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

[Montgomery Price]

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

Here is my rework..

Does this accurately describe your syllogism or not?

No. Try again.

(1) A religious experience can carry with it a "stamp" which validates certain religious truth claims and invalidate others.

(2) It is reported that many different "stamps" have validated contradictory religious truths.

(3) Therefore, all "stamps" cannot be genuine.

(4) Because you've provided no way to determine whether a "stamp" is genuine, we have no standard to determine that any truth which purports to be verified by a "stamp" actually is.

(5) Mormonism makes claims to truth which purport to be verified by this "stamp".

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Mormonism, as verified by the "stamp", must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

To behave as if one "stamp" is valid and others presumed invalid for no apparent reason is akin to building your house upon the sand. This is exactly what you're doing if you accept that simply having an experience is sufficient to validate religious truth claims.

Rephrase that however you like... Accepting the first premise justifies the rejection of Mormonism.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[mfbukowski]

OK I will actually respond to this, but it is the last time.

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.

But I am asserting the belief in the celestial kingdom is like belief in capitalism. There is no certain answer.

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?

It doesn't "exist" objectively. Never said it did. This of course is the crux. I accept that on faith- you are unable to even conceive of the possibility of doing so. Yep, I could be wrong in an objective sense. Yet I know I am not, just as surely as I sit here subjectively typing, for what purpose at the moment I haven't a clue.

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.

Nope, addressed it many, many many times.

This question is important because it illustrates that your standard can't be depended upon.

I have conceded that it gives no objective certainty many many times. If that what it takes for you to "depend" on something- you will have a very strange life. You will have to prove all your preferences objectively.

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.

Yep, it's a gamble all right. That's why they call it "faith".

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".

Yep. Oh well. Then I will be wrong won't I ? Then I will be where you already are- no afterlife. When neither of us wake up dead, I won't be thinking of this conversation and neither will you. So what?

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".

No, not objectively. Said that for post 1.

The afterlife as portrayed by Islam won't "work" for someone who thinks the afterlife exists as Mormonism portrays it, and vice-versa.

I would disagree with that. The whole idea of continuing to learn in the afterlife, which as a Mormon I believe in, denies that.

If your standard can potentially "verify" that something "works for you", when it in fact does not, then this is a serious problem.

Nope. Working for us is the best any of us can do. It's like picking a wife. We have no standard other than "who's compatible with my makeup". No certainty- remember? If I mess up I mess up- we just do the best we can in such circumstances.

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.

Yes it is pathetic.

You can't have something more. Them's the facts.

Sorry I bothered you. This raises again, as I suspected earlier, a total psychological incompatibility with the concepts discussed here. You will never understand them. The differences seem almost hard-wired in different brain structures or something.

I wish you well.

Edited July 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Shala:

Good luck!

[shalamabobbi]

To behave as if one "stamp" is valid and others presumed invalid for no apparent reason is akin to building your house upon the sand.

Interesting use of religous text when you deny religion..

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

John 7:17

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Matthew 25:18-28

This is the parable about the man who buried his talent and lost it as a result.

This is where your argument falls apart. To do as you are arguing, or rather to not do, make no choice among various religions, is to ensure that the worst possible result will be yours in the gamble you imagine you are taking. I am reminded of a friend who out of fear for accepting baptism and the serious covenant that it is, decided that rather than risk failing and being held accountable, the safer course would be to remain unbaptized. The flaw in this thinking is the same as that in your thinking. By rejecting the covenant of baptism my friend is just as liable and accountable as if she had given it a shot and failed.

Like not asking a girl to the prom for fear of rejection, it's a no win course of action, a certain course to failure..

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?

By recognizing the better place we are in as a result of following the path.

It doesn't really matter if you are on the optimal path. As you follow the path you will either grow and learn and improve or you will find that you are having the opposite experience. That is when you change paths to look for a better path.

Isaiah 28:10 Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little

What God expects is movement in the right direction. If we will act in faith to do that, He will clear a path for us and show us the way to continued growth and improvement.

Continually improving is the straight and narrow path.

I see you have spent a lot of time and thought constructing a new logical argument.

The fallacy of using a logical argument to begin with did not sink in I guess.

How sad..

Enjoy your rearranged assumptions..

[Montgomery Price]

OK I will actually respond to this, but it is the last time.

But I am asserting the belief in the celestial kingdom is like belief in capitalism. There is no certain answer.

You're wrong. The Celestial Kingdom does or does not exist. It's not comparable to capitalism in the way you think it is.

It doesn't "exist" objectively. Never said it did. This of course is the crux. I accept that on faith- you are unable to even conceive of the possibility of doing so. Yep, I could be wrong in an objective sense. Yet I know I am not, just as surely as I sit here subjectively typing, for what purpose at the moment I haven't a clue.

I never claimed you said it exists objectively. Only that you behave as if it does for no good reason. As far as can be determined, your faith is the very blind faith which many rightly reject.

But yet, you claim that you know you are not wrong in any objective sense. How this is compatible with your not saying the Celestial Kingdom "exists" objectively, I don't know. Because it seems very clear to me that claiming to know you are objectively correct about expecting the Celestial Kingdom is, in effect, claiming that you know the Celestial Kingdom exists.

By what standard do you determine that you know?

Nope, addressed it many, many many times.

I have conceded that it gives no objective certainty many many times. If that what it takes for you to "depend" on something- you will have a very strange life. You will have to prove all your preferences objectively.

Really? Can you quote exactly what I overlooked in your direct response to this question?

I don't worry about proving subjective preferences which don't have any relevance to pressing objective dilemmas. Whether I prefer vanilla or chocolate has negligible objective consequence. The effect on my life is nearly non-existent whether I act on my preference or not.

Whether I believe the Celestial Kingdom exists has nothing to do with what I prefer exist, but everything to do with the objective consequence of my actions. What is prefered doesn't apply to the question, and this is what you are still misunderstanding.

Yep, it's a gamble all right. That's why they call it "faith".

You admit it's a gamble. Choosing Mormonism is just a roll of the spiritual dice.

Que the shifting goal post...

Yep. Oh well. Then I will be wrong won't I ? Then I will be where you already are- no afterlife. When neither of us wake up dead, I won't be thinking of this conversation and neither will you. So what?

That's not the point. The point wasn't to say "Ha, ha, if you're wrong, then you're wrong."

The illustration demonstrates that there must be some standard for determining that the Celestial Kingdom is to be preferred over other possible afterlives.

No, not objectively. Said that for post 1.

I don't care. Doesn't change my argument.

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" objectively or subjectively.

I would disagree with that. The whole idea of continuing to learn in the afterlife, which as a Mormon I believe in, denies that.

"Continuing to learn" that Mormonism is true in the afterlife is most certainly not how Islam portrays the afterlife.

Nope. Working for us is the best any of us can do. It's like picking a wife. We have no standard other than "who's compatible with my makeup". No certainty- remember? If I mess up I mess up- we just do the best we can in such circumstances.

Then I contend that "the best" is insufficient for settling these questions of religion. Being the only option doesn't make it the correct option.

And again, it's not like picking a wife. It's more like picking a wife out of several possible wives which may or may not exist. You could pick a wife that you'll never receive.

Yes it is pathetic.

You can't have something more. Them's the facts.

Sorry I bothered you. This raises again, as I suspected earlier, a total psychological incompatibility with the concepts discussed here. You will never understand them. The differences seem almost hard-wired in different brain structures or something.

I wish you well.

I can't have something more? Then my argument stands.

[shalamabobbi]

Shala:

Good luck!

MP has added more rungs to his ladder of logic.

I guess he thinks it now reaches higher than before..

Edited July 12, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[mfbukowski]

You're wrong. The Celestial Kingdom does or does not exist. It's not comparable to capitalism in the way you think it is.

LOL.

CFR

This should be interesting.

That's ok, I'm just playin'.

[Montgomery Price]

Interesting use of religous text when you deny religion..

Matthew 7:24-27

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

John 7:17

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Matthew 25:18-28

This is the parable about the man who buried his talent and lost it as a result.

Interesting that I, an atheist, would be so angry with God, right?

This is where your argument falls apart. To do as you are arguing, or rather to not do, make no choice among various religions, is to ensure that the worst possible result will be yours in the gamble you imagine you are taking. I am reminded of a friend who out of fear for accepting baptism and the serious covenant that it is, decided that rather than risk failing and being held accountable, the safer course would be to remain unbaptized. The flaw in this thinking is the same as that in your thinking. By rejecting the covenant of baptism my friend is just as liable and accountable as if she had given it a shot and failed.

Like not asking a girl to the prom for fear of rejection, it's a no win course of action, a certain course to failure..

That I am ensuring the worst possible result is all fine and dandy if we grant that there is a correct choice. How that choice is made is not clear. My argument still stands. You're still thinking within the worldview whose justification for acceptance is in question. Step outside and reconsider my argument.

To claim that my argument "falls apart" after we presume Mormonism is true for no good reason is no argument.

By recognizing the better place we are in as a result of following the path.

It doesn't really matter if you are on the optimal path. As you follow the path you will either grow and learn and improve or you will find that you are having the opposite experience. That is when you change paths to look for a better path.

Isaiah 28:10 Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little

What God expects is movement in the right direction. If we will act in faith to do that, He will clear a path for us and show us the way to continued growth and improvement.

Continually improving is the straight and narrow path.

I see you have spent a lot of time and thought constructing a new logical argument.

The fallacy of using a logical argument to begin with did not sink in I guess.

How sad..

Enjoy your rearranged assumptions..

How sad that you can't even consider my argument properly, because you can't think about a world in which Mormonism is not already given as true. Your refutation of my argument against your justification for accepting Mormonism is to simply accept Mormonism for no apparent reason and use what logically follows. So what if it logically follows... you haven't justified the premise.

To claim again that my argument doesn't work because you've simply presumed Mormonism to be true, and that therefore recognizing the "better place" is a valid measure of whether you are on the "right path". This is certainly not given unless you give reason to accept Mormonism.

Again, everything you just explain is dandy after you've determined that the premise your thoughts rely on, that Mormonism is true, is to be accepted. Try refuting my argument without superfluously assuming Mormonism is true. The argument I just provided contends that the justification for accepting Mormonism you've proposed doesn't actually work, so to try and refute it with the same assumption I am questioning is circular until you address my argument properly. Try again.

[Honorentheos]

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.

or, alternatively, his view of the celestial kingdom is more inclusive than yours. Like, say, understanding how Joseph and Sidney were not described as seeing the same vision in a verifiable way, but instead simply agreed with the other when they said, "I see...."

"I see the same!"

and, perhaps, MP includes in his understanding of the celestial kingdom that it was described to us by a man who used this same notion to convince women to have relations with him or face damnation.

You may be presenting a different view of reality. But that doesn't guarantee it isn't more limited. I'd argue that the larger and broader the collective that adds to the view, the more likely it is to be highly functional.

THAT is the essence of the scientific method and why it may follow the principles you give lip service to, but is in another family all together from the reality of your thinking, my friend.

You can, of course, choose to limit your view. The question, though, is if you are willing to acknowledge you are doing this?

Edited July 12, 2011 by Honorentheos

[mfbukowski]

and, perhaps, MP includes in his understanding of the celestial kingdom that it was described to us by a man who used this same notion to convince women to have relations with him or face damnation.

Like I said, your bitterness is showing. More like obsession I would say.

And MY view is "limiting"?

Time to shut this puppy down imo before it goes further south.

[Honorentheos]

MFB,

Clearly your response is not related to my argument in any substantial way but is instead an attempt at avoiding the problems it poses for your self-limited form of so-called pragmatism. And it wouldn't be hard to answer - just explain how you choose which experiences to allow into your collective that compose those concepts we call Mormonism and which you don't.

I'm not bitter, my friend. I'm quietly amused at your request to "shut this puppie down".

[shalamabobbi]

How sad that you can't even consider my argument properly, because you can't think about a world in which Mormonism is not already given as true. Your refutation of my argument against your justification for accepting Mormonism is to simply accept Mormonism for no apparent reason and use what logically follows. So what if it logically follows... you haven't justified the premise.

To claim again that my argument doesn't work because you've simply presumed Mormonism to be true, and that therefore recognizing the "better place" is a valid measure of whether you are on the "right path". This is certainly not given unless you give reason to accept Mormonism.

Again, everything you just explain is dandy after you've determined that the premise your thoughts rely on, that Mormonism is true, is to be accepted. Try refuting my argument without superfluously assuming Mormonism is true. The argument I just provided contends that the justification for accepting Mormonism you've proposed doesn't actually work, so to try and refute it with the same assumption I am questioning is circular until you address my argument properly. Try again.

I think you misunderstand. I am not trying to refute your argument logically. Why I am LDS is not the result of a logical argument at all. So whether it is circular when framed as such is irrelevant.

Spinoza in an argument to Albert Burgh:

Albert:

You assume that you have at last found the true philosophy. How do you know that your philosophy is the best of all those which have ever been taught in the world, are now taught, or shall be taught hereafter? To say nothing of what may be devised in the future. Have you examined all those philosophies, both ancient and modern, which are taught here, in India, and all the world over? And even supposing that you have duly examined them, how do you know that you have chosen the best?...

Spinoza replies:

You who assume that you have at last found the best religion, or rather the best teachers, and fixed your credulity upon them, how do you know that they are the best among those who have taught religions, or now teach, or shall hereafter teach them? Have you examined all those religions, ancient and modern, which are taught here, and in India, and all the world over? And even supposing that you have duly examined them, how do you know that you have chosen the best?

I hate to deflate your balloon but if this were an argument with substance everyone would have gotten out of the pool 350 years ago..

[mfbukowski]

I hate to deflate your balloon but if this were an argument with substance everyone would have gotten out of the pool 350 years ago..

Those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it.

[Honorentheos]

Totally agree, MFB.

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."

— John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)

[KevinG]

So we're back to we are blinded by our own beliefs.

Then why did I, as a strongly agnostic Methodist boy received a witness of the Holy Spirit beyond my expectations and experience that verified the truthfullness of the LDS claim.

My Paul/Saul experience is not explained by that theory.

Edited July 12, 2011 by DaddyG

[Honorentheos]

So we're back to we are blinded by our own beliefs.

No, we are back to being blinded by the limits we set on how much information we are willing to allow into our understanding of a concept.

[KevinG]

No, we are back to being blinded by the limits we set on how much information we are willing to allow into our understanding of a concept.

I see. Like denying that there can be any experience outside the sphere that epistemology can explain.

Edited to correct my horrible spelling.

Edited July 12, 2011 by DaddyG

[mfbukowski]

I see. Like denying that there can be any experience outside the sphere that epistomiology can explain.

The wrong epistemology anyway.

[Honorentheos]

I think DaddyG is right even if he didn't mean to use epistemology but something else. Statements such as having belief in the BoM or church based on utility without a corresponding proposition do not seem far off from where we are, since others are admitting they have no concern about circular logic being the foundation for their position.

I'm sorry, MFB. The vocabulary of your philosophy may be in Mormonism, but the grammar shows it is really something other.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Honorentheos

[KevinG]

I think DaddyG is right even if he didn't mean to use epistemology but something else. A statement such as having belief in the BoM or church based on utility without a corresponding proposition does not seem far off from where we are when others are admitting they have no concern about circular logic being the foundation for their position.

I'm sorry, MFB. The vocabulary of your philosophy may be in Mormonism, but the grammar shows it is really something other.

You have your conclusion inverted however. Spiritual experiences can be beyond our ability to measure or characterize. That doesn't make them more limited but it demonstrates the limits of earthly logic and sciences.

I am very wary of anyone (spiritualist or scientist) who claims to have the corner on knowledge or the measurement of knowledge.

You can spend all day (and indeed you have) wallowing about in words trying to explain why someone elses experience cannot be, it doesn't change the nature of the experience or the truth of it.

All I read here is a very verbose version of "you are deluded by your own belief system". I'm not impressed.

You aren't communicating with rubes here. I was an empassioned agnostic prior to my conversion experience. I argued with my LDS and other Christian friends to no end just like you are doing, very convinced that their beliefs were not rooted in logic or reality. The Holy Spirit broke through my limited understanding and expanded my knowledge greatly. In a way it is very ironic that people attempt to use science and philosophy to explain away the very real spiritual experiences of others.

Edited July 12, 2011 by DaddyG

[Honorentheos]

I am very wary of anyone (spiritualist or scientist) who claims to have the corner on knowledge or the measurement of knowledge.

As am I. I'm curious, do you believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the one true and living church on the face of the earth in which the Lord is well pleased? I'm not trying to score points, here, DaddyG. I'm asking if you see why your statement is interesting in light of this entire thread.

You can spend all day (and indeed you have) wallowing about in words trying to explain why someone elses experience cannot be, it doesn't change the nature of the experience or the truth of it.

All I read here is a very verbose version of "you are deluded by your own belief system". I'm not impressed.

I'm not saying your experience can not be. I am suggesting that to gain the best utility from it, you need to extend your understanding of that experience to include more sources and information. Your subjective experiences are valid for you. How you choose to interpret them is clearly defined by the extent of your understanding and the nature of your ideas as they relate to this experience.

When you choose to put limits on the experiences that inform these concepts, however, you are making a choice that is effectively the same as claiming, "I have a corner on knowledge or the measurement of knowledge" because you are not taking into account the full extent of the information available.

I am not invalidating your experience, DaddyG. But I am questioning your approach of relying on this experience, which is subjective, to place limits or exclude interpretations of others experiences regarding Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc, that threaten your current belief.

[KevinG]

As am I. I'm curious, do you believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the one true and living church on the face of the earth in which the Lord is well pleased? I'm not trying to score points, here, DaddyG. I'm asking if you see why your statement is interesting in light of this entire thread.

Yes

I'm not saying your experience can not be. I am suggesting that to gain the best utility from it, you need to extend your understanding of that experience to include more sources and information. Your subjective experiences are valid for you. How you choose to interpret them is clearly defined by the extent of your understanding and the nature of your ideas as they relate to this experience.

When you choose to put limits on the experiences that inform these concepts, however, you are making a choice that is effectively the same as claiming, "I have a corner on knowledge or the measurement of knowledge" because you are not taking into account the full extent of the information available.

I am not invalidating your experience, DaddyG. But I am questioning your approach of relying on this experience, which is subjective, to place limits or exclude interpretations of others experiences regarding Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc, that threaten your current belief.

My conversion experience is not singular. Once the heavens were opened to me (limited as it may be to my own worthiness and faith) I have had experience after experience that verifies the reality of God and His Gospel.

I posted before some of the manifestations including the gifts of the spirit and the nature of truth in the Doctrine in Covenants. They are extensive and deep, not the characture of the Mormon experience you are arguing against.

Again for your reference- the many manifestations of the Spirit that have great utility in the lives of the Saints.

Doctrine and Covenants 46:

8Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived ^aseek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

9For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a ^asign that they may ^bconsume it upon their lusts.

10And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your ^aminds what those ^bgifts are, that are given unto the church.

11For all have not every ^agift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

12To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

13To some it is given by the ^aHoly Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14To others it is given to ^abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

15And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the ^adifferences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his ^bmercies according to the conditions of the children of men.

16And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the ^aSpirit may be given to every man to profit withal.

17And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of ^awisdom.

18To another is given the word of ^aknowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.

19And again, to some it is given to have ^afaith to be healed;

20And to others it is given to have faith to ^aheal.

21And again, to some is given the working of ^amiracles;

22And to others it is given to ^aprophesy;

23And to others the ^adiscerning of spirits.

24And again, it is given to some to speak with ^atongues;

25And to another is given the interpretation of tongues.

26And all these ^agifts come from God, for the benefit of the ^bchildren of God.

And the nature of truth:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:

30All truth is independent in that ^asphere in which God has placed it, to ^bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31Behold, here is the ^aagency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is ^bplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

keep reading to understand our beliefs...

[mfbukowski]

....You aren't communicating with rubes here. I was an empassioned agnostic prior to my conversion experience. I argued with my LDS and other Christian friends to no end just like you are doing, very convinced that their beliefs were not rooted in logic or reality. The Holy Spirit broke through my limited understanding and expanded my knowledge greatly....

I found Pragmatism 10 years before I found the church. I instantly recognized the affinities with Mormonism and had an incredible spiritual experience.

All this talk about limiting my options to Mormon ones is just absurd. I am coming from total atheism- and I don't think you can get more "open" from his pov than that- since presumably that is what H is. The reality is that one has to be MORE open as a Mormon- to conceive that the HG is real makes no logical sense whatsoever- but the Holy Ghost just blows away all the illusions of what is real and what is not. "For those who believe in revelation, there can be no question; for those who do not believe in revelation there can be no answer".

Forgot who said that, but whoever it was just plain nailed it.

Honor's typical response now would be that he also like us, felt the same thing, until he figured out he was deluded. Just thought I'd beat him to the punch. And probably something about polygamy. Oh well.

This thread may go on forever.

Edited July 12, 2011 by mfbukowski

[KevinG]

I am suggesting that to gain the best utility from it, you need to extend your

understanding of that experience to include more sources and information.

I just can't stop re-reading this statement. I'm stunned at how arrogant it sounds.

Do you really think that Mormons only believe as they do because they have limited their sources of information? That's a pretty damning accusation that lacks any shred of evidence and doesn't bear out given the LDS penchant for education of all kinds.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not saying your experience can not be. I am suggesting that to gain the best utility from it, you need to extend your understanding of that experience to include more sources and information. Your subjective experiences are valid for you. How you choose to interpret them is clearly defined by the extent of your understanding and the nature of your ideas as they relate to this experience.

When you choose to put limits on the experiences that inform these concepts, however, you are making a choice that is effectively the same as claiming, "I have a corner on knowledge or the measurement of knowledge" because you are not taking into account the full extent of the information available.

I am not invalidating your experience, DaddyG. But I am questioning your approach of relying on this experience, which is subjective, to place limits or exclude interpretations of others experiences regarding Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc, that threaten your current belief.

Do you see the irony here, that it is you who are closed to the Holy Ghost?

I have been an atheist- been there, done that. I learned the reality of subjective experience AS an atheist precisely because I was open to ideas you cannot conceive might be true. Ultimately these kind of assertions are just laughable.

I know this was not addressed to me, but you have said similar things to me right in this thread.

You have so limited your vision that you cannot see.