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

[Honorentheos]

this whole survey thing is an irrelevant question to this thread.

Agreed. We should be able to no longer talk about how many are with us or against us. Let's stick to the discussion topic and not drop names.

My point though is that I think that LDS theology is, as everyone acknowledges, practically non-existent precisely because it has not been given a "voice" - a "vocabulary" from which it can take flight, because we ourselves have been stuck in the vocabulary of the Platonists- largely because of apologetics. We only fight Neoplatonism with more Neoplatonism which imo is ultimately a mistake. Further, I feel that there are not enough of us educated in Pragmatism to really "get" its potential to define Mormon thought. Certainly there are enough who do- Paulsen is certainly one of those, and others, and I have shown references to Pragmatism and Mormonism before which show conclusively that some do definitely "get" the connection- and I think it is just a matter of time until it becomes fully acknowledged that we are still thinking in Catholic terms, much as the Christians in 180 AD were still thinking in Hebrew terms and just discovering Neoplatonism. After all, we are only 180 years old as a religion, and have not yet found our philosophical/theological voice.

What I said in the "missing post" was that Dewey's "Reconstruction in Philosophy" could very well be seen as a beginning to that vocabulary- that in a sense, his "Reconstruction" indeed parallels the LDS "Restoration".

But that is for another discussion.

Actually, I found this interesting and appreciated the expression of your own thoughts on the subject, MFB. I have no argument against it, and would be interested to see how this unfolds over time.

Cable TV? Really?

Well I think that was perhaps a bad choice for you to bring up as a "Thing" since clearly it is a "service" and as such is definitely not something which "exists" in a Neoplatonic way as a "rock" or an "apple", but clearly experiencing it as a service only makes sense for those who have that service.

My personal experience of cable tv is rather limited since I am a skinflint and would never pay money for TV which I nearly never watch- and my kids argue about the channels we already have- so I don't see the utility of it.

Cable TV = Gospel, or exhaltation, etc. One could argue it isn't a stretch to say it could equal a place like the celestial kingdom for the purposes of this discussion.

Clear enough why I chose it?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

But I would say that "cable tv" wouldn't make much sense to someone who was born in 950 BC in New Guinea.

I am supremely curious with where you are taking this, and how it is relevant.

IN fairness to you, I'll explain a bit more in the hopes that you will answer the earlier question about how selective the collective is that led to your definition of the thing, "celestial kingdom" for example. Or basically anything defined within Mormonism.

You hit directly on one of the reasons I choose cable tv - there is a clear point in human history where the term would have no meaning, or atleast none that is reflected in our understanding of it today. Whether we call it a service or a thing, since we are not talking about neoplatonic forms it would be irrelevant since like the broom handle, it is defined by it's utility, not by it's substance. I believe you made a similar point earlier. An apple is an apple not because of some external apple, but because of how we relate to the thing apple.

So with cable tv, we can clearly see that there is no way the full spectrum of humanity through all time could be included in the collective experience of cable tv in order for us to believe there is such a thing and that it has some real meaning in our lives.

There are people alive today who have no idea what it means either. But even more importantly, it is highly subjective as a term. To you or me, it could mean very different things. To a person living in Australia the concept cable tv could be even more diverse.

What we understand by this term is highly unique and I suspect very subjectively defined. The subset collective that helped define this thing will probably vary quite a bit from person to person, and more so from region to region.

But if we take something like the moon we are likely to find more commonality between our collective and others. Its very likely that most of humanity had some experience with the moon. Yet even still, it is not shared experience that will help us define the moon in some universal way. We could debate if certain properties will be very common such as the ones we would call physical properties. Yet there are non-physical aspects about the moon that will be very divergent. I hope we can agree on that without argument.

With that, I am asking you to explain how you set the limit on the collective that helps define the concepts of Mormonism? I think that a person could summarize MP's question into how you limit the collective that defines the celestial kingdom?

Thanks.

[Montgomery Price]

If I feel that something is wrong behaviorally, why do I need any justification for that perception? If I can't trust my own perception in the matter how can I trust anyone else's? And if I can't trust anyone else's how can I trust a majority vote on the matter?

Convictions are written inside of us. If I act contrary to those convictions what will I offer as justification for doing so if as you point out the justification is slim to begin with?

Also I have corroboration from the experiences of others concerning bad choices and consequences attending those choices.

What I mean is that the expectations which shape behavior can be mistaken. If you are mistaken in the belief that Celestial Glory exists, then to behave in a way that presumes Celestial Glory is "wrong" in the sense that you are wrong to expect Celestial Glory. So when I speak of the evaluation of certain truth claims based on their individual merit, I mean why do you expect the Celestial Kingdom instead of other possibilities? What justifies the preference of that truth claim over others?

With respect to various extant religions I can investigate them myself to see if the truth claims have any validity. But my perception is my reality in the matter. I can't replace it with someone else's perception. I can't pretend I don't have my perception either. That IS who I am.

That you made the evaluation was already implied in my question.

Ah a conflict of interest. Is that it? Since God is the source of the answer how can I trust Him to tell the truth about Himself?

How can we put God to the test? How can we be certain He is reliable and good?

How indeed? We are back to personal perceptions of the experience and all things associated with it. All I can say is it is the same perception that distinguishes between right and wrong within me to begin with. Again that is all I have. That is what I am.

No. You've missed the point again. I wasn't granting that the source in question actually exists. The source is in question. The error in logic I was suggesting was begging the question.

Again I am free to investigate those claims for myself and determine their relative strength and merit. There is also another viewpoint you are ignoring. That is the one where all these other truths are partial but lay in the same direction. If we use the analogy that a mountain represents the truth, then various religions may ascend partway up the slope to varying heights. So rather than the existence of major contradictions we have various degrees of perception of that one reality.

I wasn't asking whether you are free to investigate the claims. That was already implied in my question that you've evaded.

Also, I never ignored the mountain viewpoint because it was never raised in our conversation until now. It in fact doesn't solve the problem you think it does for two reasons. The first being that even if there are several paths up the mountain, Mormonism holds that certain paths are preferable to others. The issue of competing paths is not solved by positing this sort of view because it still fails to justify the revealed straight and narrow path over others.

Second, the truth mountain view is simply an option among many incompatible views. What reason is there to prefer this view over non-mountain like truths?

Very few if any that I have personally met. Witness Hughes in this thread denying prayer as the means to where he has gotten himself. So no I don't believe that various answers that are contradictory are being handed out in general.

Then how do you explain the convictions of believers of faiths who have received answers which are not the most preferable path up the mountain?

Again by my perception for that IS who I am. To do otherwise would be to deny everything about my experience as an individual.

And again, my question already accepts that you judge based on your perception... And to do otherwise doesn't require that you "deny everything". If my perception that the Earth is flat is mistaken, I need not "deny everything about my experience as an individual".

Not true. Now you are telling me what my experience was??

You're still thinking in the wrong context. You're misinterpreting nearly all of my questions...

When I said, "you must have some reason to believe that what is in question exists", I meant that you must have some reason to expect Celestial Glory if you are behaving in a way that presumes Celestial Glory exists.

So when you said, "You must be exposed to the idea before you can respond to it in some fashion", I was simply pointing out that being exposed to the idea that Celestial Glory exists is insufficient to justify pursuit thereof. Someone pursues something after they are convinced of it, not simply after they've been exposed to the idea.

Not quite. The presumptions are nothing of the sort. I never presumed anything at all except to give it a try.

Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose a friend tells you that he knows that a certain one armed bandit in Vegas is ready to payout. Maybe he is someone who participates in the programming of the machines. Really how he claims to know is irrelevant. You decide it is only a buck so what the heck, why not, you give it a shot. You pull the arm and the payout happens as you were told it would. If you find out that the friend was talking out of his arse does it change the reality of the payout? Is not the reality that the machine was about to payout a reality independent of the assumptions if any leading to the pull of the arm?

Likewise the experience obtained when approaching God in prayer is a real experience independent of whatever led you to give it a try.

To add to the analogy. whether the payout was made of counterfeit coins is still a possibility even after you've received them. You can't simply presume that the coins are real, so what reason do you have to believe they are besides your friend has told you so?

That carries about as much weight as me asserting to you that what you think you did yesterday, you can't be certain of, so why act as though it really happened.

I can be reasonably certain of many things, and less certain of others. Things normally labeled as supernatural fall into the later category.

Since I have come to accept that my internal sense of what is right and wrong was placed there by God, no the standard is not nor can it be independent from the source in question.

Then how do you explain the conviction of others who believe their god-given sense of right and wrong has declared Mormonism wrong and incompatible faiths right?

Could we? How would that work exactly. I trade my perceptions for yours? Or ours together?

We simply compare descriptions. If you don't believe it can be adequately described, then this still doesn't solve the problem. That you can't adequately describe an experience doesn't make it more trustworthy. Many people report indescribable experiences that lead them to conclusions incompatible with your own. This means that the source of an indescribable experience can be mistaken. What about your experience leaves you certain that you have the correct interpretation and the others with indescribable experiences are mistaken?

You are asking for my testimony and experience of 40+ years. Results over the last 40+ years. It is not a single one time experience I am discussing. And it is over less compatible conclusions rather than incompatible conclusions. I don't believe the contradictions as you've expressed.

If you think it's a waste of time, then don't bother.

[mfbukowski]

IN fairness to you, I'll explain a bit more in the hopes that you will answer the earlier question about how selective the collective is that led to your definition of the thing, "celestial kingdom" for example. Or basically anything defined within Mormonism.

You hit directly on one of the reasons I choose cable tv - there is a clear point in human history where the term would have no meaning, or atleast none that is reflected in our understanding of it today. Whether we call it a service or a thing, since we are not talking about neoplatonic forms it would be irrelevant since like the broom handle, it is defined by it's utility, not by it's substance. I believe you made a similar point earlier. An apple is an apple not because of some external apple, but because of how we relate to the thing apple.

So with cable tv, we can clearly see that there is no way the full spectrum of humanity through all time could be included in the collective experience of cable tv in order for us to believe there is such a thing and that it has some real meaning in our lives.

There are people alive today who have no idea what it means either. But even more importantly, it is highly subjective as a term. To you or me, it could mean very different things. To a person living in Australia the concept cable tv could be even more diverse.

What we understand by this term is highly unique and I suspect very subjectively defined. The subset collective that helped define this thing will probably vary quite a bit from person to person, and more so from region to region.

But if we take something like the moon we are likely to find more commonality between our collective and others. Its very likely that most of humanity had some experience with the moon. Yet even still, it is not shared experience that will help us define the moon in some universal way. We could debate if certain properties will be very common such as the ones we would call physical properties. Yet there are non-physical aspects about the moon that will be very divergent. I hope we can agree on that without argument.

With that, I am asking you to explain how you set the limit on the collective that helps define the concepts of Mormonism? I think that a person could summarize MP's question into how you limit the collective that defines the celestial kingdom?

Thanks.

There doesn't exist, nor is there any need for, a universal common vocabulary- indeed vocabularies are of course language specific. So each individual has made his own personal definitions, and Spanish definitions may be closer to each other than English definitions or not depending on the person.

Certainly LDS people will understand each other better than Evangelicals and believers in scientism will understand LDS people- there is almost infinite variation impossible. You see your house differently than I would see your house- to you it is "home"- and maybe you would notice the rose bush that you have been meaning to trim, where I would not even notice it. Your experience of your house is different than my experience of your house.

"Limiting the collective" if I understand what you mean correctly, doesn't have much to do with the fact that when we talk about "things" we do so with words, and can only talk about what we mutually understand- what we have similar experiences of.

This thread in itself should totally prove that. We are speaking different languages- different vocabularies, and we experience the world differently.

[mfbukowski]

Another quote regarding Dewey's Reconstruction in Philosophy and the nature of scientific certainty:

Philosophy 170 Course Notes

Reconstruction in Philosophy

Copyright 1999-2000 by Tad Beckman, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

....The fundamental problem in philosophy, in Dewey's view, is the attempt (whether conscious or unconscious) to restore the security of absolutism that is a regular trait of all antiquated mythic tradition. Mythic traditions were modernized and carried forward in the major religious systems. As religious skepticism and reformation occurred, moral, social, and political content had to be defined and defended in new ways and metaphysical systems were created to carry that burden. These systems simply installed new kinds of absolute concepts and essences; the security of moral sentiments seemed in tact. The modern reconstruction of philosophy begins in Kant's attack against metaphysics but Kant's work continues the absolutist past through its heavy emphasis on "pure reason" and his concepts of a priori synthetic knowledge, that is, necessary knowledge about the world. Alas, in the end, Dewey believes, we must give up all of these devices of absolutism, certainty, and security. The issue for humans is the exercise of intelligence and not the need to be wired into any system of absolute reality or truth. Human experience is in process. Thought and action are constants within that process. How do we make the most intelligent use of these?

(Underlining added)

So I see MP's undying quest for absolute certainty as completely symptomatic of precisely what is being questioned here.

His quest for that certainty is an illusion, because all he will find is human experience at its base anyway- and he will be leaving out the most important parts of human experience.

Oh and I know that the question will come up that "But Mormons believe in absolute truth!" because it always does.

No, in fact we don't. Yes some General Authorities have spoken as if we do, but the reality is that we believe in ongoing revelation- human experience- which always trumps "absolute truth".

If we believe in ongoing revelation, an open canon, and a God who progresses and changes, and hears and answers his children's prayers, and indeed interacts with them, we cannot believe in "absolute unchanging truth"- the two ideas are incompatible.

What we believe in is the reality of these changes- which means the reality of human experience as we experience it, including spiritual experience.

THAT must become the basis of our doctrine consciously as it already is unconsciously- that is why I believe that Pragmatism or some form of it will eventually win the day in LDS theology. Neoplatonism and the vocabulary of "absolute truth" is just plain incompatible with Mormonism

What Montgomery is seeking is absolute truth, before he believes. That is putting the cart before the horse because he will never find absolute truth anyway.

We live in an uncertain world- we just have to take what we have and use it to the best of our abilities- that attitude itself is the core of Pragmatism.

[mfbukowski]

Another quote regarding Dewey's Reconstruction in Philosophy and the nature of scientific certainty:

http://www4.hmc.edu:...onstruction.htm

Philosophy 170 Course Notes

Reconstruction in Philosophy

Copyright 1999-2000 by Tad Beckman, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

.....One should note, incidentally, that this question was no mere invention of American Pragmatists. Soren Kierkegaard had already posed similar questions in the first half of the 19^th Century; and Friedrich Nietzsche made the point resoundingly clear in the second half of the Century through pointed criticisms of traditional philosophers and strong suggestions regarding the need of "free spirits" and "noble minds" of the future. In the first half of the 20^th Century, Martin Heidegger refused to call his work "philosophy" as such and made reference, instead, to "questioning" and "thinking." The 20^th Century's greatest philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, equally well de-constructed philosophy and produced radically different ways toward thinking through traditional issues. Wittgenstein compared philosophy to the scaffolding needed to construct a building and suggested that scaffolding must be pulled down after construction is over.

Taking an historical point of view, it becomes clear that science also suffered a developmental pattern similar to philosophy. The difference lies in the fact that science proceeded through a revolutionary transformation from the 16^th through the 17^th Century. We see this transformation in the scientific approaches of Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton; their philosophical counterparts are in Bacon, Descartes, and Locke. The re-orientation of science from Scholastic demonstration to observational experimentation produced the Modern world as we know it. Science continued, indeed accelerated, its growth as a powerful gatherer of new knowledge about the natural world. Philosophy developed new concepts to rationalize the progress of science...

....The fundamental problem in philosophy, in Dewey's view, is the attempt (whether conscious or unconscious) to restore the security of absolutism that is a regular trait of all antiquated mythic tradition. Mythic traditions were modernized and carried forward in the major religious systems. As religious skepticism and reformation occurred, moral, social, and political content had to be defined and defended in new ways and metaphysical systems were created to carry that burden. These systems simply installed new kinds of absolute concepts and essences; the security of moral sentiments seemed in tact. The modern reconstruction of philosophy begins in Kant's attack against metaphysics but Kant's work continues the absolutist past through its heavy emphasis on "pure reason" and his concepts of a priori synthetic knowledge, that is, necessary knowledge about the world. Alas, in the end, Dewey believes, we must give up all of these devices of absolutism, certainty, and security. The issue for humans is the exercise of intelligence and not the need to be wired into any system of absolute reality or truth. Human experience is in process. Thought and action are constants within that process. How do we make the most intelligent use of these?

(Underlining added)

So I see MP's undying quest for absolute certainty as completely symptomatic of precisely what is being questioned here.

His quest for that certainty is an illusion, because all he will find is human experience at its base anyway- and he will be leaving out the most important parts of human experience.

Oh and I know that the question will come up that "But Mormons believe in absolute truth!" because it always does.

No, in fact we don't. Yes some General Authorities have spoken as if we do, but the reality is that we believe in ongoing revelation- human experience- which always trumps "absolute truth".

If we believe in ongoing revelation, an open canon, and a God who progresses and changes, and hears and answers his children's prayers, and indeed interacts with them, we cannot believe in "absolute unchanging truth"- the two ideas are incompatible.

What we believe in is the reality of these changes- which means the reality of human experience as we experience it, including spiritual experience.

THAT must become the basis of our doctrine consciously as it already is unconsciously- that is why I believe that Pragmatism or some form of it will eventually win the day in LDS theology. Neoplatonism and the vocabulary of "absolute truth" is just plain incompatible with Mormonism

What Montgomery is seeking is absolute truth, before he believes. That is putting the cart before the horse because he will never find absolute truth anyway.

We live in an uncertain world- we just have to take what we have and use it to the best of our abilities- that attitude itself is the core of Pragmatism.

Edited July 9, 2011 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

What I mean is that the expectations which shape behavior can be mistaken. If you are mistaken in the belief that Celestial Glory exists, then to behave in a way that presumes Celestial Glory is "wrong" in the sense that you are wrong to expect Celestial Glory. So when I speak of the evaluation of certain truth claims based on their individual merit, I mean why do you expect the Celestial Kingdom instead of other possibilities? What justifies the preference of that truth claim over others?

What I am trying to communicate is the principal that finding God is the process of getting into harmony with that voice inside us that speaks to us of right and wrong. That changing personal behavior at that level is the key to moving forward (that and prayer or inquiry) spiritually in personal knowledge of God. If I harmonize my behavior with that voice instead of simply rationalizing it away I learn two things. One, that the change in behavior works, it makes sense, I am happier without those things in my life which before I thought I could not live without. And two, that that voice speaks to more than my personal behavior. It begins to apply to things it did not previously and by continuing to follow that voice I am led to discover new truths.

No. You've missed the point again. I wasn't granting that the source in question actually exists. The source is in question. The error in logic I was suggesting was begging the question.

The error you are making in my view is assuming that scientism and logic apply to this at all. Point that gun at your mother. What holds you back? Is it reason and logic? Really?

Also, I never ignored the mountain viewpoint because it was never raised in our conversation until now. It in fact doesn't solve the problem you think it does for two reasons. The first being that even if there are several paths up the mountain, Mormonism holds that certain paths are preferable to others. The issue of competing paths is not solved by positing this sort of view because it still fails to justify the revealed straight and narrow path over others.

It solves the problem of there being one source of true inspiration that can and does function in the lives of everyone. That what is important is not so much where one is at, on an absolute scale, but rather the direction in which they are moving or whether they are moving at all. All that is expected is that we are doing the best we can with what we've been given. Everyone isn't given the same knowledge.

And again, my question already accepts that you judge based on your perception... And to do otherwise doesn't require that you "deny everything". If my perception that the Earth is flat is mistaken, I need not "deny everything about my experience as an individual".

I cannot act other than on how I perceive. I use that word to try to communicate about spiritual matters but it is lacking.

If I perceive the earth to be flat then it is flat until I perceive otherwise.

If someone would instruct me that it is not flat what do I do? Do I ask how they know and investigate and explore? Or do I refuse to do anything until I can determine the validity of the test that they are proposing to make the determination that the earth is not flat?

When I said, "you must have some reason to believe that what is in question exists", I meant that you must have some reason to expect Celestial Glory if you are behaving in a way that presumes Celestial Glory exists.

It is a process of growth. I eventually am led to that conclusion. But I did not begin knowing that there was anything like a celestial glory. In fact in my case I did not hear or read anything about the book of mormon before I felt the spirit. The missionaries came to my mother's door and I felt the spirit telling me that what they had I needed and wanted. I did not know as yet what that was in any sort of specific manner.

So when you said, "You must be exposed to the idea before you can respond to it in some fashion", I was simply pointing out that being exposed to the idea that Celestial Glory exists is insufficient to justify pursuit thereof. Someone pursues something after they are convinced of it, not simply after they've been exposed to the idea.

But the word convinced is an inaccurate way to describe it. It is not the result of an intellectual proof. There are aspects of the church that I know to be true from a personal witness or experience and there are others that I accept on faith based on their association with the whole.

To add to the analogy. whether the payout was made of counterfeit coins is still a possibility even after you've received them. You can't simply presume that the coins are real, so what reason do you have to believe they are besides your friend has told you so?

My ability to buy things with them at the 7-11. All analogies have their limitations but not this one I guess.

I can be reasonably certain of many things, and less certain of others. Things normally labeled as supernatural fall into the later category.

Many aspects of my testimony rest on experiences that are not supernatural from my point of view although the operation of what you call the supernatural would be involved with others.

I can be certain of many things, run of the mill or otherwise, without being concerned with whether they are reasonably so. Scientism is a world view that you have chosen to adopt. If you would convince me of its utility you must demonstrate its advantage rather than illustrate its shortcomings.

Then how do you explain the conviction of others who believe their god-given sense of right and wrong has declared Mormonism wrong and incompatible faiths right?

Three ways. One, mis-perception about what the LDS faith actually is and teaches. Two, being misguided. Three, that may be all God wishes to entrust an individual with.

My girlfriend's sister was saved from near death as the result of a meth addiction. She is in a 12 step recovery program.

There is no doubt that those who overcome chemical addictions are better off than those who do not.

That being said, it is not difficult to find others who are addicted and choose to remain so and believe that it is the right path for them.

When the truth about the church is revealed to someone they are under obligation to adhere to that testimony or face severe consequences. God may choose not to reveal the complete truth to someone who is unprepared to make that commitment for their sake. "Ask not that you may consume it upon your lust".

We simply compare descriptions. If you don't believe it can be adequately described, then this still doesn't solve the problem. That you can't adequately describe an experience doesn't make it more trustworthy. Many people report indescribable experiences that lead them to conclusions incompatible with your own. This means that the source of an indescribable experience can be mistaken. What about your experience leaves you certain that you have the correct interpretation and the others with indescribable experiences are mistaken?

I cannot know what the other person experienced since I am not the other person. I know that I have had *spiritual* experiences from sources other than God early in my investigations of religion. Weeding out false ones is a process of discernment similar to listening to that voice that tells us what is right from what is wrong.

If you think it's a waste of time, then don't bother.

I don't think it is a waste of time. If I did I wouldn't bother to post. Rather I think it'd be you that would make that determination. But the bearing of testimonies is prohibited by the board rules and for good reason. I have shared some experiences in the past and one atheist stated that he could not explain it. Well good. What did that accomplish? I knew what I already knew. The other person probably concluded that I was lying.

[mfbukowski]

Shala- if you don't mind, since I totally agree with you, I would like to take your post and show how it is a perfect example of the point I am making- that we Mormons argue in a Pragmatic mode

All the underlining will be mine:

What I am trying to communicate is the principal that finding God is the process of getting into harmony with that voice inside us that speaks to us of right and wrong. That changing personal behavior at that level is the key to moving forward (that and prayer or inquiry) spiritually in personal knowledge of God. If I harmonize my behavior with that voice instead of simply rationalizing it away I learn two things. One, that the change in behavior works, it makes sense, I am happier without those things in my life which before I thought I could not live without. And two, that that voice speaks to more than my personal behavior. It begins to apply to things it did not previously and by continuing to follow that voice I am led to discover new truths.

He is placing "what works" in his life to obtain happiness as a primary objective- and giving primacy to his personal experience, which he totally trusts, because he knows that personal experience is all we have to go on. It is the only thing we know is "real".

The error you are making in my view is assuming that scientism and logic apply to this at all. Point that gun at your mother. What holds you back? Is it reason and logic? Really?

Again, a Pragmatic perspective- I agree that scientism does NOT apply, though I would argue that the term "logic" is also "what works"- logic based on personal experience

It solves the problem of there being one source of true inspiration that can and does function in the lives of everyone. That what is important is not so much where one is at, on an absolute scale, but rather the direction in which they are moving or whether they are moving at all. All that is expected is that we are doing the best we can with what we've been given. Everyone isn't given the same knowledge.

Pretty much exactly the same thing I am saying! No absolute scale- no absolute certainty, doing the best with what we have in experience and knowledge- right on brother!

I cannot act other than on how I perceive. I use that word to try to communicate about spiritual matters but it is lacking.

Primacy of personal experience and language though so much cannot be expressed.

If I perceive the earth to be flat then it is flat until I perceive otherwise.

What he sees here is that his personal experience is primary- but subject to correction by outside data (perception) in direct experience, or as suggested in language- my personal experience of what someone else has observed. Someone tells me that the earth is NOT flat- linguistically- and explains how ships disappear over the horizon etc. Suddenly your personal paradigms of perception (I like the word 'experience' better) shifts- and you see things a different way- reality itself has shifted because of a shared perception in language.

If someone would instruct me that it is not flat what do I do? Do I ask how they know and investigate and explore? Or do I refuse to do anything until I can determine the validity of the test that they are proposing to make the determination that the earth is not flat?

Of course, you investigate and explore! All you can see is which model works better compared to your experience- the Ptolomaic system (that the earth was at the center of the universe- note that this is not a 'flat earth' idea - that was still older) actually could still be made to work, it's just a question of which model works "best" according to our experience. Does string theory work best- better than other models? The data is still out- but the principle is the same. What "is reality"? Little atoms with whirling electrons? Little atoms with electron clouds? Are those made up of quarks? Or strings? or what? What is "real"?

All we can know is what someone has experienced- the data- and the words he uses (vocabulary) to create the theory to explain what his perceptions tell him- and that others can replicate.

So what are we still left with? Human experience and language to express it. Yes, fancy instruments and lotsa math- but still the bottom line is human experience and words- that's it! No absolute certainty, nothing "absolutely true"- just theories and models and myths, waiting to be revised!

This is straightforward Pragmatism.

It is a process of growth. I eventually am led to that conclusion. But I did not begin knowing that there was anything like a celestial glory. In fact in my case I did not hear or read anything about the book of mormon before I felt the spirit. The missionaries came to my mother's door and I felt the spirit telling me that what they had I needed and wanted. I did not know as yet what that was in any sort of specific manner.

Now this is a man who knows his heart- not an unconfident soul who needs data and absolute truth to decide if he wants vanilla or chocolate.

But the word convinced is an inaccurate way to describe it. It is not the result of an intellectual proof. There are aspects of the church that I know to be true from a personal witness or experience and there are others that I accept on faith based on their association with the whole.

Amen, bro!

I can be certain of many things, run of the mill or otherwise, without being concerned with whether they are reasonably so. Scientism is a world view that you have chosen to adopt. If you would convince me of its utility you must demonstrate its advantage rather than illustrate its shortcomings.

Totally Pragmatic attitude. Utility is paramount, verified by experience.

I cannot know what the other person experienced since I am not the other person. I know that I have had *spiritual* experiences from sources other than God early in my investigations of religion. Weeding out false ones is a process of discernment similar to listening to that voice that tells us what is right from what is wrong.

Precisely- discernment is following the heart and what works for the individual- certainty is an illusion anyway.

I don't think it is a waste of time. If I did I wouldn't bother to post. Rather I think it'd be you that would make that determination. But the bearing of testimonies is prohibited by the board rules and for good reason. I have shared some experiences in the past and one atheist stated that he could not explain it. Well good. What did that accomplish? I knew what I already knew. The other person probably concluded that I was lying.

Nowhere near a waste of time! You hit the nail on the head imo.

Thanks for letting me use you as an illustration of what I think the Mormon/ Pragmatic way of thinking is all about (though I didn't exactly give you a choice!)

[Montgomery Price]

So I see MP's undying quest for absolute certainty as completely symptomatic of precisely what is being questioned here.

His quest for that certainty is an illusion, because all he will find is human experience at its base anyway- and he will be leaving out the most important parts of human experience.

Rethink how you're interpreting my arguments, mf... You're severely misinterpreting them again.

I never suggested absolute certainty, ever.

I'm only suggesting a level of certainty which surpasses a blind gamble. You're imagining all this nonsense about absolute certainty, and you're also imagining all this nonsense about "leaving out the most important parts of human experience." What I'm contending is not that certain parts of our experience should be left out, but that we have no good reason to "let them in". That we can identify our subjective experiences with certain objective claims to truth is what is in question. Now, if you'd please address the question you've persisted in evading again and again:

All you've established is that, according to you, there is no way to solve the objection I've raised. You've obviously misunderstood my argument because your response has repeatedly establish my premise. It's the entire point.

The premise is that we have no method to discern whether certain objective truths exist and others don't. You've been rambling on about this even after I've granted it... It in now way solves the problem. Again:

The fact that your beliefs depend on there being certain objective truths makes objective truths relevant. Here is why:

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

Now, will you please answer the question. You're becoming remarkably evasive.

This question demonstrates that simple standard of what "works for you" is insufficient to discern what, in actuality, "works for you". To respond that there is no proper way to talk about objective truth only supports the premise that there is an unsolvable contradiction between claims to objective truth. Do you see why this is so critical when your beliefs about what "works for you" depend on whether these objective truths can be preferred over others as accurately representing reality?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

What I am trying to communicate is the principal that finding God is the process of getting into harmony with that voice inside us that speaks to us of right and wrong. That changing personal behavior at that level is the key to moving forward (that and prayer or inquiry) spiritually in personal knowledge of God. If I harmonize my behavior with that voice instead of simply rationalizing it away I learn two things. One, that the change in behavior works, it makes sense, I am happier without those things in my life which before I thought I could not live without. And two, that that voice speaks to more than my personal behavior. It begins to apply to things it did not previously and by continuing to follow that voice I am led to discover new truths.

I understand that you believe there is some methodology for finding God, what I'm looking for is not only the description, but the critical substantiation. Why should I believe that your method elicits what it purports to. Why should I believe happiness has anything to do with what is true? Why should I believe that your method allows you to find God when I find no reason to prefer this method over hundreds of differing methods?

The error you are making in my view is assuming that scientism and logic apply to this at all. Point that gun at your mother. What holds you back? Is it reason and logic? Really?

That we use our emotions to make decisions doesn't, in and of itself, make our emotions reliable in every circumstance.

It solves the problem of there being one source of true inspiration that can and does function in the lives of everyone. That what is important is not so much where one is at, on an absolute scale, but rather the direction in which they are moving or whether they are moving at all. All that is expected is that we are doing the best we can with what we've been given. Everyone isn't given the same knowledge.

I didn't ask for your sunday school lesson. It doesn't solve the problem of which of many differing paths are to be preferred. To portray a Muslim, Hindu, FLDS, Catholic, and other lifestyles or belief sets as all on equivalent paths paths up the mountain is absurd. Their differences are far from negligible and it would be far from wise to not make every attempt to discern between those differences for the best path.

I cannot act other than on how I perceive. I use that word to try to communicate about spiritual matters but it is lacking.

If I perceive the earth to be flat then it is flat until I perceive otherwise.

If someone would instruct me that it is not flat what do I do? Do I ask how they know and investigate and explore? Or do I refuse to do anything until I can determine the validity of the test that they are proposing to make the determination that the earth is not flat?

You refrain from engaging in behaviors that would only be useful if the Earth is a certain shape. Because until you can be reasonably certain of that dependent factor, you have no way of determining the efficacy of your actions. If I'm yet certain of whether the Earth is flat or round, would it be wise of me to commit and spend all of my money on a trip that presumes the Earth is one way and not the other?

It is a process of growth. I eventually am led to that conclusion. But I did not begin knowing that there was anything like a celestial glory. In fact in my case I did not hear or read anything about the book of mormon before I felt the spirit. The missionaries came to my mother's door and I felt the spirit telling me that what they had I needed and wanted. I did not know as yet what that was in any sort of specific manner.

How many times do I need to explain that I have already accepted that you are convinced. It was already implied that you have reason to expect Celestial Glory. That this happened before or after this or that is irrelevant. Now given everything you've just explained, what is the reason exactly that you now have which justifies your expectation of Celestial Glory if you behave in a certain way?

But the word convinced is an inaccurate way to describe it. It is not the result of an intellectual proof. There are aspects of the church that I know to be true from a personal witness or experience and there are others that I accept on faith based on their association with the whole.

It's quite obvious that I'm concerned with those aspects which you know to be true from personal witness or experience.

My ability to buy things with them at the 7-11. All analogies have their limitations but not this one I guess.

So I should just direct the authorities concerned with exposing unlawful currency to the nearest 7-11...

Many aspects of my testimony rest on experiences that are not supernatural from my point of view although the operation of what you call the supernatural would be involved with others.

I can be certain of many things, run of the mill or otherwise, without being concerned with whether they are reasonably so. Scientism is a world view that you have chosen to adopt. If you would convince me of its utility you must demonstrate its advantage rather than illustrate its shortcomings.

You aren't concerned with whether something is reasonably certain, yet you are certain of them. I'm sorry. That's just absurd.

I also find no current need to convince you of anything concerning "Scientism".

Three ways. One, mis-perception about what the LDS faith actually is and teaches. Two, being misguided. Three, that may be all God wishes to entrust an individual with.

My girlfriend's sister was saved from near death as the result of a meth addiction. She is in a 12 step recovery program.

There is no doubt that those who overcome chemical addictions are better off than those who do not.

That being said, it is not difficult to find others who are addicted and choose to remain so and believe that it is the right path for them.

When the truth about the church is revealed to someone they are under obligation to adhere to that testimony or face severe consequences. God may choose not to reveal the complete truth to someone who is unprepared to make that commitment for their sake. "Ask not that you may consume it upon your lust".

How can I prefer your LDS explanation over the seemingly equivalent explanation that might be given by the believer who might claim everyone else is misguided, mis-perceiving, or ignorant of their own faith as opposed to Mormonism?

I cannot know what the other person experienced since I am not the other person. I know that I have had *spiritual* experiences from sources other than God early in my investigations of religion. Weeding out false ones is a process of discernment similar to listening to that voice that tells us what is right from what is wrong.

And many people report that their own "voice" has lead them to many different conclusions. We can't know the exact experiences of others, but we can see that they are convinced. We must then accept the possibility that we can have an experience which is convincing, yet not as we perceive it. So to say that we are convinced by simply having the experience doesn't seem sufficient.

I don't think it is a waste of time. If I did I wouldn't bother to post. Rather I think it'd be you that would make that determination. But the bearing of testimonies is prohibited by the board rules and for good reason. I have shared some experiences in the past and one atheist stated that he could not explain it. Well good. What did that accomplish? I knew what I already knew. The other person probably concluded that I was lying.

I don't mind at all. But that something can't be explained doesn't therefore mean that it is explained by what you think it is... There are plenty of reports which are unexplained and potentially confirming or disconfirming of many different and contradictory things. That's what we should expect.

[mfbukowski]

What I'm contending is not that certain parts of our experience should be left out, but that we have no good reason to "let them in".

Yes, I know, that is precisely the problem. No one can avoid "letting them in". By even asking the question, your need for certainty "lets them in". You are programmed to think a certain way and cannot see any other way of looking at reality, and you cannot escape your own subjective programming.

That we can identify our subjective experiences with certain objective claims to truth is what is in question.

Of course we can, and 13 million Mormons would agree. The fact that we agree on the same observation makes it "objective" in our vocabulary/language game. The problem is that you are intolerant of ambiguity. That is part of your personality- and your own subjective experiences. You are ordering your own reality by your subjective values- It is the way you order your life.

The premise is that we have no method to discern whether certain objective truths exist and others don't.

If they are "objective" of course they "exist". You have not answered my objections to that way back there somewhere. The problem is that you are only accepting objective evidence for subjective phenomena- that is called a "category error" in logic- specifically the fallacy of misplaced concreteness or reification- which I have already discussed.

The fact that your beliefs depend on there being certain objective truths makes objective truths relevant. Here is why:

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

As I have said before what we are talking about is the efficacy of the BELIEF in my life- not whether or not the celestial kingdom is scientifically observable.

We are talking about the efficacy of a BELIEF.

We are talking about the efficacy of a BELIEF.

We are talking about the efficacy of a BELIEF.

Got it yet?

Do you believe in "freedom"? Where is it? How much does it weigh? Do you believe in courage virtue, love, etc?

You need to attack the Marine Corps for dying for "freedom"- a subjective experience which cannot be proven to "exist". See how far that gets you! If you are truly a believer in scientism you will know that we are all determined by our mental states and our brain chemicals, so of course we are not "free"- and yet people die for that word.

Now, will you please answer the question. You're becoming remarkably evasive.

You are becoming remarkably dense. I have answered it a billion times- religious beliefs are based on subjective experience and cannot be proven scientifically. Notice that I did not say "objectively"- I said "scientifically"

This question demonstrates that simple standard of what "works for you" is insufficient to discern what, in actuality, "works for you". To respond that there is no proper way to talk about objective truth only supports the premise that there is an unsolvable contradiction between claims to objective truth. Do you see why this is so critical when your beliefs about what "works for you" depend on whether these objective truths can be preferred over others as accurately representing reality?

I never said half of these things but you are too busy parroting the same thing over and over to listen.

There is no point in my talking to you any more. I have given up- you won't listen. You are too stuck in your subjective values which are not shared by many in this community, and you refuse to hear ours.

Edited July 9, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

mfb -

I think most of your argument feels a bit like this:

Suppose for a moment that MP, yourself, Peter Priesthood, and I all were still attending high school in the US. You and PP both attend the same school - you as a transfer student and PP by the simple fact he was living within the boundaries. MP lives in another school district and attends another school. I once attended your school but now have transfered to a different school than yours or MP's.

In a discussion between us, you and PP are quick to say LDS High is #1!, a phrase any kid in a US high school will recognize from pep rallies and other competitive events. In support of this, when asked for how you could possibly believe this, you say that there is one factor that matters - it has improved your chances of getting into college and has also improved your current level of education. On further examination, you reveal that when you were discussing transferring to this school, you found that they had a claim to provide exclusive curriculum that will lead to attending an exclusive university that will ensure you are set for life. Based on this belief, on transferring, you made a decision to be a better student and strive to earn a scholarship and learn all you can under this curriculum that is only available to students at your school.

PP, as part of the conversation, points out that no other school has access to this University and this is what makes it #1. Sure, he likes to tell people, other schools provide good educations and can help you get into a decent university, but no other college can help you get into THIS university. When asked about his grades, he says it doesn't matter. As long as he graduates trying to live by the school code, he is confident he can get into this university.

MP and I both find such concepts as calling one's own school #1! to be pretty consistent language used in every school in the US. So we question PP's claims by asking more about this so-called exclusive university. On further reflection, it turns out that this school is described in vague detail in much of the school literature, but the specifics about what it is, what degrees if offers, and how one gets there are open ended. On top of that, it turns out that no alumni from LDS high have come back to the school in the verifiable history of the school, though there are plenty of stories that people have told about former students who did meet alumni who were graduates from this University.

When MP questions the reality of this school, you point out that since you started attending LDS high, you have become a much better student and are on track to earn the best possible grades that you think you are capable of earning. This is evidence that LDS high is #1 for you, and on top of that, the university will serve as further proof once we all get out of high school and move on to our next steps in life.

I don't see any problem with your first point, since I think it's good for everyone to get the best grades they are able to earn, and acknowledge that you are the person best suited to know if you are a better student for your experience at LDS high. But, I say, I transfered from LDS high for a couple of reasons. First, it turned out that I found what I feel is evidence that the founders of LDS high did not, in fact, establish a legitimate high school under any special standards that give them any exclusive rights to post-secondary education opportunities. Their so-called special curriculum is not very different than many other schools and the parts that lead to real education are anything but unique. But even worse, there is credible evidence the founders were abusing their authority and used the claims of having access to this special university to have relations with some of the female students. In fact, when looked into I found no evidence that the establishment of the school happened as claimed in the official literature, nor of this so called university. The more I looked, the more it seems that the school was rewriting it's history to accommodate the expansion of knowledge that was originating from sources that did not come from LDS high, the university, or any of the school's alumni. I found that despicable and chose to transfer. On transferring, I have not only seen my grades continue to be very good, but found that certain subjects of study were available that were not included or poorly taught under the so-called special curriculum and made the holistic nature of my education more solid.

We can fill in a lot of the story from here, MFB. My point is simply this - despite what you think, you keep confounding legitimate grounds for your pragmatic belief in the LDS faith (it's made you a better student) with the non-pragmatic second argument about the reality of the celestial kingdom among other very non-pragmatic attitudes you have.

In this case, the reality of the special university was used to both encourage you to be a better student, cause PP to feel he is in the best high school on the planet without need to really look into it, and I'd argue was used by the founders of the school to manipulate students into behaviors they not only wouldn't normally engage in, but under any other circumstance shouldn't engage in. This whole is the collective of experience that defines the celestial kingdom in effect.

So when you argue as you do, you're missing the point being made. I'm not asking for some proof of absolute certainty. I'm asking why you choose to limit the collective experience that should define the concept of the celestial kingdom. I fully acknowledge the experience and evidence you bring to the table. But you seem to think that is all that needs to be on the table.

So back to my question - how do you decide on where to place the limits on the collective that defines your understanding of Mormon "things"?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

The fundamental problem in philosophy, in Dewey's view, is the attempt (whether conscious or unconscious) to restore the security of absolutism that is a regular trait of all antiquated mythic tradition. Mythic traditions were modernized and carried forward in the major religious systems. As religious skepticism and reformation occurred, moral, social, and political content had to be defined and defended in new ways and metaphysical systems were created to carry that burden. These systems simply installed new kinds of absolute concepts and essences; the security of moral sentiments seemed in tact. The modern reconstruction of philosophy begins in Kant's attack against metaphysics but Kant's work continues the absolutist past through its heavy emphasis on "pure reason" and his concepts of a priori synthetic knowledge, that is, necessary knowledge about the world. Alas, in the end, Dewey believes, we must give up all of these devices of absolutism, certainty, and security. The issue for humans is the exercise of intelligence and not the need to be wired into any system of absolute reality or truth. Human experience is in process. Thought and action are constants within that process. How do we make the most intelligent use of these?

The irony here, MFB, is I think you fit this description yourself (the part I underlined above) when you get away from the vague notions of pragmatism and start taking about the brass tacks of your real beliefs. You may have evolved some since we last spoke about it, but this really seems to be the heart of our previous discussion on the other board almost every time. It also was the heart of the discussion we had well over a year ago on this board regarding James. I won't rehash our discussion about same-sex marriage, but the core of my asking you that question then was to reveal this fact about your belief system. I don't know if that has changed but we'll see.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Honorentheos

[mfbukowski]

Honor:

I'd say look into the history of your own institution and I will do the same, and we will see which is "better"

History is what you make of it- and yours won't be any different.

It's like Harvard and Yale, or the good old USA. You can read about slavery and the evils of capitalism, or speak of the nobility of Socialism in contrast, or you can talk about Stalin and the gulags or the Cultural Revolution and the evils there.

The bottom line is which system works better? There is no objective answer to this, and never will be. It will all be based on what your purposes are and what you mean by "better". I have strong feelings about it, but science will not answer the question- that much I know.

My definitions are just as firm as yours- and yet we disagree about it all.

I'm not asking for some proof of absolute certainty. I'm asking why you choose to limit the collective experience that should define the concept of the celestial kingdom. I fully acknowledge the experience and evidence you bring to the table. But you seem to think that is all that needs to be on the table.

So back to my question - how do you decide on where to place the limits on the collective that defines your understanding of Mormon "things"?

I still have no clue what you are talking about here.

Why don't you give me your answer and then I will tell you how perfectly right you are.

I can "limit the collective" to myself, or TBM members, or everyone everywhere. What choice gets me the best answer, since I don't have a clue what any of it means.

By now you should know there are no Mormon "things"- there are beliefs and experiences- but you seem to not get that.

Collectives define understanding? Nope, no clue.

Edited July 9, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The irony here, MFB, is I think you fit this description yourself (the part I underlined above) when you get away from the vague notions of pragmatism and start taking about the brass tacks of your real beliefs. You may have evolved some since we last spoke about it, but this really seems to be the heart of our previous discussion on the other board almost every time. It also was the heart of the discussion we had well over a year ago on this board regarding James. I won't rehash our discussion about same-sex marriage, but the core of my asking you that question then was to reveal this fact about your belief system. I don't know if that has changed but we'll see.

No, you're wrong.

What you're not understanding is that Dewey's view of "relativism" . Read some Heraclitus- there is no constant but change itself- but indeed change is the constant. God progresses and so do we all.

In morality, the actual only constant is survival of the species itself. If it leads to survival, it is "true".

[Honorentheos]

Honor:

I'd say look into the history of your own institution and I will do the same, and we will see which is "better"

History is what you make of it- and yours won't be any different.

...

The bottom line is which system works better? There is no objective answer to this, and never will be. It will all be based on what your purposes are and what you mean by "better". I have strong feelings about it, but science will not answer the question- that much I know.

My definitions are just as firm as yours- and yet we disagree about it all.

To be fair, your institution was once mine. I don't believe support of an institution as an absolute anything is justifiable. So I don't think you and I would really disagree with the way you have phrased the above. Remember, I once pointed out to ex-Mo's on Shades board that a certain discussion was akin to American's acting like we never deposed of the Monarchy of Hawaii by force.

The bottom line should be what institution works better when it is taken in total and not in part, and to someone else's detriment. Remember the same-sex marriage discussion? Putting limits on a subjective belief in something that has consequence to others without accepting one may be causing harm is immoral, IMO. Certainly irresponsible on the part of someone who values other's rights to an equally "better" life.

You see, I do not hold any institution in the same position of favor that you hold the church for exactly the reasons you describe. And I think this is the real difference, and the point of the whole discussion really. Once a person has come to acknowledge that things are as you seem to acknowledge they are, to then turn to some absolute, even if defended by subjective pragmatic means, is basically Orwellian. It reflects a choice. And I'd argue one of convenience rather than integrity.

So this is where you and I seem to run into problems and probably why I find myself attracted to posting in threads with you. The quote from your source pin-pointed it well. You always seem to begin by thinking I am arguing for some sort of absolute because I disagree with your results. Yet my disagreement is always with your renewed assurance in the absolute viability of how justified you are in your subjectively isolated version of LDS belief, history, and action.

The notions of a celestial kingdom should include the inspiration it provides you, the comfort it gives parents who have lost children, spouses soon to be parted by death, etc. But it also includes angels with flaming swords, polygamous relations with already married women and young women, sealings between Joseph Smith and other women before he was sealed to Emma, Emma's feeling of hurt and betrayal. It involves questions about how a physical god who resides there could relate to modern physics compared to physics in Josephs day, how mormon theology explains this concept to the world, etc.

These are all part of the collective experience that you have access to in order to define this "celestial kingdom" we speak of.

IMO, you use pragmatism like a shield to deflect things you don't want to deal with or can't explain easily. And then allow this pragmatic shield to justify feeling that all the subjective concepts you've allowed in can be treated as absolutes for you - and everyone else when you are not being sly about it because you believe in it so it has to be "real" enough to be absolute for you so you can act on it. And you feel this is somehow consistent with the philosophers you credit for your ideas.

If that old discussion about James was still around I would quote a couple of critical posts from it. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Honorentheos

[shalamabobbi]

Time to prune this tree a bit. I'll hit on what I believe to be the main points of your posts.

what is the reason exactly that you now have which justifies your expectation of Celestial Glory if you behave in a certain way?

The doctrine of Christ's church. My testimony is that that church is His, so I can trust in the basic doctrines that it teaches to be true.

It's quite obvious that I'm concerned with those aspects which you know to be true from personal witness or experience.

Well certainly, but to quote you again "We can't know the exact experiences of others".

So you'll have to obtain your own experiences I'm afraid.

How can I prefer your LDS explanation over the seemingly equivalent explanation that might be given by the believer who might claim everyone else is misguided

You have to look into it for yourself and find out for yourself.

So to say that we are convinced by simply having the experience doesn't seem sufficient.

Then remain forever unconvinced. But the fact that you are unconvinced with my POV does not in and of itself make your POV any more convincing. If a behavior cannot convincingly be demonstrated to be unacceptable, neither can it be convincingly demonstrated to be acceptable.

but that something can't be explained doesn't therefore mean that it is explained by what you think it is..

Fred showing up on your doorstep is not something that needs to be justified with logical proofs. Neither is it necessary to suspect that it might be the invisible pink unicorn in disguise..

Read the account of Oliver Cowdery in the PoGP pg 58-59.

If we could keep further replies to a maximum of half a dozen points or less would that would be alright with you?

[shalamabobbi]

Thanks for letting me use you as an illustration of what I think the Mormon/ Pragmatic way of thinking is all about (though I didn't exactly give you a choice!)

No problemo mfbukowski. To try to keep up with you I have just purchased "The Story of Philosophy" by William Durant. It starts with Plato and Aristotle then jumps to Francis Bacon and ends on Dewey.

I found the similarities between Plato's version of how to select from among the populace those who should rule and reign with the gospel plan of salvation and reward in the celestial kingdom interesting..

[Montgomery Price]

Time to prune this tree a bit. I'll hit on what I believe to be the main points of your posts.

The doctrine of Christ's church. My testimony is that that church is His, so I can trust in the basic doctrines that it teaches to be true.

You're really not grasping what I'm asking for, are you...?

Well certainly, but to quote you again "We can't know the exact experiences of others".

So you'll have to obtain your own experiences I'm afraid.

That we can't know exactly doesn't settle the question. There are still very important, even critical things to be learned from the reports of experiences, even if we can't experience them ourselves.

You have to look into it for yourself and find out for yourself.

I have and I can't supply the reason to prefer one over the other. Everyone claims the other is misguided in someway, and they each justify it in ways I can't prefer over one another. They're at equal standing, so I refrain from choosing one.

Then remain forever unconvinced. But the fact that you are unconvinced with my POV does not in and of itself make your POV any more convincing. If a behavior cannot convincingly be demonstrated to be unacceptable, neither can it be convincingly demonstrated to be acceptable.

I think I have convincingly demonstrated the behavior that expects the existence of Celestial Glory is unacceptable in that it is a gamble between truth claims which can't be reasonably preferred over another. They can't be preferred because the justification for accepting such claims are primarily based on personal experience, yet we can know from the reports of personal experiences that simply having such an experience is not sufficient to be reasonably certain of your perception.

Fred showing up on your doorstep is not something that needs to be justified with logical proofs. Neither is it necessary to suspect that it might be the invisible pink unicorn in disguise..

Read the account of Oliver Cowdery in the PoGP pg 58-59.

If we could keep further replies to a maximum of half a dozen points or less would that would be alright with you?

Sure.

[mfbukowski]

No problemo mfbukowski. To try to keep up with you I have just purchased "The Story of Philosophy" by William Durant. It starts with Plato and Aristotle then jumps to Francis Bacon and ends on Dewey.

I found the similarities between Plato's version of how to select from among the populace those who should rule and reign with the gospel plan of salvation and reward in the celestial kingdom interesting..

Good! Plato is pretty cool until you see the limits in his point of view- it's actually very "Catholic".

Durant is ok, but was not really a philosopher though he does express his own opinions freely.

[Honorentheos]

If a behavior cannot convincingly be demonstrated to be unacceptable, neither can it be convincingly demonstrated to be acceptable.

I hope this statement was written in haste.

If true, it would undermine any claim to jurisprudence.

Taken out of the context of Mormon belief and instead replaced with civil laws, I think you could come up with examples on your own of behaviours that can be demonstrated to be acceptable that cannot be demonstrated to be unacceptable, and vice versa.

[Honorentheos]

Good! Plato is pretty cool until you see the limits in his point of view- it's actually very "Catholic".

Durant is ok, but was not really a philosopher though he does express his own opinions freely.

I had to smile when I read this, MFB. Keep working on 'em I guess.

[mfbukowski]

I had to smile when I read this, MFB. Keep working on 'em I guess.

Your bitterness is really showing. You are not interested in dialogue at all.

Edited July 10, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Honorentheos]

Your bitterness is really showing. You are not interested in dialogue at all.

I'm not bitter, MFB. This was interesting and made me smile. Obviously you know why.

[Honorentheos]

I think I have convincingly demonstrated the behavior that expects the existence of Celestial Glory is unacceptable in that it is a gamble between truth claims which can't be reasonably preferred over another. They can't be preferred because the justification for accepting such claims are primarily based on personal experience, yet we can know from the reports of personal experiences that simply having such an experience is not sufficient to be reasonably certain of your perception.

In my mind, the concept of the celestial kingdom is interesting because I don't think anyone on this board has real, personal experiences of the celestial kingdom. People may have experiences that are founded on a hope in such a thing, or experience with other's testimony of the celestial kingdom such as described in the D&C. But not actual experience.

I think this gets to your point to shalamalabobbie. S/he does not actually have an experience of the celestial kingdom. Instead the supposed justifying experience is of something that they have expanded to feel justifies all things under an umbrella concept of Mormonism.

To be fair, we all do this in many instances in our lives. We all extrapolate to fill in gaps in our knowledge and make biased decisions based on unjustifiable assumptions that usually do not even begin to approach the realm of conscious thought.

This is where I find the problem to be - it's only reasonable for a person to do this so long as they are unaware they are behaving in this way. But once a person begins to examine the underlying assumptions that support their beliefs and actions and then stop for no other reason than they are content with their current position is a failing not a success.

Like I think you feel, my opinion is the very prolific nature of varied after-life beliefs held by humans over time should at a minimum give us some humility in thinking we are somehow more privileged than they because what we know to be true is the real truth. I'd extend that to myself as well. There is a reason I maintain a certain level of agnosticism rather than being a pure atheist. But once the evidence is weighed, I think the manner that Joseph Smith used the concept of a celestial kingdom in relation to polygamy should be part of a person's thoughts on it. To me, the testimony of these women carries more weight than a subjective experience. Apparently we are seeing that this is not true for everyone.