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

[Montgomery Price]

A story of Star Trek's Lieutenant Commander Data's offspring..

I visited a class of junior high kids today. They were all diligently involved looking for ways to objectively prove the existence of love.

"Why?", I asked.

"So that we can experience it", they replied.

"Well it works for me", I replied.

"Well, in what sense does falling in love work for you if there is no such thing?", they were stumped.

It would be claimed that it works in a practical way. But if what "works for you" depends on some purported objective truth that happens to be false, what you perceive "works for you" won't actually deliver. This is very possible and no one here has attempted to dispute this.

To offer you the challenge mf has neglected to answer:

In what sense does attempting to gain Celestial Glory "work for you", if there exists no such thing?

The answer is that it doesn't work for you because you believe you can attain something that's not possible. If you attempt to gain Celestial Glory based on what "works for you" in a universe with no Celestial Glory, then you are doomed to never receive what you think you will. You could very possibly die and find that there is no heaven, and instead be reincarnated, for example. This demonstrates that the sole standard of what you perceive "works for me" doesn't always lead to what actually and objectively "works for you" in every circumstance. Unless you can propose some way to reliably discern between these possible circumstances, you are venturing blindly when you behave as if you have determined this. Sorry, "works for you" doesn't cut it.

EDIT: Let me also correct your analogy.

I visited a class of junior high kids today. They were all diligently involved looking for ways to demonstrate that the existence of love is more likely than the existence of contradicting things. (That is, things that would preclude the existence of love. Not contradict in the sense that hate contradicts love.)

"Why?", I asked.

"So that we can be reasonably certain that we are experiencing what we perceive to be. Otherwise, we could never know that our perceptions in this particular situation are actually dependable. To make any exclusive choice would be blind", they replied.

The end.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[shalamabobbi]

Did you read the reference? Skip down to the paragraph about Solomon Chamberlain.

The point of the post is that religion is testimony based, rather than being objectively proven to everybody.

Does that change the reality of it? Did radioactivity occur in 1500 before it was discovered?

Before one can gain a personal testimony of religious claims they must act on faith. Usually the price to know is conditioned upon obedience (letting go of one's sins), prayer and fasting, and be willing to do what God might ask you to do.

Works for me..

If it were objectively proven there would be no need for faith/belief and the punishment inflicted for disobedience would have to be much greater.

[Honorentheos]

We had a parallel discussion on Shade's board based on a question posed by the poster Simon Belmont. I think Montgomery Price's points are effectively illustrated in that discussion. Since this board prohibits both cross-posting as well as linking to that board, I'll recreate the salient point.

The OP had asked how we go about knowing or proving to ourselves that we have an apple in our hand. The comment I made to the OP was we rely on the idea of apple as well as our senses, but that I could not honestly recall a moment in my life when I did not associate my idea "apple" with what I perceived to be the object "apple". I have no pre-apple memory that I can truly reconstruct any more than I can reconstruct a valid memory that pre-dates my own existence. Rather than assuming a priori knowledge of the idea "apple", I can observe how other young humans gain this idea and speculate on the origins of my own idea apple.

When discussing "ideas", we have to acknowledge that the idea is not static, but changing. And what causes it to change? Interaction between the idea and our experience.

Going along with MFB's type of pragmatism, we don't think about our ideas or question them most of the time because they work. My idea of apple as I currently hold it is not significantly surprised by my interaction with the external object I associate with it. It does what I assume it will. Over my lifetime, my interactions with objects that match the idea of apple have either confirmed and strengthened my idea of apple, or where I have been surprised by this interaction the idea has been modified and refined. Because of this strengthening and modifying, I would argue that every time I have to make use of the idea apple, or encounter an object that causes my brain to access memories dealing with apple, I am also refining the idea itself. It's largely consistent because of the amount of experience I have with making use of this idea, but it's still dynamic.

My idea - apple - is ever changing and modifying based on my experience with the world. It is slightly different today than it was 5 years ago, and certainly very different than it was when I was very young. Yet as with how I acquired this idea, this series of changes is mostly inaccessible to me. Sometimes a major surprise from an interaction that conflicts with the idea will become very conscious-oriented such as biting into a sour green apple or finding a worm. But most of the modification is so subtle I doubt we could be any more successful in reconstructing it than we were in trying to recall it's genesis.

So this brings up two points - first, the idea apple is dynamic. And second, (which becomes very important in this discussion in this thread about justification) we become only slightly conscious of the dynamic nature of our ideas when they are contradicted.

At this point we seem to be where MFB wants us to be - we are taking data in on faith and using it because it works. Which is true. Maybe MFB and I would even agree that we are not placing faith in the reality of the objects we interact with, but in the accuracy and usefulness of our ideas.

But this is where MP's case becomes important - our ideas are not Kantian a priori as we know from neuroscience. They are created and part of our physical brain; the processes that make them dynamic are caused by the structure and plasticity of the brain.

So it brings us to an idea like the celestial kingdom which has no object that we can relate to it. We can't challenge our idea of the celestial kingdom directly - there is no object against which we interact that modifies this idea. We may interact with other people's versions of this idea, such as those given in LDS scripture or as presented directly to us. But how does our brain know which connections to strengthen and which to let die?

I'd argue it's arbitrary and that any two people will end up with a lot of variety between their ideas of the celestial kingdom because there is nothing shared that will force an idea modification.

It's here that I usually argue with MFB that this is why LDS history matters - it matters to us if JS lied to Emma Smith about polygamy for example because we can't test his theological ideas against anything. Instead, we have to determine how reliable he is and how reliable any idea he shared may be.

And here we come back to the OP - how do we justify the test of the Moroni promise if not by circular logic? I think MP has made ample argument in the thread as to what this should mean.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Honorentheos

[KevinG]

What is fascinating to me about this discussion is that people have been put into the position of defending "what works for me" when that was a mischaracterization of what LDS believe about Moroni's Promise, Alma's Test and James Admonition in the first place.

"What works for me" was an oversimplified false summary of what LDS beliefs about the source of revelation and inspiration.

In fact a more accurate representation of the pheonomena of revelation and inspiration would be that the answers to our questions are verified by an external source (God's Spirit) that is beyond mortal measurement or the simple observation of our five mortal senses.

Lack of mortal ability to explain or measure does not negate the reality or truth of the experience.

The most scientifically, logically or complexly worded essay that tries to present someone elses experience as invalid (hallucination, mistake, wishful thinking, endocrine imbalance, etc.) ignores the basic fact that mortal sciences and senses cannot account for every and all pheonomena in the universe.

If God requires us to exercise faith in order to give us an answer - and millions of individuals can verify that they have received that answer, there is a pattern of observable cause and effect worth taking seriously even if the source or catalyst cannot be identified.

LDS doctrine does not presume that the pattern of words or prayers is somehow magical or the source of the revelation. God is the source, we are the recipient when we seek after the revelation.

Inability to objectively measure or weigh God's presence or power is not proof the the non-existance of God or his power of revelation.

[mfbukowski]

What is fascinating to me about this discussion is that people have been put into the position of defending "what works for me" when that was a mischaracterization of what LDS believe about Moroni's Promise, Alma's Test and James Admonition in the first place.

"What works for me" was an oversimplified false summary of what LDS beliefs about the source of revelation and inspiration.

It was not intended to be a summary of the "source" of revelation at all.

It was intended to be an objective description of how subjective experience can be given truth value.

For the record, I agree with the rest of your post.

Edited July 3, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

Hi DaddyG,

I want to restate something said earlier. I think it will explain where your argument above is flawed.

I think that the problem the OP points out is how a person can isolate bias or false readings from such as test as Moroni's promise. The missionaries and most members use the BoM to suggest that the proof of the BoM's factuality as well as God's existence (unto knowledge, rather than belief I would add) is found in a pattern declared by God. Yet, don't we have to first believe that the pattern came from God to believe that if it is followed it will lead to knowledge of God?

And isn't that fairly circular in our reasoning?

For example, suppose you were not LDS and were exposed to similar truths and given a different pattern (similar to someone who was raised with beliefs in another religious system, Christian or otherwise). Can you say that the pattern's success is predetermined by an outside source or by internal experience? I would contend that knowledge and belief in the pattern make using the pattern possible - which is a "justification" of one's beliefs but does not constitute knowledge outside of those beliefs. You acted in a certain manner and the desired outcome was achieved - justified! But your assurance that the pattern actually came from God rather than was the product of observation of human behavior (i.e. - a strong belief mixed with an earnest prayer supported by action will yield brain chemical response 'A') is not justified.

That is the critical question the OP presents. Can you really justify the Moroni promise if one fails to isolate it from Mormon-related explanations of what occurs? I don't think a person can.

So knowledge gained and confirmed by following this method is not "known", but rather believed because one still has to rely on faith that the source of the explanation of the results is valid without justification.

[mfbukowski]

We had a parallel discussion on Shade's board based on a question posed by the poster Simon Belmont. I think Montgomery Price's points are effectively illustrated in that discussion. Since this board prohibits both cross-posting as well as linking to that board, I'll recreate the salient point.

The OP had asked how we go about knowing or proving to ourselves that we have an apple in our hand. The comment I made to the OP was we rely on the idea of apple as well as our senses, but that I could not honestly recall a moment in my life when I did not associate my idea "apple" with what I perceived to be the object "apple". I have no pre-apple memory that I can truly reconstruct any more than I can reconstruct a valid memory that pre-dates my own existence. Rather than assuming a priori knowledge of the idea "apple", I can observe how other young humans gain this idea and speculate on the origins of my own idea apple.

When discussing "ideas", we have to acknowledge that the idea is not static, but changing. And what causes it to change? Interaction between the idea and our experience.

Going along with MFB's type of pragmatism, we don't think about our ideas or question them most of the time because they work. My idea of apple as I currently hold it is not significantly surprised by my interaction with the external object I associate with it. It does what I assume it will. Over my lifetime, my interactions with objects that match the idea of apple have either confirmed and strengthened my idea of apple, or where I have been surprised by this interaction the idea has been modified and refined. Because of this strengthening and modifying, I would argue that every time I have to make use of the idea apple, or encounter an object that causes my brain to access memories dealing with apple, I am also refining the idea itself. It's largely consistent because of the amount of experience I have with making use of this idea, but it's still dynamic.

My idea - apple - is ever changing and modifying based on my experience with the world. It is slightly different today than it was 5 years ago, and certainly very different than it was when I was very young. Yet as with how I acquired this idea, this series of changes is mostly inaccessible to me. Sometimes a major surprise from an interaction that conflicts with the idea will become very conscious-oriented such as biting into a sour green apple or finding a worm. But most of the modification is so subtle I doubt we could be any more successful in reconstructing it than we were in trying to recall it's genesis.

So this brings up two points - first, the idea apple is dynamic. And second, (which becomes very important in this discussion in this thread about justification) we become only slightly conscious of the dynamic nature of our ideas when they are contradicted.

At this point we seem to be where MFB wants us to be - we are taking data in on faith and using it because it works. Which is true. Maybe MFB and I would even agree that we are not placing faith in the reality of the objects we interact with, but in the accuracy and usefulness of our ideas.

But this is where MP's case becomes important - our ideas are not Kantian a priori as we know from neuroscience. They are created and part of our physical brain; the processes that make them dynamic are caused by the structure and plasticity of the brain.

So it brings us to an idea like the celestial kingdom which has no object that we can relate to it. We can't challenge our idea of the celestial kingdom directly - there is no object against which we interact that modifies this idea. We may interact with other people's versions of this idea, such as those given in LDS scripture or as presented directly to us. But how does our brain know which connections to strengthen and which to let die?

I'd argue it's arbitrary and that any two people will end up with a lot of variety between their ideas of the celestial kingdom because there is nothing shared that will force an idea modification.

It's here that I usually argue with MFB that this is why LDS history matters - it matters to us if JS lied to Emma Smith about polygamy for example because we can't test his theological ideas against anything. Instead, we have to determine how reliable he is and how reliable any idea he shared may be.

And here we come back to the OP - how do we justify the test of the Moroni promise if not by circular logic? I think MP has made ample argument in the thread as to what this should mean.

Please do not characterize my positions when you do not understand them.

[Honorentheos]

Please do not characterize my positions when you do not understand them.

Don't worry, MFB. I don't assume this is exactly your position. To me it makes sense when thought through.

ETA: in the interest of actually having a discussion, perhaps you could point out where it contradicts your view?

Edited July 3, 2011 by Honorentheos

[elguanteloko]

Neither of them are right OR wrong. They are different ways of seeing for different purposes.

what are you talking about? the Asimov quote or my criticism and your position? Anyways, that your objection is not valid I think has already been shown.

If you're building a house, or drawing 99% of maps a flat earth works just fine. But if I was driving home from Mars I would definitely be looking for a circle.

You only need to think of the earth as a sphere for limited use- and even then, I think a geologist would tell you that it kind of bulges in the middle and is flatter around the poles.

But it's pretty rare to need that model.

Edit: the point is, it is not flat, nor a circle nor even really a sphere. It would probably take a book to fully describe all that is know about the shape of the earth to current standards, and then it would be wrong the next time we had a huge earthquake and something shifted.

"All you need"? The point is experiment shows we are wrong if we say the Earth is flat and "all you need" is not what science is about. "All you need" is applied to the problems that arise, NOT to just let you live through the day. Your position is as anti-science as I've never seen in this forum.

Any way you look at it, you are "just" using different linguistic constructs as a short description for a specific purpose.

lol Guess what? That is ALL we can do to explain things. Your explanations are also mere "linguistic constructs" but that doesn't make them right or wrong. If you mean by "Earth" something that is flat, then you are wrong. Linguistic construct or not, it doesn't fit with the evidence. Geez!

"Sphere" is probably as good as any for a single short word, but that still does not capture all the pool of human experience available to describe the shape of the earth.

I mean "blue marble" works about as well too, and is much poetry as anything else.

So for me, it just makes sense to know that it is all "words" so we don't get confused in thinking that words are in some way "real" or "describe" something we cannot even say what it is- without using words

...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I quit trying to explain this incredibly simple stuff, mf. You change topics without need, you change focus without need, you change scope without need, your responses to my objections are obtuse and imprecise and most of the time you flat out fail to understand them...

have a nice ride, mf.

Edited July 3, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Honorentheos]

For DaddyG, I'd ask how you would respond to the author of this? - The Pure Truth

[KevinG]

Just to address the main question in brief...

That is the critical question the OP presents. Can you really justify the Moroni promise if one fails to isolate it from Mormon-related explanations of what occurs? I don't think a person can.

So knowledge gained and confirmed by following this method is not "known", but rather believed because one still has to rely on faith that the source of the explanation of the results is valid without justification.

My experience with Moroni's promise was isolated from the Mormon experience. I was a convert who received an answer from God that was not predetermined by my expectations or my socialization. In fact the verification came with additional knowledge that I did not previously have.

As I said before known vs. believed gets us into a symantic argument that has the LDS culture partially to blame because we use the two words interchangeably when bearing our testimonies of our conversion and epiphany experiences. To me that is a very fine distinction to make and does not invalidate the LDS relevatory experience.

One more observation. To narrow down Moroni's promise as a closed isolated system renders it almost meaningless. It is not isolated and indeed is closely related to the way we receive the truth of all things just as we do with James and Alma's tests and admonitions. It was never meant to be a single use single cause and single effect test.

[KevinG]

For DaddyG, I'd ask how you would respond to the author of this? - The Pure Truth

Interesting, very similar to a book I just read last week on understanding Islam. The single most significant distinction I can find between the Islamic claim to truth and the Mormon claim to truth is the Islamic dependence on proof and tradition. Where the Mormon claim is dependent on truth and personal revelation. Not all Mormon testimonies are based on what I would consider the solid foundation of personal revelation and often times an "intellectual" testimony can be a two edges sword. Some fo the most stalwart apologists can turn on a dime and become the most stalwart critics if faced with evidence they cannot reconcile. Faith does require us to have a degree of humility that allows for our own limited understanding to be imperfect and in need of constant correction for growth.

I have said very truthfully if someone feels they have been given enlightenment by God and has received personal revelation as to its truthfulness I will not try to convince them they are wrong, and I would encourage them to live accordingly to their promptings.

Dr. Peterson has written much more expertly on this subject (the difference between Muslim and Mormon claims to truth) but this is my weak attempt to express my understanding.

[Ares]

what are you talking about? the Asimov quote or my criticism and your position? Anyways, that your objection is not valid I think has already been shown.

"All you need"? The point is experiment shows we are wrong if we say the Earth is flat and "all you need" is not what science is about. "All you need" is applied to the problems that arise, NOT to just let you live through the day. Your position is as anti-science as I've never seen in this forum.

lol Guess what? That is ALL we can do to explain things. Your explanations are also mere "linguistic constructs" but that doesn't make them right or wrong. If you mean by "Earth" something that is flat, then you are wrong. Linguistic construct or not, it doesn't fit with the evidence. Geez!

...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I quit trying to explain this incredibly simple stuff, mf. You change topics without need, you change focus without need, you change scope without need, your responses to my objections are obtuse and imprecise and most of the time you flat out fail to understand them...

have a nice ride, mf.

Stop belittling other posters or ignoring their questions. Be open the the fact that you are the one that may not get it and be more respectful. You have been warned several times and you don't seem to understand that the extra commentary is not warranted. Do it again and you will face more than a temporary suspension of your posting priveledges. -Ares

[KevinG]

Please forgive my bouncing from topic to topic. I plead insomnia...

I still keep tumbling the OP over and over in my mind. I think the following statement describes Moroni's promise in a way it was not intended to be used.

"This leaves no way to determine revealed doctrine as the superior, revealed path it is presumed to be. For this reason, the justification must be specific to Mormon doctrine."

Moroni was not asking someone to test the relative superiority of Mormon doctrine vs. others. He was simply asking the reader to ask God to verify if what they had read was true. (Not true-er than other doctrines).

Here is the text of the promise (which interestingly enough hasn't been quoted in this whole thread to my knowledge)

Moroni 10:4And when ye shall receive these things

[the records that are the source of the Book of Mormon], I would exhort you that

ye would ^aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ,

if these things are not ^btrue; and if ye shall ask with a ^csincere heart, with ^dreal intent, having ^efaith in Christ, he will ^fmanifest the ^gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy

Ghost.

Even more significant this is not a singluar static test to determine the relative truthfullness of Mormonism. In fact Moroni goes on to say that the process of sincere prayer to God will reveal more:

5And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may ^a

Knowing the truth of anything is hardly a static test or a one time exercise. It is an ongoing process of discovery in an open system under the tutelage of a living God. This is why my earlier citation of D&C 93:30 is pertenant to the discussion (even though that was poo poo'ed as irrelevant).

[Honorentheos]

My experience with Moroni's promise was isolated from the Mormon experience. I was a convert who received an answer from God that was not predetermined by my expectations or my socialization. In fact the verification came with additional knowledge that I did not previously have.

Hi DaddyG.

I appreciate your comment, and think it illustrates the first part of my statement very well. That being, "You acted in a certain manner and the desired outcome was achieved". This is certainly justification that the Moroni Promise worked for you, whether in an expected or unexpected way.

But we need to clarify what it means to isolate the Moroni Promise from the Mormon experience. To simplify, let's reduce Moroni's promise down to this:

If you do 'A', then 'B'

You feel justified because you did 'A', and something happened that you feel equals 'B'.

Within the average person's experience this is all that most feel matters. It worked for you, so the statement "If A then B" is valid, right?

The challenge comes from widening one's examination to other people. Suddenly, we see a lot of variety in the meaning of 'B'. And, as you demonstrated with the example regarding Islam, most LDS believer's assume that the reason there are so many 'B' possibilities is that there are many 'A's. In your post above, you have suggested that the Muslim is not following the 'A' that you followed which explains why they have arrived at a different 'B'.

You've even been broad minded enough to suggest that many LDS have not used the correct 'A', even though they seem to have achieved a similar if not exactly the same 'B'. I find that very interesting. Why? Because you make the case that the correct 'A' is founded on the highest possible authority you can conceive - "Not all Mormon testimonies are based on what I would consider the solid foundation of personal revelation"

So we are back to asking, how do we know that you achieved 'B' through personal revelation from a real being we could call God?

I'm not seeing the justification of that just yet.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Honorentheos

[mfbukowski]

I quit trying to explain this incredibly simple stuff, mf. You change topics without need, you change focus without need, you change scope without need, your responses to my objections are obtuse and imprecise and most of the time you flat out fail to understand them...

have a nice ride, mf.

Tell it to James, Dewey, Rorty and Wittgenstein.

[elguanteloko]

Tell it to James, Dewey, Rorty and Wittgenstein.

I think I've shown why you are misconstruing what they said. James says subjective experiences don't justify whatever you say about them (explanations) being correct. Rorty wasn't speaking about an external world either.

but, sure.

[Honorentheos]

Hello Bukowski,

It's no secret that you and I have some history. But I'd be interested in seeing you respond to my points. Since Dewey, Rorty, W, and James don't fully agree with one another and a person is under no obligation to accept anything the above four have said on any subject in the context of a mormonism-related discussion board I am viewing your comment above as a throw-away.

Instead, please be so kind as to explain how your view of "ideas" does not need to deal with "objects" contrary to the assertion made by MP and demonstrated in my post.

You see, I could throw out a similar post about how your comments fail to acknowledge Rizzolotti, Craighero, Francis, or Liu in neuroscience. Or that Crick and Koch have rightly declared issues of conscious and subconscious the realm of the scientist rather than the philosopher. But what good would that do anyone here?

Answering the issue based on your own thought, however, would be a great stride forward.

Thanks.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Honorentheos

[CV75]

So we are back to asking, how do we know that you achieved 'B' through personal revelation from a real being we could call God?

We don’t know unless we need to know in order to exercise priesthood keys (Malachi 3:16-18; D&C 46:27; 101:95). How this is done is described in the thread about the discerning of spirits.

[mfbukowski]

Hello Bukowski,

It's no secret that you and I have some history. But I'd be interested in seeing you respond to my points.

I have a thousand times and it is always the same. There is absolutely no point to it. Go back and actually read the thread.

[wenglund]

I'm challenging the former (educational truth), not the latter (operational). Unless you're suggesting that the later somehow establishes the former, it's irrelevant to a discussion to about the literal truth claims that Mormonism makes. Obviously, you don't simply believe in Jesus Christ because it "works", but also because you believe Jesus to be a literal divine being.

Whether you can know these sorts of things are literally true based on personal experiences is in question. You can't skirt around this and confuse the conversation by using an unclear and apparently irrelevant definition of truth.

No, it is a reasonable expectation that some method actually works given that doctrine makes claims to objective truth and knowledge.

Nonsensical impediment for which definition of truth? If it's an impediment to the operational or "what works" definition, then I don't care. Why is it nonsensical to consider the reliability of our epistemic tests when discussing how to determine objective truth?

I don't seem to understand because we've been talking about two different types of truth. Each answer given has been about the irrelevant definition of truth. I should be obvious that this is not what the the critics are asking about. Sure, you may think that the contradiction between faiths doesn't matter when you consider operational "truth"... no one is claiming it does. What is being claimed is there is a contradiction in the reports of objective truth. Barely anyone has even attempted to resolve the objective contradiction, and have simply interpreted my argument with an irrelevant definition. It's an obvious non sequitur, yet not so obvious when you highjack the definitions of words that are necessary to the argument. Seems to be causing a lot of confusion. So let's be absolutely clear from now on.

Why should I care that they're used often or used at all when discussing whether the objective truth claims of Mormonism can be preferred over incompatible claims?

The idea that preference equal knowledge is apparently created by the confusion when someone responds only considering the operational "truth" instead of a response considering what is obviously in question, objective truth.

Ok, so what exactly justifies the pursuit of a specific, literal afterlife but not another?

If your answer has nothing to do with attempting to determine which after life actually exists, but instead with operational truth, you're not responding to the question I'm actually asking?

It's a fundamental means of assessment considering operation truth, but hasn't been shown to be relevant when considering objective truth.

...and it's obvious that your alternative definitions of "knowledge" and "truth" don't apply to the questions being asked by critics. They're not valid replacements for the words in our arguments. I'd appreciate it if you answered my questions with the relevant definitions.

This response is terribly confused on a number of levels. First, I have been speaking to both educational and operational truths, not just the latter. I have spoken to both because both apply to Moroni 10 as well as Alma 32. Your generic questions and challenges about the "truth" ignored this important distinction, which rendered you confused and confounded by LDS answers and explanations.

Second, as explained previously, educational and operational "truths" are interdependent and somewhat confirming of the other. We LDS believe that Jesus is the Christ because he has told us so through the Spirit (this would be an educational "truth" derived ostensibly). We believe the restored gospel is "true," the path he has set for us and will lead us thereon, and this because he has told us so through the Spirit (again this is an ostensive educational "truth"). We believe that Jesus is the Christ because we have experienced his salvific and exalting nature in our souls--by becoming more like Christ, we come to "know" Christ and "know" of Christ (this would be an experiential/operational "truth"). We believe that the restored gospel is Christ's path, and the "truth," because it works for us and does for us as intended and promised--not necessarily in an ultimate sense at this point in time, but in a progression sense (this, too, is an experiential/operational "truth").

Both the educational and operational "truths" are made possible and confirmed through Moroni 10 and Alma 32.

Third, when we LDS speak of the "truth" or say that we "know", we aren't speaking in an objective sense--at least not definitively in this life. Nor, should we be expected to speak objectively or thought to speaking objectively of such things. Rather, we speak subjectively and in faith of what we currently "know" to be "true" and what we have confidence will occur in the hereafter.

So, if you and other critics are asking us questions about objectivity and/or expecting objective responses to your questions, then you are asking the wrong questions and have wrong expectations.

In short, your criticisms of religion in general, and LDS in particular, regarding objectivity, are wildly misplaced. You applying the wrong tools of assessment. Valid tests of objectivity (inter-rater reliability in particular) do not apply to the subjective and matters of faith.

Has it sunk in yet?

The importance in realizing this is, much of people's lives involve subjective decisions--when to get up in the morning, what to eat for breakfast, what clothes to wear to work, which roads to take to work, how fast to drive, how to respond to bad drivers, and on and on..." If one restricts oneself to objective truths and objective decision-making, then one will be rendered relatively dysfunctional for much, if not all of their mortal existence. As such, it is wise to expand our horizons, and gain a healthy level of comfort with, and use of, subjective assessment and decision-making tools. It is good to immerse oneself in the subjective and in faith, and be as intent on developing a subjective epistemology as an objective one.

Just saying.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So we are back to asking, how do we know that you achieved 'B' through personal revelation from a real being we could call God? I'm not seeing the justification of that just yet.

We "know" it, in part, because subjectively it has a "Godly sense" to it, as distinguished from non-Godly things we have experienced.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Honorentheos]

I have a thousand times and it is always the same. There is absolutely no point to it. Go back and actually read the thread.

MFB, I've read the thread since last night in total. You haven't responded to MP's points nor to my illustration.

The questions remain on the table unanswered.

[Honorentheos]

We "know" it, in part, because subjectively it has a "Godly sense" to it, as distinguished from non-Godly things we have experienced.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

Thanks for the straight-forward response. I don't have a problem with it as you state it, provided we are acknowledging that the measure of Godly and non-Godly things as you accept it is still defined by Mormon beliefs and teaching. Once we step outside of this paradigm, the terms "Godly" and "non-Godly" change dramatically in meaning. Even to the point that some would argue the very things you call godly are ungodly and vice-versa.

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

Thanks for the straight-forward response. I don't have a problem with it as you state it, provided we are acknowledging that the measure of Godly and non-Godly things as you accept it is still defined by Mormon beliefs and teaching. Once we step outside of this paradigm, the terms "Godly" and "non-Godly" change dramatically in meaning. Even to the point that some would argue the very things you call godly are ungodly and vice-versa.

While the "measure" may be, for many members and investigators, somewhat "defined by Mormon beliefs," they may not define it for everyone and/or in every way. The measure may be somewhat defined by secular beliefs and experiences (i.e. what one is used to and expects to experience nationalistically) and the experience itself (i.e. the non-naturalistic sense of the experience, and things that may be explicitly revealed in certain experiences).

Whatever the case, because the measuring is subjective and somewhat a function of one's existing beliefs, different people will measure things differently, and may argue as you suggest...and that is okay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 4, 2011 by wenglund