The Validity of Spiritual Experiences: William Lane Craig

[Sargon]

Original review found at http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2009/01/...iam-lane-craig/

Craig authored a book called Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth & Apologetics (3rd edition, Crossway Books, June 2008). In the first chapter of this work Craig addresses some of the philosophical questions about the validity of personal spiritual experiences. He gives, in my estimation, an outstanding defense for why the believer can rationally depend on spiritual experiences as a basis for faith and religious commitment. In Mormon/Evangelical dialogue we often butt heads over this issue, and Craig offers some powerful arguments that I think both Mormons and Evangelicals could learn from. Don't be discouraged by the length of this post, I believe the excerpts at the end will be well worth the read.

Ultimately, Craig fails to resolve the issue of a spiritual “deadlock” between two individuals of competing faiths both claiming to have self-authenticating, and mutually exclusive, experiences of God. But, Craig does offer some good suggestions for why such an issue does not need to be resolved.

My only major criticism of Craig’s comments is that after emphasizing the fact that spiritual experiences always take precedence over reason and evidence, Craig later goes on to suggest that the non-LDS Christian has the power to persuade the Mormon that his beliefs are false through reason and evidence. Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Latter-day Saints are as justified in relying on spiritual experiences in the face of seemingly powerful counter arguments as non-LDS Christians are.

That being said, Craig’s overall thesis is well argued, and he does it in a fashion that is accessible to the layman. I should make special mention of Craig’s use of New Testament scripture to argue for the primacy of the Holy Spirit in arriving at truth. In my experience, Evangelicals are loathe to recognize such teachings in the Bible. Craig’s recognition and subsequent embracing of the doctrine is refreshing. His overall thesis is not disimilar to Blake Ostler’s approach in his 2007 FAIR Conference presentation.

I believe that LDS theological and historical claims are at least as likely to be true as non-LDS theological and historical claims based on reason and evidence (in fact, I think LDS claims are more likely to be true). We are in an excellent position in that regard; our apologetic is strong.

Below are excerpts from Craig’s chapter. I typed them up myself while reading the chapter in Google Books. Any spelling or punctuation errors are likely mine. As before, don’t be discouraged by the length of these excerpts, for they succinctly and powerfully make very useful arguments. Feel free to copy and paste them for your use at will. Also, be sure to read the whole chapter by visiting the link provided above.

How do I know that Christianity is true?

In answering this question, I have found it helpful to distinguish between knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true. (pg. 43)

I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such an experience does not function in this case as a premise in any argument from religious experience to God, rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as “God exists,” “I am condemned by God,” “I am reconciled to God,” “Christ lives in me,” and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity’s truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it.

It seems to me that the New Testament teaches such a view with respect to both the believer and the unbeliever alike. (pg. 43-44)

Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer’s faith, they are never properly the basis of that faith. For the believer, God is not the conclusion of a syllogism; he is the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob dwelling within us. How then does the believer know that Christianity is true? He knows because of the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit who lives within him. (pg. 46)

Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties; at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. (pg. 47)

So then for the believer and unbeliever alike it is the self authenticating work of the Holy Spirit that supplies knowledge of Christianity’s truth. (pg. 47)

The only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role. I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. (pg. 47-48)

A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spirit’s witness, but it does not serve as the basis of his belief. (pg. 48)

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. (pg. 48)

Some people disagree with what I’ve said about the role of argument and evidence. They would say that reason can be used in a magisterial role, at least by the unbeliever. They ask how else we could determine which is true, the Bible, the Qur’an, or the Book of Mormon, unless we use argument and evidence to judge them. The Muslim or the Mormon also claim to have a witness of God’s Spirit or a “burning in the bosom” which authenticates to him the truth of his scriptures. Christian claims to a subjective experience seem to be on a par with similar non-Christian claims.

But how is the fact that the other persons claim to experience a self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit relevant to my knowing the truth of Christianity via the Spirit’s witness? The existence of an authentic and unique witness of the Spirit does not exclude the existence of the false claims to such a witness. How, then, does the existence of false claims of the Spirits witness to the truth of a non-Christian religion to anything logically to undermine the fact that the Christian believer does possess the genuine witness of the Spirit? (pg. 48-49)

First, the Christian needn’t say that non-Christian religious experience is simply spurious. It may well be the case that adherents of other religions do enjoy a veridical experience of God as the Ground of Being on whom we creatures are dependant or as the Moral Absolute from whom values derive or even as the loving Father of mankind. (pg. 49)

I see no reason to think that non-veridical religious experiences are indistinguishable from the witness of the Holy Spirit. One way to get some empirical evidence for this would be simply to ask ex-Mormons and Muslims who have become Christians if their experience of God in Christianity is identical to what they had before their conversion. (pg. 49-50)

Moreover, let me suggest two theological reasons why I think those Christians who support the magisterial role of reason are mistaken. First, such a role would consign most Christians to irrationality. The vast majority of the human race have neither the time, training, nor resources to develop a full-blown Christian apologetic as the basis of their faith. Even the proponents of the magisterial use of reason at one time in the course of their education presumably lacked such an apologetic. According to the magisterial role of reason, these persons should not have believed in Christ until they finished their apologetic. Otherwise, they would be believing for insufficient reasons……The fact is that we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not.

Second, if the magisterial role of reason were legitimate, then a person who had been given poor arguments for Christianity would have a just excuse before God for not believing in him. Suppose someone has been told to believe in God on the basis of an invalid argument. Could he stand before God on the judgment day and say, “God, those Christians only gave me a lousy argument for believing in you. That’s why I didn’t believe”? Of course not! The Bible says all men are without excuse. Even those who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God’s Holy Spirit. (pg. 50)

Therefore, the role of rational argumentation in knowing Christianity to be true is the role of a servant. A person knows Christianity is true because the Holy Spirit tells him it is true, and while argument and evidence can be used to support this conclusion, they cannot legitimately overrule it. (pg. 51)

Consider again the case of the Christian confronted with an adherent of some other world religion who also claims to have a self-authenticating experience of God. William Alston points out that this situation taken in isolation results in an epistemic standoff. For neither person knows how to convince the other that he alone has a veridical, rather than a delusory, experience. This standoff does not undermine the rationality of the Christian’s belief, for even if his process of forming his belief is a reliable as can be, there’s no way he can give a noncircular proof of this fact. Thus his inability to provide such a proof does not nullify the rationality of his belief. But although he is rational in retaining his Christian belief, the Christian in such a circumstance is at a complete loss as to how to show his non-Christian friend that he is correct and that his friend is wrong in his respective beliefs.

How is one to break this deadlock? Alston answers that the Christian should do whatever he can to search for common ground on which to adjudicate the crucial differences between their competing views, seeking to show in a noncircular way which of them is correct. If, by proceeding on the basis of considerations that are common to both parties, such as sense perception, rational self-evidence, and common modes of reasoning, the Christian can show that his own beliefs are true and those of his non-Christian friend false, then he will have succeeded in showing that the Christian is in the better epistemic position for discerning the truth about these matters. Once apologetics is allowed to enter the picture, the objective difference between their epistemic situation becomes crucial, for since the non-Christian only thinks he has a self-authenticating experience of God, when in fact he does not, the power of the evidence and argument may, by God’s grace, crack his false assurance of the truth of his faith and persuade him to place his faith in Christ. (pg. 51-52)

[Uncertain]

Original review found at http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2009/01/...iam-lane-craig/

Craig authored a book called Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth & Apologetics (3rd edition, Crossway Books, June 2008). In the first chapter of this work Craig addresses some of the philosophical questions about the validity of personal spiritual experiences. He gives, in my estimation, an outstanding defense for why the believer can rationally depend on spiritual experiences as a basis for faith and religious commitment. In Mormon/Evangelical dialogue we often butt heads over this issue, and Craig offers some powerful arguments that I think both Mormons and Evangelicals could learn from. Don't be discouraged by the length of this post, I believe the excerpts at the end will be well worth the read.

Ultimately, Craig fails to resolve the issue of a spiritual â??deadlockâ? between two individuals of competing faiths both claiming to have self-authenticating, and mutually exclusive, experiences of God. But, Craig does offer some good suggestions for why such an issue does not need to be resolved.

My only major criticism of Craigâ??s comments is that after emphasizing the fact that spiritual experiences always take precedence over reason and evidence, Craig later goes on to suggest that the non-LDS Christian has the power to persuade the Mormon that his beliefs are false through reason and evidence. Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Latter-day Saints are as justified in relying on spiritual experiences in the face of seemingly powerful counter arguments as non-LDS Christians are.

That being said, Craigâ??s overall thesis is well argued, and he does it in a fashion that is accessible to the layman. I should make special mention of Craigâ??s use of New Testament scripture to argue for the primacy of the Holy Spirit in arriving at truth. In my experience, Evangelicals are loathe to recognize such teachings in the Bible. Craigâ??s recognition and subsequent embracing of the doctrine is refreshing. His overall thesis is not disimilar to Blake Ostlerâ??s approach in his 2007 FAIR Conference presentation.

I believe that LDS theological and historical claims are at least as likely to be true as non-LDS theological and historical claims based on reason and evidence (in fact, I think LDS claims are more likely to be true). We are in an excellent position in that regard; our apologetic is strong.

Below are excerpts from Craigâ??s chapter. I typed them up myself while reading the chapter in Google Books. Any spelling or punctuation errors are likely mine. As before, donâ??t be discouraged by the length of these excerpts, for they succinctly and powerfully make very useful arguments. Feel free to copy and paste them for your use at will. Also, be sure to read the whole chapter by visiting the link provided above.

How do I know that Christianity is true?

In answering this question, I have found it helpful to distinguish between knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true. (pg. 43)

I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such an experience does not function in this case as a premise in any argument from religious experience to God, rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as â??God exists,â? â??I am condemned by God,â? â??I am reconciled to God,â? â??Christ lives in me,â? and so forth; that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianityâ??s truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it.

It seems to me that the New Testament teaches such a view with respect to both the believer and the unbeliever alike. (pg. 43-44)

Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believerâ??s faith, they are never properly the basis of that faith. For the believer, God is not the conclusion of a syllogism; he is the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob dwelling within us. How then does the believer know that Christianity is true? He knows because of the self-authenticating witness of Godâ??s Spirit who lives within him. (pg. 46)

Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties; at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of Godâ??s Spirit on his heart. (pg. 47)

So then for the believer and unbeliever alike it is the self authenticating work of the Holy Spirit that supplies knowledge of Christianityâ??s truth. (pg. 47)

The only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role. I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spiritâ??s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. (pg. 47-48)

A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spiritâ??s witness, but it does not serve as the basis of his belief. (pg. 48)

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. (pg. 48)

Some people disagree with what Iâ??ve said about the role of argument and evidence. They would say that reason can be used in a magisterial role, at least by the unbeliever. They ask how else we could determine which is true, the Bible, the Qurâ??an, or the Book of Mormon, unless we use argument and evidence to judge them. The Muslim or the Mormon also claim to have a witness of Godâ??s Spirit or a â??burning in the bosomâ? which authenticates to him the truth of his scriptures. Christian claims to a subjective experience seem to be on a par with similar non-Christian claims.

But how is the fact that the other persons claim to experience a self-authenticating witness of Godâ??s Spirit relevant to my knowing the truth of Christianity via the Spiritâ??s witness? The existence of an authentic and unique witness of the Spirit does not exclude the existence of the false claims to such a witness. How, then, does the existence of false claims of the Spirits witness to the truth of a non-Christian religion to anything logically to undermine the fact that the Christian believer does possess the genuine witness of the Spirit? (pg. 48-49)

First, the Christian neednâ??t say that non-Christian religious experience is simply spurious. It may well be the case that adherents of other religions do enjoy a veridical experience of God as the Ground of Being on whom we creatures are dependant or as the Moral Absolute from whom values derive or even as the loving Father of mankind. (pg. 49)

I see no reason to think that non-veridical religious experiences are indistinguishable from the witness of the Holy Spirit. One way to get some empirical evidence for this would be simply to ask ex-Mormons and Muslims who have become Christians if their experience of God in Christianity is identical to what they had before their conversion. (pg. 49-50)

Moreover, let me suggest two theological reasons why I think those Christians who support the magisterial role of reason are mistaken. First, such a role would consign most Christians to irrationality. The vast majority of the human race have neither the time, training, nor resources to develop a full-blown Christian apologetic as the basis of their faith. Even the proponents of the magisterial use of reason at one time in the course of their education presumably lacked such an apologetic. According to the magisterial role of reason, these persons should not have believed in Christ until they finished their apologetic. Otherwise, they would be believing for insufficient reasons��The fact is that we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not.

Second, if the magisterial role of reason were legitimate, then a person who had been given poor arguments for Christianity would have a just excuse before God for not believing in him. Suppose someone has been told to believe in God on the basis of an invalid argument. Could he stand before God on the judgment day and say, â??God, those Christians only gave me a lousy argument for believing in you. Thatâ??s why I didnâ??t believeâ?? Of course not! The Bible says all men are without excuse. Even those who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected Godâ??s Holy Spirit. (pg. 50)

Therefore, the role of rational argumentation in knowing Christianity to be true is the role of a servant. A person knows Christianity is true because the Holy Spirit tells him it is true, and while argument and evidence can be used to support this conclusion, they cannot legitimately overrule it. (pg. 51)

Consider again the case of the Christian confronted with an adherent of some other world religion who also claims to have a self-authenticating experience of God. William Alston points out that this situation taken in isolation results in an epistemic standoff. For neither person knows how to convince the other that he alone has a veridical, rather than a delusory, experience. This standoff does not undermine the rationality of the Christianâ??s belief, for even if his process of forming his belief is a reliable as can be, thereâ??s no way he can give a noncircular proof of this fact. Thus his inability to provide such a proof does not nullify the rationality of his belief. But although he is rational in retaining his Christian belief, the Christian in such a circumstance is at a complete loss as to how to show his non-Christian friend that he is correct and that his friend is wrong in his respective beliefs.

How is one to break this deadlock? Alston answers that the Christian should do whatever he can to search for common ground on which to adjudicate the crucial differences between their competing views, seeking to show in a noncircular way which of them is correct. If, by proceeding on the basis of considerations that are common to both parties, such as sense perception, rational self-evidence, and common modes of reasoning, the Christian can show that his own beliefs are true and those of his non-Christian friend false, then he will have succeeded in showing that the Christian is in the better epistemic position for discerning the truth about these matters. Once apologetics is allowed to enter the picture, the objective difference between their epistemic situation becomes crucial, for since the non-Christian only thinks he has a self-authenticating experience of God, when in fact he does not, the power of the evidence and argument may, by Godâ??s grace, crack his false assurance of the truth of his faith and persuade him to place his faith in Christ. (pg. 51-52)

Hi Sargon,

One of my favorite topics. I currently do not have the time to really dig into this (maybe tomorrow). But I did quickly read the chapter in Craigs book you referenced. And I was struck by how he deals with LDS spiritual witnesses that contradict his own for example:

"But how is the fact that other persons claim to experience a self-authenticating witness of God's Sprit relevant to my knowing the truth of Christianity via the Spirit's witness? The existences of an authentic and unique witness of the Spirit does not exclude the existence of false claims to such a witness. How, then, does the existence of false claims of the Spirit's witness to the truth of a non-Christian religion do anything logically to undermine the fact that the Christian believer does possess the genuine witness of the Spirit? Why should I be robbed of my joy and assurance of salvation simply because someone else falsely pretends, sincerely or insincerely, to the Spirit's witness? If a Mormon or Muslim falsely claims to experience the witness of Gods's Spirit in his heart that does nothing the undermine the veridicality of my experience."

and

"Second the objection unjustifiably assumes that the witness of the holy spirit is the product of human cognitive faculties or is indistinguishable from their outputs. In fact non-christian religious experience, such as Buddhist or Hindu religious experience, is typically very different from Christian experience. Why should I think that when a Mormon claims to experience a "burning in the bosom" he is having an experience qualitatively indistinguishable from the witness of the Holy Spirit that I enjoy? I see no reason to think that non-veridical religious experiences are indistinguishable from the witness of the Holy Spirit. One way to get some empirical evidence for this would be simply to ask ex-Mormons and Muslims if their experience of God in Christianity is identical to what they had before their conversion."

(pg 48-49)

Do you not see the irony in using Craig's arguments against LDS spiritual witnesses as a strong defense for the validity of LDS spiritual experiences?

Ultimately, Craig fails to resolve the issue of a spiritual â??deadlockâ? between two individuals of competing faiths both claiming to have self-authenticating, and mutually exclusive, experiences of God. But, Craig does offer some good suggestions for why such an issue does not need to be resolved.

I am going to need some clarification on this point. It seems to be Craig resolves this deadlock but stating his spiritual experience is the correct one since spiritual experiences are self-authenticating to those who have truly had it. He has truly had a spiritual experience affirming the truth of his particular beliefs. Therefore Mormons must necessarily have had a false experience. Therefore it is his job using logic, rational self-evidence, common modes of reasoning etc. To demonstrate that when it comes to personal spiritual experiences he is in the "better epistemic position for discerning the truth about these matters." And he should endeavor to show LDS believers who falsely believe The Holy Spirit has told them the BOM is true the error of their ways. Craig resolves this deadlock by essentially stating all true Spiritual experiences are self-authenticating and veridical . If a persons spiritual experience contradicts his own. That person did not really have a witness from the Spirit. This would include it seems LDS spiritual experiences that affirm for example that the BOM is true. Do you agree with him? Is it Craig's job to show us through logic and reason how Mormons are not truly getting a witness from the Holy Spirit? But just think they are.

(Edited for clarity)

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Droopy]

Interestingly enough, I've never - never - met a Protestant Christian who was able to tell me that his/her church was true. That Jesus was the Christ, yes. That Christianity, broadly speaking, was true, yes, but not a specific dogma, doctrine, or denomination.

In all cases when I've asked such questions of EVs, the discussion removes to the Bible and an argument over interpretation begins. No one has ever claimed to me "I know the doctrine of the Trinity is true". All claims of this kind, in my experience, have been claims to belief, not revealed knowledge.

Craig's core claim here regarding personal witness seems to be a philosophical blind ally, in my view. As things stand, it appears that, at the end of the day and all the argumentation, all he can really say is "My subjective spiritual experience is an authentic spiritual experience. Yours is a counterfeit spiritual experience. So there!" LDS can say to him, "No, yours is illegitimate, ours is authentic", and round and round we go.

We now know that Craig thinks his spiritual experiences (assuming he has had any, how do we know?) are the authentic and legitimate ones, while LDS claims to personal witness are suspect. At the same time, he does not know that we (or any LDS individual) have had the experiences he claims to have had, but also knows we perceive ours to be the real article.

I think the very attempt to ground the subjective experiences he claims to have had in philosophical argumentation belies the fact that philosophical argumentation is really the only thing members of disparate religions really have when making the case for their respective systems. LDS would say that one must study, meditate and pray; ask God for confirmation of the concepts taught and the claims made. This approach has traditionally been anathema to Christians, and particularly EVs, who have tended to see such appeals as a rejection of the, what is considered to be objective, evidence of historical Christianity's claims in the Bible. Sola Scriptura trumps revelation because revelation cannot be seen, held, and controlled by settled tradition or claimed clerical authority.

Would Craig ask me to study, ponder, and pray about what he would teach me to come to a knowledge of its truthfulness? I've never encountered such a concept anywhere in the sectarian Christian world, not with any Christian I've ever known nor in any writings, particularly those critical of Mormonism, I've ever read.

Craig circumvents a third possibility, however. Craig appears to think that there are two fundamental possibilities: if there are two or more claims of subjective spiritual witness, then only one can be true, while the others could not have occurred, and must have other origins than in actual spiritual processes. I think the Gospel provides another option. Among a variety of competing claims to spiritual witness, only one can ultimately be true, but this does not imply necessarily that the other witnesses were not spiritual witnesses; that they were not derived from some contact or experience with spiritual forces or influences.

This allows the possibility of spiritual forces outside of those associated with God to influence mortal human beings toward alternatives to the restored Gospel, and greater truth in general. So not only do we compete philosophically through argument and logic, but spiritually as well, through conflicting spiritual perceptions we may, for a variety of reasons, believe to be the authentic spiritual perceptions.

Admittedly, this doesn't get us much farther, as spiritual witness is, by definition, closed to others. It remains a glorified "neener neener" kind of problem. My spiritual experience is the spiritual experience. Yours is a cognitive or perceptual mistake.

Ultimately, until Craig is willing to test Moroni's promise for himself, without preconditions and in good faith, little can probably come of this approach.

[Brade]

Craig borrows almost all of his views on this subject from William Alston and Alvin Plantinga. I think often times people believe Alston, Plantinga and Craig are trying to argue for a conclusion which they actually are not arguing for at all. They are simply arguing that spiritual experiences can be a proper basis for belief and commitment. Blake Ostler, LDS philosopher, has also written and spoken on this. However, they each stop short of claiming that spiritual experiences, at least of the sort they describe, properly justify attitudes of certainty about religious propositions. On this view, a Mormon is justified in claiming X on the basis of spiritual experience and an Evangelical is justified in claiming ~X (not X) on the basis of spiritual experience. They are each engaging in the best epistemological practice, as Alston describes it, by believing their own best evidence. However, the question still remains, which is true, X or ~X. The fact is that, despite the belief of both individuals, neither of them knows that X or ~X. Also, it probably goes without saying, but any other party most certainly doesn't know that X or ~X by virtue of the spiritual experiences of either the Mormon or the Evangelical. In short, religious epistemology is the attempt to defend the idea that religious beliefs can be rationally believed. It is not a defense of the idea that some religious belief or another is true or that somebody is justified in claiming to be certain of it (or know it).

[Sargon]

Uncertain:

Do you not see the irony in using Craig's arguments against LDS spiritual witnesses as a strong defense for the validity of LDS spiritual experiences?

I think Craig's argument can be equally applied to both LDS and non-LDS. What is that argument? It is that spiritual experiences can lead one to know something true, but not to show something is true. I have no problem if my Evangelical counterpart uses the exact form of reasoning that I do to rationally interpret spiritual experiences as being genuine, even if our conclusions are mutually exclusive. The reason is that the experience is mine, not theirs. I can't show it to them, I can't describe it to them, I can't give it to them. We essentially arrive at an impasse, a deadlock. I am fine with a spiritual deadlock. I don't see a need to try and break it. Craig basically argues that arriving at a deadlock is not sufficient reason to question one's spiritual experiences. I identify with that.

Craig certainly attempts to resolve the spiritual "deadlock", which you summarized. I don't believe that he succeeds in doing it, I think he fails in his attempt. The reasons why are partly described by Droopy already, who said:

As things stand, it appears that, at the end of the day and all the argumentation, all he can really say is "My subjective spiritual experience is an authentic spiritual experience. Yours is a counterfeit spiritual experience. So there!" LDS can say to him, "No, yours is illegitimate, ours is authentic", and round and round we go.

Furthermore, Craig fails because on the one hand he emphasizes the supremacy of the personal spiritual experience over reason and evidence, but then turns around and suggests that any testimony "deadlock" can be resolved by appeals to reason and evidence. It seems to be a self defeating position.

Droopy also said:

Craig appears to think that there are two fundamental possibilities: if there are two or more claims of subjective spiritual witness, then only one can be true, while the others could not have occurred, and must have other origins than in actual spiritual processes.

I propose another hypothesis. It could be that although the doctrines arrived at through the spiritual experience are false, the experience was in fact a genuine experience from God. It could be that God actually did reveal to the Mormon that the Book of Mormon is true, and that he revealed to the Evangelical that the Book of Mormon is false. Why would he do that? If the ultimate goal is orthopraxy (proper living) and not orthodoxy (proper doctrine) then the ends might justify the means. If the end goal is to develop Christ-like attributes (which I believe it is), and the Evangelical can develop those attributes better in an Evangelical setting than in a Mormon setting, the ends seem to justify the means.

This can be a fun and fruitful discussion!

[Droopy]

I propose another hypothesis. It could be that although the doctrines arrived at through the spiritual experience are false, the experience was in fact a genuine experience from God. It could be that God actually did reveal to the Mormon that the Book of Mormon is true, and that he revealed to the Evangelical that the Book of Mormon is false. Why would he do that? If the ultimate goal is orthopraxy (proper living) and not orthodoxy (proper doctrine) then the ends might justify the means. If the end goal is to develop Christ-like attributes (which I believe it is), and the Evangelical can develop those attributes better in an Evangelical setting than in a Mormon setting, the ends seem to justify the means.

I'd have to part company with you here because this would involve:

1. God lying.

2. God working against a major fundamental premise of the restoration, which is to preach the Gospel to all who will accept it and raise a warning voice prior to the Second Coming.

3. The voice of warning and repentance is to all. Nothing in the scriptures or the teachings of the modern Prophets indicates a class of others living in a time and place where the Gospel is accessible for whom the Gospel is not appropriate.

I think the idea that Moroni's promise is unavailable to some class of God's children based upon some inherent incapacity to utilize or live it is well, well outside Gospel teaching. Indeed, by definition, Christlike character can only be truly approximated in the Church, where the gift of the Holy Ghost and the authority of the Priesthood are found. That this would also involve the Holy Ghost testifying falsely to a sincere prayer is, well, out of the ball park.

You know, in some ways this would ignite, in the Church, something akin to the old problem of predestination. As to missionary work, how do we know who the Lord wants to remain outside the Church and who he wants within it? Do the missionaries continue to teach Moroni's promise as if it were universal in application, or do they say "ponder and pray about it, but if God tells you that the BofM is false, well, that's true too, and we won't bother you after that."?

[Sargon]

I should have elaborated more. I apologize.

My hypothesis simply suggests that other faith traditions may serve as preparatory avenues for a later conversion to Mormonism. It might not be that all men are immediately spiritually prepared to make the serious covenants involved with Mormonism. They might benefit by learning what can be learned in other faith traditions before eventually making the leap into God's true Church. In fact, that preparation might be vital for some people.

In other words, milk before meat. I do not hesitate to declare that all men and women must one day hear the gospel in its fullness and make a decision to either follow it or not (whether that be in mortality or in the spirit world). But, I see room for people to learn and grow towards Christ in a different faith as they prepare for the fullness of the gospel.

Hopefully that clarifies it a bit.

[cksalmon]

...[stuff was elided]

Hi Sargon--

I would note that Craig has stated something I found pretty amazing.

I'll look for the reference, but I'm giving you the straight dope, here, paraphrased.

Craig was asked by an atheist if he would lose his faith in Christianity were he to be somehow transported back in time and were to witness firsthand the dead body of Jesus, entombed, never to rise again.

Craig responded that he would have to assume, in that case, that there was some sort of perceptual trickery involved. He would not believe his own eyes. He would continue to believe in Christianity despite apparent first-hand evidence to the contrary, assuming that what he saw was not actually the case.

I'll leave it to you to determine whether Craig's response was noble or an instance of merely extreme, foolhardy fideism.

Craig's espoused position in this case renders his beliefs functionally unfalsifiable.

While I genuinely like Craig and have found him to be a wonderfully articulate, exceptionally bright guy (brighter than me, to be quite sure), a phenomenal speaker, a generally sound philosopher, and quite admirable in many, many ways, I found his response, in this case, to be utterly ridiculous.

(And, he's a Molinist, which position I regard as philosophically ambiguous to a fault, a manifest exegetical cop out, and quite sub-biblical into the bargain.)

I do wonder, without any offense intended, if Craig might be admirable to some LDS (I'm not picking on you, here) because of his extreme fideistic tendencies.

Best.

cks

[Sargon]

cksalmon,

Craig was asked by an atheist if he would lose his faith in Christianity were he to be somehow transported back in time and were to witness firsthand the dead body of Jesus, entombed, never to rise again.

Craig responded that he would have to assume, in that case, that there was some sort of perceptual trickery involved. He would not believe his own eyes. He would continue to believe in Christianity despite apparent first-hand evidence to the contrary, assuming that what he saw was not actually the case.

I'll leave it to you to determine whether Craig's response was noble or an instance of merely extreme, foolhardy fideism.

Craig's espoused position in this case renders his beliefs functionally unfalsifiable.

I'm not philosophically sophisticated enough to make a very informed opinion on this, but my initial reaction is that such a view makes me uncomfortable.

While I genuinely like Craig and have found him to be a wonderfully articulate, exceptionally bright guy (brighter than me, to be quite sure), a phenomenal speaker, a generally sound philosopher, and quite admirable in many, many ways, I found his response, in this case, to be utterly ridiculous.

Yep. It is not a comforting response to me either. I'll have to think on it more. Were I transported back in time to witness Joseph forging plates of metal in his uncle's backyard in the dead of night I would be strongly driven to reconsider my faith, despite the spiritual experiences I have had.

I do wonder, without any offense intended, if Craig might be admirable to some LDS (I'm not picking on you, here) because of his extreme fideistic tendencies.

I don't think very many LDS are fans of Craig. After all, he has written some tough criticism of LDS philosophy before. I just happened to stumble upon these remarks by Craig (who I was told yesterday is "virtually unbeatable" in a debate ) and I found them insightful, if not precisely reflective of my view.

My interest in Craig on this subject is two-fold:

1. I think he makes some good points about the validity (not infallibility) of spiritual experiences.

2. His remarks fly in the face of most traditional Evangelical critics, and I intend to quote him next time such criticism comes from that corner.

[Jason]

I have a few thoughts:

Craig misses the idea that both spiritual experiences could be authentic. The non-Mormon might receive real spiritual confirmation that he is in the right place doing the right things, but be wrong in assuming that this means another's experience cannot also be authentic.

I don't believe anyone ever receives a real spiritual confirmation that the Book of Mormon is false. I do believe that people may indeed receive a authentic confirmation that there is spiritual value in their own current faith, however.

If the experience of the Holy Spirit is truly unmistakable, as Craig theorizes, then he is fully justified in saying he would not beleive his own eyes if he were taken to Jesus' tomb and shown the body, unrisen. The experience of the Holy Spirit becomes one that transcends human limitations. Your own eyes are limited.

[Uncertain]

Uncertain:

I think Craig's argument can be equally applied to both LDS and non-LDS. What is that argument? It is that spiritual experiences can lead one to know something true, but not to show something is true. I have no problem if my Evangelical counterpart uses the exact form of reasoning that I do to rationally interpret spiritual experiences as being genuine, even if our conclusions are mutually exclusive. The reason is that the experience is mine, not theirs. I can't show it to them, I can't describe it to them, I can't give it to them. We essentially arrive at an impasse, a deadlock. I am fine with a spiritual deadlock. I don't see a need to try and break it. Craig basically argues that arriving at a deadlock is not sufficient reason to question one's spiritual experiences. I identify with that.

I do understand your reasoning. It just tickled my sense of irony that the very argument Craig uses to justify believing his personal spiritual experience trumps LDS spiritual experiences. Is used to demonstrate how LDS believers can maintain their personal spiritual experiences trump Craigs personal spiritual experience. It reminds me of Josephs Smiths described situation in which various ministers of religion are crying lo here and lo there on the basis of different scriptural interpretations. In this case we are crying lo here and lo there on the basis of different and contradictory spiritual witnesses. I am not sure this is much of an improvement .

Craig certainly attempts to resolve the spiritual "deadlock", which you summarized. I don't believe that he succeeds in doing it, I think he fails in his attempt. The reasons why are partly described by Droopy already, who said:

Well if Craig does not solve the problem of various individuals just as righteous just as intelligent and just as committed as you or me getting directly contradictory spiritual witnesses. On what grounds then are we justified in stating our personal spiritual experience is the "true" experience at the expense of all the others? This is what I need some clarification on. If indeed as apparently we both agree Craig did not solve this issue why then are we justified in using a personal spiritual experience as strong evidence that a particular religions doctrine represents how the universe really is?

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. Do you believe in the face of contradictory and mutually exclusive results of the same methodology scientist A is justified in believing his results represent how the universe really is?

There is a reason intersubjective verifibility (i.e. capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals ("intersubjectively"), and to be reproduced under varying circumstances for the purposes of verification. see Wikipedia entry ) is so important when dealing with methods that purport to reveal universal truths (such as the sciences and personal spiritual experiences). 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. Because if a method really is returning universal truths then everyone using that method should get the same truth by definition of universal. 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.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jason]

I believe spiritual experiences are intersubjective verifiable, and that where they seem to conflict it is because of a difference in the methods used to acheive those experiences.

If scientists a through d report different results with the same experiment we look at how closely they followed the same procedures to produce those results.

How can we determine if non-Mormon Christians and LDS members are following the same procedures?

[Uncertain]

I have a few thoughts:

Craig misses the idea that both spiritual experiences could be authentic. The non-Mormon might receive real spiritual confirmation that he is in the right place doing the right things, but be wrong in assuming that this means another's experience cannot also be authentic.

I am not sure I agree. Craig does say that other religions could get spiritual confirmation of truths shared between them. That is there is no contradiction in a Catholic and a Baptist getting a personal spiritual witness that Jesus is the Christ. (See page 49 near the bottom).

I don't believe anyone ever receives a real spiritual confirmation that the Book of Mormon is false. I do believe that people may indeed receive a authentic confirmation that there is spiritual value in their own current faith, however.

Apparently Craig believes the very same thing only in reverse. He does not believe anyone gets a "real spiritual confirmation" that the BOM is true. If someone believed they did they are mistaken. He believes this because it contradicts his own personal spiritual witness (see my quoted paragraphs I gave in my first post Craig uses LDS spiritual witnesses as examples of witnesses contradictory to his own). I tell you it makes me chuckle.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

I should have elaborated more. I apologize.

My hypothesis simply suggests that other faith traditions may serve as preparatory avenues for a later conversion to Mormonism. It might not be that all men are immediately spiritually prepared to make the serious covenants involved with Mormonism. They might benefit by learning what can be learned in other faith traditions before eventually making the leap into God's true Church. In fact, that preparation might be vital for some people.

In other words, milk before meat. I do not hesitate to declare that all men and women must one day hear the gospel in its fullness and make a decision to either follow it or not (whether that be in mortality or in the spirit world). But, I see room for people to learn and grow towards Christ in a different faith as they prepare for the fullness of the gospel.

Hopefully that clarifies it a bit.

Hi Sargon,

I have two problems with this approach. One it still does not solve the problem of spiritual witnesses of doctrines directly contradictory to LDS doctrines. So if God is really the author of both spiritual witnesses he must necessarily be lying to at least one of the parties involved. Now actually I have no problems with God lying as long as it is for the greater good of the persons involved. But I doubt you would find such a situation acceptable.

Second this necessarily assumes that LDS teachings are the "meat" while others are the milk. And as such seems highly circular. On what basis is this premise justified. Because of a personal spiritual experience? You can see the problem. Maybe God is just leading you to the LDS church because it is all you are currently prepared to accept. Maybe he is preparing you for the real meat the Catholics if you were only willing to accept it .

(Edited for clarity)

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Sargon]

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.

All the Best,

Uncertain

As you correctly stated, information gathered by spiritual experiences can only be described to others, but cannot be proven to others. It is not a standard scientific method. The experience of God by its very nature is personal and can not be observed by others. It is just the nature of the game, there is nothing we can do about it.

For you, that fact undermines the credibility of the personal spiritual experiences. It doesn't for me. I still have a rational basis for believing that the information I gathered through personal spiritual experiences is good and true, even if someone else claims to have learned something contradictory through similar means. We are at a deadlock, and we don't have the ability to observe the spiritual experiences of the competing claim. Craig suggests that we should consider what we have personally experienced to be the truth, since the claims of others are simply unobservable to us. That is the nature of the game, and the disorder that results is unfortunate. Oh well.

As I hypothesized, it might be that competing spiritual experiences are both genuine.

Hi Sargon,

I have two problems with this approach. One it still does not solve the problem of spiritual witnesses of doctrines directly contradictory to LDS doctrines. So if God is really the author of both spiritual witnesses he must necessarily be lying to at least one of the parties involved. Now actually I have no problems with God lying as long as it is for the greater good of the persons involved. But I doubt you would find such a situation acceptable.

I do find it acceptable.

Second this necessarily assumes that LDS teachings are the "meat" while others are the milk. And as such seems highly circular. On what basis is this premise justified because of a personal spiritual experience? You can see the problem. Maybe God is just leading you to the LDS church because it is all you are currently prepared to accept. Maybe he is preparing you for the real meat the Catholics smile.gif.

Yep. It is only a hypothesis, one that doesn't cover every base. I am assuming that mine is ultimately the most true, and that all others are preparatory. This assumption is based on my own personal experiences, experiences which would be irrational for me to deny.

If Catholicism or Buddhism turns out to be the ultimate truth, and Mormonism is preparatory for it, then I am happy to be on the right path.

[Uncertain]

Craig borrows almost all of his views on this subject from William Alston and Alvin Plantinga. I think often times people believe Alston, Plantinga and Craig are trying to argue for a conclusion which they actually are not arguing for at all. They are simply arguing that spiritual experiences can be a proper basis for belief and commitment. Blake Ostler, LDS philosopher, has also written and spoken on this. However, they each stop short of claiming that spiritual experiences, at least of the sort they describe, properly justify attitudes of certainty about religious propositions. On this view, a Mormon is justified in claiming X on the basis of spiritual experience and an Evangelical is justified in claiming ~X (not X) on the basis of spiritual experience. They are each engaging in the best epistemological practice, as Alston describes it, by believing their own best evidence. However, the question still remains, which is true, X or ~X. The fact is that, despite the belief of both individuals, neither of them knows that X or ~X. Also, it probably goes without saying, but any other party most certainly doesn't know that X or ~X by virtue of the spiritual experiences of either the Mormon or the Evangelical. In short, religious epistemology is the attempt to defend the idea that religious beliefs can be rationally believed. It is not a defense of the idea that some religious belief or another is true or that somebody is justified in claiming to be certain of it (or know it).

Hi Ba81,

Always a pleasure to hear your thoughts. But I am not sure I agree. I am not convinced believing our own best evidence is necessarily always the best epistemological practice. Consider the presence of sliced and diced cow remains. These remains may very well be the best evidence that interstellar aliens with a vendetta against cows are visiting earth to wreak horrific vengeance on bovine populations. But is it sufficient evidence to hold such a belief? I can think of many "best" evidences that are not sufficient in an of themselves to justify belief in a given proposition. Personally I do believe spiritual experiences may very well be a good reason to belong to a given church. But I am not sure spiritual experiences are sufficient grounds to believe the universal claims of the given church. Things like it is the only church with Gods authority or its description of the afterlife accurately represents how the afterlife really is. Whether the given church is Catholic, LDS, RDLS etc.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jason]

Sliced and diced cow remains are not spiritual experiences.

[Uncertain]

As you correctly stated, information gathered by spiritual experiences can only be described to others, but cannot be proven to others. It is not a standard scientific method. The experience of God by its very nature is personal and can not be observed by others. It is just the nature of the game, there is nothing we can do about it.

For you, that fact undermines the credibility of the personal spiritual experiences. It doesn't for me. I still have a rational basis for believing that the information I gathered through personal spiritual experiences is good and true, even if someone else claims to have learned something contradictory through similar means. We are at a deadlock, and we don't have the ability to observe the spiritual experiences of the competing claim. Craig suggests that we should consider what we have personally experienced to be the truth, since the claims of others are simply unobservable to us. That is the nature of the game, and the disorder that results is unfortunate. Oh well.

Hi Sargon,

Well it appears to me the rational basis for holding your spiritual experience preeminent is the fact it happened to you. I find this really problematic. Consider my example of the four scientist. Would one of my scientist be justified in believing his experimental results trump all the others simply because he himself performed the experiment for his results? After all he can not place himself in the brains of the other scientists maybe they misinterpreted the results or are flat out lying. The reason why intersubjective verifibility is so important in the sciences is because the sciences claim to be revealing universal truths. Well spiritual experiences are making the same claim and hence are subject to the very same criticism. If scientists started believing the results of their own experiments simple because it happened to them in the face of other contradictory results for the exact same methodology it would lead to chaos and a significant diminish of gained scientific knowledge. I am not sure on what rational basis it is sufficient to doubt the universal claims of a particular methodology in the face of contradictory results in one case. But in other case we are justified in accepting the universal claims of a particular methodology that suffers from the very same flaw.

As I hypothesized, it might be that competing spiritual experiences are both genuine.

I do find it acceptable.

Well if God is lying maybe he is lying to you. Consider two different and contradictory claims each supported by a spiritual experience. If God can indeed lie both may be from God and no distinction can be made on the basis of spiritual experiences. Based on the evidence provided by spiritual experiences either claim is equally probable that is each claim has a 50% probability of being true based on the evidence provided by spiritual experiences. This means if you claim X and someone else claims ~X on the basis of a spiritual experience each of you has a 50% probability of being correct. Now expand this example to three contradictory claims A, B, C now you only have a 1/3% probability of holding the correct belief. If God can indeed lie this is absolutely fatal to claims that spiritual experiences are reliable means to reveal universal truths. Actually this is one of the primary reasons I am leaning toward religious plurism. It seems if there is a one truth church on the earth God does not care that we find and follow it at least in this life. Since there seems to be no reliable means to determine which of all the competing religious claims accurately represents how the universe really is.

Yep. It is only a hypothesis, one that doesn't cover every base. I am assuming that mine is ultimately the most true, and that all others are preparatory. This assumption is based on my own personal experiences, experiences which would be irrational for me to deny.

If Catholicism or Buddhism turns out to be the ultimate truth, and Mormonism is preparatory for it, then I am happy to be on the right path.

I absolutely agree with this statement. I think each of us should go with the religion that best meets our needs. I am confident God does not care. I am just not confident this method will reliably lead one to the church that most accurately represents how the universe really is. But again who cares as long as we are on the best path for us.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Bender]

Sargon

It is just the nature of the game, there is nothing we can do about it.

Or maybe the nature of the Con.

As I hypothesized, it might be that competing spiritual experiences are both genuine.

Or maybe both wrong. That is not to say that the experience is not real. Mine are very real, but I recognized that many have contradictory interpretations that maybe I was interpreting them the way I was taught or the way I wanted to see them. From this I realized that maybe none of them are from God but internally generated. I may view them a little different now, as well as not being so absolute in what they must mean, and they still have just as much or maybe more meaning in my life.

[Uncertain]

Sliced and diced cow remains are not spiritual experiences.

Hi Jason,

No they certainly are not. I was using it as an example of when the best evidence is still not sufficient for rational belief. Therefore even if spiritual experiences are the best evidence for which church's universal claims are in fact true. This does not mean spiritual experiences are in and of themselves sufficient for rational belief that a given church's claims are indeed true.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Sentinus]

I should have elaborated more. I apologize.

My hypothesis simply suggests that other faith traditions may serve as preparatory avenues for a later conversion to Mormonism. It might not be that all men are immediately spiritually prepared to make the serious covenants involved with Mormonism. They might benefit by learning what can be learned in other faith traditions before eventually making the leap into God's true Church. In fact, that preparation might be vital for some people.

In other words, milk before meat. I do not hesitate to declare that all men and women must one day hear the gospel in its fullness and make a decision to either follow it or not (whether that be in mortality or in the spirit world). But, I see room for people to learn and grow towards Christ in a different faith as they prepare for the fullness of the gospel.

Hopefully that clarifies it a bit.

In my case it was reversed, I don't deny that I believe that I was lead into the LDS church, however It was so I could more fully understand who God was, and who he wasn't. The clarity I have after having been LDS is astounding. I don't say this to be antagonistic, but to affirm indirectly your hypothesis. I don't believe in any specific denomination. It is my belief that all the denominations belong to the body of Christ. And just as hands and feet perform different functions so does the denominations that follow Christ. My overall investment in discussing my concerns with Mormonism is mostly due to the fact that in all of my prayers, and personal revelations I have never once been told that the LDS church is completely false, only that it is not what it claims it is. (The only true and living church upon the face of the Earth) My only quandry is to determine whether or not LDS are a part of the Body of Christ or not.

Regards,

Sentinus

[Uncertain]

I believe spiritual experiences are intersubjective verifiable, and that where they seem to conflict it is because of a difference in the methods used to acheive those experiences.

If scientists a through d report different results with the same experiment we look at how closely they followed the same procedures to produce those results.

How can we determine if non-Mormon Christians and LDS members are following the same procedures?

Hi Jason,

Well this is certainly a possibility. But on what grounds do you suppose the LDS members are following the correct procedures? If say Craig follows method A and gets what he is firmly convinced is a spiritual witness. And a LDS member follows method B and gets what he is firmly convinced is a spiritual witness. And the two spiritual experiences contradict how do we determine who followed the correct procedure? Both resulted in what the participants though were a spiritual witness. So it seems the conviction that I have had a correct spiritual witness is not sufficient to establish I have really had a correct spiritual witness. By what objective and non-circular means can we decide which method produced the true spiritual witness and which produced the fraud?

Furthermore there are example as I have previously posted of individuals who have used LDS methods of truth finding i.e. (read, ponder, pray) and have received results directly contradictory to LDS doctorine. For example consider:

â??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 lightâ??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." â??

..

"I answered, "Oh, my Lord, if I have found favor in thy sight, shew unto thy servant where is thine authority and upon whom it rests, and where is the true Church of Jesus Christ.""

..

"He said, "The old man that thou seest is the servant and prophet of the most high God, Joseph Smith [iII], the son of Joseph Smith that was slain for his testimony, and the light that crowns his head is the Spirit of revelation by which the Saints of all ages are led; and the structure thou seest is the truth, the rock on which the Church is built, and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ is the body, the bride, the Lamb's wife, with whom the authority rests.""

(bold added by me)

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

Now it is always your prerogative to dismiss such accounts as not really like LDS accounts. But they certainly seem to be to the causal eye.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Mighty Curelom]

Craig says:

I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it;

He offers this statement without supporting evidence, as if it is self-evident and undeniable. But this is a statement of belief--an opinion--not a philosophical argument. Contrary to Craig's unsupported opinion, there is no way to distinguish between a "veridical" spiritual experience and a purely physical, material experience that just feels like a communication from God. If you believe otherwise, please, let me know exactly how one distinguishes one from the other, without resorting to "you just know."

[Droopy]

I should have elaborated more. I apologize.

My hypothesis simply suggests that other faith traditions may serve as preparatory avenues for a later conversion to Mormonism. It might not be that all men are immediately spiritually prepared to make the serious covenants involved with Mormonism. They might benefit by learning what can be learned in other faith traditions before eventually making the leap into God's true Church. In fact, that preparation might be vital for some people.

In other words, milk before meat. I do not hesitate to declare that all men and women must one day hear the gospel in its fullness and make a decision to either follow it or not (whether that be in mortality or in the spirit world). But, I see room for people to learn and grow towards Christ in a different faith as they prepare for the fullness of the gospel.

Hopefully that clarifies it a bit.

Thanks, I thought you were going in a completely different direction here. I'd agree substantially with you on this point, after clarification, I just don't accept that the Holy Spirit would falsify a testimony. I think, at best, the Lord would perhaps withhold the testimony, or provide a partial view of the truth to one who's preparation was not, perhaps, complete. I'm not at all sure that this could be called doctrine, but I've certainly heard it taught during my lifetime in the Church.

[Jason]

Well this is certainly a possibility. But on what grounds do you suppose the LDS members are following the correct procedures?

Because they work for me.

If say Craig follows method A and gets what he is firmly convinced is a spiritual witness. And a LDS member follows method B and gets what he is firmly convinced is a spiritual witness. And the two spiritual experiences contradict how do we determine who followed the correct procedure?

By performing both methods and comparing our own results to theirs.You can have much more certainty with what you experience than the second hand accounts of what others did.

Craig says:He offers this statement without supporting evidence, as if it is self-evident and undeniable. But this is a statement of belief--an opinion--not a philosophical argument. Contrary to Craig's unsupported opinion, there is no way to distinguish between a "veridical" spiritual experience and a purely physical, material experience that just feels like a communication from God. If you believe otherwise, please, let me know exactly how one distinguishes one from the other, without resorting to "you just know."

If the answer really is "you just know" then do you want us to lie to you?