LDS Epistemology - What Can We Know? How Can We Know It?

[Kevin Christensen]

Besides Blake Ostler's excellent essay, I'd also recommend Alan Goff's discussions of Positivism. He is particularly good at pointing out the conspicuous lack of self-reflection on the part of positivist approaches. By what mysterious means are skeptics able to discern with absolute certainty and finality exactly what a believer cannot know? Also, FWIW, I've written a three part essay showing that LDS epistomology involves far more than "good feelings." I'm also quite impressed by Alma 32's distinction between those who want to "know" with finality versus those who have "cause to believe" sufficient for ongoing faith, that as part of a continuing process involves successful experience, mind expanding enlightenment, aesthetic appreciation of doctrine, fruitful outcome from action, and attractive future promise.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060215model.html

And I also have this on Paradigm debate in LDS circles.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=193

And an essay on Determining What is Real here:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?...s&issue=139

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Brade]

Besides Blake Ostler's excellent essay, I'd also recommend Alan Goff's discussions of Positivism. He is particularly good at pointing out the conspicuous lack of self-reflection on the part of positivist approaches. By what mysterious means are skeptics able to discern with absolute certainty and finality exactly what a believer cannot know? Also, FWIW, I've written a three part essay showing that LDS epistomology involves far more than "good feelings." I'm also quite impressed by Alma 32's distinction between those who want to "know" with finality versus those who have "cause to believe" sufficient for ongoing faith, that as part of a continuing process involves successful experience, mind expanding enlightenment, aesthetic appreciation of doctrine, fruitful outcome from action, and attractive future promise.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/060215model.html

And I also have this on Paradigm debate in LDS circles.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=193

And an essay on Determining What is Real here:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index.php?...s&issue=139

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thank you Kevin. I read your three part essay a few years ago. I need to go back and read it again as you're one of only a handful of Mormons that have seriously treated this topic in philosophical terms. I'm curious, as it's stated do you agree or disagree with my thesis? I get the impression that you might agree with it and go on to state that spiritual experiences of the Holy Ghost are something over and above mere good feelings and that spiritual experiences of the Holy Ghost as something over and above mere good feelings do justify knowledge claims. I'm not convinced of this. Perhaps my thesis would be more controversial if I stated that even if spiritual experiences are defined as something over and above mere good feelings they still don't count toward making a claim to know something and can only count as a good reason to believe something. Any thoughts?

[Alf O'Mega]

Great topic, ba81. Some disconnected thoughts:

• Boyd K. Packer's salt analogy is a familiar but fallacious justification of privately justified knowledge. (See my commentary here.) But refuting his analogy does not refute the proposition that beliefs based on feelings are unwarranted. I'm inclined to agree with your thesis, but I'm realistic enough to recognize that it's a more nuanced question than Packer's analogy would lead one to consider.
  
• Ostler's hamburger example is well considered. It seems to me, though, that we should distinguish self-knowledge from intersubjective knowledge. Nobody is in a position to dispute my claim to know that I thought longingly about a hamburger three minutes ago (specifically a pastrami burger of the sort they serve at Apollo, Astro, or Crown Burger). But that fact is, like its justification, private. To claim privately justified knowledge for a public fact (the Book of Mormon is an authentic record of an ancient people) is a different matter altogether.
  
• What role does memory play in the question of distinguishing knowledge from belief? I have studied enough math to be able to claim that I know the quadratic equation, and yet it's just possible that if you made me write it down right now I'd get it wrong. I know where to look it up, of course, but my failing the pop quiz would lead a prudent person to question my claim of knowledge. Is this sense of knowledge (facts readily and consistently available from memory) importantly distinct from the other sense (justified, true belief)?
  

[Bat-Man]

Specifically, my thesis is this. Mormons are not justified in making knowledge claims if their knowledge claims are based on the association of good feelings with religious activity.

Hmm. I can't think of anything to say in support of your thesis.

Is it too late for you to change your thesis?

In my perspective, Mormons are justified in making knowledge claims if their knowledge claims are based on the association of good feelings with religious activity.

When people come to know anything they usually get a good feeling about what they then come to know, and that good feeling and knowledge is then associated with some kind of religious activity.

Oh, wait, I think I get it now. Are you talking about how some people don't think Mormons are justified in making knowledge claims when they say their knowledge claims are based on the association of good feelings with religious activity?

Just because some people say that doesn't mean it is true...FYI.

I think it would be better for you to focus your thesis in the other, better, direction.

[Sargon]

ba81,

I don't think we disagree on very much. There may have been some miscommunication due to the sometimes ambiguity of the meaning of "know" as used in the scriptures. If I had to specifically define "know" for the sake of discussion, I would certainly agree that there is only one degree of "know" but various degrees of "belief".

The LDS cultural habit of claiming to "know" the church is true has been somewhat of a pet peeve to me as well. It's almost as if noone in the church has any faith left! I think this short story partially illustrates this issue:

"When the 23-year-old Heber J. Grant was installed as president of the Tooele Stake, he told the Saints he believed the gospel was true. President Joseph F. Smith, a counselor in the First Presidency, inquired, 'Heber, you said you believe the gospel with all your heart, â?¦ but you did not bear your testimony that you know it is true. Don't you know absolutely that this gospel is true?'

"Heber answered, 'I do not.' Joseph F. Smith then turned to John Taylor, the President of the Church, and said, 'I am in favor of undoing this afternoon what we did this morning. I do not think any man should preside over a stake who has not a perfect and abiding knowledge of the divinity of this work.'

"President Taylor replied, 'Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, [Heber] knows it just as well as you do. The only thing that he does not know is that he does know it.'

"Within a few weeks that testimony was realized, and young Heber J. Grant shed tears of gratitude for the perfect, abiding, and absolute testimony that came into his life."

And here is an excellent little story, that I highly recommend, that illustrates this issue in more depth, it can be found on a link called "A Youth Who Doesn't Know" found in the bottom right hand corner of this website (not my website): http://www.geocities.com/jvjaks@sbcglobal.net/

Take a look at it and tell me what you think. It echoes my sentiments in many ways.

[Uncertain]

Hi Ba81,

Sweet one of my favorite topics.

First I would like to outline the argument as I understand it for why internal subjective spiritual experiences can confidently be used to gain information about external truths (i.e. how the universe really is). Consider looking at a red rose. Given the evidence from my senses I am justified in believing the red rose actually exists. Even if it is just me who sees the rose and there is no else present who also sees the rose. My experience of seeing the rose using my sense of sight is sufficient reason in and of itself for believing the rose is actually present. Now consider a spiritual experience what do we know about spiritual experiences? Well as described by Blake in his excellent article: Spiritual Experience as the Basis for Belief and Commitment.

“So I would ask, what do we know after we have had such a spiritual experience? Do we know that God is the source of the experience? Well, here's what we know. We know that we can't produce the experience at will. We know in many cases that the experience came about while earnestly seeking a response from God. We know that we experienced it as coming from God in the experiencing of it. We know that as a result of the experience we feel immense love and a desire to do better. In this sense, we know that the experience is good and good is discernible. We also know that all of our experience and the meaning of life is reoriented--we are born again, a new person seeing with new eyes and a new heart.”

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...xperiences.html

How we obtain information about the world is fundamentally through our experiences of sight, sound, emotions etc. Therefore given a spiritual experience that we experience as coming from God and through which we are “born again” it is justified to believe the experience comes from God unless there are good reasons not to. Just like it is justified to believe a rose is present when we experience the sight of a rose. It is justified to believe God is communicating with us when we have a spiritual event that in the experiencing of it we experience as coming from God.

Now as already pointed out by Alf O’mega there is a big difference between internal subjective experiences that tell me something about my internal state (i.e. I am hungry, I love my wife, etc.) and internal subjective experiences that purport to tell me something about public facts. But for the purpose of my argument I am going to assume the above justification for spiritual experiences is correct. That is we should assume an internal spiritual experience is telling me something true about universal truths unless there is a good reason to suspect otherwise.

Consider a particular experimental methodology that purports to reveal information about how the universe really is. To test the effectiveness of this methodology 4 different scientists use the methodology. Their results were then compared it was found that the four different results were mutually exclusive that is each was incompatible with the other three. Based purely on the results of the methodology there is no reason to prefer one result over the other three each result has the very same evidence a “positive” based on the experimental methodology. Based on the evidence provided by the experimental method the probability of a given result being true is .25 that is based on the experimental methodology there is no reason to prefer one result over another. Hence each is equally likely based on the evidence provided by the experimental methodology. Now this does not mean the method is overall unreliable it just means for the particular question being studied under the particular conditions the method could not determine which of a collection of potential “truths” represents the actual truth.

The problem of course is we have this same situation when it comes to LDS epistemology. The “truths” returned by spiritual experiences are in many cases mutually exclusive*. To apply the above example suppose I have a LDS, RLDS, FLDS member each of which has a personal spiritual experience confirming their particular church is the only church with Gods authority on earth. Each “truth” is mutually exclusive with the other claims. Based on the evidence provided by a spiritual experience there is no reason to prefer one claim over another each person has a 1/3 (at best)** probability that their particular result accurately represents how the universe really is.

To summarize if a method purports to reveal information on a universal truth. That information should be intersubjective verifiable that is others using the same method should get more or less the same information. If a method is not intersubjective verifiable this is a good reason to doubt the information returned by the given method accurately represents universal truths. The information obtained by spiritual experiences is not intersubjective verifiable therefore this is a good reason to doubt information obtained by internal spiritual experiences accurately represents universal truths.

*For references see this thread post# 139

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...5565&st=120

** Of course it is possible none of them are right.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[wenglund]

Mormons are not justified in making knowledge claims if their knowledge claims are based on the association of good feelings with religious activity.

I could be wrong, but it appears that you may be attempting to apply the rigors of systematic philosophy to informal expressions of personal sentiments, and I don't see that as at all fitting (i.e. the fallacy of precision of language).

I would venture to guess that most the people who publically declare that they "know the Church is true" have likely never even heard the word "epistemology" let alone have been privy to the philosophic history behind the formal definition of the word "know" and the high bar of justification associated therewith. They are simply using the term "know" in the common venacular, and in their own loose sense, justifiably so.

Might we do us all a disservice were we to become word police enforcing our own esoteric application of terms like "know"? As long as people are progressing towards becoming like Christ and growing in joy and love and value and meaningfulness one with another (which is the intent and purpose of the Church and the essense of what makes it "true"), isn't that what is important? Isn't that where our interests should be turned in terms of justification? What does it matter if their informal use of the term doesn't meet the rigors of formal philosopy? Will quibbling over semantic get us anywhere? Has it even gotten the divergent schools of philisophical thought anywhere? Isn't the function of words to communicate meaning, and might we not thwart that function by requiring that words be used only as we may see fit?

I am asking these questions not by way of condemnation, nor specifially of you, ba81, but generally to give us all pause to take thought when addressing this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jason]

To summarize if a method purports to reveal information on a universal truth. That information should be intersubjective verifiable that is others using the same method should get more or less the same information. If a method is not intersubjective verifiable this is a good reason to doubt the information returned by the given method accurately represents universal truths. The information obtained by spiritual experiences is not intersubjective verifiable therefore this is a good reason to doubt information obtained by internal spiritual experiences accurately represents universal truths.

Why should we assume that all the given spiritual winesses were obtained by the same method?

In fact, without evidence that the same method was used your conclusion that spiritual experiences are not "intersubjective verifiable" does not follow.

[Uncertain]

Why should we assume that all the given spiritual winesses were obtained by the same method?

In fact, without evidence that the same method was used your conclusion that spiritual experiences are not "intersubjective verifiable" does not follow.

Hi Jason,

Thank you for your reply. I am curious if you read the references given in my initial post. If you are interested in accounts that closely parallel LDS accounts. I suggest you examine the epistemology of breakaway groups. For example I did a quick search and found a number of early RLDS accounts that advocate a read, ponder and pray approach to gaining truth. And who obtained a spiritual witness of doctrines contradictory to LDS doctrines. Indeed my first example J. W. Nanny received a spiritual witness that the RLDS church was the one true church (i.e. the church with Gods authority) and not the LDS church.

“The same argument that convinced me that the sects were wrong was evidence that but one of these factions could be right, so I decided to put James 1:5 to the test. I sought the Lord in prayer and continued to read everything they sent me and compare it with the Scriptures, knowing that God alone could give me light—till one day in the latter part of February I was chopping wood out of dead trees in a cotton field; being alone I was in silent prayer. I had felled a tree and sat down beside it to rest, leaning back against the log as it lay across the cotton rows. As I sat there in silent meditation I was impressed to look up, and to the northwest I saw a personage approaching me clothed in a white flowing robe. He stopped directly in front of me, and about ten feet away, and beckoning me said, "Come hither." “

http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/t...dsauthority.htm

“The saints are familiar with the accounts of the heavenly visions which were experienced by Joseph Smith, Jr., in Palmyra’s Grove, which caused him to become the founder of the Restoration Movement. However, little is known about the important visions and revelations which led his son, Joseph Smith III, to take his place as prophet-president of the Church.

There are similar patterns in the lives of both Josephs. Both were farmers. Both sought God as a result of reading James 1:5 which says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God.” Both were led by visions and revelations. Both were young when the manifestations came to them, and both were led to become the prophet-president of the Church.”

http://restorationbookstore.org/prints/joseph3.htm

"Upon returning home I continued to study and fast and pray about these teachings. I couldn't deny the witnesses that I was receiving because I knew in my soul that they are right. In October I went back to Manti to attend a two day seminar and to learn the truth as to whether the LDS Church still had claim on being God's true church on earth. I have never been in any class where the scriptures were taught in such clarity and power. I knew what I must do. I must gather to Manti and be a part of this, God's great and marvelous works of the last day. Even if my family were to abandon me, I knew that what I had heard was true, and I knew that God knew that I knew it, and that I would be under condemnation of God if I were to reject His witness to me.

It was the hardest thing I have ever had to do to go back home and have my family (my wife, my eight children, my son-in-law and my grandson) reject me and walk out on me without even knowing of the things that I had seen and heard. However, I thank God that He blessed me with the strength and courage to follow what the spirit dictated in my heart with such power that I must do. I know that God did lead me here. I pray each day that God will prepare His elect--that your hearts will be prepared to listen to the truth of this message, and not be filled with the fear of truth because of tradition or the influence of Satan. I know that this is of God, and that the leaders of the LDS church either by error, or by the pressures of the world, or by the influence of Satan have led Christ's true Church into complete rejection by God. You can't change God's laws and ordinances and not be rejected of God. There are many other factors but I will not go into more at this time."

This last is a testimony from a member of the "True & Living Church Church of Jesus Christ of Saints in the Last Days" (i.e. the Harmston breakaway group in Manti)

http://web.archive.org/web/20060904213145/...kBurtonBio.html

(Bold added by me in all cases)

It is not surprising that groups with a more recent “common-ancestor” will believe in similar ways of obtaining truth.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Bender]

Uncertain Posted Today, 11:50 AM

Hi Ba81,

Sweet one of my favorite topics.

First I would like to outline the argument as I understand it for why internal subjective spiritual experiences can confidently be used to gain information about external truths (i.e. how the universe really is). Consider looking at a red rose. Given the evidence from my senses I am justified in believing the red rose actually exists. Even if it is just me who sees the rose and there is no else present who also sees the rose. My experience of seeing the rose using my sense of sight is sufficient reason in and of itself for believing the rose is actually present. Now consider a spiritual experience what do we know about spiritual experiences? Well as described by Blake in his excellent article: Spiritual Experience as the Basis for Belief and Commitment.

If it is only me that sees the rose, I would have to ask myself if it really does exist. Am I seeing an optical illusion, is it only appearing in my head. From my limited knowledge I know many others can and do see things that really don't exist, so I would have to reserve my judgment on the rose until I could get more information.

“So I would ask, what do we know after we have had such a spiritual experience? Do we know that God is the source of the experience? Well, here's what we know. We know that we can't produce the experience at will. We know in many cases that the experience came about while earnestly seeking a response from God. We know that we experienced it as coming from God in the experiencing of it. We know that as a result of the experience we feel immense love and a desire to do better. In this sense, we know that the experience is good and good is discernible. We also know that all of our experience and the meaning of life is reoriented--we are born again, a new person seeing with new eyes and a new heart.”

I would have to say that I don't really know if the experience does come from God. That does not lesson the value of the experience or the positive effects it can have on my life. WE also don't really know that we couldn't produce the experience at will. The brain is an amazing thing, doing many things we sometimes don't think can be done

[Uncertain]

If it only me that sees the rose, I would have to ask myself if it really does exist. Am I seeing an optical illusion, is it only appearing in my head. From my limited knowledge I know many others can and do see things that really don't exist, so I would have to reserve my judgment on the rose until I could get more information.

Hi Bender,

I agree with you. If others who are just as reliable as me do not see the rose this is a good reason to doubt the rose is really there. Indeed this is the basis of my argument.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jason]

It is not surprising that groups with a more recent â??common-ancestorâ? will believe in similar ways of obtaining truth.

I would say that the reported experiences of your first two examples, which involve angeles appearing to testify, are nothing like the "typical" LDS experience.

The "True & Living" experience sounds more in line, but is obviously using borrowed vocabulary from the person's LDS background, and seems incomplete (he speaks of "other" things he saw that convinced him).

I remain unconvinced that the same method most LDS use to determine the truth was used to provide these experiences.

[Uncertain]

I would say that the reported experiences of your first two examples, which involve angeles appearing to testify, are nothing like the "typical" LDS experience.

Hi Jason,

Really heavenly messengers appearing to testify has no place in LDS epistemology? So we can safely discount JS first vision because it is "nothing like the typical LDS experience"? In addition the point I am trying to make is both examples are someone "reading", "pondering" and "asking God for truth" which is exactly LDS epistemology. In fact angels appearing to testify is more impressive than an internal witness because it engages senses we traditionally think of as reliable such as sight.

The "True & Living" experience sounds more in line, but is obviously using borrowed vocabulary from the person's LDS background, and seems incomplete (he speaks of "other" things he saw that convinced him).

Well of course he uses LDS vocabulary that is why I used him as an example. If he did not use LDS vocabulary I dare say you would reject his testimony because it it "nothing like" how LDS describe seeking truth.

I remain unconvinced that the same method most LDS use to determine the truth was used to provide these experiences.

I am not surprised . My goal is not to convince hardened partisans I was outlining why an objective seeker after truth might have cause to doubt LDS methods of truth seeking.

I personally am a religious pluralist. It may be God provides a spiritual experience to lead a person to the path that is best for them (i.e. provides the most joy, personal growth etc). But for the reasons outline I am not convinced spiritual experiences can be used as strong evidence for universal truths.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[wenglund]

Perhaps it might prove useful to first vet the LDS epistemology prior to determining whether it may justify belief or claims of "knowing".

And, since I have spoken somewhat to this issue on another thread, I will reproduce the relevant portions here for discussion.

At the very least, I see two epistemic approaches mentioned in the LDS scriptures and utilized by members of the restored gospel of Christ, often in combination with each other.

First, there is the ostensive approach mentioned in Moroni 10, which consists of the student receiving a witness from a trusted source that what has been taught is "true". This approach is not uncommon in secular education and day-to-day life, particularly at the fundamental/primary stages of educational development.

An example of secular ostensive instruction is where the student receives a witness from a trusted source (the teacher) that water consists of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molucule. Even though the student may not be able to see the different molucules, were the student to take the witness of the teacher at her word, and accept it as "truth", that would be ostensive learning. The child may then claim to "know" that water consists of H2O.

Second, there is the experiencial approach found in Alma 32, which consist of the student personally experiencing or realizing the "truth" of what was taught. This approach is also quite common within secular education and day-to-day life, particularly during the more advanced stages of educational development.

An example of this approach from day-to-day life is were a parent to teach the child that it is in the child's bet interest to not touch the hot stove, and were the child to go ahead and touch the hot stove, it may learn by experience the "truth" of what the parents said. Having been burnt, the child may then claim to "know" that it is in her best interest not to touch the stove.

Perhaps a better example to illustrate both approaches would be were a parent to teach the child the value of a healthy work ethic. If the child simply takes their parents witness of the value to heart and follows that teaching, then that would be ostensive learning like that suggested in Moroni 10. Whereas, were the child to apply the teaching and later reaped the rewards of a healthy work ethic, then that would be experiencial learning like what is described in Alma 32. Through the application of either or both approaches, the child may say they "know" the "truth" of a healthy work ethic.

These same epistemic approaches also apply adult to adult.

Since the intent and purpose of the restored gospel is to enable us to progress towards becoming like Christ, the passage in Moroni suggests that we pray to get a witness that the restored gospel is "true"--i.e. that the restored gospel is what it claims to be and it will do for us what it claims to do. If we receive and accept that witness, then that is ostensive learning. Whereas, Alma suggests that we abide by the precepts of the restored gospel to see if we do, in fact, progress towards becoming like Christs. And if we do so and we reap the blessings as promised, then we learn by experience that the Church is "true"--it is what it claims to be and it will do for us what it claims it will do.

If members of the restored gospel use either or both of these proven epistemic approaches as just described, then can't they legitimately lay claim to believing or "knowing" the Church is true?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bender]

As I said on the other thread with a similar topic, many are doing Moroni's promise and Alma's experiment with the LDS system, many of the Christian systems as well as other religions like Wicca, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Many are getting great results that lead them to conclude like many LDS that there system of Faith must be correct or the most correct. Many in different religions think that they know based on these same epistemological experiments.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As I said on the other thread with a similar topic, many are doing Moroni's promise and Alma's experiment with the LDS system, many of the Christian systems as well as other religions like Wicca, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Many are getting great results that lead them to conclude like many LDS that there system of Faith must be correct or the most correct. Many in different religions think that they know based on these same epistemological experiments.

It seems you are implying that because different people apparently using the same criteria (I disagree with that premise) arrive at different conclusions, the entire enterprise must be fraudulent? If so, we must bid "science" a fond farewell.

[wenglund]

As I said on the other thread with a similar topic, many are doing Moroni's promise and Alma's experiment with the LDS system, many of the Christian systems as well as other religions like Wicca, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Many are getting great results that lead them to conclude like many LDS that there system of Faith must be correct or the most correct. Many in different religions think that they know based on these same epistemological experiments.

I certainly have no problem with that. This is as it ought to be. To each their own. I trust that in principle we each will happily reap in the after-life what we respectively expected and in accordance with the means of progression that we trusted. In other words, the extent and nature of our respective progressions will match the height at which we, according to our wants and faith, set the bar of our expectations (With atheist/agnostics representing the low end of the spectrum setting the bar at the pinnicle of humanism, and the restored gospel representing the upper end of the spectrum, setting the bar at the pinnical of Godliness in Christ.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bender]

LifeOnaPlate Posted Today, 03:26 PM

It seems you are implying that because different people apparently using the same criteria (I disagree with that premise) arrive at different conclusions, the entire enterprise must be fraudulent? If so, we must bid "science" a fond farewell.

The criteria has many similarities but each may have there particular differences as well. The idea is that many do come to different conclusions even in the same faith so concluding that our system or conclusion is the correct one to the extent that we say we are certain may not be a good idea when others who may be following the same pattern you did have come up with a different result.

Wade

I certainly have no problem with that. This is as it ought to be. To each their own. I trust that in principle we each will happily reap in the after-life what we respectively expected and in accordance with the means of progression that we trusted. In other words, the extent and nature of our respective progressions will match the height at which we, according to our wants and faith, set the bar of our expectations (With atheist/agnostics representing the low end of the spectrum setting the bar at the pinnicle of humanism, and the restored gospel representing the upper end of the spectrum, setting the bar at the pinnical of Godliness in Christ.)

I think you misunderstand, to think that atheists or agnostics represent to low end and you the high end. It entails you thinking you are correct and they incorrect which I don't think you really know that. Just my opinion They can have just as high expectations but maybe in different things. Your expectations or beliefs may be way off.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The criteria has many similarities but each may have there particular differences as well. The idea is that many do come to different conclusions even in the same faith so concluding that our system or conclusion is the correct one to the extent that we say we are certain may not be a good idea when others who may be following the same pattern you did have come up with a different result.

This seems to operate under the assumption that everyone requires the exact same answer, asks the same questions, etc.. Why operate under that assumption?

[mfbukowski]

I thought I could provide some interesting discussion that has nothing to do, directly, with SSM and proposition 8! Not only that but by participating, whether you agree with me or not, you'll be helping me out tremendously.

I'm planning on writing a paper this semester about LDS Epistemology. Specifically, my thesis is this. Mormons are not justified in making knowledge claims if their knowledge claims are based on the association of good feelings with religious activity. As it stands, I believe many Mormons do believe it is right to make such claims on exactly that basis. I would like to show why such claims cannot be made on that basis. Now, I may need to tighten this thesis up in some way. I'm not sure just yet. Hopefully this discussion will help me determine whether or not I need to do that. In the process here, we'll certainly need to define our terms more clearly (i.e. good feelings, to know, etc.).

I should mention that I'm not interested in proving Mormonism false (if such a thing were even possible). I am, in fact, a practicing and believing Mormon. I'm simply interested in a very specific philosophical question about the justification of religious knowledge claims. And I simply question a common justification. Having said that, if you're going to respond, please do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Even if you do believe Mormonism is false, try to avoid, if at all possible, making statements outside the scope of the specific question. Even if we find a powerful and cogent argument for why Mormons can't make knowledge claims on the basis I have sketched that does not mean Mormons have no basis for belief and commitment to Mormonism. To show they (we) don't we would have to raise more questions and provide more arguments which would be outside of the scope of this topic.

I know this is something a lot of us have weighed in on in the past. I have in mind a few very well spoken individuals with whom I've had discussions on this very basis before. Please weigh in again. If you haven't been a part of this discussion before, jump in. Even if you don't feel like you don't have a good argument behind your assertion or belief, express what you can. We'll all go from there and, hopefully, work together.

Finally, notice I have yet to offer any argument for my position. This is for a few reasons. First, I'm running low on time today. Second, I've yet to take the time to sketch things out in a clear way. Getting a clear handle on why I believe my thesis is right is part of the reason for this thread. When I get a chance I'll probably dig up some statements made by myself and others from past threads on this issue and either link or post to them.

Well I am short on time myself today, but wanted to get something posted because I have studied this to quite an extent. I should also say that I have not read the thread at this point, so I apologize if all this has been said before. On the other hand, if it has not, I will be able to come back tomorrow and see if anybody has anything to "run up the flag pole"

I am a pragmatist -- ala William James and John Dewey, with a good dose of Wittgenstein thrown in. I am also strongly LDS. Most would find those two positions antithetical, but in fact I found the church because of my philosophical interest in these questions

All knowledge is based on human experience, and truth is what makes a difference in your life.

Just last night, I posted a question on another thread taking the position that religious experience is like any other experience== like an experience of the senses.

Suppose there is a class of people called "the elect" Suppose further that these people have another sense-- a 6th sense if you will, which makes them privy to certain experiences that the majority of people don't have.

I likened to the supposition that the majority of people are "color blind". Suppose that there is a certain wavelength of light in the blue/green spectrum of color for which cones in retina of the eye do not exist for the majority of people. The majority of people would not see that particular shade of blue-green. Or even closer to home for me, I have had a cataract operation on one of my eyes, but not the other. I have a plastic lens in one eye and a natural lens in the other. I have noticed that I can see differences in ultraviolet light with one eye that the other does not perceive. When I go to a place where there is "black light", with one eye, the natural one, I may see a very suble blueish glow, in an otherwise dark room, but with the other, the whole room is lit up as if a regular light bulb is on. In fact it is so disconcerting to have this difference between my eyes that I must close one eye to navigate when I am around ultra violet light. I go crazy at Disneyland!

But what if the "testimony experience" is like this?

For millions of people who are members, it is commonplace to be guided by what we call the Holy Ghost.

Others have no clue what we are talking about, and call it "warm fuzzies". Those who have felt it, know it is NOT "warm fuzzies"

And yet no one can describe a private experience. Can you tell a blind man what red looks like or a deaf man what a french horn sounds like and how it is different from a trumpet? Or what the difference is between red and blue?

And yet you KNOW the difference. You don't believe the difference, you KNOW.

It is like the black light with my weird eye. For others it is subtle. For me, it is so obvious that it is almost painful, and makes it difficult to walk.

So what if the majority of people are "color blind" but we are not?

JS Mill-- what was your reply to this on the other post?

[J.S. Mill]

It seems you are implying that because different people apparently using the same criteria (I disagree with that premise) arrive at different conclusions, the entire enterprise must be fraudulent? If so, we must bid "science" a fond farewell.

You're going to have to unpack this a little more.

[J.S. Mill]

So what if the majority of people are "color blind" but we are not?

Here's what I said earlier:

If it were true, it would not imply that 'green' does not exist, but it would mean that you could never, ever convince the color-blind people of the existence of 'green'. Maybe you could convince them that there is a certain wavelength that all color-seeing people perceive as a certain hue, but that could never make 'green' an objective fact about the universe, except as a perception in the minds of a minority of people.

[mfbukowski]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208535846To answer my own question, in another post, to a similar question, JS Mill said:

If it were true, it would not imply that 'green' does not exist, but it would mean that you could never, ever convince the color-blind people of the existence of 'green'. Maybe you could convince them that there is a certain wavelength that all color-seeing people perceive as a certain hue, but that could never make 'green' an objective fact about the universe, except as a perception in the minds of a minority of people.

No, it would make it an objective fact about perception in a minority of people. Which is "an objective fact of the universe".

Here's what I said earlier:If it were true, it would not imply that 'green' does not exist, but it would mean that you could never, ever convince the color-blind people of the existence of 'green'. Maybe you could convince them that there is a certain wavelength that all color-seeing people perceive as a certain hue, but that could never make 'green' an objective fact about the universe, except as a perception in the minds of a minority of people.

ooops--!! Yes you did!

[J.S. Mill]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208535846To answer my own question, in another post, to a similar question, JS Mill said:No, it would make it an objective fact about perception in a minority of people. Which is "an objective fact of the universe".

I already allowed that there is a certain sense in which it is an objective fact: it's a fact that a minority of people have such a perception. Are you saying that because they perceive it, it must be real? I really hope not, because that's the silliest thing I've ever heard. If some of my friends and I think your children are all ugly, that means that we think your children are all ugly. It doesn't mean that your children are ugly.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You're going to have to unpack this a little more.

It's a simplistic argument. "Because people don't reach the same conclusions, then xxxxxxxx must be faulty." I disagree.

If some of my friends and I think your children are all ugly, that means that we think your children are all ugly. It doesn't mean that your children are ugly.

de gustibus non est disputandum