Why Is Moroni'S Promise, A Mormon Belief, Considered A Valid Epistemic Test Of Mormon Belief?

[Bernard Gui]

What is the most likely explanation YOU can think of for those events? Is the influence of a Mormon spiritual God (Holy Ghost) who loves people and knows almost everything (or everything) the best explanation you can come up with?

Yes. Now give your best explanation.

Bernard

[Darth_Bill]

Coming to terms with spiritual things is something that I'm working through right now. I am quite specific in what my experiences have led me to believe. While I might be considered a questioning christian right now, I know that I am leading a good life being a member of the church. If that can be "proven" is immaterial to me. I think the reward for living a good life is living a good life. I wouldn't consider my life "wasted" if I found out the church isn't true or that Jesus isn't the Christ. I live the way I want to and it happens to coincide with what the church teaches. I take a very philosophical approach the the gospel now.

I don't even care if that is a rational approach. I never claimed to be rational.

[elguanteloko]

Yes. Now give your best explanation.

Bernard

lol, OK

Here's one for each:

They lied for the first case about the dream and in the process then got to believe afterwards. Sounds outrageous but a thousand times more likely than a holy spirit doing it. Lying is much more parsimonious than a holy spirit.

For the second one they just believed, how is that strange? There are many churches where you will find people crying all over the place and speaking funny.

[mfbukowski]

Is a man with a fever cold? Or is the weather itself cold? Is it cold for a Polynesian? Perhaps it is not so cold for a Norwegian? I am sure the Norwegian will tell the Polynesian that he doesn't know what it means to be "cold". But does that negate the Polynesian being cold?

Exactly!

Clearly the experience of "coldness" is "unreliable" and should be ignored.

Also the experience of what is or is not "erotic", or "nice" or anything else subjective!

[mfbukowski]

How does explaining any of this justify the preference of a specific faith over an incompatible one? That's all I'm looking for.

You have answered your own question. You cannot "justify" a preference.

The choice of a faith is a preference which has nothing to do with the "outside" (objective) world.

A "faith" is a set of BELIEFS which cannot be proven- by definition- or it would not be a faith.

Can you 'justify' what you find "erotic" which others do not? "Erotic experience" is therefore, according to you, "unreliable". Do you therefore intend to never have an erotic experience for the rest of your life?

I have preferred to use the term "love" but it seems not to be basic enough to communicate to this crowd- perhaps erotic will make it clearer.

Love gives life meaning and is yet notoriously "unreliable" in an objective sense. (Who you love is/ will be totally different from who I love) Do you really want to live without that unreliable experience?

[mfbukowski]

If we find that what we consider valid justifications can equally support contradictory claims, then this leaves us with no basis for preferring one over the other. Because we can recognize that the claims are not equal, being unable to prefer one over the other is problematic considering most everyone behaves otherwise.

Yep.

You love Annie and I love Ruth. Those, in your book, are "contradictory claims". Quoting you: "That leaves us with no basis for preferring one over the other. Because we can recognize that the claims are not equal, being unable to prefer one over the other is problematic. "

Can you see how silly that sounds?

Religious BELIEFS are not about the "objective world" they are about what goes on inside us. Religious beliefs may make CLAIMS, historical or otherwise about what "objectively" happened but those claims can never be objectively "proven" conclusively, or they would not be FAITH. If they could be "proven" they would be called SCIENCE or HISTORY

I hope you are getting a glimmer here, because this is getting very tedious.

Edited June 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[elguanteloko]

Exactly!

Clearly the experience of "coldness" is "unreliable" and should be ignored.

Also the experience of what is or is not "erotic", or "nice" or anything else subjective!

Once again, you don't experience the explanation of "coldness" when you are cold, you have to look for it somewhere else. The experience of "coldness" is not what is in question but the explanation of it.

[mfbukowski]

Then you should have no problem explaining why you believe the personal experience that led you to Mormonism can be preferred over personal experiences that have led others to different faiths.

No one can do this because we do not have someone else's personal experiences!

Why can't you see this? There is no basis for comparison because we are all different people with different backgrounds and psychological makeups!

[mfbukowski]

mf, do you accept science as a reliable method of testing physical phenomena and what produces what, for example? If you believe LSD doesn't produce or cause hallucinations then we just don't have anything to talk about. If you think certain chemicals don't make certain cells grow abnormally so as to produce what we call "cancer", then we have nothing to talk about.

In other words, if you reject ALL of science then we have nothing to talk about.

If, however, you do accept science, then you can understand, I hope, that every time we speak of "cause" we refer to the same type of relationship that hallucinations and LSD have and that toxic chemicals and cancer have.

Yes, of course I believe in science and that LSD "produces" hallucinations, and though I plead the 5th on why, I can tell you that LSD has nothing on "real" spiritual experience.

Yet some get cancer and some don't from the same chemicals. So is the "cause" the chemical or their heredity? No one can say except in perhaps some extensive analysis of that individual.

But I can guarantee you that your LSD experience will be different from mine. THAT is the point. ALL subjective experience is filtered though our individual psychological makeup. THAT is why some people can actually have life-changing experiences through LSD. And such experiences should be judged on how efficacious such experiences are IN THAT PERSONS LIFE

What does this have to do with anything? Please, please read the article in my siggy by Nagel which directly speaks about physical causes of experience.

We do not know "causes" directly of experience- your experience may vary from mine

We will never be able to produce the same experience twice through any specific stimulus. Would it be possible to make a pill which would "make you see pink elephants with purple dots, and they will be putting up a circus tent, and then they will fly off and disappear" ?

No, not possible. What if the person was born blind and had never seen an elephant, or the color pink, or a circus tent? That image is not there in his brain to be "brought out"

Every subjective experience is entirely filtered through WHO WE ARE and all our previous experiences- we cannot ever define a "cause" of MY particular experience.

[mfbukowski]

I think it has been pointed out to you MANY times that the experiences are NOT what are in question neither are the qualifications you make of them. What is in question is what produced such effects. "Being cold" didn't cause the person to be cold, something else did. The experience of being cold is NOT what is in question but what caused that experience.

But there is ALWAYS some other possible explanation for what is the "cause"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL! Haven't you been paying attention? I was just told that testimonies are based on experience, and experiences cannot be transferred. Or does this only pertain to Mormons who claim to have powerful spiritual experiences?

They are based on experiences. I never argued other wise. Are you attempting a straw man?

On more thing, I don't understand why you insist on being so rude. Stop with the tired rhetoric of "Haven't you been paying attention".

I think the more effective apologetic response to this is, yes of course they had powerful spiritual experiences. But they were Satanic of course!

Um, yeah because that is the only way to look at it. What I am looking for specifically is that I am aware the no Muslim is invited to pray about the koran. The test they use is that "you cannot create a book of scripture like it". That is hardly the LDS test.

The LDS view is unique in the sense that the "test" is used strictly to determine truth about the Church. Whereas the Bible said you can use the Holy Ghost to know "all things," whenever I ask Mormons to pray to determine which card I'm holding up, they'll say something like that's tempting God. The test must always remain within the realm of unfalsifiability. That's what's so unique about it.

Actually I have no reason to use the HG to see what card you are holding up. That is a gross misunderstanding of how the HG works. And no the test in no in the realm of being unfalsifiable. It is that you cannot prove it false. I can though.

[Xander]

Au contraire, I have seen all your posts and your very first blazing ones that required the moderators to step in to protect you from those "scary lions".

If people were reprimanded for attacking me, it certainly wasn't because I reported them. Maybe, just maybe, they were breaking forum rules? I know, it sounds crazy. Everyone knows that only anti-Mormons attack people.

You do seem pretty proud of your internet glory though?

What glory are you referring to?

If you need a friend in this "hostile territory", I will be there for you and listen intently.

Hey, everyone needs a friend, but I've read enough of your posts to know you're not genuine in your offer.

My credentials speak for themselves and I know the mind of the anti-Mormon and apostate. The mindset is found in the DSM.

What are your credentials? So far I'm not impressed, probably because you remind me of me, twenty years ago.

In fact, I have already listened and read your story and as your new friend - I can give some encouragement to simply "move on".

Which "story" is that, exactly? I don't ever remember sharing my story here. Perhaps portions though.

11 years of complete bitterness will only make you more miserable.

But I'm not miserable or bitter.

For I also had to figure out a way to include my wife's non-LDS family. We did a ring exchange after the temple marriage and gave a complete tour of temple square beforehand so they knew what to expect.

What does my wedding have to do with anything? Or yours, for that matter?

They had many reservations, but it worked out beautifully and they were just as edified with the proper planning.

Well, we were told one thing and then experienced another. The Church decided that Temple sealings on US soil are more sacred than sealings in Brazil. In Brazil we could have a civil wedding one day, and a Temple sealing the next. My family was informed that they were only allowed to view some cheesy ring ceremony that meant nothing to anyone. But no vows could be exchanged because in some mysterious way, that would be a desecration to a US-based temple sealing. So much so that it would take a full year to scrub the spiritual filth from your soul, so that you'd be worthy again for a temple sealing. But in Brazil, you could totally exchange vows and defile your soul, the day before being sealed in the temple. I mean, that makes perfect sense, right?

Chalk it up to your Bishop or Stake President for the failures, but seriously - the bitterness only chancres the soul and no amount of "debate" will take that away

Your projection is well noted. I debate as a hobby when time allows, not as a constant need to justify insecure beliefs.

especially with Pahoran for you are completely out of your league with him so don't embarrass yourself, seriously.

Pahoran is one of the easiest opponents I've ever faced, to be frank. And I'm pretty sure he knows it too.

[mfbukowski]

so, try it out. What is the most likely explanation YOU can think of for those events? Is the influence of a Mormon spiritual God (Holy Ghost) who loves people and knows almost everything (or everything) the best explanation you can come up with?

Can you see that in both cases, the believer and you are "coming up with explanations"??

What explanations you will find depend on who you are and what you have experienced in your life. In short, those explanations are a function of the subjective experiences you have had.

The question is which works best for you, and some day we will find out who is right.

[mfbukowski]

Yes. Now give your best explanation.

Bernard

LOL

Didn't see this before my response!

Clearly we are dealing with personality types and people who have had similar experiences on both sides of this debate- the critics repeat the same things over and over, and so do we. There is no communication- our realities are entirely different.

Of course I see that as evidence that we are right; I am sure they see it their way.

It's less what you believe than who you become!

[mfbukowski]

Once again, you don't experience the explanation of "coldness" when you are cold, you have to look for it somewhere else. The experience of "coldness" is not what is in question but the explanation of it.

The "explanation" for it cannot be found. Coldness is one thing, eroticism is another. I think when Jeff originally posted this about coldness, he was speaking of different nationalities finding different temperatures tolerable vs a person with a fever who was "feeling cold" though he apparently "should" be feeling hot.

The "looking for the explanation" part is the entire point- what you find is based on your previous experiences.

[Storm Rider]

Coming to terms with spiritual things is something that I'm working through right now. I am quite specific in what my experiences have led me to believe. While I might be considered a questioning christian right now, I know that I am leading a good life being a member of the church. If that can be "proven" is immaterial to me. I think the reward for living a good life is living a good life. I wouldn't consider my life "wasted" if I found out the church isn't true or that Jesus isn't the Christ. I live the way I want to and it happens to coincide with what the church teaches. I take a very philosophical approach the the gospel now.

I don't even care if that is a rational approach. I never claimed to be rational.

Darth, I appreciate your honesty. As I have contemplated these things I have concluded that our faith and obedience seems to hinge on three different motivations. We obey because we are afraid of "h***" or whatever disobedience will bring us; we obey because we seek for blessings and are wanting something from God; lastly, that we obey simply because we love God and seek to glorify him. All bring a different quality of spirituality. Would that we all could simply love God and that all our actions derive from our love for him. However, until that time there is no reason to deride the position in which we find individuals.

Questioning is position we find ourselves when we choose not to fully envelop ourselves in faith. Faith remains a very real concept of inestimable power and is fully capable of defeating all the doubts of mortality.

Thank you for your comment and again for your honesty.

[mfbukowski]

...Well, we were told one thing and then experienced another. The Church decided that Temple sealings on US soil are more sacred than sealings in Brazil. In Brazil we could have a civil wedding one day, and a Temple sealing the next. My family was informed that they were only allowed to view some cheesy ring ceremony that meant nothing to anyone. But no vows could be exchanged because in some mysterious way, that would be a desecration to a US-based temple sealing. So much so that it would take a full year to scrub the spiritual filth from your soul, so that you'd be worthy again for a temple sealing. But in Brazil, you could totally exchange vows and defile your soul, the day before being sealed in the temple. I mean, that makes perfect sense, right?

...Your projection is well noted. I debate as a hobby when time allows, not as a constant need to justify insecure beliefs.

I want to compliment you on your cool, calm, unprejudiced, scholarly, and well-reasoned response.

[elguanteloko]

The "explanation" for it cannot be found. Coldness is one thing, eroticism is another.

...yeah, I think those two are different.

BUT, I can find the explanation for both of those for specific cases (low temperatures and an object of sexual desire).

To say that we can't know the cause of powerful hallucinations wasn't LSD when we trace it in the blood is quite naive. Same with drunkenness, same with cold, same with some cancers, same with vision, same with muscle contraction, same with...

[wenglund]

How does explaining any of this justify the preference of a specific faith over an incompatible one? That's all I'm looking for.

Whether or not you accept the methods I propose...

Whether or not you believe speaking about reliability and subjective experience makes sense...

The observation has been made that the proponents of spiritual experiences arrive at incompatible conclusions through reported experiences that, when evaluated, can't be logically preferred over the other. Each follows a different path, yet neither can explain what justifies the distinction. It is reasonable to attempt to find an explanation for this observation.

If the preference of one over the other can't be justified, then why do many behave as if the opposite is true?

I suspect there is no good reason and this suspicion grows stronger the more believers avoid this problem.

This is excellent! You are now beginning to realize that the so-called "tests" aren't just intended as epistemic tools, but they also function as decision-making tools--methodologies for choosing between divergent faith paths as well as methodologies for how best to proceed upon a given faith path.

What we are talking about, then, isn't an objective development of knowledge bases, but criteria for making life choices the outcomes of which may be uncertain--like what to major in at college, which career path to take, who to marry, whether to have children or not and how many, who to vote for in up-coming elections, what car to buy, what health regimen to adhere to, where to live and what house to buy and with what to furnish it, which roads to take when commuting to work, where to go on vacation and when, how often to brush your teeth and what to brush them with, etc. etc.

It helps for you to realize this because it may shed some light on how unsuitable it may be to use "reliability" (inter-rater reliability in particular) as the ultimate test for evaluating decision-making methodologies in matters of faith (secular or religious).

Let's take, for example, decision-making methods people use in determine which major to pursue in college. Educational and career counselors tend to offer essentially the same methods to assist students in making choices, and yet these methods obviously yield a broad diversity of results. According to your way of thinking, because of the diversity of results, these methodologies are unreliable/unjustified, thus leaving you without reason to believe in them or put them to use. Nor, for that matter, might you feel obliged to offer preferred alternatives to these methodologies, but may reserve making decisions only on those matters that can be objectively determined using the scientific method.

I don't know about you, but this doesn't make sense to me. Using reliability as the ultimate test, or even just a test of decision-making methodologies in matters of faith, seems terribly misguided to me. Rather, I would think that the decision-making methodologies in such matters ought to be accessed based on what they are designed to do--i.e. make the very best decisions suitable to each individual and the achievement of their respective end objectives.

And, given that achievement of respective objectives has far more to do with the particular paths one may choose than the methodology used to choose the paths, it makes more sense to focus far less attention on assessing the decision-making methodologies and far more attention on assessing the various paths, themselves. At least that is what I believe any effective decision-making methodology would advise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bernard Gui]

lol, OK

Here's one for each:

They lied for the first case about the dream and in the process then got to believe afterwards. Sounds outrageous but a thousand times more likely than a holy spirit doing it. Lying is much more parsimonious than a holy spirit.

For the second one they just believed, how is that strange? There are many churches where you will find people crying all over the place and speaking funny.

LOL indeed. Wasn't this supposed to be a discussion on objective scientific verification of spiritual experience? I must have

posted in the wrong thread.

Bernard

[mfbukowski]

...yeah, I think those two are different.

BUT, I can find the explanation for both of those for specific cases (low temperatures and an object of sexual desire).

To say that we can't know the cause of powerful hallucinations wasn't LSD when we trace it in the blood is quite naive. Same with drunkenness, same with cold, same with some cancers, same with vision, same with muscle contraction, same with...

NO- YOU CANNOT DEFINE THE CAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC CONTENT OF THE EXPERIENCE.

That is the entire point.

[Bernard Gui]

It's less what you believe than who you become!

Yes. But then we have to decide on a "scientific" criteria to determine

the various levels of becomingness.

Bernard

[wenglund]

I hope you are getting a glimmer here, because this is getting very tedious.

Please keep plugging away. Some of us are really learning from what you have had to say. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Yes. But then we have to decide on a "scientific" criteria to determine

the various levels of becomingness.

Bernard

Too funny! LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[elguanteloko]

NO- YOU CANNOT DEFINE THE CAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC CONTENT OF THE EXPERIENCE.

That is the entire point.

The CONTENT of an experience is the same as the experience (since there are no experiences without content, but the experience is the content) and since we can know with reasonable justification that the cause of the hallucinations was LSD when we find it in the blood... you get the point.

First grade stuff, mf.