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

[Montgomery Price]

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

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.

In your case you don't need to apply the test, then what is different about the circumstances of those who do?

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.

I'm sorry. Let me take a step back. You believe Moroni's Promise to be reliable, because it logically follows from the confirmation you've received that the BOM is inspired. This confirmation you received from God, after you prayed and God "answered" in some way.

So, the relevant question for our conversation is now why you accept praying to God as a valid epistemic test, whether or not Moroni's Promise can simply be dismissed.

[Montgomery Price]

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.

I don't see how the question is loaded.

[elguanteloko]

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

I don't need to. It's called process of elimination. You look at the possible outcomes and you realize no result from said "test" will show the BoM to be wrong to a believer.

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?

?

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.

Once again, the experiences is NOT what I'm questioning but the explanations of those experiences. I don't question what you say salt tastes like or how you think yellow or green look like to you and I know you can't transmit those perceptions to me. I don't doubt you felt what appeared to be God's love when you prayed or a warm feeling in your chest when you prayed. Those things are not in question.

What IS in question is the supposed sources of those experiences. Big difference.

[KevinG]

So, the relevant question for our conversation is now why you accept praying to God as a valid epistemic test, whether or not Moroni's Promise can simply be dismissed.

This will come down to personal experience. A testimony, epiphany, spiritual witness, etc. will not be easily explained - but I am hard pressed to argue with those who have had them. Especially when the fruits of those witnesses are good. I have a great appraciation for the witnesses and blessings several of my coworkers voiced for me and my family during trials. They are of different faiths but I recognize the spirit in what they have to say and in the exercise of their faith.

By taking only one verse (Moroni's promise) and taking it separately from the hundreds of other admonitions to listen to God (James, etc.) and witnesses that God answers prayers you are missing some important contexts.

[KevinG]

I don't doubt you felt what appeared to be God's love when you prayed or a warm feeling in your chest when you prayed. Those things are not in question.

What IS in question is the supposed sources of those experiences. Big difference.

That is border line insulting. A witness of Christ or the truth is far from a warm feeling or the "appearance" of God's love. Do you question all supernatural experience or just those that don't jive with your religious doctrines?

[elguanteloko]

That is border line insulting. A witness of Christ or the truth is far from a warm feeling or the "appearance" of God's love. Do you question all supernatural experience or just those that don't jive with your religious doctrines?

Well, whatever. ANY signal of spiritual manifestations is NOT what I'm questioning but the said sources of those "manifestations". I don't question ANY experience (for the moment being) but I do question the sources or what caused those experiences.

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

This will come down to personal experience.

No, personal experience has little to do with this. The taste of salt is NOT what is in question but what causes the taste of salt or how it occurs, is what is in question.

A testimony, epiphany, spiritual witness, etc. will not be easily explained - but I am hard pressed to argue with those who have had them.

Those experiences are not easy to explain, indeed, so it is even the more amazing people choose to go with the least likely explanation for them: the miraculous and/or supernatural.

Especially when the fruits of those witnesses are good.

That something makes you a good person is no witness to the reality of it.

[KevinG]

Well, whatever. ANY signal of spiritual manifestations are NOT what I'm questioning but the said sources of those "manifestations". I don't question ANY experience (for the moment being) but I do question the sources or what caused those experiences.

Judging the source of a spiritual manifestation that you did not have is pretty presumptuous IMO. I don't question the validity of inspirtations my Evangelical and Baptists friends tell me about. I assume that they are from the Lord and appreciate when they share them.

The only way to evaluate someone elses prompting is by the works they exhibit. I believe there is alot of inspired behavior throughout Christianity as well as other sincere men and women of other faiths.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find;

knock, and it shall be opened to you: 8 For every one that asks receives;

and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son

ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or

if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good

gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give

good things to them that ask him?

[KevinG]

No, personal experience has little to do with this. The taste of salt is NOT what is in question but what causes the taste of salt or how it occurs, is what is in question.

Those experiences are not easy to explain, indeed, so it is even the more amazing people choose to go with the least likely explanation for them: the miraculous and/or supernatural.

That something makes you a good person is no witness to the reality of it.

Are you of the mass hallucination school of explaining belief?

Supernatural is not always mysticism. It is something that cannot be measured or observed using our limited mortal resources and sciences. Assuming that something doesn't exist because we can't explain it or readily observe it is pure hubris. You might as well tell me that the universe ends at the limit of our telescopes.

Edited June 28, 2011 by DaddyG

[elguanteloko]

Judging the source of a spiritual manifestation that you did not have is pretty presumptuous IMO.

LOL Oh, really? So, when I become an M.D. and I ask people if they are having certain symptoms I shouldn't judge what the the sources of those symptoms are since I'm not having those experiences, correct? I mean, I don't want to be presumptuous.

I don't question the validity of inspirtations my Evangelical and Baptists friends tell me about. I assume that they are from the Lord and appreciate when they share them.

is this a joke? You can't be serious here. "My vision is carried by Thor's mighty invisible thunders making a bridge between my eyeball and my occipital lobe." You won't doubt that, I suppose, since you are not presumptuous.

The only way to evaluate someone elses prompting is by the works they exhibit. I believe there is alot of inspired behavior throughout Christianity as well as other sincere men and women of other faiths.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find;

knock, and it shall be opened to you: 8 For every one that asks receives;

and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son

ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or

if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good

gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give

good things to them that ask him?

This post must be a joke or something.

Edited June 28, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

Are you of the mass hallucination school of explaining belief?

?

Supernatural is not always mysticism.

whatever it is.

It is something that cannot be measured or observed using our limited mortal resources and sciences.

Why not? How did you come aware and in contact with those things that transcend our "limited mortal resources and sciences" when you yourself are a "limited mortal"?

Assuming that something doesn't exist because we can't explain it or readily observe it is pure hubris.

Not assume it doesn't exist but probably suspend judgment.

You might as well tell me that the universe ends at the limit of our telescopes.

No, but if you say there is a giant human being at the end of what our telescopes can see, I think we should require some evidence for that or at least suspend judgment.

[KevinG]

I'll ignore the insults... You could be more respectful. But no the post is not a joke.

Medical diagnosis is a different animal than questions of faith and the spirit. I go to doctors to treat my physical symptoms and God to treat my spirit. Sometimes when the situation requires it I get medicine from the doctor and pray to God for healing.

I would not as an MD to prove the existance of God and I would not ask my Bishop to treat my flu.

"My vision is carried by Thor's mighty invisible thunders making a bridge

between my eyeball and my occipital lobe." You won't doubt that, I suppose,

since you are not presumptuous."

You must admit that is a rather extreme example. There aren't too many worshippers of Thor around these days. Using that as a parallel to Christian/LDS belief in communing with Jesus Christ is however an excellent indication of your level of disdain for Christian/LDS beliefs.

If that were your sincere belief I would not try to talk you out of it or claim you were deluded. I would limit my counsel to observations of their behavior and the results of those behaviors. That is a valid approach to counseling someone of any belief. If you try to mind-read or judge the validity of their internal experience you are treading on very thin ground. I hope you take a few classes on counseling before you get your MD. Trying to invalidate others experience isn't a good approach to patients or customers in any profession.

Edited June 28, 2011 by DaddyG

[zerinus]

In your case you don't need to apply the test, then what is different about the circumstances of those who do?

What I said wasn’t strictly true. I did pray, but that prayer was made long before I had heard of the Book of Mormon or know anything about Mormonism. Let me explain. Before I ever know there was such a thing as Mormon, I had sought for religious truth. I had studied Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and a few other religions in order to discover divine truth, or a true religion, but without success. After several years of frustrating attempts, I decided to pray about it. I didn’t know for sure that there was a God; so I prayed with the assumption that there might be. Effectively my prayer was, “Knock, knock! If there is a God, and you are there, then answer me please!” It was not long after this that I accidentally came across Mormonism. I was not approached directly by Mormon missionaries; I went to a meeting in which the Mormon missionaries were giving a presentation—without saying anything about Moroni’s promise. So out of my curiosity for all things religious I decided to obtain a copy of the Book of Mormon from them, and went home and started reading it; and immediately I knew it was true. So I did pray about it, but not in the way in which it is normally thought of.

I'm sorry. Let me take a step back. You believe Moroni's Promise to be reliable, because it logically follows from the confirmation you've received that the BOM is inspired.

That is not what I said at all. You are twisting what I have said. Moroni’s promise is reliable because of what I know of the Character of God in the Bible—i.e. that He is kind and merciful, and answers the prayers of those who ask in faith with a sincere heart. That is the kind of being that the Bible tells us God is; and it conforms with the promise of Maroni in the Book of Mormon.

I get the impression that you are trying to "catch" me somehow! Well you won't! Moroni's argument is watertight. If we accept the Bible as a common ground, then Moroni's argument is Biblical. If you don't accept the Bible as a common ground, then you will find that Moroni's argument at the lowest level is logical. You can't drive a wedge through it. It works, period.

This confirmation you received from God, after you prayed and God "answered" in some way.

See above.

So, the relevant question for our conversation is now why you accept praying to God as a valid epistemic test, whether or not Moroni's Promise can simply be dismissed.

Again see above.

Edited June 28, 2011 by zerinus

[KevinG]

?

whatever it is.

Why not? How did you come aware and in contact with those things that transcend our "limited mortal resources and sciences" when you yourself are a "limited mortal"?

Not assume it doesn't exist but probably suspend judgment.

No, but if you say there is a giant human being at the end of what our telescopes can see, I think we should require some evidence for that or at least suspend judgment.

Giant human beings on the end of a telescope, Thor residing in someones head... do you really think those are appropriate parallels for Christian/LDS belief systems?

I don't read minds of course but your behavior indicates a great deal of disdain for faith. Can you have this discussion without reverting to extreme examples and parody?

[elguanteloko]

To DaddyG:

You must admit that is a rather extreme example. There aren't too many worshippers of Thor around these days.

When you tell my why we should accept things like spirits, gods, miracles, etc without proper evidence for them, or why we should put a WHOLLY different standard to God's existence (he is physical, after all, and Jesus is, too) and to spiritual matters so as to say they exist instead of suspending belief.... THEN I'll respond to you. If you continue with these type of petty posts I won't bother to respond to you anymore. I also won't respond to your lame reasonings.

Hope you change your tactic.

You need to change your tactic and be more respectful. Comments like "lame reasonings" do not elevate the discourse.

-Ares

[mfbukowski]

Read, search, ponder, contextualize properly, remember (realizing the implications of "remember in the Hebrew covenant tradition), experiment, observe, live so as to become tuned to the spirit, which can enighten the mind, and expand the understanding, speak in a still small voice, or voice in the mind, and may even provide vision, as well as bring peace, comfort, joy, forgiveness and guilt.

A shallow reading of Moroni's promise may not provide much of an epistemic test of Mormon belief, but I've found that by searching and pondering and experimenting widely, what I do find in the LDS scriptures strikes me as impressive compared to any competing epistology. For instance, I've compared Alma 32 to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and have pondered that in my heart at length. I performed many experiments on my own, published many articles, and have read widely the results of other experiments, pro and con. I have personal spiritual experiences and have consulted and compared others, in and out of the LDS faith.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thanks.

Unfortunately what is often confused is the methodology for proving scientific truth is not the same as the one used to find meaning in one's life.

But of course, you have been through this discussion even more than I have, and it becomes questionable at least for me if it is worthwhile to do it all over again.

One would think that it is clear that the context of religious discussion and scientific discussion are about as far apart as the human mind can conceive, yet they still think the methodologies should be the same. It is a mystery to me why this is the case

Edited June 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[elguanteloko]

Thanks.

Unfortunately what is often confused is the methodology for proving scientific truth is not the same as the one used to find meaning in one's life.

Fortunately, no one is speaking about finding your meaning in life. "Is Moroni's challenge a reliable way to seek knowledge?" is NOT a question about the meaning of one's life.

But of course, you have been through this discussion even more than I have, and it becomes questionable at least for me if it is worthwhile to do it all over again.

...

One would think that it is clear that the context of religious discussion and scientific discussion are about as far apart as the human mind can conceive, yet they still think the methodologies should be the same. It is a mystery to me why this is the case

CERTAIN topics in the religious discussion fall very well under the purview of science. The "meaning of life" is not one of those and, also, it is not the one we are talking about. The power of prayer, the physical existence of an incredibly-powerful being that wants to communicate with you, the rising of a dead person with immense power, etc are only some of the claims that religious people make and that should be tested or at least admit there is no reason to believe they are true other than we want to believe them.

[elguanteloko]

You need to change your tactic and be more respectful. Comments like "lame reasonings" do not elevate the discourse.

-Ares

I will, sorry about that.

[wenglund]

I don't see how this justifies the test as reliable. How did you "put Moroni's promise to the test"?

Keep in mind that Moroni's promise isn't the ultimate test, but rather the initial test. It is the entry point that starts one on the path of faith in Christ and his restored gospel. The reliability of Moroni's Promise is justified by application of Alma 32--which is the methodology by which one progresses along the path of faith to fulfillment of the purose of the restored gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Keep in mind that Moroni's promise isn't the ultimate test, but rather the initial test. It is the entry point that starts one on the path of faith in Christ and his restored gospel. The reliability of Moroni's Promise is justified by application of Alma 32--which is the methodology by which one progresses along the path of faith to fulfillment of the purose of the restored gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TAO]

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

No, why would it? You can't prove it, and I don't think you are supposed to. God meant to teach us something through it =).

If it does not, and you accept that blind faith and the credulous conversions of others are somehow valid, what explains the use of blind faith as conversion specifically to Mormonism?

My friend, it's not so much about who does what, I am not worried about who God gives gifts to, and who he doesn't. What I am worried about is that I do my very own best for my own knowledge that I can. If that isn't enough, he isn't worth serving. But I know it is enough - because he said it was enough, to labor with all your heart for all your days, and to give your life for him. That is enough.

Why do I like the LDS church though, over other churches? Because revelation isn't dead - I can feel it, working, moving in me. I have a relationship with my Heavenly Father, and things are still going, moving forward. I am where he wants me to be mostly. I need to go on a mission in the future, and get married in the temple to a girl who deserves to have a spouse. I need to do many things for my father, but one thing I am sure about is that he wants me in the LDS church. It is his church, his one, for helping others. I know this because of the testimony of the spirit, and because of the spirit in the temples. Those are enough to tell me that I know the truth. Certain things for me, that once were taken on faith, are no longer, they are taken on knowledge. Because I proceeded in faith first.

That is what matters =).

Best Wishes Friend,

TAO

[Montgomery Price]

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.

Well, I'd invite you to explain what you would consider to be a legitimate contradiction. What defines a proper and improper course?

But even more problematic, a strict contradiction is not necessary to leave us at a spiritual impasse. Mormonism is brought into question once we discover that every justification we use for accepting revealed Mormon doctrine (personal experience, prayer, Moroni's Promise, etc.), can be used to justify the acceptance of what is not revealed Mormon doctrine. The two not necessarily being mutually exclusive. If we can't prefer one over the other, then the fact that it has been "revealed" as superior is moot.

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.

Then the purpose of Moroni's Promise is not to gain any new knowledge, but to reinforce prior knowledge and to "stay true"?

[Montgomery Price]

What I said wasn’t strictly true. I did pray, but that prayer was made long before I had heard of the Book of Mormon or know anything about Mormonism. Let me explain. Before I ever know there was such a thing as Mormon, I had sought for religious truth. I had studied Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and a few other religions in order to discover divine truth, or a true religion, but without success. After several years of frustrating attempts, I decided to pray about it. I didn’t know for sure that there was a God; so I prayed with the assumption that there might be. Effectively my prayer was, “Knock, knock! If there is a God, and you are there, then answer me please!” It was not long after this that I accidentally came across Mormonism. I was not approached directly by Mormon missionaries; I went to a meeting in which the Mormon missionaries were giving a presentation—without saying anything about Moroni’s promise. So out of my curiosity for all things religious I decided to obtain a copy of the Book of Mormon from them, and went home and started reading it; and immediately I knew it was true. So I did pray about it, but not in the way in which it is normally thought of.

As you already know, this justification for your acceptance of Mormonism could be given for the acceptance of any other belief. But this doesn't seem to bother you, so let me try to lay out the argument clearly.

Your acceptance of Mormon doctrine and revelation is justified by your personal experience. But by claiming your justification to be a valid one, it also justifies the acceptance of what can't be considered Mormon doctrine or revelation. If the justification is equally valid for two differing beliefs, then we can't prefer one over the other. But if one or both has been revealed to be the superior doctrine or revelation, as Mormons obviously claim, then the fact that we can't prefer what has been supposedly revealed is problematic.

The argument from personal experience has lead many people to wildly different paths, and some very similar. It is undeniable that some paths must be considered the more optimal choices given the Mormon worldview, and others not. If we can't be sure that the choice we've made is the optimal one, on what basis do you prefer one over the other?

That is not what I said at all. You are twisting what I have said. Moroni’s promise is reliable because of what I know of the Character of God in the Bible—i.e. that He is kind and merciful, and answers the prayers of those who ask in faith with a sincere heart. That is the kind of being that the Bible tells us God is; and it conforms with the promise of Maroni in the Book of Mormon.

I get the impression that you are trying to "catch" me somehow! Well you won't! Moroni's argument is watertight. If we accept the Bible as a common ground, then Moroni's argument is Biblical. If you don't accept the Bible as a common ground, then you will find that Moroni's argument at the lowest level is logical. You can't drive a wedge through it. It works, period.

See above.

Less of a twist and more of a slight shift. I don't need to make any significant change to my argument whether it follows directly from God or the BOM. I could grant that Moroni's Promise is water tight, only if I've granted that your personal experience is a reasonable starting point for the logical deduction, which I don't see any reason to do. If you can't establish that, then you can't establish Moroni's Promise. So sure, it works, but no period.

[Montgomery Price]

Keep in mind that Moroni's promise isn't the ultimate test, but rather the initial test. It is the entry point that starts one on the path of faith in Christ and his restored gospel. The reliability of Moroni's Promise is justified by application of Alma 32--which is the methodology by which one progresses along the path of faith to fulfillment of the purose of the restored gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Could you explain how Alma 32 establishes the test as a reliable one? I don't see how it does. I see that it gives more instructions to add to your test, but doesn't give justification at all.

[Montgomery Price]

No, why would it? You can't prove it, and I don't think you are supposed to. God meant to teach us something through it =).

Why confirm that the results of an epistemic test can be relied upon?

...because otherwise there's no way to know they can be relied upon, and what good reason is there to build your house upon the sand.

If my epistemic test was to gain spiritual knowledge of pagan spirits from drinking peyote tea, and someone asked me if the test requires justification... could I just say "No, why would it?"

What do you mean you don't think you are supposed to?

I know this because of the testimony of the spirit, and because of the spirit in the temples. Those are enough to tell me that I know the truth. Certain things for me, that once were taken on faith, are no longer, they are taken on knowledge. Because I proceeded in faith first.

If you need not justify an epistemic test, then why do you prefer the results of your own tests over the differing results of others? Anything can be conceivably justified. What makes you so special?

Simply because you are the one who took the test is not enough to verify that you are the one with the superior results, as you must believe you follow what is revealed and carry more light than others who follow significantly different paths. But their justification seems to be on equal standing with yours, but your beliefs about doctrine and revelation establish that they are not equal... so on what basis do you determine you actually have what is revealed, given that you can't prefer your justification over theirs?