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

[Hughes]

John 20:29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast ^aseen me, thou hast believed: ^bblessed are they that have not seen, and yethave ^cbelieved.

My point is that those who have faith in Jesus Christ without having evidence are considered blessed by the Savior, not deceived, hallucinating, fooled, errant... Blessed.

And the connection to Moroni's promise? Since the promise has nothing to do with having faith in Christ, but believing that something is true.

You have it backwards. LDS did not try to define other peoples view of truth, revelation or knowledge in the OP. It was the other way around.

If I had a nickel for every time someone narrowly and erronilusly defined an aspect of my belief then proceeded to argue against the erronious description... I'd have a lot of nickels.

If someone has a discussion with me that isn't an attempt at a "gotcha" for Mormons they find I am very open minded and flexible with definitions and descriptions of their understanding of revelation, truth and religion.

This thread is drowning under its own assumptions.

If LDS didn't try to define other peoples view of truth, why claim that the evangelical view is apostate? Sounds a lot like telling other people what is true and what isn't.

[KevinG]

And the connection to Moroni's promise? Since the promise has nothing to do with having faith in Christ, but believing that something is true.

If LDS didn't try to define other peoples view of truth, why claim that the evangelical view is apostate? Sounds a lot like telling other people what is true and what isn't.

A couple of critical errors there:

Mornoni's promise has to do with discerning the truth of the Book of Mormon records which testify of Christ. It also has to do with discerning the truth of all things. Pair that up with the belief that God is truth and you have a pretty tight connection between Moroni's promise and a testimony of Jesus Christ.

LDS don't try to define truth for anyone else. We offer our own understanding of God's doctrines and invite others to participate. Our view that other denominations are incorrect is an par with every other religion that exists other than perhaps the Unitarians and some liberal Methodists. I don't know many Mormons who hang out on Christian sites and have the gall to tell them they are incorrect using erronious assumptions about their beliefs as evidence. On the other hand there are some pretty active "Mormon ministries" that do this full time. I suspect you may have been duped by one of them. If you are still upset about the line in the Joseph Smith history you really could let that go. It's been 190 years.

In addition you really ought to study what the LDS mean by apostate. As a Mormon I've never told anyone they are going to h*** because of their beliefs or any missing pieces in their otherwise correct Christian doctrines and tradition. Evangelicals have not been so charitable with me and mine. Remind me to tell you about the charming incident where my wife was told she was carrying the spawn of Satan by an old friend who learned she was LDS.

As my signature says - please ask me what I believe before telling me what I believe.

[Log]

Actually, Log, this is an interesting statement.

When you say sensory input, are you suggesting that you can demonstrate the results of applying the Moroni Promise are on equal footing with, say, holding an apple in your hand?

If so, you are actually getting back to the point of the OP.

All sensory input has publicly demonstrable causes?

Is that your position?

Frankly, your first statement is the essence of the argument made in the OP - the Moroni Promise is interpreted based on input defined by Mormon beliefs. The actual event "B" that occurs after one prays is irrelevent compared to the explaination. Anything could happen as "B", sensory or otherwise.

And if you are open to it, you will find that just about everything has happened as "B", including negative answers, neutral answers, and positive answers. Yet, when discussing other people's "B", all that matters to the hearer is the explaination one has already accepted not the result "B".

Suppose after you pray to know if the Book of Mormon is true, God opens the heavens to you and says to you, directly, "The Book of Mormon is true."

Please explain how you would rationally reject this. Remember, this phenomenon would not be publicly demonstrable - think Paul on the road to Damascus.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Log

[Bernard Gui]

I used to be an Atheist as well, however I couldn't ever be LDS, so I don't see how you're connecting the two. Believers in God are not automatically LDS.

Which, if I understand correctly, is the point of the OP. We now have divergent claims to truth, and both

cannot be right. The question posed by the OP is, how can one be sure his chosen path is the correct one?

But even two people who supposedly are in the same path will perceive it differently. So which of them

has the correct view of the true path?

This puts the burden on the believer to use some sort of criteria that will show his path superior to another.

The burden becomes onerous, because to do that, one would be obligated to investigate in depth the path

of every single human being, using whatever test can be devised to test the ultimate truth of the path.

To omit only one person would result in the uncertainty that that last person has

the true path. Even then, we cannot have total confidence in our test, because it is always possible that

our subject is lying. Since none of us has the ability nor the means to conduct such an investigation, we must always

be uncertain as to whether or not we are on the true path. We can never know if God is on our side.

I can think of several results and remedies:

1. There is no God, so it doesn't matter.

2. There is a God, but He is not who you think He is, so you are deceived.

3. There are many Gods, and many paths to God, so everyone is on the true path.

4. A God exists only if He has believers. The more believers, the stronger the God (tip o' the hat to Terry Pratchett)

and the more likely your path is true.

5. God loves everyone and can therefore condemn no one, so your path is important only to you.

6. There is a God, but He could care less.

7. There is a God, but this is all very amusing to Him.

8. There are many gods, but only one true God, and He is my God, not yours.

9. God is a construct of desperate human beings, and if it makes them feel better to believe, it serves some purpose for them.

10.........add your own here.

So, unless we are able to construct an infallible test to determine the veracity of our path, we

are doomed to uncertainty and ultimate failure. Since it is unlikely that anyone can produce such

a test, there must not be a God. For me, a believing Latter-day Saint, this does not adequately

explain my experiences with God, as noted earlier with the 2 examples of spiritual experiences

I have had (among several) that have confirmed to me the existence of God and the truth of the BoM.

These involved multiple witnesses who were not expecting the experience nor colluded in an outcome.

The LDS belief in personal revelation is a distinguishing characteristic of our religion, and here

it comes into question. I only know for certain what I have experienced, and the Moroni promise

figures into that. To call it a "feeling" is insufficient explanation. I have sought explanations from

the material world and from the antagonists in this thread, but have found none. I continue to

believe Moroni's promise is sufficient for my purposes in life, and I would recommend it to anyone

who asks.

Bernard

Edited July 5, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

And the connection to Moroni's promise? Since the promise has nothing to do with having faith in Christ, but believing that something is true.

LOL

That "something" is called "Another Testimony of Christ".

If I had not had a Moroni experience, I would not have a testimony of Christ. Who would believe such a legend unless God himself told you it was true?

[Log]

If I had not had a Moroni experience, I would not have a testimony of Christ. Who would believe such a legend unless God himself told you it was true?

And we would speak of our experiences in detail, but not here, not now, not in this context. We know by sad experience that casting one's pearls before swine gets one nowhere.

Suffice it to say that those who doubt that God actually answers prayers have not had any contact with Him, and are unfamiliar with his voice.

[zerinus]

Even for those who believe in God it can be used to say anything (subjective) is true.

Of course not. You are judging others by your own standard of unbelief. True believers know and trust God to be able to fulfil His promises. You obviously don’t. That is the difference. A good Christian tries to learn from the examples of faith, not follow the examples of unbelief.

And I trust my relationship with God/Christ as my experience matches what the Bible teaches.

It doesn't. That is not what the Bible teaches.

I believe in revelation that is supported by evidence (historical, scriptural).

Christ told Thomas to believe (based on the present physical evidence he presented). Your point?

I can only conclude that you don’t know your Bible. This is what Jesus said to Thomas:

John 20

:

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:

blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed

.

And the connection to Moroni's promise? Since the promise has nothing to do with having faith in Christ, but believing that something is true.

That just shows your unbelievable ignorance. This is what Moroni says:

Moroni 10

:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father,

in the name of Christ,

if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent,

having faith in Christ,

he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Some people are just ignorant, while others seem to consider ignorance to be a virtue! You appear anxious portray yourself in the latter category.

If LDS didn't try to define other peoples view of truth, why claim that the evangelical view is apostate? Sounds a lot like telling other people what is true and what isn't.

We certainly do tell other people what is true and what is not. We testify that we know that the LDS Church is true, that the Book of Mormon is scripture, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the priesthood has been restored. We also testify that there was an Apostasy of the early Christian Church, which has led you into the predicament that you now find yourself in.

We are not putting up with gratuitous insults. You are banned from the thread.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Minos

[LeSellers]

For some reason, this story seems appropriate.

When Albert Einstein wrote his doctoral dissertation (aIr), the professors were more than a bit miffed when he continusally referred to his own work as evidence supporting his hypotheis.

If it happens in science, why is it verboten in religion?

Lehi

[Montgomery Price]

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?

No one ever claimed these silly things. The question is whether we are justified in behaving as if it is objectively proven, as everyone seems to be doing and others neglect to admit. That is, behaving in a way that would only be reasonable if we were sure certain objective claims to truth were preferable over others as being literally true.

Before one can gain a personal testimony of religious claims they must act on faith.

According to what source independent of your faith? If you are suggesting that you must act on faith according to a source whose usefulness depends on your faith being a valid justification, then your method is dependent on circular logic.

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.

Again, these delineations are not self-evident. They came from somewhere. For what reason that is not in question should I trust that source and not others that provide similar suggestions that lead to different conclusions?

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.

Exactly. But it seems that to be reasonably secure in your belief, you require some sort of objective evaluation of the literal truths or objects your faith depends on.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

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

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. But unfortunately, this wasn't my exactly my objection. My objection was that I have observed that many conversions are reported to have presumed the test valid before the answer and the putative "answer" settles the question. They often never feel the need for any subsequent evaluation.

[Montgomery Price]

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).

But the suggestion that the BOM is true is the suggestion that certain incompatible claims to truth are false and that certain compatible claims to truth are not the most optimal paths to receiving the most preferred outcome, being Celestial Glory.

This all boils down to "since I can't see it" or "since it hasn't happened to me" or even "since it happened but I was convinced it didn't" therefore "it cannot have really happened to you".

Again, you're missing the point. It's not therefore "it cannot have really happened to you". It's therefore we have yet to find sufficient justification to believe it has happened. This is about the lack of justification for certain beliefs, not proving those beliefs to be objectively false. It's that we can't reasonably determine it's truth or falsehood.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[shalamabobbi]

The question is whether we are justified in behaving as if it is objectively proven, as everyone seems to be doing and others neglect to admit. That is, behaving in a way that would only be reasonable if we were sure certain objective claims to truth were preferable over others as being literally true.

First of all the behavior you are asking about is not outrageous behavior at all. We are asked to repent of our sins. And what is sin but that which we are individually convicted/convinced of to be wrong behavior to begin with. Therefore your objection carries no weight at all.

If you are simply refering to the act of asking God about the matter, the author of the test assumes this basic level of faith as a prerequisite, for otherwise it would be impossible to ask God if the reader doubts His existence. If that is where someone finds themself it might be more appropriate to shelve asking about the book of Mormon for the moment and asking directly whether there is a God. One does not need to commit to the outcome in order to inquire about it on a tentative basis.

I can ask the invisible pink unicorn whether he/she exists to see if there is one.

No one said I can't or shouldn't explore any and all competing claims to truth. All I can do is do the best with what I know and justice seems to dictate that that is all that can reasonably be required from me.

According to what source independent of your faith? If you are suggesting that you must act on faith according to a source whose usefulness depends on your faith being a valid justification, then your method is dependent on circular logic.

If I already know the answer I have no need to ask do I? The faith is not used to justify the answer it is used merely to make the inquiry. The answer stands or falls on its own merits.

Again, these delineations are not self-evident. They came from somewhere. For what reason that is not in question should I trust that source?

Romans 10:14-15

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach except they be sent?

I guess if you don't find the claim to be compelling you choose not to respond to it. No one is forcing anyone to make the inquiry are they? What does it matter whether or not you trust that source? If you trusted the source completely there would be no need to ask. That fact that you enquire about it means you are testing it to see whether it is true, whether it can be trusted.

Exactly. But it seems that to be reasonably secure in your belief, you require some sort of objective evaluation of the literal truths or objects your faith depends on.

Yes and no. I do the things the gospel directs me to do in a state of both faith and knowledge. It is a process of growth and along that path prior faith becomes confirmed as knowledge. Then I may take a greater step of faith from that new perspective. But I find confirmation along the way and yes some of it is objective in nature, and by objective I mean confirmed as being independent of something that could be explained away as simply being contained completely within my own mind.

[Montgomery Price]

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.

It has not been demonstrated that operational "truth" is relevant to my questions at all. Yes, I could have been more clear about what I meant by truth if I had known that many would make the same mistake of interpreting my argument with an irrelevant definition of truth. If which "truth" I was considering was supposedly not-so-clear (and I would argue that it was quite obvious), then this should have been corrected before the argument was interpreted and "refuted" by believers with the wrong definition in mind. I won't take all the blame for this confusion.

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).

This is relevant to my argument...

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").

...and this is not neccesairly relevant.

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").

...neither is this.

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").

...and neither is this.

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

It's great that you believe what you do about operational truths, but they're not necessarily in question. If you bring them up, I'll only point out, as has been ignored several times, that in order for your operational "truths" to be, in fact, "true" in the operational or "works for you" sense, they depend on certain claims to objective truth being true and others not. As the question I have asked repeatedly and has yet to be addressed demonstrates:

In what sense is attempting to gain Celestial Glory operationally "true" if there exists no such thing?

If you so insist to discuss operational truth, this is the only way I see it as relevant to my thread. Go begin a new thread if you like, but here it will only lead us back again to educational truth.

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.

We? What happened to the mandatory disclaimer that you do not speak for all the church or it's members? I know personally several Mormons, including my entire family, who I have confirmed would disagree with your statement that the word "know" and "truth" are not used in simply an subjective sense during the bearing of a testimony, but also in the objective sense.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "have confidence will occur in the hereafter" other than that your belief depends on the hereafter being a certain objective state of existence and you are therefore speaking in an objective sense?

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.

They're the wrong questions with the irrelevant interpretations in mind. You have yet to explain why my questions concerning educational or objective truth are the wrong questions.

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?

Has it sunk in yet that my argument is whether or not I am applying the correct tools of assessment, it is if the alternative tools you propose justify your behavior any better.

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.

Yes, it may be wise to expand our horizons for practical reasons, but whether the Mormonism is true is not a mere matter of practicality. Practicality is brought into question as Mormonism's objective truth is brought into question. My argument is that even if "one restricts oneself to objective truths and objective decision-making, then one will be rendered relatively dysfunctional", any alternative solution to the critical questions I've raised has yet to be offered. The discussion this far has been to interpret my argument in the most convenient and dismissable way by using the definitions of "truth" and "know" which are obviously irrelevant.

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

A similar test could. The difference being that your specifications, being a certain quantity and date, are objectively verifiable. The analogy serves to invalidate your own argument given that you would disagree that the "million dollars tomorrow" of Moroni's Promise can be objectively verified. And once corrected, the analogy also serves to support my argument given that any expected outcome, true or false, which cannot be objectively verified can be justified by personal spiritual experience, precisely because personal spiritual experience is not reasonable foundation for behaving as if what cannot be objectively verified actually is.

[Montgomery Price]

First of all the behavior you are asking about is not outrageous behavior at all. We are asked to repent of our sins. And what is sin but that which we are individually convicted/convinced of to be wrong behavior to begin with. Therefore your objection carries no weight at all.

I'm sorry... it seems you've completely misinterpreted what I was suggesting. You may feel that repenting of our sins is justified because you already accept what that behavior depends on, being a God that cares about and forgives sins, is objectively true. What you have failed to realize is that this dependency that justifies or invalidates the behavior is exactly what I was questioning in my last post. To claim my objection carries no weight so soon would be to apply circular reasoning.

If you are simply refering to the act of asking God about the matter, the author of the test assumes this basic level of faith as a prerequisite, for otherwise it would be impossible to ask God if the reader doubts His existence.

And what assumes the author of the test can be trusted? The suggestion that it would "be impossible to ask God if the reader doubts His existence" is a belief that depends on what is in question. There could very well exist a God that has no reservations revealing himself to those who ask in doubt. But even if we assume that the God that cannot be doubted in order to receive revelation exists, I have provided plenty reason to doubt and have yet to be be offered any good reason to dismiss doubt.

If I already know the answer I have no need to ask do I? The faith is not used to justify the answer it is used merely to make the inquiry. The answer stands or falls on its own merits.

It seems otherwise. Whether you know the answer is, again, what is in question. Just like whether a Muslim knows the answer is Allah in a similar way... or any other faith. Answer me this:

What, or who, defines the standard by which you determine the answer falls or stands on its own merits?

Could it happen to be again.... what is in question?

Romans 10:14-15

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach except they be sent?

I guess if you don't find the claim to be compelling you choose not to respond to it. No one is forcing anyone to make the inquiry are they? What does it matter whether or not you trust that source? If you trusted the source completely there would be no need to ask. That fact that you enquire about it means you are testing it to see whether it is true, whether it can be trusted.

Yes. If you trusted the source completely, there would be no need to ask. This is exactly the problem when you inquire in such a way as you have. That is, inquiring in a way defined by the source in question, and to evaluate your answer using only the standard defined by the source in question. The way you come about the method of inquiry and how to evaluate the answer is behaving as if you already completely trust the source completely. In what way have you doubted that Moroni's Promise is a valid test or that the answer of a burning bosom can actually tell you anything relevant about the objective truth claims Mormonism makes.

[Montgomery Price]

Mf,

Did you miss my last post directed towards you?

A response to post #348 would be appreciated.

And Pharoan,

Did you also miss my last post to you?

That post being #216.

[mfbukowski]

You say so much about your ignorance by belittling in this way, my friend....

I have to admit, I find your declaration, "Beware of Maya!" humorous. There is so much of the individual, and of maya, in your argument that it borders on self-blindness.

But perhaps by answering the question, "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 can show how this is not actually the case. Otherwise, your brand of pragmatism still seems to be all about you and separation from others, history, or context.

My current direction in discussion with MFB is to question the role that normalization would play in his argument since he seems to isolate everyone from one another and every "thing" in his attempt to claim pragmatism is the answer. I could see valid ways he could explain it with some conditions, but he is skittish about the discussion turning into a trap so he won't commit to anything. It's probably wise. Not very honest, but hey it works for him.

Upon reflection, I have decided to address this directly, since you are at least the second "critic" to have brought this up.

Frankly I am not sure that anyone here will understand this, because it is somewhat of an esoteric point about the nature of modern philosophy, I want to make the point whether or not anyone now gets it.

The reason I am here is because as an atheist, I was deeply into the philosophy of Pragmatism when I was introduced into the church, and was fascinated by the whole notion of revelation of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, and the more I read about it, the more I saw affinities with what I already believed.

I prayed about the BOM and got "Whupped upside the head" by a spiritual 2x4 that changed my life.

But the way I saw and see Mormonism doesn't always correspond with my vocabularies- though there is no aspect of Mormonism I do not believe to be "true" within its context. I do see the context in a non-traditional way, but I am confident that my context is a better way to see these issues, and if we did see these issues in a new vocablulary we would communicate better with humanists and atheists.

I am what Rorty would call an "ironist"- one who sees that the way we speak of ideas is all we have- that there are no "objects" independent of the way we see them- that we can talk about. This seems so clearly obvious to me that it is beyond my understanding how anyone could object to the idea.

I see it as an absolute tautology barely worth mentioning. The only way we can talk about things is by talking about things. Duh. The entire way we see the world and what is "real" is programmed into language; change the way we speak of things, and we change the world- literally.

Yet I am caught between the devil and the deep blue sea on this forum- because those on the "right" - Zerinus for sure, and others who consider themselves tradtional, "common sense" Mormons consider this sort of idea as nearly atheistic apostasy, while the advocates of Scientism here, like you Honorentheos, Elguantelko Tarski of old and others who really don't understand what an "ironist" possibly could be

You guys see me as some kind of "brain in a vat solipsist" which I am not even remotely, while the "common sense Mormons" see me as some kind of far out liberal with no common sense, and about to lose my testimony at any moment. Neither of these are true- I am just using words a little differently than either of you.

The problem is that I am trying - and my personal mission here- is to re-frame the way we use words like "subjective" and "objective" into a more philosophically sophisticated way, while yet remaining understandable to the traditionalists and the advocates of Scientism. The way we use words is the way we think, and that means that that is how we create our worlds. Vocabularies define reality, because we have nothing else but "talk". That view is barely questioned in philosophy yet it seems to be a revolutionary idea on this forum.

It is always difficult to use traditional language in different ways- it would be great to come up with new words, but then absolutely nobody would understand. This is the lot of AN Whitehead who is barely understood- but was clearly one of the greatest minds of our times. This is the problem of Process Theology as well- though we who understand it are growing in numbers, and I am firmly convinced that this paradigm shift is inevitable in Mormonism because it works so well for Mormons. But we who advocate a process point of view are still in the minority and barely understood.

I feel like the little mouse on the jungle floor watching the dinosaurs of traditional vocabularies battling it out above me, certain that mammals will eventually win out, but still concerned about getting squished in the battle of those who are clueless that I even exist.

So my use of language here is the issue- you have seen it as "dishonest". I am highly sensitive to that word because I am in the financial business and any mention of my name and the "d-word" in a world of google searches- could literally be seriously damaging to me. Of course I know you mean it in an intellectual context, but google is context-less and could give the wrong impression.

So I will strive to be more straight forward in what I mean, and I have to thank you and others for pointing that out to me. Perhaps it would be better to be more descriptive about this vocabulary business and address it directly in each post. What a drag. Oh well.

So to answer your question very directly, I do not believe there are "things" in the common-sense view- Dewey would call these "events" which are experiences we all share, and which exist in time. Things literally are our collective experience of them and how we speak of them.

So as in the Dewey quote, you are in a darkened room, in an unfamiliar house, and you hear an ominous scratching sound behind you. You are frightened- the hairs on the back of your neck rise- perhaps you utter something involuntarily- you scramble for a light switch, and, finding it, you turn on the light and find........ that a window is open and the scratching sound you heard was a window shade moving in the wind.

Was your scary experience "real"? Or were you mistaken that at that moment, your world was a very scary place?

Dewey would say that indeed your scary experience was "real" and that there was a change in your world when the light went on - in a sense, reality actually changed when your experience was re-defined in your mind as no longer "scary".

The maya reference, which obviously you did not get, was a reference to a similar view in Eastern philosophy which sees the world of things as "illusion" - which I do not believe- yet it sees things as dynamic and subject to change according to how they are collectively perceived.

I use arguments from authority perhaps more than I should, but in this world where it seems few are aware of these ideas, I need to reinforce that I am not the only one who believes this, and in fact that most philosophers do think this way, or are at least aware of this point of view are are reacting to it. Those would be the "realists" who are are going "back to the future" in reviving new forms of realism- the mere fact that realism now is a philosophical reaction to the view I am propounding should demonstrate that the view was and is widely held.

Edited July 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

I'm sorry... it seems you've completely misinterpreted what I was suggesting. You may feel that repenting of our sins is justified because you already accept what that behavior depends on, being a God that cares about and forgives sins, is objectively true. What you have failed to realize is that this dependency that justifies or invalidates the behavior is exactly what I was questioning in my last post. To claim my objection carries no weight so soon would be to apply circular reasoning.

I said we are individually convicted/convinced of wrong behavior to begin with. In other words we each have this sense of right and wrong written within us. It is not the result of reasoning. It is not the result of faith in some God. Some consider it the greatest evidence of the existence of God. Others declare it to be the result of evolutionary development. I see no conflict between those views. But if you want to state that this sense of right and wrong simply does not exist at all, well go put a gun to your mother and tell me how that goes..

And what assumes the author of the test can be trusted?

I answered this already. That assumption isn't being made. I can ask the pink unicorn if he/she exists. I don't have to believe in it prior to asking.

The suggestion that it would "be impossible to ask God if the reader doubts His existence" is a belief that depends on what is in question.

If you do not believe there is a God, how likely is it that you would ask Him anything? I distinguished between asking about the BOM and asking God directly whether He exists and is there.

There could very well exist a God that has no reservations revealing himself to those who ask in doubt.

The fact that you ask presumes some level of doubt does it not? Otherwise why ask?

What I referred to again was asking God about the BoM. If you do not believe that God exists you would not choose to ask of Him anything would you?

I have never asked the pink unicorn whether he/she exists and I would not bother to ask if a purported scripture came from it..

But even if we assume that the God that cannot be doubted in order to receive revelation exists

Again that is not the correct understanding of what I wrote..

I have provided plenty reason to doubt and have yet to be be offered any good reason to dismiss doubt.

Well it is against board rules to share testimonies on the forum. So if you are sincere this is not likely the place to obtain what you are looking for, if indeed you are looking for anything.

It seems otherwise. Whether you know the answer is, again, what is in question. Just like whether a Muslim knows the answer is Allah in a similar way... or any other faith. Answer me this:

What, or who, defines the standard by which you determine the answer falls or stands on its own merits?

Could it happen to be again.... what is in question?

No because if what is in question is not real then there is no answer. Who defines the standard is you yourself. Are you capable of trusting yourself and your own judgement?

Yes. If you trusted the source completely, there would be no need to ask. This is exactly the problem when you inquire in such a way as you have. That is, inquiring in a way defined by the source in question, and to evaluate your answer using only the standard defined by the source in question. The way you come about the method of inquiry and how to evaluate the answer is behaving as if you already completely trust the source completely. In what way have you doubted that Moroni's Promise is a valid test or that the answer of a burning bosom can actually tell you anything relevant about the objective truth claims Mormonism makes.

I stated that it is a journey a path that there is growth along that path. The answer initially may be a feeling from the spirit.

Later you may find greater witness as you continue. I find that the idea of what constitutes that testimony from those who object like yourself to be extremely naive. It is really much more than warm fuzzies.

[LeSellers]

No one is claiming scientific evidence when talking about history, "Historical evidences" yes.

"History" is a science, at least archeology is, and it "grabs" its inputs from all available sources, not just the proverbial dirt. Professor Jones, the one-time owner of a dog named "Indiana", reminded us that "X" never marks the spot, and that most archeology happens in the library, looking for what you call "historical evidences".

No one has proven that Jesus Christ lived. No one, that is, except Joseph Smith (and other Saints) who've seen Him in the past 191 years. "I saw two Personages ...", "This is the testimony, last of all, that He lives, for we have seen Him ...".

Otherwise, there is no serious evidence of His existence.

And I trust my relationship with God/Christ as my experience matches what the Bible teaches.

Your expereince may jibe with what you believe the Bible teaches, but it has been my observation that most Christians know a lot less about the Bible than they flatter themselves they do. What they know is what others have told them about it. It's not the same thing.

And no, subjective truths can't be proven or demonstrated objectively.

Indeed.

Then why do we Saints constantly receive the chiding seen 'round these here parts, about the "buring in the bosom" (as expressed by the two on the road to Emaus), that we should have to explain in concrete ways our testimonies. There are a host of Evangelicals (who are not alone, btw) who have a very obvious double standard in regard to this fundamental part of a Saint's spiritual existence.

Lehi

[Montgomery Price]

I said we are individually convicted/convinced of wrong behavior to begin with. In other words we each have this sense of right and wrong written within us. It is not the result of reasoning. It is not the result of faith in some God. Some consider it the greatest evidence of the existence of God. Others declare it to be the result of evolutionary development. I see no conflict between those views. But if you want to state that this sense of right and wrong simply does not exist at all, well go put a gun to your mother and tell me how that goes..

That we are convinced of those behaviors for whatever reason doesn't necessarily justify those behaviors. Their individual merit is to be considered, and you have yet to address my evaluation of the behavior commonly associated with the personal spiritual experience such as, but not limited to, Moroni's Promise.

I answered this already. That assumption isn't being made. I can ask the pink unicorn if he/she exists. I don't have to believe in it prior to asking.

The assumption isn't being made? Then you should have not problem explaining where the method of inquiry and standard of result evaluation you accept come from, if not from the source in question?

If you do not believe there is a God, how likely is it that you would ask Him anything? I distinguished between asking about the BOM and asking God directly whether He exists and is there.

I could very well ask something of a God that I don't believe in... it's just that I recognize I have no good reason to trust any answer I think I may receive.

The fact that you ask presumes some level of doubt does it not? Otherwise why ask?

What I referred to again was asking God about the BoM. If you do not believe that God exists you would not choose to ask of Him anything would you?

I have never asked the pink unicorn whether he/she exists and I would not bother to ask if a purported scripture came from it..

Are you suggesting that you have good reason to believe in a God that would create a universe in which Moroni's Promise is a valid test for the BOM? Are you suggesting that you have good reason to believe in a God that may or may not create a universe in which Moroni's Promise is a valid test for the BOM?

The distinction is critical.

If you believe the former, why inquire about the BOM if you already believe in a God that would make Moroni's Promise a valid test, and thus a God that would inspire the BOM?

If you believe the latter, how did you arrive at the conclusion that Moroni's Promise is a valid test without appealing to the God that you have yet to determine would make Moroni's Promise a valid test?

Or are you suggesting something else...

Again that is not the correct understanding of what I wrote..

Where did I go wrong?

No because if what is in question is not real then there is no answer.

Exactly. So, to be reasonably certain that there is an answer, you must have some reason to believe that what is in question exists. So, this brings us back to the two questions I just outlined above.

Who defines the standard is you yourself. Are you capable of trusting yourself and your own judgement?

I'm not questioning myself. My question was, "What, or who, defines the standard by which you determine the answer falls or stands on its own merits?"

I stated that it is a journey a path that there is growth along that path. The answer initially may be a feeling from the spirit.

Later you may find greater witness as you continue. I find that the idea of what constitutes that testimony from those who object like yourself to be extremely naive. It is really much more than warm fuzzies.

I never suggested it was only warm fuzzies. I understand that the process may be progressive and made in steps... but you have yet to justify any of those steps.

[Okrahomer]

Upon reflection, I have decided to address this directly, since you are at least the second "critic" to have brought this up.

Frankly I am not sure that anyone here will understand this, because it is somewhat of an esoteric point about the nature of modern philosophy, I want to make the point whether or not anyone now gets it.

The reason I am here is because as an atheist, I was deeply into the philosophy of Pragmatism when I was introduced into the church, and was fascinated by the whole notion of revelation of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, and the more I read about it, the more I saw affinities with what I already believed.

I prayed about the BOM and got "Whupped upside the head" by a spiritual 2x4 that changed my life.

But the way I saw and see Mormonism doesn't always correspond with my vocabularies- though there is no aspect of Mormonism I do not believe to be "true" within its context. I do see the context in a non-traditional way, but I am confident that my context is a better way to see these issues, and if we did see these issues in a new vocablulary we would communicate better with humanists and atheists.

I am what Rorty would call an "ironist"- one who sees that the way we speak of ideas is all we have- that there are no "objects" independent of the way we see them- that we can talk about. This seems so clearly obvious to me that it is beyond my understanding how anyone could object to the idea.

I see it as an absolute tautology barely worth mentioning. The only way we can talk about things is by talking about things. Duh. The entire way we see the world and what is "real" is programmed into language; change the way we speak of things, and we change the world- literally.

Yet I am caught between the devil and the deep blue sea on this forum- because those on the "right" - Zerinus for sure, and others who consider themselves tradtional, "common sense" Mormons consider this sort of idea as nearly atheistic apostasy, while the advocates of Scientism here, like you Honorentheos, Elguantelko Tarski of old and others who really don't understand what an "ironist" possibly could be

You guys see me as some kind of "brain in a vat solipsist" which I am not even remotely, while the "common sense Mormons" see me as some kind of far out liberal with no common sense, and about to lose my testimony at any moment. Neither of these are true- I am just using words a little differently than either of you.

The problem is that I am trying - and my personal mission here- is to re-frame the way we use words like "subjective" and "objective" into a more philosophically sophisticated way, while yet remaining understandable to the traditionalists and the advocates of Scientism. The way we use words is the way we think, and that means that that is how we create our worlds. Vocabularies define reality, because we have nothing else but "talk". That view is barely questioned in philosophy yet it seems to be a revolutionary idea on this forum.

It is always difficult to use traditional language in different ways- it would be great to come up with new words, but then absolutely nobody would understand. This is the lot of AN Whitehead who is barely understood- but was clearly one of the greatest minds of our times. This is the problem of Process Theology as well- though we who understand it are growing in numbers, and I am firmly convinced that this paradigm shift is inevitable in Mormonism because it works so well for Mormons. But we who advocate a process point of view are still in the minority and barely understood.

I feel like the little mouse on the jungle floor watching the dinosaurs of traditional vocabularies battling it out above me, certain that mammals will eventually win out, but still concerned about getting squished in the battle of those who are clueless that I even exist.

So my use of language here is the issue- you have seen it as "dishonest". I am highly sensitive to that word because I am in the financial business and any mention of my name and the "d-word" in a world of google searches- could literally be seriously damaging to me. Of course I know you mean it in an intellectual context, but google is context-less and could give the wrong impression.

So I will strive to be more straight forward in what I mean, and I have to thank you and others for pointing that out to me. Perhaps it would be better to be more descriptive about this vocabulary business and address it directly in each post. What a drag. Oh well.

So to answer your question very directly, I do not believe there are "things" in the common-sense view- Dewey would call these "events" which are experiences we all share, and which exist in time. Things literally are our collective experience of them and how we speak of them.

So as in the Dewey quote, you are in a darkened room, in an unfamiliar house, and you hear an ominous scratching sound behind you. You are frightened- the hairs on the back of your neck rise- perhaps you utter something involuntarily- you scramble for a light switch, and, finding it, you turn on the light and find........ that a window is open and the scratching sound you heard was a window shade moving in the wind.

Was your scary experience "real"? Or were you mistaken that at that moment, your world was a very scary place?

Dewey would say that indeed your scary experience was "real" and that there was a change in your world when the light went on - in a sense, reality actually changed when your experience was re-defined in your mind as no longer "scary".

The maya reference, which obviously you did not get, was a reference to a similar view in Eastern philosophy which sees the world of things as "illusion" - which I do not believe- yet it sees things as dynamic and subject to change according to how they are collectively perceived.

I use arguments from authority perhaps more than I should, but in this world where it seems few are aware of these ideas, I need to reinforce that I am not the only one who believes this, and in fact that most philosophers do think this way, or are at least aware of this point of view are are reacting to it. Those would be the "realists" who are are going "back to the future" in reviving new forms of realism- the mere fact that realism now is a philosophical reaction to the view I am propounding should demonstrate that the view was and is widely held.

I want to thank you for this explanation. It makes sense to me and expresses (better than I ever could) what have always "felt" like built-in inadequacies of vocabulary and language.

[mfbukowski]

I want to thank you for this explanation. It makes sense to me and expresses (better than I ever could) what have always "felt" like built-in inadequacies of vocabulary and language.

Thanks!

I needed that!

It is my belief that we can talk about what we can talk about- but that is quite limited. Some would agree with the idea, others would not, but I think there is a non-verbal component of experience. This is what Wittgenstein would call the "unspeakable"- that feeling of fear mentioned in that earlier post- that moment (or longer) of what Dewey calls "naive realism" that H asked about- it is raw experience, the sometimes gut wrenching, sometimes sublime direct apprehension of spiritual experience.

THAT is the problem of this entire thread; we are trying to speak of what is unspeakable to people who ignore the "reality" of such direct experience.

Yet if you would put them in the situation- walking down a country road, with dense undergrowth on both sides, in the middle of the night alone (since they ignore the sublime, I am using another powerful emotion- fear) and then suddenly hearing running footsteps coming up behind you nearly simultaneous with a loud unknown sound and a hand being put on your shoulder, their reactions would belie the notion that "subjective experiences are not real".

They would scream and lash out like any of the rest of us. One need not verbalize or analyze such experiences to know they are "real".

At that moment, the experience has not revealed itself fully, and they would be in the same position we all are who have received a sublime manifestation of some kind.

Suppose we could stop time- and draw it out for a discussion, as we have effectively done here- those of us who are believers are still waiting for the resolution of our experiences- and the resolution will not happen until we meet God.

But suppose we could stop time on that country road.

Was the experience "real"? Are we about to be stabbed in the back, or some other disastrous consequence- or is it our stupid brother scaring us as a prank, or are we about to wake up safe in bed after a night mare? We don't know.

But can we analyze the experience and look at the probabilities of either consequence and come up with a "reasonable hypothesis"? At the moment, that would be difficult, but having stopped time, we would have a lifetime to figure out what will happen "when the movie resumes". But do such things "exist"? Do dreams "exist"? In this context does a discussion of "existence" even matter? All we know is that we have had an experience, waking or not, and at some point we will have to act on that experience or NOT act on it. Yet our action or non- action NOW, during our discussion, will have consequences for the final resolution.

Was the experience real or not, and how should we react? Either way, we had better choose wisely!

Edited July 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

That we are convinced of those behaviors for whatever reason doesn't necessarily justify those behaviors. Their individual merit is to be considered

Based upon what?? Are you not back to what you are objecting about in the first place?

you have yet to address my evaluation of the behavior commonly associated with the personal spiritual experience such as, but not limited to, Moroni's Promise.

Again why should I trust your take? It seems the circle is getting larger in your circular reasoning problem..

The assumption isn't being made? Then you should have no problem explaining where the method of inquiry and standard of result evaluation you accept come from, if not from the source in question?

Why would that matter? The problem would arise if the answer came from something other than the source in question. Why would an answer come at all if there were no source?

I could very well ask something of a God that I don't believe in... it's just that I recognize I have no good reason to trust any answer I think I may receive.

Why would you receive an answer if there were no source? As far as trusting that source, that would be difficult to assess without having the answer to evaluate first.

No because if what is in question is not real then there is no answer.

Exactly. So, to be reasonably certain that there is an answer, you must have some reason to believe that what is in question exists. So, this brings us back to the two questions I just outlined above.

Since this in your view is the same as the two questions above I'll remain with this.

First,

you must have some reason to believe that what is in question exists.

Certainly. You must be exposed to the idea before you can respond to it in some fashion.

So, to be reasonably certain that there is an answer, you must have some reason to believe that what is in question exists.

To be reasonably certain there is an answer? If the answer is uncertain, how then is it an answer?

I'm not questioning myself. My question was, "What, or who, defines the standard by which you determine the answer falls or stands on its own merits?"

I do if I am the one taking the test. You do if you are the one taking the test.

We each decide what is/is not compelling for ourselves. There is no one size fits all objective sieve through which we each can each filter our questions and answers.

I never suggested it was only warm fuzzies. I understand that the process may be progressive and made in steps... but you have yet to justify any of those steps.

To who??

Now back to what was passed over..

Are you suggesting that you have good reason to believe in a God that would create a universe in which Moroni's Promise is a valid test for the BOM? Are you suggesting that you have good reason to believe in a God that may or may not create a universe in which Moroni's Promise is a valid test for the BOM?

The distinction is critical.

Neither. I was a casual atheist prior to becoming a mormon.

If you believe the former, why inquire about the BOM if you already believe in a God that would make Moroni's Promise a valid test, and thus a God that would inspire the BOM?

If you believe the latter, how did you arrive at the conclusion that Moroni's Promise is a valid test without appealing to the God that you have yet to determine would make Moroni's Promise a valid test?

Or are you suggesting something else...

I am suggesting that I had no reason to believe there was a God of any sort. That someone shared a testimony planted the idea that perhaps there could be. That that was a sufficient base upon which to inquire for myself. The result of the inquiry I judged for myself.

I never suggested it was only warm fuzzies. I understand that the process may be progressive and made in steps... but you have yet to justify any of those steps.

Justify to who??

Edited July 5, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[mfbukowski]

Last shot:

Rorty himself teaching about James "Varieties"- it's a brilliant summation of the literature. This guy has one of the most amazing brains ever imo- he has phenomenal ability to categorize and understand arguments and put together associations between philosophers no one else can see.

A bit esoteric perhaps for the layman, but at least you will get the flavor of the nature of the argument and point of view of Pragmatism, from, arguably, one of it's "maverick" members; remember Rorty is himself an atheist- in my opinion due to his lack of understanding of the importance of an uncontingent self- or what part of the self is not contingent, but that is for another time.

I'd recommend the whole series, but I think this one- number 3- speaks directly to what this thread is about. Of course the beginning is a little rough because we are coming in pretty much mid-sentence and it takes a second to get the drift of what he is talking about-

[Hughes]

A couple of critical errors there:

Mornoni's promise has to do with discerning the truth of the Book of Mormon records which testify of Christ. It also has to do with discerning the truth of all things. Pair that up with the belief that God is truth and you have a pretty tight connection between Moroni's promise and a testimony of Jesus Christ.

LDS don't try to define truth for anyone else. We offer our own understanding of God's doctrines and invite others to participate. Our view that other denominations are incorrect is an par with every other religion that exists other than perhaps the Unitarians and some liberal Methodists. I don't know many Mormons who hang out on Christian sites and have the gall to tell them they are incorrect using erronious assumptions about their beliefs as evidence. On the other hand there are some pretty active "Mormon ministries" that do this full time. I suspect you may have been duped by one of them. If you are still upset about the line in the Joseph Smith history you really could let that go. It's been 190 years.

In addition you really ought to study what the LDS mean by apostate. As a Mormon I've never told anyone they are going to h*** because of their beliefs or any missing pieces in their otherwise correct Christian doctrines and tradition. Evangelicals have not been so charitable with me and mine. Remind me to tell you about the charming incident where my wife was told she was carrying the spawn of Satan by an old friend who learned she was LDS.

As my signature says - please ask me what I believe before telling me what I believe.

And not many christian churches are as committed to going door to door to tell people that their religion is the true one (and by implication, everyone else's religion is false) as the LDS church.

Which, if I understand correctly, is the point of the OP. We now have divergent claims to truth, and both

cannot be right. The question posed by the OP is, how can one be sure his chosen path is the correct one?

But even two people who supposedly are in the same path will perceive it differently. So which of them

has the correct view of the true path?

There is quite a difference from different perspectives on the same path, and completely different paths.

For example, If truth can be discovered without reference to anything else (ie Moroni's promise), then as I said, anything can be claimed to be true, and nothing about those claims can be discredited, since they are completely subjective.

LOL

That "something" is called "Another Testimony of Christ".

If I had not had a Moroni experience, I would not have a testimony of Christ. Who would believe such a legend unless God himself told you it was true?

You are correct, that is what it is called.

I don't refer to true history as a legend.

"History" is a science, at least archeology is, and it "grabs" its inputs from all available sources, not just the proverbial dirt. Professor Jones, the one-time owner of a dog named "Indiana", reminded us that "X" never marks the spot, and that most archeology happens in the library, looking for what you call "historical evidences".

No one has proven that Jesus Christ lived. No one, that is, except Joseph Smith (and other Saints) who've seen Him in the past 191 years. "I saw two Personages ...", "This is the testimony, last of all, that He lives, for we have seen Him ...".

Otherwise, there is no serious evidence of His existence.

Your expereince may jibe with what you believe the Bible teaches, but it has been my observation that most Christians know a lot less about the Bible than they flatter themselves they do. What they know is what others have told them about it. It's not the same thing.

Indeed.

Then why do we Saints constantly receive the chiding seen 'round these here parts, about the "buring in the bosom" (as expressed by the two on the road to Emaus), that we should have to explain in concrete ways our testimonies. There are a host of Evangelicals (who are not alone, btw) who have a very obvious double standard in regard to this fundamental part of a Saint's spiritual existence.

Lehi

Science depends on observation and repetition. Since history can't be repeated, it's observations aren't repeated either. So, we are left with historical evidence, by which we formulate what we understand to have actually happened.

In the case of "Did Jesus Christ Live?" I would surmise that not a large percentage of even the skeptics of Christianity would say that he never lived.

Your last paragraph has the most to do with this topic. And why is it that people would question such a subjective way of discovering truth? Why would that be? Could it be that most of truth that is discovered in this life isn't by way of subjective tests?

And for the two on the road to Emaus, it wasn't "Pray and you will know by the burning in your bosom..." No, It was, "wow, his words really made us excited!"

Edited July 5, 2011 by Hughes

[TAO]

Hehe, mfb... believe it or not, I have a somewhat similar philosophy myself =).

For me... nothing is... persay... 'real'. What I mean by that, is it is impossible for me to determine what is 'reality' and what is 'not'. Actually - it is impossible for us all, technically. SO my philosophy is to just go with life as it gives me... exploring new things... and above all, not letting the restraints others put on me bother me. I will dare to test the limits of things, new ideas. For me, ideas have a certain sense of 'solidity'... but they are on a relative scale... certain ideas are very solid... certain not so much. When I experience an idea of fantastic solidity, it makes all the other ideas feel much less solid when I visit them... despite me having thought they were solid before. Thus, I remain on what I see as the safest possible platform (idea-wise) that I can have without falling off, always seeking for newer safer platforms.

Very weird, and an abstract way of putting it... but hopefully you get it =).

Best Wishes,

TAO