my mission. I couldn't have done that the way that I did with my tendency to fear doing or saying the wrong thing, if it were not for divine intervention, in my view. The Holy Ghost gave me confidence in things that I hadn't yet pieced together to the degree I have today. Now that I am more knowledgable, I can look back with even greater confidence that I was testifying of good and true things based on more than the Holy Ghost alone. It's the enabling power of the atonement, really, so I can get things done prior to knowing the future or having all the knowledege the universe.

This is interesting, but you've moved from analytic thought into generative thought, which are two completely different animals, especially in the context of this thread.

[Greg Smith]

I enjoy your analogy, and think I understand what you're talking about, but I don't think Bach's music and the Church are appropriately analogous. Even the most avid Baroque music lovers don't claim that St. Matthews Passion is "true".

If its not true, it should be. :-)

The analogy is not music=the Church, but simply that it is entirely conceivable that without having experienced something, one misses something of the essence of an experience, and any attempts to describe that experience will be incomplete. How does one explain what hearing a Toccota is like to someone who has never heard one? Even to someone who can hear, it would be very difficult.

Those who have experienced revelation must likewise fall back on analogy, or adapt vocabulary, and such attempts will on some level be inadequate (as this example demonstrates!).

I think a key difference between feelings of love and the LDS epistemology is that feelings of love don't claim to say anything about anything outside of themselves. If all that Joseph Smith said was, "I have had feelings that God exists," then I would have no problem with it. It's the saltation from "I have these feelings/intuitions/perceptions" to "therefore, God really does exist!" that's illegitimate (and potentially pretentious), in my eyes.

Yes, as I said--this is what people find so offensive, that Joseph actually claimed to learn something about reality, and wouldn't allow it to be allegorized. Again, its much more than 'feeling, or intuition.' As for perception, well--seeing is a perception. If one SEES God, presumably that has fairly significant episimological weight, no? I think one is justified in concluding something by it.

I also have sympathy for the 'pretentious' risk. One of the clearest things I was ever taught by revelation was that if God would speak to me, He really would speak to anyone. There are relatively few things I claim "knowledge" about, but that's one.

I agree with CS Lewis, who said that coming into the presence of God would either make you feel like a small, dirty object, or you would forget about yourself entirely. He concluded it was far better if it made us forget ourselves entirely.

I'm very happy that you leave me this option. There's a strong tendency for Mormons to No True Scotsman anyone who doesn't happen to get the "right" answer.

Well, I think it's human nature, rather than Mormon. (Just look how often I'm told I'm delusional or "cognitively dissonant," or whatever simply because I haven't embraced an atheistic/agnostic viewpoint. This is generally treated as prima facie evidence that I'm irrational or ill-informed...)

However, if the scriptures are any guide, then I think the authentically "Mormon" position is that we must grant such a stance. The Book of Mormon makes that clear:

7 Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.

9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 30:7 - 9)

Anyway...

I think that criticizing other people's beliefs is an acceptable practice so long as it's not merely done out of maliciousness. As long as people make faith-based decisions that affect the lives of others -- and they will, if the recent past is any indicator -- then I think it's within a person's right to challenge those faiths.

[and]

I have to say, though, that I wish that this reasonable pluralism would extend to the Church's involvement in political affairs. That's the only reason I harp on this subject as much as I do.

C'mon, you have to pick up both ends of this stick. If what people believe (from religious sources or other--see Marxism, Freudianism, etc.) is going to affect the lives of others (and in a society of law, it will, often) then the Church and its members have the right to oppose the effects of such beliefs with which they disagree.

You can't consistently claim the right to critique faith-based positions that you don't like because they affect the lives of others, and then fault the Church for not adopting a political "anything goes" position on items which violate the Church's sense of what should affect others' lives. If, for example, abortion is morally wrong and a net ill to society (in which I must live, with my family), then the Church and its members must oppose it, and cannot remain neutral on such an issue.

With many such things, the question is not between being affected and not being affected; the choice is between which effect we will experience. "Don't interfere" is sometimes (though not always, and I'm not imputing this to you) code for "don't change the influences from what I want them to be." (And that applies to both the left and right.)

Sure, but this all assumes that it really is God that's whispering in your ear, and not Satan, the CIA, or a confluence of your brain chemistry and linguistic community, or whatever.

Ah yes, there's the rub. How do you know?

This is partly, I suspect, why "feeling" (in the conventional) sense is not excluded from revelation either. Satan (or some other malignant force, a la Descartes' demon) is probably made less likely by God's ability to fill us with love, peace, joy, and serenity, even (or especially) when it would be least expected or possible.

Confluence of brain chemistry and the like might well be seen as less likely if factual information that one has no way of knowing (consciously or otherwise) is conveyed to us.

But, at the limit, how does one KNOW one is reading this blog? Or know one hears a voice of a loved one on the phone? People do hallucinate such things, dream such things, or confuse such things. Yet, we do not then presume that all such examples are necessarily delusions or mistakes. This is not a problem for Mormon epistemology, but simply epistemology in general. Few people live in a pose of extreme skepticism over-all.

As I've said before, God knows all this.

I always find it rather strange (and, in my weaker moments a bit insulting) when an ex-member of the Church starts to explain how they suddenly had a bolt of insight and realized that spiritual experiences might (*gasp*) potentially be the product of environmental factors, social conditioning, wishful thinking, or brain chemistry.

This might, I readily grant, be the first time that they have entertained such notions. If so, I can see how that would be disturbing and worrisome.

But, they then make the wholly unwarranted leap to thinking that NO Mormons have realized this before they sought revelation, and that such worries never crossed others' minds, at any point, and that if we would only remove the blinders we'd be liberated from our delusions of revelation.

Speaking for myself, such things were upper-most in my mind, and actually delayed me in seeking revelation because I couldn't see a way to cut that Gordian knot--even if I got an answer, could I trust it? And, conversely, if I approached with too much skepticism, would that block chances of an answer?

What severed the dilemma for me (and may not for others) was deciding that personal integrity and consistency required that I at least make an attempt, even with the knowledge of all the potential problems, with a clear understanding beforehand that I was not willing to sacrifice honesty for my own peace of mind, or whatever.

I got more than I bargained for, to say the least, and was utterly unprepared for it. But, it certainly convinced me that God is aware of such things, and not at all displeased when we consider them. We can explain this stuff to Him.

But, such things are much less about thinking and reflecting, and more about being up, about, and doing in a reflective manner.

IMHO.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Mordecai]

I think that what I said earlier:

is appropriate here, no matter how good your intentions may be (and I'm sure that they are).

Actually, I provided a possible test. It's not about "true scotsman" or not. It's about a person's genuine willingness to live the Gospel. That's how I got my confirmation that the Church is true. I had many reasons to believe, but I tried to get an answer prior to any real comittment and had no such luck. Why not before and why after? Must've been the magic button, I suppose. What's important here is that the timing of my receiving a witness wasn't due to my DESIRE but my COMITTMENT to act. It seems like a third-party would be interested in comittment and not merely my subconscious mind. The timing matched what one would expect from the witness coming from a third-party.

How long does this testing process go on for? Until the person gets the "right" answer? I'm sorry, but I just can't see the benefit of that.

If you are fearful that you'll get strung along (by an evil intent, mortal or not), you'll never try. Well, I know someone who was less-active but then just said, "I'll give it a year and put everything into it. If I don't get results at that point, I'll give up." Well, he got profound results and now is on the high council. Glenn Beck simply listened to his daughter say, "I feel warm, when I go there," so he decided he'd go until he got a reason not to. He's still active today. People always make up excuses to not even try, like, "But how long? If I'm not told how long, I'm not going to try it at ALL." Please. It's not about how long. It's about genuine willingness to at least TRY. Just make up something that seems fair to YOU. In a way, we're always expected to judge for ourselves and judge ourselves. It's a slothful servant that needs to be commanded in ALL things.

This is interesting, but you've moved from analytic thought into generative thought, which are two completely different animals, especially in the context of this thread.

It's a combination of the two. God does what the mortal can't do for themselves. That's why the Holy Ghost is there: "Ye are saved by Grace, after all ye can do."

[Bernard Gui]

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.

What you said....Amen and Amen.

I deal with feelings in my line of work as a professional musician. Very powerful feelings can be created in others through music. Some may

interpret these as feelings of the Spirit. Perhaps. However, the whisperings

of the Spirit that I have experienced exceed those music-related emotions

by many orders of magnitude in depth, quality, and long-reaching results.

Bernard

[Avatar4321]

Actually, I provided a possible test. It's not about "true scotsman" or not. It's about a person's genuine willingness to live the Gospel. That's how I got my confirmation that the Church is true. I had many reasons to believe, but I tried to get an answer prior to any real comittment and had no such luck. Why not before and why after? Must've been the magic button, I suppose. What's important here is that the timing of my receiving a witness wasn't due to my DESIRE but my COMITTMENT to act. It seems like a third-party would be interested in comittment and not merely my subconscious mind. The timing matched what one would expect from the witness coming from a third-party.

I've had similiar experiences. It really wasn't till I was willing to live it if it was true that I actually learned it was true.

Of course, once the Spirit identified Himself, it was easy to look back and recognize other experiences with it.

If you are fearful that you'll get strung along (by an evil intent, mortal or not), you'll never try. Well, I know someone who was less-active but then just said, "I'll give it a year and put everything into it. If I don't get results at that point, I'll give up." Well, he got profound results and now is on the high council. Glenn Beck simply listened to his daughter say, "I feel warm, when I go there," so he decided he'd go until he got a reason not to. He's still active today. People always make up excuses to not even try, like, "But how long? If I'm not told how long, I'm not going to try it at ALL." Please. It's not about how long. It's about genuine willingness to at least TRY. Just make up something that seems fair to YOU. In a way, we're always expected to judge for ourselves and judge ourselves. It's a slothful servant that needs to be commanded in ALL things.

Glenn is a really good man. He has been through a lot. There was a geniune confirmation from the Spirit for him at a later time, so it was really more than just his daughter, but she started it.

It's a combination of the two. God does what the mortal can't do for themselves. That's why the Holy Ghost is there: "Ye are saved by Grace, after all ye can do."

Totally agree:)

[Avatar4321]

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.

Im sorry you seem to interpret them different, but when the Spirit of the Lord clearly states that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, it's hard to interpret them any other way. Did your scientologist friend have God speak directly too?

[juliann]

I don't doubt that there's a correlation between a thought being true and our feeling good about that thought, but I still don't understand how our feeling good about an idea can mean that it must be true. This is especially so when one considers that there are plenty of counterexamples to that claim.

Well sure there are counterexamples. That is why a Holy Spirit strawman called "feelings" is so convenient. I don't think there is a necesary correlation between feeling good and TRUE. In fact, my most powerful experiences came as I was experiencing the death of someone. Trust me...nothing felt "good". In fact, the most helpful information I received was the most painful of my life. It was also the most helpful.

I find it astonishing that anyone would work so hard to discount "feelings" even if that is what this was. Why not get rid of all of the rest of those messy sensory experiences? What is really being demanded is a world where something outside of us dictates what we think. Why bother figuring anything out using our own facilities when there is always someone else out there to do it for us...hopefully a really smart politically driven scientist.

[Deborah]

My Mom is 80 years old, never got sick, was always very active. No reason at all to be concerned about her. Yet this Fall my sister in Calif felt compelled to make a trip to Denver to see her. Likewise my brother at about the same time felt compelled to see her and sent her a plane ticket to visit him, and he has some real issues with Mom. Meanwhile I was planning a trip to Denver because I felt the need to see her and in fact told my son, "I need to see my Mom. I feel like it might be the last time." None of us were in communication with each other during this time and none of us had any reasons to be concerned and none of us but my sister in Denver are close to my mom. I ended up going to Idaho to see my Mom at my brother's. Two weeks after we all saw her she had a brain aneurysm. Even though she has survived she will never be the same and currently has significant brain damage. We've all seen Mom again, but she's not our mom as we knew her. We were all grateful we got to see her feisty, irritating, busy little self as she was before we had to see her as she is.

The point of this is that the overpowering feeling each of us had caused us to go out of our ways to do something we would otherwise not have done. This type of intuition or premonition of course is not limited to LDS; many people throughout the world have had such feelings which caused them to take action even though they weren't sure why. Never discount the power of feelings. This can be applied to faith as well as other areas of our lives; feelings based on something deeper than wishful thinking are as legitimate in many cases as all the tangible evidence you can present.

[Tal Bachman]

Hi all

Everytime I post on another thread, certain people say, "WHY DON'T YOU POST ON THE OTHER THREAD?". I'm not sure what that's about, but here I am if someone wants to talk or whatever it is they're talking about on the other threads.

In a nutshell, I believe that the statement "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" is pretty absurd. I'm not sure what more there is to add to that...(?).

All I can say in defense of the "like" issue is, I grew up on the beach on the west coast...

T.

[structurecop]

Hi all

In a nutshell, I believe that the statement "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" is pretty absurd. I'm not sure what more there is to add to that...(?).

T.

Tal, I agree that the "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" philosophy is problematic on its own. If there is any question, a quick look at all the "apostate" groups should show how that thinking can be twisted. On the other hand, however, are all the anecdotes where individuals show a "sixth sense" or intuition that guides them to make unreasonable but life-saving or altering decisions.

How do you reconcile the preponderance of such stories with the skeptic's perspective that "truth" cannot be divined through feelings alone?

[Chris Smith]

Tal, I agree that the "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" philosophy is problematic on its own. If there is any question, a quick look at all the "apostate" groups should show how that thinking can be twisted. On the other hand, however, are all the anecdotes where individuals show a "sixth sense" or intuition that guides them to make unreasonable but life-saving or altering decisions.

How do you reconcile the preponderance of such stories with the skeptic's perspective that "truth" cannot be divined through feelings alone?

Interesting question.

-CK

[Nomad]

Hi all

Everytime I post on another thread, certain people say, "WHY DON'T YOU POST ON THE OTHER THREAD?". I'm not sure what that's about, but here I am if someone wants to talk or whatever it is they're talking about on the other threads.

In a nutshell, I believe that the statement "I feel it's true, therefore, I know it's true" is pretty absurd. I'm not sure what more there is to add to that...(?).

All I can say in defense of the "like" issue is, I grew up on the beach on the west coast...

T.

Talmage,

You will soon discover that if you truly want to engage anyone on something of substance, you will need to demonstrate that you actually have some base of knowledge on a topic. You seem to believe that there is an audience here on this board that is anxious to â??talkâ? with you simply on the basis of your presumed notoriety. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the posters on this board are entirely ignorant of your status as a â??one-hit-wonder.â?

Neither will you find that your marginal ability to turn a pithy phrase will garner you much respect in this venue. You will actually have to demonstrate that you know something, or at least that you can persuasively defend a point of view on a topic of interest to the board. For example, why donâ??t you venture into Vogelâ??s â??Things That Donâ??t Make Sense in the Book of Mormonâ? thread and see if you can hold your own? Otherwise I suspect you will find yourself much more comfortable back at the Compound where the sycophantic residents are much more inclined to, like, pander to your vanity.

[Orpheus]

Hi all

All I can say in defense of the "like" issue is, I grew up on the beach on the west coast...

T.

You are trolling. If you have something to say have at it if you don't go back to your other boards. You won't be starting anymore threads to lecture the mods.

[beastie]

Feelings and intuitions are necessary and very useful in terms of navigating through the world. These intuitions and feelings are often based on the fact that we pay attention to language (verbal and nonverbal) on a not-quite-conscious level, and our brains are processing that information along with the information we consciously process. We then get a "feeling" that someone is lying, because we have subconsciously processed nonverbal cues that have often been associated with lying in the past.

Emotions exist for reasons, and those reasons often have to do with navigating relationships. But they also can be the result of the subconscious level of processing mentioned above. If someone has had years of experience developing certain skills, the brain is processing minute details we're not consciously paying attention to, but may "tell" us something "feels" wrong with the current process.

However, these are both entirely different scenarios then the Moroni challenge. The Moroni challenge is about accessing accurate information about external realities. If one wants to evaluate whether or not a specific historical event occurred, reading one text and then listening to one's "feelings" about it is a process unsupported by either science, logic, or what we know about human evolution and emotions.

[Daniel Peterson]

However, these are both entirely different scenarios then the Moroni challenge. The Moroni challenge is about accessing accurate information about external realities. If one wants to evaluate whether or not a specific historical event occurred, reading one text and then listening to one's "feelings" about it is a process unsupported by either science, logic, or what we know about human evolution and emotions.

I disagree entirely. In areas where there is insufficient information to form definitive judgments (which includes important public and private decisions, as well as interpretatations of history, etc.) -- that is, in matters where a conclusion is "underdetermined" by the available evidence (which is to say, almost always) -- we routinely, indeed always, depend upon hunches and feelings, upon a sense of what is "right" or "fitting" to make the leap from insufficient data to decision. In religious matters, where the publicly available evidence falls far short of what is needed to make a decision, subjectivity ("feelings," if you will) inescapably enters in -- for atheists as well as for theists.

(I don't, incidentally, concur that a revelation from the Holy Spirit is reducible merely to "feelings," any more than perception of a mountain is reducible merely to events within the optic nerve and the relevant area of the brain. That perception of a mountain is manifested, within the human perceptual apparatus, by such events hardly demonstrates that it is wholly explained by those events.)