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

[shalamabobbi]

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.

Which is a perfectly fine position to be in. Joseph Smith remained there for awhile as well.

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 (one) another.

If one is living so as to enter the celestial kingdom as defined by the LDS their behavior will be overkill for most other religions.

Other religions require less obedience not more. Other religions do not recognize ordinances as necessary so they would be superfluous. Other religions do not recognize the need for authority so again overkill.

By meeting the LDS requirements you've more then met the requirements of other religions.

So hardly a gamble of any sort I'd say.

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.

Well your wrong there. It may not be sufficient for someone else but you cannot conclude that the existence of false experiences preclude the existence of valid experiences. You have no basis to assert that such experiences are insufficient to validate the truth claims of religion to the recipients of those experiences. That is simply a bald assertion on your part.

Every argument that persuades us, persuades us to move in one direction or another.

D&C 50:17-24

Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

If it be some other way it is not of God.

Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

[shalamabobbi]

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.

uh huh.. and how did Solomon Chamberlain and Sidney Rigdon use the concept? Rigdon received the revelation with the prophet, Solomon received the same revelation of the three degrees of glory before he met the prophet and learned of the BoM.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/SChamberlain.html

I have had experiences that involve personal revelation with respect to temple work that I have done. By implication that would corroborate the existence of a celestial kingdom as well..

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.

There is a distinction between ideas that are held and ideas that are revealed..

[Honorentheos]

uh huh.. and how did Solomon Chamberlain and Sidney Rigdon use the concept? Rigdon received the revelation with the prophet, Solomon received the same revelation of the three degrees of glory before he met the prophet and learned of the BoM.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/SChamberlain.html

I have had experiences that involve personal revelation with respect to temple work that I have done. By implication that would corroborate the existence of a celestial kingdom as well..

There is a distinction between ideas that are held and ideas that are revealed..

I tend to be very skeptical of the revelation that we know as Section 76 of the D&C. Philo Dibble, a faithful member of the church, was present when it was recieved and gave this description -

Joseph would, at intervals, say: ‘What do I see?’ as one might say while looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see. Then he would relate what he had seen or what he was looking at. Then Sidney replied, ‘I see the same.’ Presently Sidney would say ‘what do I see?’ and would repeat what he had seen or was seeing, and Joseph would reply, ‘I see the same.’ This manner of conversation was repeated at short intervals to the end of the vision, and during the whole time not a word was spoken by any other person. Not a sound nor motion made by anyone but Joseph and Sidney, and it seemed to me that they never moved a joint or limb during the time I was there, which I think was over an hour, and to the end of the vision.

Let's consider this for a moment. Joseph, in a preface to the first publication of the vision said "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had`been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home must include more

kingdoms than one. Accordingly, on the 16th of February, 1832, while translating St. John’s Gospel, myself and Elder Rigdon saw the following vision: (Then follows what is now Section 76 of the D&C)

So he makes it clear that to him it was apparent that there should be more kingdoms than one prior to the event described to us by Philo. And, when it happens, what we have are two men sitting as if "looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see". And one would say, "This is what I see" and the other would say, "I see the same". And, when they gave the next section they might switch, with the other now saying "this is what I see", and the other saying, "I see the same".

To me, this reads like a party trick. It sounds like Joseph and Sidney were putting on a show. There is nothing in the description of how the revelation was received that causes me to feel increased confidence in Joseph Smith's description of the celestial kingdom.

And when we add to this how Joseph used both the promise of the kingdom as well as the threat of h*** fire to persuade women to enter into polygamy with him behind Emma's back, I find the level of deserved incredulity to be off the charts.

But just for fun, consider this additional quote -

Brother Dibble stated to me that the Prophet Joseph told him in connection with the others who were present in Father Johnson’s home at the time the Vision was given to the Prophet Joseph and Sidney Rigdon, that (the Prophet speaking): ‘My whole body was full of light and I could even see out at the ends of my fingers and toes.

Joseph claimed that during the event he could see out his fingers and toes?

Is all of this in your understanding and experience of the celestial kingdom? or have you chosen a more editorialized version to believe in?

Edited July 10, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

There is a distinction between ideas that are held and ideas that are revealed..

Yes, but not in the manner you mean.

The first is describing the relation of an idea to you as a person. The second is describing the manner the idea was gained.

In the end, what matters is that you hold the idea, or you don't.

I'd argue that gaining ideas through revelation is a meaningless phrase. There are more exact ways to describe the process. Revelation could mean that you claim an angel stood in front of you and told you the event, or it could have been a flash of insight. It could mean that you believe someone else had it revealed to them through some means and you do not see a reason to disagree with it, or you felt a still small something that you feel confirms it. It is a very vague concept that I would argue is meaningless in this conversation. The more specific manner of describing it would be more valuable for us all.

[shalamabobbi]

Let's consider this for a moment. Joseph, in a preface to the first publication of the vision said "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had`been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home must include more

kingdoms than one. Accordingly, on the 16th of February, 1832, while translating St. John’s Gospel, myself and Elder Rigdon saw the following vision: (Then follows what is now Section 76 of the D&C)

So he makes it clear that to him it was apparent that there should be more kingdoms than one prior to the event described to us by Philo.

Interesting. Of course, if it is true that prior to receiving a revelation upon a subject we are *unallowed* to ponder and think upon that subject that makes prayer impossible as a means to receiving any truth from God.

"I received this answer from God."

"But you prayed about it first."

How convenient for your side of the argument..

And, when it happens, what we have are two men sitting as if "looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see".

Interesting again. So revelation is not revelation unless it is an occurrence within the medium of this mortal experience.

To me, this reads like a party trick. It sounds like Joseph and Sidney were putting on a show. There is nothing in the description of how the revelation was received that causes me to feel increased confidence in Joseph Smith's description of the celestial kingdom.

Well that is the issue isn't it. We are coming from two different paradigms. I suggest that even if you did find anything in the descriptions that convinced you Joseph was a prophet that it would do you no good. It would not be a valid foundation for receiving baptism.

Joseph claimed that during the event he could see out his fingers and toes?

Interesting again. So we are back to spiritual experience being nothing other than a subset of our mortal experience. I thought this was rather interesting when I first read it decades ago. How is God able to perceive everything that is going on? Perception must involve some function other than the operation of the eyes.

With respect to the various material about how polygamy went down you are free to chose and pick what you believe as well. But as you have left out of your thread the evidence of Solomon Chamberlain's experience I suppose you will leave out the experiences of those women who were opposed then received revelation and changed their minds also.

You've prefiltered everything through your paradigm and as with MP you have established your own criteria with which to judge God and test how He operates. You have it backwards. He establishes the criteria by which we are tested and eventually judged.

Edited July 10, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[Honorentheos]

With respect to the various material about how polygamy went down you are free to chose and pick what you believe as well. But as you have left out of your thread the evidence of Solomon Chamberlain's experience I suppose you will leave out the experiences of those women who were opposed then received revelation and changed their minds also.

You've prefiltered everything through your paradigm and as with MP you have established your own criteria with which to judge God and test how He operates. You have it backwards. He establishes the criteria by which we are tested and eventually judged.

Solomon Chamberlain's account in the history you linked was of a dream in which he saw h*** and three heavens, of which one was more radiant than all the others. At the time he joined the faith, Section 76 had not been received. If this dream was so significant, why did he not question it's lack of revelation in the Mormon faith?

I suspect that this, being a late recording, is akin to a lengthy discussion we had on here, now deleted unfortunately, about Heber Kimball and BY recalling seeing armies in the sky on the night that JS found the gold plates. Only, the event they describe corresponded very well to a recorded aurora that occurred a month earlier. Their late recording was a reinterpretation of an event that was misremembered. Kind of like much of the reinterpretation of spiritual confirmation we are discussing in this thread.

As to the women you speak of, there was a lot of variety in their later views on. But someone who didn't revise her views was Emma Smith. And in this conversation, she stands preeminent as the woman most impacted.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Montgomery Price]

Which is a perfectly fine position to be in. Joseph Smith remained there for awhile as well.

Something tells me the rejection of Mormonism is not exactly "perfectly fine" to you.

If one is living so as to enter the celestial kingdom as defined by the LDS their behavior will be overkill for most other religions.

Other religions require less obedience not more. Other religions do not recognize ordinances as necessary so they would be superfluous. Other religions do not recognize the need for authority so again overkill.

By meeting the LDS requirements you've more then met the requirements of other religions.

So hardly a gamble of any sort I'd say.

I'm a bit shocked if this is honestly how you settle the objection... Either you've misunderstood my objection, or you've certainly deluded yourself on this point.

Well your wrong there. It may not be sufficient for someone else but you cannot conclude that the existence of false experiences preclude the existence of valid experiences. You have no basis to assert that such experiences are insufficient to validate the truth claims of religion to the recipients of those experiences. That is simply a bald assertion on your part.

Every argument that persuades us, persuades us to move in one direction or another.

D&C 50:17-24

Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

If it be some other way it is not of God.

Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

You've imagined that I ever asserted the existence of valid experiences are precluded. My contention is that the experiences can't be preferred over one another. How can one be certain of their own experience if they have no way to evaluate the many reported disconfirmations of their experience? Having no basis to assert an experience is insufficient or sufficient to validate the truth claims of religion only supports my argument.

[shalamabobbi]

You've imagined that I ever asserted the existence of valid experiences are precluded. My contention is that the experiences can't be preferred over one another. How can one be certain of their own experience if they have no way to evaluate the many reported disconfirmations of their experience? Having no basis to assert an experience is insufficient or sufficient to validate the truth claims of religion only supports my argument.

MP. Your argument makes about as much sense to me as it would if it were applied to the *problem* of finding the *most optimal* wife. Since there is no way to ascertain that my selection is the most optimal, the only course of action that is reasonable is to remain single..

[Montgomery Price]

MP. Your argument makes about as much sense to me as it would if it were applied to the *problem* of finding the *most optimal* wife. Since there is no way to ascertain that my selection is the most optimal, the only course of action that is reasonable is to remain single..

Then you've misunderstood.

There are consequences between accepting or rejecting certain truth claims. I'm not concerned with arbitrary preferences with no value in determining truth.

If we accept that simply having an experience is sufficient to be convinced of certain truth claims, then we are accepting a standard that produces contradictions. If these contradictions have no resolution, then to whimsically choose between them is unwise and unjustified.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not concerned with arbitrary preferences with no value in determining truth.

The problem is that your definition of "truth" is flawed.

You do not understand that "reality" is what we think is true.

Ptolemy created a universe that lasted a thousand years. Copernicus created a universe that lasted four hundred years. Einstein has created a universe, and I can't tell you how long it will last. George Bernard Shaw

http://www.mlahanas....myAstronomy.htm

That, is a very important idea.

It is as if you are insisting that orbits must be circular, and think we are arguing for elipses. You think we are arguing something else in the same paradigm.

In reality, we are presenting a whole new paradigm- like Einstein, say, relative to Ptolemy. You just can't see that we are presenting a different view of reality.

Edited July 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

The problem is that your definition of "truth" is flawed.

You do not understand that "reality" is what we think is true.

And you have imagined that I ever suggested any definition of truth as you characterize I have. My argument doesn't change even after I grant that "reality is what we think is true." I honestly don't know why you're going on about this. You should be ashamed of these persistent misunderstandings.

[shalamabobbi]

There are consequences between accepting or rejecting certain truth claims.

It is a contradiction that there are multiple truth claims that are contradictory.

So there is only a consequence associated with one of the truth claims.

But as I've said you present the red herring that all parts of various truth claims are mutually exclusive as non-overlapping sets.

I have stated that there is quite a bit of overlap among the sets and others may have valid experiences confirming those areas where there exists overlap.

If we accept that simply having an experience is sufficient to be convinced of certain truth claims, then we are accepting a standard that produces contradictions.

How do my experiences (plural) produce contradictions? They are not in contradiction with themselves. They are only in possible contradiction with the experiences of others about which I know nothing. If those experiences of others are about areas of overlap there is no contradiction nor are there consequences. If those experiences are about areas of non-overlap then they are in contradiction only if they are real experiences. But because I know my experiences to be valid, I indirectly know their experiences to be invalid. The experience contains with it the stamp of reality. But since you have not experienced this yourself, you whimsically choose to call into question the validity of the experiences themselves.

A while back some posters were arguing that radioactive decay rates were unreliable since solar neutrinos had been observed to affect decay rates. I knew from my experiences, studies, and work that this was a contradiction to well supported science.

What turned up?..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/more-follow-up-on-the-solar-neutrinos-radioactive-decay-story-experimental-falsification/

So my experiences were correct. Their experience was incorrect.

If these contradictions have no resolution, then to whimsically choose between them is unwise and unjustified.

I do not whimsically choose between them. That would be paramount to choosing without any experience to base the choice upon.

But since:

1 I have had those experiences.

2 I view the reality of multiple truth claims to be self-contradictory.

3 I conclude that my experiences are valid and affirm the truth claim to which they belong.

4 I conclude that since some of those experiences are associated with areas of the truth claim that do not overlap with competing truth claims, I have the optimal truth claim in my possesion.

To recap, it comes down to the experiences. I state that they carry with them their own stamp of reality and that one cannot know this without having the experience themselves.

You choose to deny this. You try to bolster your position with the appearance of more weight by constructing a false argument. If only your premises were true they would prove your position, but they aren't true and your argument falls apart as a result. In short, you have to assume what you are trying to prove, that the experiences themselves are not valid.

Edited July 11, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[mfbukowski]

To recap, it comes down to the experiences. I state that they carry with them their own stamp of reality and that one cannot know this without having the experience themselves.

You choose to deny this. You try to bolster your position with the appearance of more weight by constructing a false argument. If only your premises were true they would prove your position, but they aren't true and your argument falls apart as a result. In short, you have to assume what you are trying to prove, that the experiences themselves are not valid.

Regarding Alfred North Whitehead:

The process metaphysics elaborated in Process and Reality proposes that the fundamental elements of the universe are occasions of experience. According to this notion, what people commonly think of as concrete objects are actually successions of occasions of experience. Occasions of experience can be collected into groupings; something complex such as a human being is thus a grouping of many smaller occasions of experience. According to Whitehead, everything in the universe is characterized by experience (which is not to be confused with consciousness); there is no mind-body duality under this system, because "mind" is simply seen as a very developed kind of experiencing. However, Whitehead is not an idealist in the strict sense. Whitehead's ideas were a significant development of the idea of panpsychism (also known as panexperientialism, because of Whitehead’s emphasis on experience).

http://en.wikipedia....cess_philosophy

Note that the underlined portions are links to other articles relevant to each word-

This of course fits with all the Pragmatists as well, James Dewey, Bergson, and many others. There is no mind-body duality because all we can speak of is human experience.

If I (we) experience it as "existing", it "exists" in some sense; all that becomes important is our level of certainty about propositions expressing the experience, and how they could be verified.

Scientific experiences are easy to verify because we can all have the same experience- put a tube with mercury in the water when the bubbles form, and the mercury in the thermometer expands to the same volume every time. Put numbers on the mercury tube and you have a what we will call a "thermometer" calibrated to what we call the "boiling point of water" Anyone can experience the same thing and get the same results.

Voila! We have invented what we call "Science".

But all science is saying is that "if you do thus and so, you will experience these results"- it speaks about human experience, not what is magically "out there" in some realm beyond what we can experience. It is all just arbitrary definition of what we experience - recipes for repeatable experiences. Do this with mercury, and you will experience that.

But what of the experience of freedom, for example? How does one "verify" scientifically that one is "free" and not totally "determined" by causes of your mental states?

What methodology should we use to prove we are free? There is none.

Why believe in freedom if we cannot define a methodology to prove that freedom exists?

This is the exact parallel with what is being said in this thread- belief in freedom is what makes us "free"; the idea of "choice" becomes a "reality" ONLY because we have subjective experiences of choice.

If we make choices, "who" is making the choice? Now we have a subjective experience of "self" in relation to the world- the self in the world making choices based on experience. Through interaction we realize that there are "other selves" like us who also have experiences, which we can share through language.

Edited July 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Henri Bergson:

Bergson says that reality has extension as well as duration. However, space is not a void or vacuum which is filled by reality. Things are not in space, space is in things. Thus, emptiness can only be conceptualized by suppressing a space-occupying reality. Similarly, nothingness can only be conceptualized by suppressing the awareness of being. According to Bergson, emptiness cannot be directly perceived, it can only be conceptualized.

Bergson also argues that intellect and intuition are capable of different kinds of knowledge. Scientific principles are intellectual, while metaphysical principles are intuitive. However, science and philosophy can be combined to produce knowledge that is both intellectual and intuitive. Such knowledge can unify divergent perceptions of reality.

The existence of time may explain the indeterminateness of things. Time as duration may explain why indeterminate things may later be able to be determined. Things that can be determined may also become indeterminate. If time did not exist, all things could (theoretically) be determined simultaneously. The indeterminateness of things means that the outcome of some events may change, and that there may be freedom of action. Freedom can be experienced by direct intuition.

According to Bergson, the reality or actuality of something is not necessarily preceded by the possibility of that thing. When something is real or actual, we can say retrospectively that it was possible. But whatever is possible does not reveal what is real or actual. Whatever is real or actual reveals what is possible.

Intuition is a form of knowledge that reality is continuous and indivisble, and that reality is always changing. If this form of knowledge is more widely utilized, then philosophy can be complementary to science as both a practical and speculative mode of inquiry. ....

Bergson agrees with William James that truth is a dynamic relation between an idea and an existing reality. Truth is not a static property inherent in an idea or judgment. Truth is something which happens to an idea, and which has practical consequences for action. The truth of an idea can tell us how to respond to events, and how to develop plans for action. Truth is not a static relation of correspondence to an unchanging, preexistent state of being. Truth is an active relation between an idea and events that may change according to the flow of reality.

http://www.angelfire...rp/bergson.html

Underlining added.

EDIT: Montgomery- read that underlined part exactly 17 times.

Edited July 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And you have imagined that I ever suggested any definition of truth as you characterize I have.

Ah yes, and therein lies the problem.

[mfbukowski]

And you have imagined that I ever suggested any definition of truth as you characterize I have.

Ah yes, and therein lies the problem.

I'm not concerned with arbitrary preferences with no value in determining truth.

If we accept that simply having an experience is sufficient to be convinced of certain truth claims, then we are accepting a standard that produces contradictions. If these contradictions have no resolution, then to whimsically choose between them is unwise and unjustified.

Clearly we have a contradiction here. You use the words without defining what you mean- you presuppose a definition of "truth" with no basis for understanding what the word means.

I am still waiting for your methodology for showing that the idea of "freedom exists" (or doesn't)

Edited July 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

My argument doesn't change even after I grant that "reality is what we think is true." I honestly don't know why you're going on about this. You should be ashamed of these persistent misunderstandings.

Yes Mommie.

You have just conceded the argument then I guess. According to what you have just said- I think that the celestial kingdom exists, so that is then "reality" and therefore "true".

You seem to, again, misunderstand that what we are talking about here are IDEAS about the celestial kingdom- like the IDEA of "freedom"- upon which we act.

Since the celestial kingdom cannot be experienced objectively, what we are talking about is the efficacy of the IDEA of the celestial kingdom. As you have so graciously shown then, since you are willing to grant that "reality is what we think is true", that makes the IDEA of the celestial kingdom both "real" and "true".

[Montgomery Price]

Yes Mommie.

You have just conceded the argument then I guess. According to what you have just said- I think that the celestial kingdom exists, so that is then "reality" and therefore "true".

You seem to, again, misunderstand that what we are talking about here are IDEAS about the celestial kingdom- like the IDEA of "freedom"- upon which we act.

Since the celestial kingdom cannot be experienced objectively, what we are talking about is the efficacy of the IDEA of the celestial kingdom. As you have so graciously shown then, since you are willing to grant that "reality is what we think is true", that makes the IDEA of the celestial kingdom both "real" and "true".

I'm quickly losing interest in debating you, mf. You remain obtuse to any of my explanations and continue to debate irrelevant straw-men. I strongly suggest you adjust your conception of my position, because you're currently so far off I can't have any productive conversation with you.

Now, let me rephrase once again.

My contention is that every standard proposed to determine a spiritual experience to verify some religious "truth" is a standard which allows contradictions between so-defined "truths".

What you have yet to understand is that, as has been proposed, the definition of the term "truth", in my argument, is flexible. I don't need to supply the definitions and standards for you. I'm arguing against the definitions and standards proposed which purport to verify Mormonism. I only need point out that they allow unresolved contradictions, and it is therefore unwise and premature to depend upon them.

So mf, use whatever definition you want.

If you can think that the Celestial Kingdom exists and it is therefore "true", then someone else can likewise think that something contradictory exists, is therefore "true", and demonstrates that this standard is unreliable.

If "what works for you" makes something "true", then someone else can likewise have something contradictory simply "work for them".

If simply having a spiritual experience is sufficient to verify to you some religious "truth", then someone else can likewise verify that something contradictory is "true" by simply perceiving an experience of it.

The critical point is that there is no reasonable basis to decide which claims to "truth" are valid and which are not. Including our own. The contention is that of indecision. To argue that there is no basis for an objective-minded decision between these contradictions only supports my argument. To argue that there is no basis for a subjective-minded decision between these contradictions only supports my argument.

It is claimed that there is a straight and narrow path to salvation and I am asking, how can we recognize that we are on any such path?

Do you finally understand?

[Montgomery Price]

It is a contradiction that there are multiple truth claims that are contradictory.

So there is only a consequence associated with one of the truth claims.

But as I've said you present the red herring that all parts of various truth claims are mutually exclusive as non-overlapping sets.

I have stated that there is quite a bit of overlap among the sets and others may have valid experiences confirming those areas where there exists overlap.

You see no contradiction between the millions of reported spiritual experiences?

Do I really have to spell this out?

Even if you are only claiming that, given your flavor of Mormonism is true, perceived contradictions between experiences aren't actually contradictions, you would only be reasoning circularly as the experience which verifies your flavor of Mormonism is what is in question. Others who have perceived the experience of contradictory things don't accept your premise that their experience is not as they think, and yours and select few are. They accept the premise that what you have perceived is not as you believe. They accept this premise using the very same justification you do. This brings both your justification and theirs into question.

And again, that the truth claims are mutually exclusive is not helpful to your argument, but also not necessary to mine. I can grant that truth claims can overlap, but they are not equal. If you insist, without substantiation, that truth is a mountain with many ascending pathways, you have yet to determine which pathways lead to optimal salvation, namely the Celestial Kingdom, and which do not. If your standard for what justifies the following of one path leads to the Celestial Kingdom, but may equally justify an overlapping path which only leads to a lower Kingdom, then your standard is brought into question. That is, one person may feel becoming Mormon will give him the best and correct afterlife and another feels becoming Hindu will give him the best and correct afterlife. You may not believe this to be a contradiction, but it is still a discrepancy with consequences. We can recognize that, granting Mormonism to be true, the consequences are that the Mormon will most likely receive Celestial Glory, and the Hindu a lesser glory. Although one is the revealed superior path, my contention is that the justification for each path is equal given your unreliable standard. Discrepant paths are equally justified.

How do my experiences (plural) produce contradictions? They are not in contradiction with themselves. They are only in possible contradiction with the experiences of others about which I know nothing. If those experiences of others are about areas of overlap there is no contradiction nor are there consequences. If those experiences are about areas of non-overlap then they are in contradiction only if they are real experiences. But because I know my experiences to be valid, I indirectly know their experiences to be invalid. The experience contains with it the stamp of reality. But since you have not experienced this yourself, you whimsically choose to call into question the validity of the experiences themselves.

And if you allow others this same standard, which I argue you have no reason not to, then they have indirectly disconfirmed your own experience. By this standard, your experience is both valid and invalid; a contradiction.

To recap, it comes down to the experiences. I state that they carry with them their own stamp of reality and that one cannot know this without having the experience themselves.

You choose to deny this. You try to bolster your position with the appearance of more weight by constructing a false argument. If only your premises were true they would prove your position, but they aren't true and your argument falls apart as a result. In short, you have to assume what you are trying to prove, that the experiences themselves are not valid.

Again, I never assumed any such thing. My contention is that we have no good reason to claim any experience valid, not that they are presumed invalid.

If you wish to assert that an experience can "carry with them their own stamp of reality", then you have no basis to assert that you have the real "stamp". Everyone claims they have the stamp, but because this would create contradictions, this cannot be true. This is why simply having an experience is not sufficient to verify what you think it does. How do you recognize a real stamp and how do you know you have one and others don't?

[shalamabobbi]

Again, I never assumed any such thing. My contention is that we have no good reason to claim any experience valid, not that they are presumed invalid.

You see a distinction here? What's the difference?

My contention is that we have no good reason to claim any experience valid

This is your assumption.

The fact that you dress it up into a logical argument doesn't change the fact that it is an assumption without any proof.

[shalamabobbi]

(From the story of philosophy by Will Durant)

pg 116

Let us summarize our disagreement. We are bothered, at the outset, with his (Aristotle's) insistence on logic. He thinks the syllogism a description of man's way of reasoning, whereas it merely describes man's way of dressing up his reasoning for the persuasion of another mind; he supposes, that thought begins with premises and seeks their conclusions, when actually thought begins with hypothetical conclusions and seeks their justifying premises,..

pg 78

There is a heavy trace of this in the most characteristic and original of Aristotle's contributions to philosophy - the doctrine of the syllogism. A syllogism is a trio of propositions of which the third (the conclusion) follows from the conceded truth of the other two (the major and minor premises). E.g., man is a rational animal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is a rational animal. The mathematical reader will see at once that the structure of the syllogism resembles the proposition that two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other; if A is B, and C is A, then C is B. As in the mathematical case the conclusion is reached by canceling from both premises their common term, A; so in our syllogism the conclusion is reached by canceling from both premises their common term "man," and combining what remains.

The difficulty, as logicians have pointed out from the days of Pyrrho to those of Stuart Mill, lies in this, that the major premiss of the syllogism takes for granted precisely the point to be proved; for if Socrates is not rational (and no one questions that he is a man) it is not universally true that man is a rational animal.

(my thought)

Like the peacock that spreads its feathers to impress and give the appearance of bulk, what bulk there is remains unchanged..

[mfbukowski]

My contention is that every standard proposed to determine a spiritual experience to verify some religious "truth" is a standard which allows contradictions between so-defined "truths".....

The critical point is that there is no reasonable basis to decide which claims to "truth" are valid and which are not. Including our own. The contention is that of indecision. To argue that there is no basis for an objective-minded decision between these contradictions only supports my argument. To argue that there is no basis for a subjective-minded decision between these contradictions only supports my argument.

It is claimed that there is a straight and narrow path to salvation and I am asking, how can we recognize that we are on any such path?

Do you finally understand?

I understood from the beginning.

What you don't understand is that I conceded from post 1 that different people have different views of what is "true" for them, and therefore these views of truth conflict. Yes truth conflicts IN THESE KIND OF MATTERS.

So what?

Is Capitalism "true" or socialism? The question doesn't really make sense- but saying "The church is true" is about like saying "Socialism is true" or "Capitalism is true".

Both are a set of beliefs about ways to act, and the "best" way to achieve an abstract objective. Both in fact are touted as ways to achieve "freedom"- so the parallels are indeed apt.

The point is that truth is what we experience as "true"- there IS no certainty - only justified belief, in these kind of matters.

Beliefs are justified based on one's experience of them. Science is justified by observation and spiritual experience is justified by observation as well- just different kinds of observation, different kinds of "truth". Religious truth is no more certain, objectively, than preferences- yet subjectively one can be 100% certain- or not very certain at all. Certainty in these areas varies on a continuum from "faith" to "knowledge".

Is light a wave or a particle? It depends on how you look at it. So which is true- that light is a wave, or light is a particle? It depends!

You recognize the path to salvation by what works for you - there is no, and cannot be, any other criteria.

There is no objective truth about such things, any more than you can provide a methodology for showing that the "IDEA" of "freedom" exists- the existence of the idea is "in our heads"- no where else because it is an IDEA- an ideal, something to motivate us into action, a way of seeing the world. It is confirmed by feeling good about it. There is no need nor can there be anything "more".

Do you finally understand or are you going to blow me off with a wave of the hand again?

Yes, truth in these matters may conflict from one person to another. Get over it.

What is the "true" way to get to New York? It depends on where you are and what you want to see on the way. I choose this only as an analogy - because New York exists objectively, but what is the true path to freedom?

The true path to freedom, is to me, a perfect analogy for the true path to salvation- it all depends on what you mean by each individual word- and there IS NO objective answer.

Edited July 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

You see a distinction here? What's the difference?

This is your assumption.

The fact that you dress it up into a logical argument doesn't change the fact that it is an assumption without any proof.

Are you going to address only my naked assertions or the support for those assertions which you conveniently overlooked in my last post?

You cut quite a bit out...

[shalamabobbi]

Are you going to address only my naked assertions or the support for those assertions which you conveniently overlooked in my last post?

You cut quite a bit out...

MP - I'm trying to clean up your argument by pruning out irrelevent words and then to reframe the same thoughts into your syllogism

every standard to determine a spiritual experience to verify some religious "truth" is a standard which allows contradictions between so-defined "truths".

The critical point is that there is no reasonable basis to decide which claims to "truth" are valid and which are not.

it is therefore unwise and premature to depend upon them.

The contention is that of indecision.

Here is my rework..

Different religions that are each (completely) true is a contradiction except perhaps in areas where their teachings overlap.

Different religions have tests to determine whether theirs is the correct religion.

Therefore all tests are invalid to determine which is correct.

Does this accurately describe your syllogism or not?

[Montgomery Price]

I understood from the beginning.

What you don't understand is that I conceded from post 1 that different people have different views of what is "true" for them, and therefore these views of truth conflict. Yes truth conflicts.

So what?

Is Capitalism "true" or socialism? The idea doesn't really make sense- but saying "The church is true" is about like saying "Socialism is true" or "Capitalism is true".

Both are a set of beliefs about ways to act, and the "best" way to achieve an abstract objective. Both in fact are touted as ways to achieve "freedom"- so the parallels are indeed apt.

The point is that truth is what we experience as "true"- there IS no certainty - only justified belief.

Beliefs are justified based on one's experience of them. Science is justified by observation and spiritual experience is justified by observation as well- just different kinds of observation, different kinds of "truth".

Is light a wave or a particle? It depends on how you look at it. So which is true- that light is a wave, or light is a particle?

You recognize the path to salvation by what works for you - there is no, and cannot be, any other criteria.

There is no objective truth about such things, any more than you can provide a methodology for showing that the "IDEA" of "freedom" exists- the existence of the idea is "in our heads"- no where else because it is an IDEA- an ideal, something to motivate us into action, a way of seeing the world. It is confirmed by feeling good about it. There is no need nor can there be anything "more".

Do you finally understand or are you going to blow me off with a wave of the hand again?

You've yet to explain how any of what you just explained refutes my argument. I'm obviously not concerned with truth as you characterize with the phrase "Capitalism is true", yet you persist in going on about it. You also persist in imagining that I am requesting any sort of absolute certainty.

Now, my contention becomes clear when you answer the one question you have repeatedly ignored for no apparent reason:

Given that "you recognize the path to salvation by what works for you", how can following the path to the Celestial Kingdom "work for you", if the Celestial Kingdom doesn't exist?

If your not going to answer the question, mf, it'd be much appreciated if you'd care to explain why by addressing the question itself. Your failure to do so thus far has been the only hand-waving happening between us. It's becoming remarkable how many times you will ignore this question.

This question is important because it illustrates that your standard can't be depended upon. Following the path to your salvation only works if your flavor of salvation actually exists and you've provided no way to be reasonably certain of this. You've only provided a standard which is a gamble in its level of certainty.

Following the path to attain Celestial Glory won't "work for you" if there exists no such thing. You can believe it "works for you" all you want, but if it doesn't exist and you die, you won't gain Celestial Glory just by claiming it "works for you". If simply having a spiritual experience validates that some religious "truth" "works for you", then given reports of many different claims to what "works" which can't all be "true", you can't know your own to "work for you". The afterlife as portrayed by Islam won't "work" for someone who thinks the afterlife exists as Mormonism portrays it, and vice-versa. If your standard can potentially "verify" that something "works for you", when it in fact does not, then this is a serious problem. My argument is that you can't solve this problem by simply having the experience. There is either something more or you've failed to answer the objection. Provide that something more... argue that I can't have that something more... it doesn't matter. This is becoming pathetic, mf.