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

[Brade]

That was funny.

... the idea that I was derailing your thread.

[mfbukowski]

You've definitely given me quite a bit to think about. At least, I think I have a better understanding of where you're coming from. However, it's difficult for me to stay on board with the rejection of "the world out there."

I can appreciate that this philosophical move does resolve some perplexing problems. It's just so difficult to discard the idea of an "outside world." If I'm understanding you correctly then discarding the "outside world" idea isn't necessarily an assertion that there is no outside world, rather it's just a pragmatic move of "whether there is or there isn't, who cares?" But, I do care. Until I stop caring about whether my experience corresponds to what's "out there" I've got to deal with all these annoying problems.

I'm not sure how the EQ experience shows that we can be more certain when we are already certain. It may show that. But it could also show that people are mistaken when the believe they are certain. Of course, which side you fall on can depend on what you believe about truth. It's obvious by now that I accept the correspondence theory of truth.

Read a little James Dewey and Wittgenstein and call me in the morning. You'll get over it!

Yes you are right. It's not that I don't believe in a world "out there" but I literally accept it on "faith" because you can't prove it or talk about it, or know anything about it. You can only know prove and talk about what you can experience. Try it. In my world testimony becomes a perception. Not all perceive what I perceive, but some do.

What I was saying about the EQ was that certainty can grow. The bretheren stated they "knew with certainty"(certainty1) that the church was true, but if God appeared to them, they would know still with more certainty (certainty 2).

They would not agree that they had been mistaken at level certainty1, and I would agree with them. I think it is also relevant that "seeing with their own eyes" would make them more certain. To me this just proves that experience is what gives us certainty. They cited a possible testimony religious experience which COULD make them "more certain". They had had experiences which verified a state they CALLED "certainty" but said that a more powerful experience would give them MORE certainty. So the problem was not with their religious experience being ABLE as it were to give certainty, it was with the INTENSITY of the experience. More intense experiences give more certainty.

Perhaps the problem is the word "certainty" which in English connotes absolute and perfect finished knowledge, which I would argue does not exist in the real world except in a priori propositions, which again, indicates that the problem is in the way we speak, but not a real practical problem which actually bothers one's belief system.

It's amazing at how the problems disappear when you judge them by what difference they make! The world is not a logical puzzle, it is a place to learn and grow. Most of the logical puzzles exist because we get hung up in language!

So my advice is, that if we do not get hung up in language and in worrying about what is "out there" that we cannot see and know and talk about, life becomes happier and easier. On the other hand, if we can see it and know it and talk about it, let's be totally clear about it!

[mfbukowski]

Since you insist on derailing my thread... (philosopher jokes)

Dude, those were hilarious! There is your Truth!

[mfbukowski]

On the other hand, as long as you believe in the correspondence theory of truth, you will always have a job as a philosopher!

[Bat-Man]

On the other hand, if we can see it and know it and talk about it, let's be totally clear about it!

My point of contribution to this thread, which I think ba81 regards as a side line, is that what we know can be made clear only to those who have experienced the same thing(s) we have experienced, to some extent, otherwise they simply will not get it.

... and whether or not you or anyone else gets it, I do know what I am talking about.

Do you know what I mean, yet?

[Brade]

Read a little James Dewey and Wittgenstein and call me in the morning. You'll get over it!

Yes you are right. It's not that I don't believe in a world "out there" but I literally accept it on "faith" because you can't prove it or talk about it, or know anything about it. You can only know prove and talk about what you can experience. Try it. In my world testimony becomes a perception. Not all perceive what I perceive, but some do.

What I was saying about the EQ was that certainty can grow. The bretheren stated they "knew with certainty"(certainty1) that the church was true, but if God appeared to them, they would know still with more certainty (certainty 2).

They would not agree that they had been mistaken at level certainty1, and I would agree with them. I think it is also relevant that "seeing with their own eyes" would make them more certain. To me this just proves that experience is what gives us certainty. They cited a possible testimony religious experience which COULD make them "more certain". They had had experiences which verified a state they CALLED "certainty" but said that a more powerful experience would give them MORE certainty. So the problem was not with their religious experience being ABLE as it were to give certainty, it was with the INTENSITY of the experience. More intense experiences give more certainty.

Perhaps the problem is the word "certainty" which in English connotes absolute and perfect finished knowledge, which I would argue does not exist in the real world except in a priori propositions, which again, indicates that the problem is in the way we speak, but not a real practical problem which actually bothers one's belief system.

It's amazing at how the problems disappear when you judge them by what difference they make! The world is not a logical puzzle, it is a place to learn and grow. Most of the logical puzzles exist because we get hung up in language!

So my advice is, that if we do not get hung up in language and in worrying about what is "out there" that we cannot see and know and talk about, life becomes happier and easier. On the other hand, if we can see it and know it and talk about it, let's be totally clear about it!

I really do follow you quite far in what you're saying. Next semester I'm taking a seminar on the Philosophy of Language which draws heavily on Wittgenstein. Perhaps in 6 months I'll be singing a different tune. I agree that experiences strengthen our beliefs and I do, in fact, think it's a mistake to think you've reached an absolute (whether that's called certainty, knowledge or the HEA). To some extent I do think there's a word game going on here but I think we've hashed that out enough. Your view, I think, deals with religious diversity in much the same way mine does. It tolerates it well because when people are making claims what they're really saying is that "I'm just following my own experience to the best of my ability."

But, it seems quite clear that what most Mormons mean when they say they are certain is that they know what they believe is, in fact, the case "out there." Furthermore, it seems the teachings of the church support this belief about what one is saying when testifying in such a manner. This seems opposed to your view which is that what the person is saying is that they are involved in a growing process and what they believe is getting supported by more profound experiences over time. I suppose the fact that some of the EQ members talked about being more certain, is an evidence that they actually are subscribing to a view much like the one you're asserting. But if words with imply concepts like "absolute" and "perfection" are used in ways that don't mean that, what words are we to use when we do talk about things that are absolute? Like logical truths or mathematical truths.

On the other hand, as long as you believe in the correspondence theory of truth, you will always have a job as a philosopher!

That actually made me chuckle a little.

My point of contribution to this thread, which I think ba81 regards as a side line, is that what we know can be made clear only to those who have experienced the same thing(s) we have experienced, to some extent, otherwise they simply will not get it.

Do people that claim to know that Mormonism is false on the basis of some spiritual experience "get it?"

[Bat-Man]

Do people that claim to know that Mormonism is false on the basis of some spiritual experience "get it?"

No, because it isn't false, even if some being has told some people through some kind of spiritual experience that it is false.

All spiritual experiences are not of God (our Father/Jesus Christ/the Holy Ghost)... FYI.

Satan can place his thoughts in a person's mind just as easily as God can do that.

... and either way, we can still choose to either accept or reject any message we do get.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 12:31 PM

So my advice is, that if we do not get hung up in language and in worrying about what is "out there" that we cannot see and know and talk about, life becomes happier and easier. On the other hand, if we can see it and know it and talk about it, let's be totally clear about it!

I think this is good advice on not worrying about things we cannot know or see. It is easier to be clear on things we all can see as apposed to experiences that are private and not shareable other then through language. I say enjoy life

My point of contribution to this thread, which I think ba81 regards as a side line, is that what we know can be made clear only to those who have experienced the same thing(s) we have experienced, to some extent, otherwise they simply will not get it.

I'm assuming you said this. I agree with this to some extent. I think we do have many of the same experiences in life. If I have experienced what chocolate tastes like it is easy to be clear what the experience is like just by sharing it. At this point they can say, yes I've had this before or no I have never experienced this before. Spiritual experiences are extremely hard to share or be clear as to whether two people have had the same experience. Even two people who have the same experience may perceive, experience, and interpret it differently, which could lead to disagreement as to whether they had the same experience. This I believe this is happening throughout the world in regards to spiritual experiences, and that we cannot know for certain whether our experiences are unique or whether the interpretation is correct. I'm not saying that we absolutely shouldn't come up with certain beliefs from them, but that we should try to remain as open minded as possible to other information, experiences and interpretations. We could after all be wrong even though it feels so right

[mfbukowski]

My point of contribution to this thread, which I think ba81 regards as a side line, is that what we know can be made clear only to those who have experienced the same thing(s) we have experienced, to some extent, otherwise they simply will not get it.

... and whether or not you or anyone else gets it, I do know what I am talking about.

Do you know what I mean, yet?

If that was for me, yes I get it. I think you are right, and to a degree we have our own language that others don't get. That is what causes confusion here and everywhere. It is like another sense that maybe others don't have. "Elect" oh my -- not politically correct!

[Bat-Man]

If that was for me, yes I get it. I think you are right, and to a degree we have our own language that others don't get. That is what causes confusion here and everywhere. It is like another sense that maybe others don't have. "Elect" oh my -- not politically correct!

Let's try to be very clear here, if at all possible.

It's not language that causes confusion, per se.

The problem comes from not being able to relate our own experiences to each other, unless those we are trying to relate to have had similar experiences from which they can draw from to "get" what we are trying to relate to them.

Words, themselves, always are and always have been imperfect tools for communication.

Words, alone, are not enough... and they never will be... including the words of God.

What we need is something, or someone, enabling us to relate to each other from some type of common experience... a Mediator, if you will... so that what is within one person is being relayed to another person.

That kind of connection doesn't come from what proceeds from the mouth and enters through the ears, alone... and it also doesn't come through what is written and read through the eyes, alone.

What we need is something, or someone, in the form and image and... yes, even the spirit... of Jesus Christ... or perhaps even Satan, depending on who it is we really want to relate to.

[mfbukowski]

I think this is good advice on not worrying about things we cannot know or see. It is easier to be clear on things we all can see as apposed to experiences that are private and not shareable other then through language. I say enjoy life

But that is not what I am saying, if I understand you. I am talking about religous experiences being like other experiences that we can discuss and that in doing so, are in a sense verifiable and can be shared. I totally agree with batman here. Just to get the "sides" straight!

I'm assuming you said this. I agree with this to some extent. I think we do have many of the same experiences in life. If I have experienced what chocolate tastes like it is easy to be clear what the experience is like just by sharing it. At this point they can say, yes I've had this before or no I have never experienced this before. Spiritual experiences are extremely hard to share or be clear as to whether two people have had the same experience. Even two people who have the same experience may perceive, experience, and interpret it differently, which could lead to disagreement as to whether they had the same experience. This I believe this is happening throughout the world in regards to spiritual experiences, and that we cannot know for certain whether our experiences are unique or whether the interpretation is correct. I'm not saying that we absolutely shouldn't come up with certain beliefs from them, but that we should try to remain as open minded as possible to other information, experiences and interpretations. We could after all be wrong even though it feels so right

No I didn't say that.

I am not so sure that 1- spiritual experiences cannot be shared linguistically between those who have had them and that 2- suppose you tried to share chocolate with some one who had no tastebuds? We would all agree on how it tasted, but those without tastebuds would argue that experiences were subjective and subject to confusion just as you are arguing about religious experience. Chocolate is chocolate, testimony is testimony. I think you haven't read what I am saying.

[Bat-Man]

- suppose you tried to share chocolate with some one who had no tastebuds? We would all agree on how it tasted, but those without tastebuds would argue that experiences were subjective and subject to confusion just as you are arguing about religious experience.

Yes, exactly.

Some people say chocolate tastes good and some people say chocolate tastes bad.

... there really are some people out there who don't like the taste of chocolate.

Whose "testimony" are you going to go with if you never tasted chocolate before?

Are you going to say it tastes good, or that it tastes bad, while relying on the testimony of other people.

Or, suppose you decide and are given the chance to try it for yourself, to see what you think of chocolate.

Does it really taste good, or does it really taste bad?

You'll always find people who will disagree with you, whatever you decide.

Personally, I like the taste of chocolate, and if you don't like it, there will be more for me.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 03:54 PM

But that is not what I am saying, if I understand you. I am talking about religous experiences being like other experiences that we can discuss and that in doing so, are in a sense verifiable and can be shared. I totally agree with batman here. Just to get the "sides" straight!

Actually their not like most other experiences like taste, touch smell, sight and sound which are far easier to discuss and verify. With religious experiences you can verify that an experience happened, but coming to an interpretation of what it means is much harder. It's also not a shareable experience other then through language.

No I didn't say that.

Sorry. I was going from ba81's last post which didn't clarify who said it.

I am not so sure that 1- spiritual experiences cannot be shared linguistically between those who have had them

I wasn't saying that you couldn't. What I was saying is that it is very difficult and we cannot be certain of many things regarding them. This is why so many claim to have spiritual experiences but have great trouble in describing them especially through language. Since we all perceive and interpret things differently as well we can't be very certain whether our experiences are the same as others.

suppose you tried to share chocolate with some one who had no tastebuds? We would all agree on how it tasted, but those without tastebuds would argue that experiences were subjective and subject to confusion just as you are arguing about religious experience. Chocolate is chocolate, testimony is testimony. I think you haven't read what I am saying.

So few exist that never had taste buds that they almost would never argue this because they see so much agreement from the vast majority of the population that claim taste does exist. They may see differences in what some claim taste good or bad. In the end taste is shareable to almost the entire population, whereas spiritual experiences are not, except through language. We should all be able see where that has got us so far

Are you suggesting that a certain portion of people may lack the ability to have spiritual experiences?

[Bat-Man]

In the end taste is shareable to almost the entire population, whereas spiritual experiences are not, except through language.

What do you mean when you say "language" ?

Are you referring to only a language with words, or are you also including body language?

Have you ever seen someone love someone else without saying a word?

... while knowing that it really was love that was being communicated, and not lust or excitement or something else that might seem to be a lot like love.

What is it that is letting you know that it really is love, when you really know that it is?

Words, alone, aren't telling you, and I don't believe body language, alone, is telling you either.

If you can see love being shared between one person and another, it is because you know what love is when you see it. That is know you know, when you know. You are actually "seeing" love.

... which is the most profound spiritual experience there is and ever can be.

Are you suggesting that a certain portion of people may lack the ability to have spiritual experiences?

Have you ever seen anyone who seems to lack the ability to love someone else?

... real love, and not just a substitute which seems to pass as love with some people?

I have. Some people may have the potential to love someone else, but they rarely if ever show it.

Just look around and pay attention.

I have seen all kinds of spiritual experiences going back and forth among all kinds of people.

[Bender]

Bat-Man Posted Today, 05:21 PM

What do you mean when you say "language" ?

Are you referring to only a language with words, or are you also including body language?

Have you ever seen someone love someone else without saying a word?

... while knowing that it really was love that was being communicated, and not lust or excitement or something else that might seem to be a lot like love.

What is it that is letting you know that it really is love, when you really know that it is?

Words, alone, aren't telling you, and I don't believe body language, alone, is telling you either.

If you can see love being shared between one person and another, it is because you know what love is when you see it. That is know you know, when you know. You are actually "seeing" love.

... which is the most profound spiritual experience there is and ever can be.

In general yes I mean both. Our physical experiences that use things like sight, sound, etc are relatively easy to describe and share. Love which is a powerful emotion or experience like other emotions and spiritual experiences can be communicated through language(including body language) as well. It's just much harder to do, which is why we have so much disagreement in the world over it.

I agree that Love is one of if not the most powerful spiritual experience or emotion we have, but it is interesting to see how much people can argue and disagree on it. Heartleap on another thread uses the word Love a lot in regards to being born again, but doesn't think people like you or I have experienced the same kind of Love(God's love).

Have you ever seen anyone who seems to lack the ability to love someone else?

... real love, and not just a substitute which seems to pass as love with some people?

Real Love! There may be different definitions people have for that. Which one is the most valid? There does seem to be people that don't experience it very much for whatever reasons. I think they are still capable of it.

I have seen all kinds of spiritual experiences going back and forth among all kinds of people.

As have I. I see a lot of similarities across the board. I also see a lot of disagreement about them even amongst members of the same religion(including the LDS). This is why I don't think one is more valid then the other. We are not even sure whether other people indeed have had the same experience but describe and interpret it differently. Why should my interpretation be better than others? I think spiritual experiences are most likely just experiences that the body and mind produce, but I'm not 100% certain, so I don't worry to much about it. The fact that I have them might be the most important anyway since they encourage me in positive ways.

[mfbukowski]

Are you suggesting that a certain portion of people may lack the ability to have spiritual experiences?

This is exactly what I am suggesting. I think that those who have them have no problem discussing them. I used the chocolate analogy because you used it first. It is easier to understand perhaps if we use a color like red. Explain the color red to a blind man. You can't. And yet we can discuss shades of red, burgandy, magenta, scarlet etc. with great accuracy.

On this very thread, for example, I understand perfectly what heartleap says. We disagree on doctrine, but when he talks about knowing Christ I totally understand him and agree. Others just don't "get it". And LDS discuss religious experiences all the time, their degree of intensity and how they feel, almost like discussing shades of red.

So the only conclusion I can reach is that the ability to have religious experiences is something some people do and others don't.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 11:08 PM

This is exactly what I am suggesting.

While I do agree that each person may have different levels of the what some would call a spiritual experience I think your assumption is wrong. While we can easily test someones sight , I haven't seen anything equivalent to test for someones ability to have a spiritual experience

I think that those who have them have no problem discussing them.

Having grown up and lived the LDS lifestyle both physically and spiritually I can say that we do have difficulty in discussing them. One of the biggest problems I see is people trying to differ between there emotions and what they think might be the spirit. Here is an article that says a lot Ensign

On this very thread, for example, I understand perfectly what heartleap says. We disagree on doctrine, but when he talks about knowing Christ I totally understand him and agree. Others just don't "get it". And LDS discuss religious experiences all the time, their degree of intensity and how they feel, almost like discussing shades of red.

So do I. I don't think you or I can back up with any evidence that other peoples experiences are not the same, but with different ways of viewing and interpreting them. This is really important as to why we can not be sure of our interpretations of spiritual experiences, only that we have them.

So the only conclusion I can reach is that the ability to have religious experiences is something some people do and others don't.

You might try looking at other options. While I do see some having more spiritual experiences or more intense spiritual experiences, I also see those who tend to be more emotional or more intense emotions. I think you will find very few who don't experience emotions. Having experienced the spiritual for many years in the church and now, I can only conclude that it is likely that they are the result of internal stimuli.

[Brade]

Yes, exactly.

Some people say chocolate tastes good and some people say chocolate tastes bad.

... there really are some people out there who don't like the taste of chocolate.

Whose "testimony" are you going to go with if you never tasted chocolate before?

Are you going to say it tastes good, or that it tastes bad, while relying on the testimony of other people.

Or, suppose you decide and are given the chance to try it for yourself, to see what you think of chocolate.

Does it really taste good, or does it really taste bad?

You'll always find people who will disagree with you, whatever you decide.

Personally, I like the taste of chocolate, and if you don't like it, there will be more for me.

Yes, but just about everybody agrees that taste is subjective. There is no fact of the matter in taste. I, as a matter of fact, do not like the taste of chocolate so you can have all mine.

Taste is different than religious claims because the claim of most religions is that there is a fact of the matter. The fact of the matter is that their doctrines are the ones that correspond to what's "out there." They are not saying, and Mormonism is most certainly not saying this, that "we like the doctrines of Mormonism" in the same way that somebody that likes chocolate is saying "I like chocolate." They are saying, and Bat-man I think you should agree with this, that Mormonism is true for us and and it's true for everyone else but everyone else is just being mislead or whatever.

This is exactly what I am suggesting. I think that those who have them have no problem discussing them. I used the chocolate analogy because you used it first. It is easier to understand perhaps if we use a color like red. Explain the color red to a blind man. You can't. And yet we can discuss shades of red, burgandy, magenta, scarlet etc. with great accuracy.

On this very thread, for example, I understand perfectly what heartleap says. We disagree on doctrine, but when he talks about knowing Christ I totally understand him and agree. Others just don't "get it". And LDS discuss religious experiences all the time, their degree of intensity and how they feel, almost like discussing shades of red.

So the only conclusion I can reach is that the ability to have religious experiences is something some people do and others don't.

Sure. And if we discussed color around a blind man he'd be mistaken to say, "because I can't see what you're talking about it must not exist at all." But that isn't analogous to what I'm saying. I'm granting that there may indeed be a fact of the matter in religion. I hope there is. I hope the fact of the matter is that Mormonism is true. However, there is no way to be certain of that fact on the basis of spiritual experience. And by spiritual experience I mean the general run of the mill Holy Ghost experience. The experience of the Holy Ghost is a fantastic way to get off the ground. It's a great justification for belief. I'm simply arguing that it is not a justification to claim "perfect" knowledge (or certainty, or the HEA). The paradox is that it is used by virtually everyone that shares a testimony in the church as a justification for perfect knowledge. And, as we've already hashed out, either they're using language imprecisely or they're mistaken about their own beliefs or those experiences actually to justify claim to "perfect" knowledge. The latter case doesn't seem to fit in with scriptural accounts of perfect knowledge.

[Bat-Man]

Yes, but just about everybody agrees that taste is subjective.

Just about everybody, huh.

I think it is pretty much the same regarding everything.

The experience of everything is subjective.

There is no fact of the matter in taste.

Have you ever seen someone express their personal dissatisfaction for something, because of taste?

It often goes something like this:

POOIE!!!... as what was in their mouth either shoots out rather quickly, or, if they have already swallowed, the face starts to express their dissatisfaction, very visibly.

It's not as if they're saying something like:

Hmm. I don't like that, but if you do that is okay.

They're saying something like:

That is TERRIBLE !!! YUK !!! WHOEVER WOULD LIKE THAT MUST BE CRAZY!!!

I, as a matter of fact, do not like the taste of chocolate so you can have all mine.

Thank you. I'd also like all of the blessings of the gospel that you don't really like, as well.

Taste is different than religious claims because the claim of most religions is that there is a fact of the matter.

There is a fact of the matter, but it is different for different people, depending on what they like and don't like, personally.

Example: For some people, as far as they are concerned, Mormonism is bad. Yukkie Pooie.

'Whoever would like that must be CRAZY'... is a sentiment often expressed by people who really don't like Mormonism.

I say to them, something like:

Oh well. I like it, even if you don't. To me it taste good...very good... and I prefer it over any other option that I have become aware of. And not only that, God has also told me that He also likes it, personally, as well, and that it is His chosen religion.

I could go on and say more about my personal tastes, but I hope you can see my point now.

The fact of the matter is that their doctrines are the ones that correspond to what's "out there."

Exactly. They're basing their thoughts on what they have experienced.

They are not saying, and Mormonism is most certainly not saying this, that "we like the doctrines of Mormonism" in the same way that somebody that likes chocolate is saying "I like chocolate." They are saying, and Bat-man I think you should agree with this, that Mormonism is true for us and and it's true for everyone else but everyone else is just being mislead or whatever.

For something to be true to some people, those people must come to know it is true, personally, for themselves, through some kind of subjective experience.

The fact that something may actually be true, really truly, isn't a fact to people who don't realize that something is actually true. At best, to them, it is simply something which some people are saying is true, but personally they really don't know for themselves, and may in fact believe that something which is true is really false.

Truth must be experienced, subjectively, before someone can know it is true.

Sure. And if we discussed color around a blind man he'd be mistaken to say, "because I can't see what you're talking about it must not exist at all."

Yes, just as someone else would be mistaken in saying that something which is true is really false, just because they can't see it is true.

I'm granting that there may indeed be a fact of the matter in religion.

There is, but not everyone is in agreement on the facts which is why we see conflicting perspectives.

I hope there is. I hope the fact of the matter is that Mormonism is true.

It is true. I know it is. But if someone else doesn't know it is true it will not be true to them.

However, there is no way to be certain of that fact on the basis of spiritual experience.

Spiritual experience is the only way to know about anything. There is no other way to learn.

We are spirits and we learn spiritually through our own experiences.

We are not mortals having spiritual experiences. We are spirits having mortal experiences.

And by spiritual experience I mean the general run of the mill Holy Ghost experience.

When people have that type of experience, they are involved in that experience.

It's not something that goes on without them being involved.

Each person must experience the Holy Ghost to know that He really exists.

The experience of the Holy Ghost is a fantastic way to get off the ground. It's a great justification for belief. I'm simply arguing that it is not a justification to claim "perfect" knowledge (or certainty, or the HEA).

If a personal witness from God to you personally isn't going to cut it for you, what will?

The paradox is that it is used by virtually everyone that shares a testimony in the church as a justification for perfect knowledge.

I prefer it to personal perspectives without God's perspective any day.

And, as we've already hashed out, either they're using language imprecisely or they're mistaken about their own beliefs or those experiences actually to justify claim to "perfect" knowledge. The latter case doesn't seem to fit in with scriptural accounts of perfect knowledge.

There is a way to know the truth, and when you know it, you will be free, indeed.

[mfbukowski]

Just to clarify my view and put in my two cents, I think that Mormonism is the "truest" religion because it is the best "theory" or model which describes the most diverse phenomena in one model, which is in some sense verifieable by a host of experiences. My certainty includes spiritual experiences, but it also includes for example symbolic references in the temple which parallel ancient symbols that Joseph could not have known about. It includes evidences of early chiristian beliefs that Joseph could not have known about. It includes discoveries about physics and cosmology that any one 50 years ago could not have known about. It includes the notion that we are all to strive to be the best humans we can be. It ties together vastly diverse theories and perspectives into a single world view that encompasses all. So to me, Mormonism is verified by a host of experiences ideas and notions which I have personally experienced to be true. It is not so much the spiritual experiences alone which verify it, but those are the crowning glory of the entire package. Yet it is all verified by experience. Even the ethics-- it is just a fact that if you live the gospel and abstain from driving drun, for example, you will have a happier life. If you marry and strive to get along with your spouse instead of having a couple of kids with this person and then with that person, your life will be less complicated your kids will grow up happier than if they were off to visit their third stepmom. The whole package just WORKS and there is nothing else which ties all these concepts together like the gospel does. Period.

It is the Unified Field Theory of life. And it is verifiable by experience.

[mfbukowski]

However, there is no way to be certain of that fact on the basis of spiritual experience. And by spiritual experience I mean the general run of the mill Holy Ghost experience. The experience of the Holy Ghost is a fantastic way to get off the ground. It's a great justification for belief. I'm simply arguing that it is not a justification to claim "perfect" knowledge (or certainty, or the HEA). The paradox is that it is used by virtually everyone that shares a testimony in the church as a justification for perfect knowledge. And, as we've already hashed out, either they're using language imprecisely or they're mistaken about their own beliefs or those experiences actually to justify claim to "perfect" knowledge. The latter case doesn't seem to fit in with scriptural accounts of perfect knowledge.

I think what people in testimony meeting say is more like what I have said above.

And I still say that if God appeard to you in person, you would have your elusive HEA. It is a question of intensity, not of the quality of the experience itself

PS I love chocolate. The darker the better. I have to ration it very carefully.

[mfbukowski]

Taste is different than religious claims because the claim of most religions is that there is a fact of the matter. The fact of the matter is that their doctrines are the ones that correspond to what's "out there." They are not saying, and Mormonism is most certainly not saying this, that "we like the doctrines of Mormonism" in the same way that somebody that likes chocolate is saying "I like chocolate." They are saying, and Bat-man I think you should agree with this, that Mormonism is true for us and and it's true for everyone else but everyone else is just being mislead or whatever.

They might be misled, but they might not perfectly understand the "benefits of Mormonism" either. Or they could be in fact led by the spirit to another church because it is best for them at this time in their lives. I have no problem with that.

If you are a junkie living on the streets and the only ones you find preaching Jesus Christ are say, Baptists, and you prayed about it, I am confident God could give you a genuine "testimony" to become a Baptist (for now). If we have a loving father who leads us, who knows what is best for us from moment to moment-- would he do that? I don't question it for a moment. We have an eternity to get it right!

It is better to be a Muslim than a pantheist, or any kind of Christian than any kind of non-Chrsitian, and I think that God would lead us in the right direction.

Everything in life is step-by step, from grace to grace. If it was true for the savior, it is certainly true for us. Even I am not right all the time!

[Bat-Man]

If you are a junkie living on the streets and the only ones you find preaching Jesus Christ are say, Baptists, and you prayed about it, I am confident God could give you a genuine "testimony" to become a Baptist (for now).

In a certain sense, maybe, but I don't think God is going to say something like:

The (Baptist)Church is true.

I do believe God would confirm a truth that a Baptism minister is teaching... like, say, for example, that Jesus is the Christ... but a testimony concerning one truth a Baptist minister is sharing doesn't mean that everything that Baptist minister is teaching is true.

The "line upon line, precept upon precept" thing applies to each individual truth... or a certain part of the truth, if that makes more sense to you.

Everything in life is step-by step, from grace to grace. If it was true for the savior, it is certainly true for us. Even I am not right all the time!

No kidding.

[skenderbeg]

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.

I believe that the basis of your thesis is flawed, as I recently have submitted several papers for publication in Computer Science through IEEE, please allow me to share my experience on this topic. Perhaps a more succinct, and specific topic would be: Mormons are not justified in making knowledge claims if their knowledge claims are based on the association of the spirit/peronal revelation with religious activity.

Otherwise, your thesis statement, as currently formulated, is vague and therefore inaccurate. The statement must be more specific and somehow limited to a finite space/problem - to state the 'good feelings' is the basis is too broad and can easily be generalized across other, non related topics. For example, "I know that Six Flags is the only true and living roller coaster park, based on the association of good feelings with roller coaster ride activity... or Peking duck is the only true and living Chinese food (or just food for that matter) based on the association of good feelings with food consumption activity.

See what I mean? The problem is the use of 'good feelings' - it is not sufficiently specific nor adequate to describe the direction of the Holy Spirit. As currently, formulated, your thesis statement "is correct" - however, as currently formulated it fundamentally flawed and would be acceptable for publication.

Cheers,

skender

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Yesterday, 12:49 PM

Just to clarify my view and put in my two cents, I think that Mormonism is the "truest" religion because it is the best "theory" or model which describes the most diverse phenomena in one model, which is in some sense verifieable by a host of experiences. My certainty includes spiritual experiences, but it also includes for example symbolic references in the temple which parallel ancient symbols that Joseph could not have known about. It includes evidences of early chiristian beliefs that Joseph could not have known about. It includes discoveries about physics and cosmology that any one 50 years ago could not have known about. It includes the notion that we are all to strive to be the best humans we can be. It ties together vastly diverse theories and perspectives into a single world view that encompasses all. So to me, Mormonism is verified by a host of experiences ideas and notions which I have personally experienced to be true. It is not so much the spiritual experiences alone which verify it, but those are the crowning glory of the entire package. Yet it is all verified by experience. Even the ethics-- it is just a fact that if you live the gospel and abstain from driving drun, for example, you will have a happier life. If you marry and strive to get along with your spouse instead of having a couple of kids with this person and then with that person, your life will be less complicated your kids will grow up happier than if they were off to visit their third stepmom. The whole package just WORKS and there is nothing else which ties all these concepts together like the gospel does. Period.

It is the Unified Field Theory of life. And it is verifiable by experience.

Yes we all have experiences. The real difference is how we interpret them. Our interpretations are influenced by things like beliefs and bias. This is why with spiritual experiences you see a lot of different interpretations due to difficulty in sharing or communicating them, and especially due to our own interpretations of them. Also how we view and interpret physical evidences around us also are influenced by our beliefs and bias. This is why we see two people seeing the same evidence and coming up with different interpretations as to what they mean. My main point is that it is best to keep as open mind as possible that our beliefs or interpretations may be wrong. If we convince ourselves we really know, we are only deluding ourselves. I can't know what everyone has experienced, but I think we should be very cautious of our interpretations of both spiritual an physical evidences we see. That said, if an angel were to appear in a very physical way, I would very seriously reevaluate my beliefs