Do you ever feel like you are speaking a different language?

[John Larsen]

But how do you do that?

How do you prove that the statement "I love you" is true or false by "repeatability with an appropriate control"?

"Love" is a subjective description of an internal state. However, the definition of love is generally agreed upon with a certain set of manifested traits such as: kindness, togetherness, lack of spite, care giving, sharing, etc. etc. If one wanted to determine if the pronouncement "I love you" were factually true, one need only observe the parties involved to see if the relationship is indeed a loving one.

[John Larsen]

Part of the problem with the call for 'repeatability' is that God is not some passionless cosmic machine. If He were, then maybe we could push particular buttons repeatedly to see the outcome. Instead, He's a man--an infinitely smart one who perfectly knows and understands our hearts. Consequently, unlike a giant machine, He cares about the person pushing the button, that person's motivations and desires and trustworthiness, the precise context informing the actual pushing, etc. In this way, He is able to deliver the exact outcome which is best for everyone involved, personalised down to the smallest detail. His 'reactions' are therefore infinitely individual and individualised. All of which is a very good thing...but not very helpful when people need Him to act like a vending machine which predictably dispenses a 60-gram packet of salt-and-vinegar crisps every time anyone whosoever drops in $1.75 and pushes button C7.

You are begging the question. You are saying that God is untestable because of features he has. But how do you know that he has the features if he can't be tested?

[mercyngrace]

I think the skeptic's view is more complex than you give credit. The bigger issue, to me and to many I have read on this board, is that the believer wants to switch back and forth between universal access and exclusive rights to these types of cause-effect conditions.

For example, when someone is arguing for this type of "evidence", the skeptic frequently responds "But how do you account for so many people over time and diverse cultures having similar if not exactly identical experiences while having very dissimilar beliefs"?

The response then turns exclusive - "No religion has the equivalent of the Moroni promise."

If the skeptic responds that they have known, or themselves been, someone or a group of individuals who tried the promise and had it fail.

The response becomes even more exclusive - there are missing things in that person's life, desire, commitment, etc., that are preventing the proscribed result.

I agree with you, there is evidence that there is more to life than cold "reality" and there are things we don't understand. Things happen that are not easily explained away.

But the claims for exclusive access fall flat.

So I would consider this the control - the fact people have these types of experiences in many forms of beliefs. It seems all the religion does is give meaning or explanations to these experiences that is otherwise not there.

And also not repeatable by everyone, I add.

First, no LDS who knows his doctrine believes that God speaks exclusively to people of this church.

Secondly, I agree that on this board things can get pretty muddled. Part of the problem is the mixed company. You've got non-LDS and ex-LDS, the latter group often insisting that their lack of spiritual experiences constitutes proof that the same do not exist except in the minds of believers. In such cases, it is easy for LDS to presume that the 'denier' was lacking understanding, faith, or commitment because (and this is key) we likewise have had prayers that seemed to go unanswered, miracles that never came in the way we expected, and confirmation about spiritual truth that we labored longer and harder to receive that we anticipated.

Third, John Larsen's argument as I understand it, isn't about exclusivity but about whether spiritual experiences exist period.

Finally, I understand that the skeptic's position is more nuanced than I described. The believer's position is also more nuanced. You write that religion gives meaning to those things we cannot explain. That position alone goes right to the heart of the OP and shows just how great the gulf is between us. My spiritual experiences have rarely if ever explained the unexplainable.

[mercyngrace]

From Wikipedia:

Cute, John ;-)

Now how do you apply that to spiritual experiences given the complete inability to form a control or standard of measurement? How do you achieve repeatability when every circumstance is, by its very nature, unique and the product of a multitude of countless distinct variables?

[John Larsen]

Third, John Larsen's argument as I understand it, isn't about exclusivity but about whether spiritual experiences exist period.

My argument is that spiritual experiences are not an inward manifestation of an external phenomena but an internal manifestation of an internal experience. I believe they are real to the individual who experiences them, but they are a product of one's own mind.

[John Larsen]

Cute, John ;-)

Now how do you apply that to spiritual experiences given the complete inability to form a control or standard of measurement? How do you achieve repeatability when every circumstance is, by its very nature, unique and the product of a multitude of countless distinct variables?

This is why spiritual experiences can be used to justify anything.

[mercyngrace]

This is why spiritual experiences can be used to justify anything.

And also why they can be neither proven or denied. Spiritual experiences are susceptible to the limits of the individual seeking them - his sincerity, his desire, his commitment, his faith, they all matter. Moroni acknowledged those caveats. This again, goes back to the OP. There is a gulf impossible to bridge for others. Every man must make his own way.

It does no good for me to describe in detail the end of the path on the other side of the gap if you don't even see the path or notice the gap.

[John Larsen]

And also why they can be neither proven or denied. Spiritual experiences are susceptible to the limits of the individual seeking them - his sincerity, his desire, his commitment, his faith, they all matter. Moroni acknowledged those caveats. This again, goes back to the OP. There is a gulf impossible to bridge for others. Every man must make his own way.

It does no good for me to describe in detail the end of the path on the other side of the gap if you don't even see the path or notice the gap.

Once you allow for the reality of these experiences, you must allow for the reality of all of these experiences. Many horrible, horrible things have been done by those claiming initiation from their spiritual or divine manifestations. Indeed, sincerity, desire, commitment and faith have often fueled reprehensible action. If we allow that "every man must make his own way" then we are left in an arena where everyone must be given a pass if only they play the spiritual manifestation card. This is an evil twin of moral relativism in which no human action can be condemned if it might be sourced in a supernatural command above the scrutiny of anyone but the sole observer. For, who can doubt the reality of anyone else's experience? And if there is anything the Bible and Book of Mormon teaches, no act--no matter how criminal in society, is outside the scope of divine order.

[mercyngrace]

Once you allow for the reality of these experiences, you must allow for the reality of all of these experiences.

No. You don't. I allow for the reality that water condenses high above me and falls to the ground, sometimes as rain, sometimes, as snow, sometimes as hail but I absolutely do not believe that water droplets will freeze in the shape of a '57 chevy and crush my house. Sorry.

Many horrible, horrible things have been done by those claiming initiation from their spiritual or divine manifestations.

True. Many horrible things have been done by those claiming disbelief also - like putting believers to death. Evil men do evil things, regardless of their ideologies. Further, as you well know, the gospel acknowledges that spiritual communication can come from ungodly sources as well as from God.

Indeed, sincerity, desire, commitment and faith have often fueled reprehensible action.If we allow that "every man must make his own way" then we are left in an arena where everyone must be given a pass if only they play the spiritual manifestation card.

Why? As a society, we set the code of acceptable conduct. We judge actions not beliefs. If a man acts reprehensibly, believing that God inspired his course, then let God be his judge in that regard. That has no impact on how society responds to him.

This is an evil twin of moral relativism in which no human action can be condemned if it might be sourced in a supernatural command above the scrutiny of anyone but the sole observer. For, who can doubt the reality of anyone else's experience?

There is no moral relativism in allowing all men the right to believe as they will and accepting the possibility that a man can commune with the divine no matter his religion. The premise that there will be conflict based on varying personal revelations is based on a faulty understanding of God's nature. It presumes God to be capricious and to have different truths for different people. His truths don't change - our understanding does.

[mfbukowski]

The statement, "I love you" is a subjective statement unique to a set time and circumstance. It applies to one person, and has no bearing on external truth like we were talking about. The associated actions, while nice, do not require that someone first feel to say, "I love you".

You can't prove it because it is one of your categorical errors. But only because it doesn't exist universally, the conditions that would prove it true or false are inside of the person making the statement and really, in the end, have no bearing on our shared sense of "reality".

Ah, now we are getting to it.

The nature of Truth.

I thought we had discussed this but perhaps I am wrong. There are only first person statements and (second and) third person statements. You know- grammar-- I, you, he she it, we, you plural and they. The first thing you learn in verb conjugations in any language class.

And what precisely is "external truth" in a world where there is only experience?

There are only statements with truth value. If we agree on the statement, like "The car is red", it is a third person statement. Grammatically, it is third person singular. We call such a statement "objective", but really all we are saying is that we agree on the label of "red car" when we look in the direction of that qualia over there.

"I love you" could be true or false; it is a first person statement.

"I know the church is true" is a similar first person statement like "I love you", or "I am hungry". There is no way to make these first person statements into third person statements. Another way to say the same thing is to say there is no way to make a subjective statement objective.

None of these can be proven to anyone else, nevertheless they DO have truth value. I could by lying that I love you (it happens often).

But I am surprised you speak of "external truth". I would like to know more about what that is.

[John Larsen]

No. You don't. I allow for the reality that water condenses high above me and falls to the ground, sometimes as rain, sometimes, as snow, sometimes as hail but I absolutely do not believe that water droplets will freeze in the shape of a '57 chevy and crush my house. Sorry.

Which one's do you not allow for the reality of? How do you know which ones are of demonic inspiration?

It presumes God to be capricious and to have different truths for different people. His truths don't change - our understanding does.

How do you know God is not capriciously changing truth from person to person?

[staccato]

How do you know God is not capriciously changing truth from person to person?

We don't. God felt it important to command that we not kill each other. He even came down and wrote it on tablets. And then he turned around and commanded Nephi the opposite and that he was indeed to kill Laban.

If that is not capricious, I don't know what is.

[mercyngrace]

Which one's do you not allow for the reality of? How do you know which ones are of demonic inspiration?

Since I can't know, I follow only that inspiration given to me. That is what I am accountable for spiritually - what I know and experience. (In terms of legality - we are all subject to the laws of our lands regardless of spiritual mandates.)

How do you know God is not capriciously changing truth from person to person?

Experience.

[mercyngrace]

We don't. God felt it important to command that we not kill each other. He even came down and wrote it on tablets. And then he turned around and commanded Nephi the opposite and that he was indeed to kill Laban.

If that is not capricious, I don't know what is.

Actually, the killing of Laban is the exact opposite of caprice. Caprice means suddenly changing one's mind without apparent or adequate motive. The Lord's motives were made plain and were more than adequate. 1 Nephi 4:11-17 lists at least 5 good reasons for taking Laban's life some enunciated by the Spirit (apparent). The most profound of which was that one man's life was a small price for the preservation of an entire nation (adequate).

If God had told you to kill Hitler...

[mfbukowski]

But the claims for exclusive access fall flat.

Within limits, I don't believe in exclusive access. The limits are being a truly seeking soul. I think anyone who is earnestly seeking God's will can have it revealed to him.

But the message he receives, I think, though God's "instruction manual" for that individual, may not necessarily lead him to the LDS church. I think God's message WILL lead him closer to where God wants him for now. Assuming he hears clearly and is an honest seeker.

Could God lead an honest seeker AWAY from the church? I would not rule out the possibility. Perhaps because the individual was raised in an overly-oppressive family for example (this is only one of an infinity of possible personal reasons)he could not gain a genuine testimony due to the pressure to do so, and rebellion on his part or- who knows. Such an individual imo never had an honest opportunity to evaluate the church, just as if he had been born a non-member and was led away by false impressions of the church.

Perhaps such an individual would need to leave and seek his own answers, just so he could eventually return perhaps even in the afterlife after he had more information.

So I think Catholics, EV's, Baptists, Buddhists agnostics and even atheists could have possibly received a legitimate "revelation" to follow the paths they are on because at the moment it is the path they need to be on.

So how can anyone know they have really had a revelation? It's totally totally "subjective" and personal and for them to determine. Could they be mistaken for all the reasons given already by others? Yes.

So how do we ever "know for sure"?

We don't know for sure until we do, and then we do. If you are not sure, you are not sure. Most here are not sure.

The issue is certainty. And that is pretty subjective. I think that is why it is called "faith".

[mfbukowski]

The response then turns exclusive - "No religion has the equivalent of the Moroni promise."

Can you name one?

[mfbukowski]

"Love" is a subjective description of an internal state. However, the definition of love is generally agreed upon with a certain set of manifested traits such as: kindness, togetherness, lack of spite, care giving, sharing, etc. etc. If one wanted to determine if the pronouncement "I love you" were factually true, one need only observe the parties involved to see if the relationship is indeed a loving one.

Tell that to your daughter's boyfriend when she tells you he said that.

And how long does one observe? Does it take a 50 year marriage to determine if the statement was true?

Can one be in love for 5 minutes? In my youth, that happened daily.

How can we determine if someone is feeling pain? Or seeing "stars" when they stand up? Or if they believe the moon is made of green cheese? Or that Brahman rules the universe? Or that they know the church is true?

Or even that they see "red" the same way you do?

Internal states are not provable objectively. Seeking proof or even finding it is itself an internal state. That internal state is called "certainty".

Can I predict your internal state as you answer or don't answer this post? Is it scientifically determinable?

[staccato]

Actually, the killing of Laban is the exact opposite of caprice. Caprice means suddenly changing one's mind without apparent or adequate motive. The Lord's motives were made plain and were more than adequate. 1 Nephi 4:11-17 lists at least 5 good reasons for taking Laban's life some enunciated by the Spirit (apparent). The most profound of which was that one man's life was a small price for the preservation of an entire nation (adequate).

If God had told you to kill Hitler...

Deleted response as I am snarky and so am not going to argue the semantics.

[mfbukowski]

My argument is that spiritual experiences are not an inward manifestation of an external phenomena but an internal manifestation of an internal experience. I believe they are real to the individual who experiences them, but they are a product of one's own mind.

What is not a product of one's own mind?

The products of our own minds which we agree on are called "reality" and are in principle scientifically observable. But there is an infinity of "internal manifestations" we will never agree on, because you will never know what they are.

All that is real is experience, which our mind creates; some is private some is not. It's really that simple.

We agree "the car is blue" because we both experience the same thing. We do not agree that "I am hungry", because there is no way for you to know if I am lying or not.

[John Larsen]

What is not a product of one's own mind?

The products of our own minds which we agree on are called "reality" and are in principle scientifically observable. But there is an infinity of "internal manifestations" we will never agree on, because you will never know what they are.

All that is real is experience, which our mind creates; some is private some is not. It's really that simple.

We agree "the car is blue" because we both experience the same thing. We do not agree that "I am hungry", because there is no way for you to know if I am lying or not.

So then why do you insist that your internal experiences speak to an objective outside reality? You are confusing me. I thought you were trying to defend your own position not attack it.

[mfbukowski]

Once you allow for the reality of these experiences, you must allow for the reality of all of these experiences. Many horrible, horrible things have been done by those claiming initiation from their spiritual or divine manifestations.

And many horrible horrible things have been done by those claiming that divine manifestations are not possible. The names Stalin, H-it-ler,or Mao ring a bell?

Your point?

[mfbukowski]

So then why do you insist that your internal experiences speak to an objective outside reality? You are confusing me. I thought you were trying to defend your own position not attack it.

I don't know what you are saying here, I think you are confused.

If there is any reality outside of what we experience, please tell me what it is.

The only way I know that there is an "objective outside reality" is by experience. All I know is experience.

"Do you ever feel like you are speaking a different language?"

[John Larsen]

I don't know what you are saying here, I think you are confused.

If there is any reality outside of what we experience, please tell me what it is.

The only way I know that there is an "objective outside reality" is by experience. All I know is experience.

"Do you ever feel like you are speaking a different language?"

If you don't believe in an objective outside reality, why are you a Mormon? Or are you just playing a game?

[John Larsen]

And many horrible horrible things have been done by those claiming that divine manifestations are not possible. The names Stalin, H-it-ler,or Mao ring a bell?

Your point?

Stalin, Hitler and Mao all did their deeds in the name of an ideology. None of their actions were motivated by a denial of divine manifestation, rather, nationalism. To me nationalism and religion are cut from the same cloth.

[mfbukowski]

If you don't believe in an objective outside reality, why are you a Mormon? Or are you just playing a game?

Read what I said. I think you don't understand what I am saying. Did I say "I don't believe in an objective outside reality"?

There is no reality outside of what we can experience. Please show me any other kind.

What we call "outside reality" is only spoken about in third-person statements. But that is not the only kind there is.

All we have is experience and language to talk about our experiences. If that is all we speak about, we will be able to speak clearly.