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

[Deborah]

You really can't wrap your head around this objection... I'm in disbelief. Sorry.

I would argue it's a moot argument because many more intelligent, non-gullible people have applied Moroni's promise than those who are gullible.

[Montgomery Price]

What do you mean a "Mormon" God? I worship the God of the Old and New Testaments, the same one apparently many others believe in though we may understand him differently.

In case you aren't familiar with the Bible Christ asked his disciples to follow him though they knew nothing about him. Why do you think they did that? People followed him just listening to his words and feeling his spirit. Why is the BOM test any less valid than that?

If Moroni's Promise is valid, then we live in world that has been created by a God who would inspire the BOM. If we presume Moroni's Promise to be valid before taking the test, then we have already accepted that the BOM is inspired... so why test it?

[bluebell]

You really can't wrap your head around this objection... I'm in disbelief. Sorry.

I the feelings mutual, so we probably should just move on.

I don't understand. Please explain what you mean by the outcome, and how this validates whether the outcome is reliable.

I'm in disbelief that you can't understand this. Sorry.

If you don't know whether your belief is superior, what led you to the belief that the Mormon church claims to be superior?

Based on my experiences with it, i very strongly believe it is superior.

I just asked: how do you know that you're the one with the superior belief?

And you responded: I don't.

Which to me means, "I don't know that my belief is superior."

But you go on to say... "My experiences make it superior for me."

Which to me means, "I do know that my belief is superior in some way."

Did you forget some qualifiers?

Nope.

The fact that someone can use your own justification against you should trouble you. It should bring your justification into question.

It doesn't.

[Deborah]

If we presume Moroni's Promise to be valid before taking the test, then we have already accepted that the BOM is inspired... so why test it?

We can talk about something like childbirth and even prepare for it but until you've gone through it you have no idea what people are talking about. Believing something is true isn't like knowing it from actual experience.

[elguanteloko]

I don't need to justify that it works before I try.

Correct. However, what is in question is the conclusion you draw as far as the validity of the test, several presuppositions taken as 'facts' that take you to the conclusions you draw, and the conclusions you draw themselves.

I don't need to justify the reasons why I might like salt before I try it too.

Well, that depends. "Why do you think you will like salt?" is different from "WILL you like salt?" No one is asking the latter but the former.

I just know this test does work.

"I just know lung cancer is caused by reading Alice in Wonderland." You are missing the point.

You want me to explain something that is personal to me in a way that you will understand it the way I do. I am sorry but that is impossible.

Of course I might now understand your questions.

What I did is I just took the promise to task and actually tested it. I really was not expecting anything to happen. All I said to myself is that "if this does work I will change my life". When that mind set set in is when I received my answer.

The problem is that this "test" can very easily be called into question and the reliability of such test must be doubted by even yourself. If I say cancer is caused by Jupiter's movement and then I see cancer here and Jupiter there and conclude that, therefore, Jupiter caused it... since this can easily be called into rational doubt then it must not be accepted too lightly.

[Montgomery Price]

Montgomery, be careful that this doesn't take you to an infinite regress. The "test for the test for the test for the test", ad infinitum. There must be a point in which you say it must not continue and a Mormon could very well make the point that spiritual experiences are of the sort that do not require further justification. I don't think they would have a leg to stand on if they so chose to argue but how you are approaching this is even less correct.

Mormons do try and make that point, and I'm unconvinced for reasons I can explain to anyone. Because we could conceivably ask "why?" indefinitely doesn't make a Mormon's attempt to justify any specific "why?" any less unsatisfying. There are important things to discuss, and things we can know before the regress becomes too stretched.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[elguanteloko]

We can talk about something like childbirth and even prepare for it but until you've gone through it you have no idea what people are talking about. Believing something is true isn't like knowing it from actual experience.

No one is questioning the feelings you might experience or the amazing visions you might have... that is NOT the point.

The point is to question the conclusions and presuppositions you take as true so as to say such test actually works.

You don't need to see how LSD feels like to realize it doesn't allow you to "see" pink elephants that were before hidden from normal view in any reliable way. That LSD gets you to see things doesn't mean LSD-induced visions are a reliable test to discover things in reality.

[elguanteloko]

Mormons do try and make that point, and I'm unconvinced for reasons I can explain to anyone. Because we could conceivably ask "why?" indefinitely doesn't make a Mormon's attempt to justify that why any less unsatisfying. There are important things to discuss, and things we can know before the regress becomes too stretched.

"too stretched"? The point is that to stretch is at all is a wrong approach.

Go ahead, bring ANY test that you think is as reliable as any test can get and I'll just keep on questioning your presuppositions forever.

[Deborah]

The point is to question the conclusions and presuppositions you take as true so as to say such test actually works.

I suppose because so many different people of so many different ages from so many different walks of life have applied the test and got the same result.

[Montgomery Price]

We can talk about something like childbirth and even prepare for it but until you've gone through it you have no idea what people are talking about. Believing something is true isn't like knowing it from actual experience.

Why is it necessary to experience the belief that the BOM is inspired if it already logically follows from your prior belief?

[Montgomery Price]

"too stretched"? The point is that to stretch is at all is a wrong approach.

Go ahead, bring ANY test that you think is as reliable as any test can get and I'll just keep on questioning your presuppositions forever.

Of course this is true, but how does this make the answers to the questions we happen to ask any less important?

[zerinus]

I don't see how this justifies the test as reliable.

That question was already answered. If you want to turn a blind eye to the answer, I have nothing further to say.

How did you "put Moroni's promise to the test"?

In my case I didn't need to, because as soon as I started reading the Book of Mormon I knew it was true, without having to pray about it. God Reveals the truth to different people in different ways, and under different circumstances. But for those who apply the test, I don't understand your question. Don't you know what it means to pray? If you know, then you already know the answer to your own question.

The belief in the reliability of Moroni's Promise implies that you believe in a Mormon God.

It implies you believe in the God of the Bible, the same God who inspired Matthew, Luke, and James.

Only a Mormon God would create a world in which Moroni's Promise would be reliable.

That is a puzzling statement to make, in the light of the previous statements and scriptural references given.

If you believed in a Mormon God prior to taking the test of Moroni's Promise, why didn't you just skip the test and believe what logically follows from the belief in a Mormon God?

See above.

What I would add to your analogy is that the younger brother must verify that the telephone produces results that can be relied on as the basis for knowledge.

That is already a "given". He knows that he can contact his dad on his cellphone. He has his dad's number, and used it before to contact him when needed. He can recognize his dad't voice. So that question is already resolved for him. It is not an issue for him to have any doubts about.

Unlike the telephone in your analogy, Moroni's Promise has far from established itself as a reliable method of attaining the relevant results.

For someone who believes in the God of the Bible it isn't, for the reasons already explained.

[elguanteloko]

I suppose because so many different people of so many different ages from so many different walks of life have applied the test and got the same result.

There are too many problems with this single statement but I'll grant it as it is.

Now, let's assume "so many different people of so many different ages from so many different walks of life have applied the test and got the same result", what is the most likely explanation for this? A super-powerful being that loves us more than anyone on earth loves us and wants to communicate with us told you, somehow, the BoM was correct?

OR

You were mislead by your feelings and your own biases which are required for the test to be done "properly"?

You may very well believe that it is the first one of those two that is the true one or the correct one; that's fine... but that is NOT what I'm asking. I'm asking, what do you think is the most likely explanation to be the case given that SO many people around the world get spiritual confirmations of their own faiths and cultural biases all the time?

[elguanteloko]

Of course this is true, but how does this make the answers to the questions we happen to ask any less important?

Because it means the question you are asking is wrong in the first place.

I don't know why you say here "less important", the point is that it is incorrect to ask such a thing like you are doing here. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" seems like the answer might be important but the point is that that is already a loaded question.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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

Yes, as do all spiritual communications. After getting what one thinks/believes is an anwer from God/spiritual confirmation/revelation of some kind, then one absolutely has to act on it. The example I like to use comes from Joseph Smith himself. If one thinks an angel has spoken to him all night long about a set of golden plates buried in a nearby hill, it could either be a dream, something like a hallucination, or an actual angel. If the next day one actually acts on the impression, goes to the hill, recognises the exact spot one was shown in the presumed vision the night before, pries up the rock, and discovers a set of actual golden plates, then it starts to seem more likely that it was an actual angel.

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

I'm not familiar with this 'credulous, unjustified acceptance' which you've manufactured as an object of your scorn. From my personal experience, one of the most striking features of 'Mormonism' is its inherent pragmatism and materialism. From the very beginning, the faith has been rooted in the real, practical world--inviting people to try it and see if it really works. That's precisely what I did as a fulltime missionary...and what I still do as a priests quorum adviser. When people are moved upon by the Spirit, they are then invited to act upon the impression and see if doing so really brings forth the promised outcomes.

[elguanteloko]

For someone who believes in the God of the Bible it isn't, for the reasons already explained.

I'm confused by this, zerinus. How does believing in the God of the Bible make your answers to prayers more prone to being reliable? You might believe they are but that is not the question. What makes you think they are more reliable? (I'm asking for good reasons, btw)

[CV75]

...and the results yielded have often contradicted one another. But, as I told zernius... Only a Mormon God would create a world in which Moroni's Promise is reliable. So, if it's established that you believe in a God that would make Moroni's Promise reliable, then you already believe in a God that inspired the BOM, so why test it?

I heartily disagree that the results often contradict one another. I know from my own experience with such matters that when the instructions are followed so that the proper course is taken, results do not contradict each other.

I disagree that the process described is already established in the mind of the reader (hence the exhortation). This can only happen after he remembers God’s mercy. Once it is established in the mind of the reader, the process affords one the opportunity to know the Christ better (see verses 6-8 ), and because to some this is a good thing, they follow the exhortation.

People build upon profitable experiences and memories all the time. Knowing by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Book or Mormon is true gives one great advantage in applying and staying true to all the teachings it has to offer, and this is another reason to follow the exhortation.

Edited June 28, 2011 by CV75

[zerinus]

I'm confused by this, zerinus. How does believing in the God of the Bible make your answers to prayers more prone to being reliable? You might believe they are but that is not the question. What makes you think they are more reliable? (I'm asking for good reasons, btw)

Because the Bible confirms to us that the God of the Bible is Someone Who can be trusted to answer our sincere prayers when the answers are needed and approached in faith.

Edited June 28, 2011 by zerinus

[KevinG]

Does God require a valid epistemic test to reveal truth to those who ask Him?

I asked, He answered, I believe.

[elguanteloko]

blah, anyways Moroni's test is unquestionable for a Mormon's point of view. If you accept Moroni's promise then there's no result from Moroni's test that will render the BoM false:

If you didn't get an answer you didn't ask correctly which means that either you didn't have faith in Christ, you didn't have a real intent, or you weren't sincere (or a combination of the previous).

If you get, somehow, an answer that the BoM isn't true, then you didn't ask correctly either or your time hasn't come (and we now the time has come when you accept the BoM is true).

[elguanteloko]

Because the Bible confirms to us that the God of the Bible is Someone Who can be trusted to answer our sincere prayers when the answers are needed.

That doesn't answer the question. Your belief in the God of the Bible doesn't make anything more reliable but you may believe it does (and that's all you have been saying here, i.e. what you believe).

For example. Believing that Jupiter's movement causes lung cancer is one thing. Thinking that attributing cases of lung cancer to Jupiter's movement is a reliable way to know the causes of lung cancer is another one.

[Questing Beast]

A test based on asking for an answer, then accepting feelings and thoughts as evidence for receiving that answer, allows EVERY metaphysical experience to be just as valid. That is why I tell my wife that yes I believe her witness of the BoM and the LDS Church that she received so powerfully when she was but a young woman are real; for her. And nobody can say otherwise. The same holds for any other religious person within their paradigm. And if many religious people base their beliefs on empirical evidence (facts), and steer away from warm fuzzies because they are unreliable feelings, their caution is justified and cannot be faulted either. Whatever works for you; whatever you feel you can trust, go for it....

[Pahoran]

blah, anyways Moroni's test is unquestionable for a Mormon's point of view.

How do you know? Do you have a "Mormon's point of view?"

Why do you, or Monty, or anyone else, need to bother actually talking to any Mormons about anything when you can supply their answers simply by leaning back in your chair?

If you accept Moroni's promise then there's no result from Moroni's test that will render the BoM false:

If you didn't get an answer you didn't ask correctly which means that either you didn't have faith in Christ, you didn't have a real intent, or you weren't sincere (or a combination of the previous).

If you get, somehow, an answer that the BoM isn't true, then you didn't ask correctly either or your time hasn't come (and we now the time has come when you accept the BoM is true).

It must be nice to be eau seau superiah. However, there are those of us who take Moroni at his word, and say: If you have read, pondered and prayed, and done so with a sincere heart, real intent and with faith in Christ -- and only you can know whether you've done that or not -- and having done so, if you have not received the answer Moroni promised, then you are entitled to reject the Church's truth claims. Go on with your life, we wish you well and happy.

Just understand that, just as we don't expect our experiences to settle the question for you, neither can you expect your experience to settle the question for us. Or indeed, for anyone else.

Alternatively, if you suppose that you are just too smart, too sophisticated, too jaded, too intellectual and too eau seau superiah to even try to take Moroni's promise seriously, then you and we can never do anything but talk past each other.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

Several of my well meaning Evangelical and Baptist friends have warned my I was fooled by a false spirit when I claimed God answered my prayers. They know this because their pastor told them.

(I kid you not).

[zerinus]

That doesn't answer the question. Your belief in the God of the Bible doesn't make anything more reliable but you may believe it does (and that's all you have been saying here, i.e. what you believe).

It may look like that to you, but for me the experiences are as real as anything can be. I cannot share or communicate that experience to you, obviously; you would have to experience it for yourself. But just because you haven't experienced it, it does not destroy the reality of my experience for me. It is a bit like the parable of the ten virgins. Each was responsible individually for the oil in their lamps. They couldn't share their oil with someone else. And unfortunately for them, those that didn't have enough oil were left out of the party.

For example. Believing that Jupiter's movement causes lung cancer is one thing. Thinking that attributing cases of lung cancer to Jupiter's movement is a reliable way to know the causes of lung cancer is another one.

That is not faith. You can believe in the wrong thing, obviously. Genuine faith implies that the object of your faith is the truth, and there is a way of knowing it, otherwise no one could be condemned for not believing.