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

[Log]

Mormon 9:1-6 seems an adequate response. There's really nothing more to say. Edited July 4, 2011 by Log

[Hughes]

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)

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:

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).

Sometimes to analyze a question it helps to reverse the question and look at it from a different perspective.

In other words, instead of asking, why is Moroni's Promise considered a valid test?

Say, "Why is moroni's promise not a valid test?"

The answer it seems to me is that using this test, one can validate anything they wish, to be truth.

[Log]

Say, "Why is moroni's promise not a valid test?"

The answer it seems to me is that using this test, one can validate anything they wish, to be truth.

Please explain precisely how it is that through "ask[ing] God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true" one can validate anything one wishes to be truth.

[mfbukowski]

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-

Thanks for posting this.

It seems that there is at least one other person who sees things about the same way I do.

[mfbukowski]

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-

It is as if you hear a familiar voice and know instantly who's voice it is- as an old friend suddenly calling on the phone; all he has to say is "Hello" and you know instantly who it is that is speaking- it is a sense of recognition

Edited July 4, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

For you- your question can never be answered because it is self contradictory; you are confusing the subjective and objective.

I have answered the questions as all pragmatists would answer- if you don't understand, I'm sorry.

[mfbukowski]

The answer it seems to me is that using this test, one can validate anything they wish, to be truth.

Now that you brought it up, how do you know you're saved?

Edited July 4, 2011 by mfbukowski

[erichard]

The epistemic test proposed by Mormonism is not exempt from justification, yet it seems often taken for granted. In fact, I haven't heard a conversion story yet that didn't simply presume the test as valid, before using it to test whether Mormonism is valid.

...

Does Moroni's Promise require justification as a reliable epistemic test?

If it does, what is it and how do you explain the credulous, unjustified acceptance of Moroni's Promise by a significant number of Mormons?

If it does not, and you accept that blind faith and the credulous conversions of others are somehow valid, what explains the use of blind faith as conversion specifically to Mormonism?

Hi MP,

I just got here. I have not read the 26 pages of this thread, so I may not be saying anything new.

I believe they can take the test, see what answer they get, and THEN consider if the test was a valid test. Why cannot the validity of the test itself be determined after they take the test?

Richard

[shalamabobbi]

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.

using this test, one can validate anything they wish, to be truth.

Mark 3:28, 29

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Mathew 16:17

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;..

So why might denying the Holy Ghost be such a big deal? Well, if that is the only way to come into the truth that saves and that is the method upon which Christ will build His church it begins to become apparent..

[Honorentheos]

For you- your question can never be answered because it is self contradictory; you are confusing the subjective and objective.

I have answered the questions as all pragmatists would answer- if you don't understand, I'm sorry.

Bukowski, the question isn't self-contradictory. And you have conflated multiple person's varied opinions into a whole that you are falsely presenting as unified. Rorty and Dewey do not agree so nicely as you imply, for example.

Beyond that, you are conflating philosophy into a realm that is better explained by neuroscience. Most philosophical critiques of Rorty acknowledge this, and most neuroscientists have moved away from the view that matters of conscious are the sole purview of the philosopher. Questions of mind/body are evolving much more rapidly than you acknowledge or seem to be aware.

I don't know if it's against board rules still, but it used to be that a person could not hide behind some mask of assumed superiority while failing miserably to actually address an argument.

So, please take your time, but at some point I expect to see you address the points made in this thread rather than continue to question your interrogators' ability to understand your argument as you have with multiple posters. It seems this is your best defense against those who disagree with you. In some circles, that would be considered ad hominem.

ETA: correct spelling error and improve clarity of a thought.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Honorentheos

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski, the question isn't self-contradictory. And you have conflated multiple person's varied opinions into a whole that you are falsely presenting as unified. Rorty and Dewey do not agree so nicely as you imply, for example.

....I don't know if it's against board rules still, but it used to be that a person could not hide behind some mask of assumed superiority while failing miserably to actually address an argument.

So, please take your time, but at some point I expect to see you address the points made in this thread rather than continue to question your interrogators' ability to understand your argument as you have with multiple posters. It seems this is your best defense against those who disagree with you. In some circles, that would be considered ad hominem.

I never presented anything as unified- relative to your naive realism, they might as well be unified however.

Well the mods can ban me for my nefarious tactics if they wish- at least I will be rid of this ridiculous conversation, but I find that prospect ludicrous. The fact is that the Mormons on the board seem to have no trouble understanding my points, including possibly the mods- from an earlier comment.

The fact is that board rules do not require someone to spend futile hours refuting a critic's view of an article which may or may not apply to the discussion at hand, nor will they ever. Clearly you are trying to draw me back into repeating everything I have already said- and I assure you that attempt will be futile.

If anything, your comments can be construed as "board nannying".

I appreciate you bringing this article to my attention- but a squabble between Dewey and Rorty on a relatively esoteric point of pragmatism is like Mak and Bokovoy disagreeing on some esoteric point of Biblical theology- yet both agreeing on an essentially Mormon point of view. Rorty and Dewey are both pragmatists.

I disagree with Rorty myself rather vehemently on his views of the contingency of the self- an issue you appear to not even be aware of.

I am well aware of the strides being made in physiological psychology, but since you read my Nagel reference, you know this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In fact, I think I mentioned my background in psychology as well somewhere back in the thread. And of course you are aware that Rorty did not consider himself a "philosopher"- since you are such an expert on Rorty. He didn't care where truth came from, and neither do I.

Yet it is a fact that science deals only with the objective- or it would not be science. And since you have read my Nagel references, you understand that clearly and how it is deficient in fully comprehending the subjective.

But I will be glad to read the article in detail and comment on the difference between Rorty and Dewey if you wish, though of course it will have nothing to do with your questions, but at least I will have read more on what is interesting to me.

So thanks for the article.

Since you think that one must think only in terms of things objectively known, I would suggest that your response to this post not use the word "I" or any subjective references whatsoever, only objective facts- since after all, how can I know for sure that you are not lying about your opinions?

Incidentally opinions expressed must be flawlessly backed up by scientific data.

Of course opinions cannot be "your" opinion either- since those are subject to being false. Since I don't believe that, of course it doesn't apply to me. I get to make subjective statements- you don't since you don't believe in their truth.

I shall therefore assume you are lying in any subjective opinion expressed until you give me objective evidence of what you say. Not to say you ARE lying, but just that I will assume a fully objective stance. One cannot be too sure about these things, you know.

Edited July 4, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

"Why is moroni's promise not a valid test?"

The answer it seems to me is that using this test, one can validate anything they wish, to be truth.

I wish for a million dollars to be freely given to me tomorrow. Will Moroni 10 validate that to be true?

If not, then you may want to rethink your supposed invalidating claim above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -W

[Honorentheos]

Hi Bukowski,

I'm skipping over the tantrum and getting to the part of your post closest to the threads topic.

Since you think that one must think only in terms of things objectively known, I would suggest that your response to this post not use the word "I" or any subjective references whatsoever, only objective facts- since after all, how can I know for sure that you are not lying about your opinions?

Ah, Bukowsky, you really missed the point you had supposedly answered multiple times in the thread. You're not being asked to draw a line between objective and subjective. The issue is with concepts or ideas and how they are modified in order to be useful. No one is claiming these concepts or ideas are purely objective. But they continue to make use of "things" in a manner that renders the question of objective and subjective more nuanced than you seem willing to acknowledge. I continue to assume this is for convenience in order to avoid issues you have difficulty in explaining.

I find it interesting how quick you were to jump on the article and wish to critique it as a diversion from the specific subject at hand. No need, my friend. The point in including it was to demonstrate that your so-called united front of pragmatists are not so united. If we were to throw in Haack as a counter to Rorty, we could really get things mixed up.

So we're back to the question at hand - 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.

If you really want to avoid doing this, but are willing to do something that may still advance the discussion, why not tell us about mirror neurons? What are they? If everything we think is purely subjective and no "object" matters to this, perhaps you can explain how they work in relation to your theories? That might be interesting.

Thanks.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Honorentheos

[mfbukowski]

So we're back to the question at hand - 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.

LOL

"Beware of maya"

-George Harrison

[Hughes]

Please explain precisely how it is that through "ask[ing] God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true" one can validate anything one wishes to be truth.

Precisely by basing truth on a feeling. As in "I feel "A" is true, therefore it's true.

Now that you brought it up, how do you know you're saved?

A number of different reasons.

Mark 3:28, 29

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Mathew 16:17

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;..

So why might denying the Holy Ghost be such a big deal? Well, if that is the only way to come into the truth that saves and that is the method upon which Christ will build His church it begins to become apparent..

Your quoted passages don't support the idea that "is the only way to come into truth" nor that "is the method upon which Christ will build his church."

In fact, Christ used different methodologies to convey and convince people of truth.

I wish for a million dollars to be freely given to me tomorrow. Will Moroni 10 validate that to be true?

If not, then you may want to rethink your supposed invalidating claim above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -W

Since Moroni's promise has nothing to do with things objectively testable, so your analogy doesn't apply.

For example, it might be more accurate to say, "Did the money I got come from God?" (apply promise)... "Oh yes... warm bosom... it must be true."

[Log]

Precisely by basing truth on a feeling. As in "I feel "A" is true, therefore it's true.

I'm sorry; do you have firsthand knowledge about the truth of some proposition about reality sans sensory input?

No?

Then your position seems self-contradictory.

[shalamabobbi]

Riiight..

So Jesus stating that "upon this rock I will build my church" doesn't support the idea that that "is the method upon which Christ will build his church."

Got it..

[mfbukowski]

A number of different reasons.

Blatantly evasive

[LeSellers]

[i know I am saved for] A number of different reasons.

If there are "a number" of them, you ought have no problem identifying two or three.

(Of course, "zero" is "a number", too.)

Lehi

Edited July 4, 2011 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

Sometimes to analyze a question it helps to reverse the question and look at it from a different perspective.

In other words, instead of asking, why is Moroni's Promise considered a valid test?

Say, "Why is moroni's promise not a valid test?"

The answer it seems to me is that using this test, one can validate anything they wish, to be truth.

For those who do not believe in God, and in His ability to fulfil His promises, I agree it is not a valid test; but for those who do it is.

[Log]

If there are "a number" of them, you ought have no problem identifying two or three.

(Of course, "zero" is a number, too.)

Lehi

So are imaginary numbers, for that matter

[Log]

For those who do not believe in God, and in His ability to fulfil His promises, I agree it is not a valid test; but for those who do it is.

That's why I referenced Mormon 9:1-6 in this context. Even if you don't believe in God, one can be convincingly persuaded that there is a God by firsthand sensory input. I was an atheist when I received this evidence, which resulted in my not being an atheist anymore.

[mfbukowski]

That's why I referenced Mormon 9:1-6 in this context. Even if you don't believe in God, one can be convincingly persuaded that there is a God by firsthand sensory input. I was an atheist when I received this evidence, which resulted in my not being an atheist anymore.

[altersteve]

Precisely by basing truth on a feeling. As in "I feel "A" is true, therefore it's true.

For example, it might be more accurate to say, "Did the money I got come from God?" (apply promise)... "Oh yes... warm bosom... it must be true."

If Latter-day Saints actually based their beliefs on feelings, then this would have some merit. But they do not, so this is meaningless.

Edited July 4, 2011 by altersteve

[zerinus]

That's why I referenced Mormon 9:1-6 in this context. Even if you don't believe in God, one can be convincingly persuaded that there is a God by firsthand sensory input. I was an atheist when I received this evidence, which resulted in my not being an atheist anymore.

Some professed "believers" are in a worse condition spiritually than some professed "atheists;" that is why my comment is still valid with regard to certain individuals.