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

[Xander]

"Things" do not "give rise" to feelings as if there are "things" which are separate from experiences. All we can talk about are experiences- that's all there is- experience and talk about it. No correspondence, nothing else is knowable.

I can tell you are not doing your homework!

Cool, I'll try this one on the missionaries next time. I wonder if they've done their homework on this. I'll explain to them that my experience tells me the Church isn't what it claims to be, and that it is simply something that cannot be explained in a way that would be knowable to them. They just have to experience it too, and then leave it at that. Then I'll watch them do what they usually do, which is to point to all sorts of "truths" that correspond to knowable facts in the real world.

But seriously, do you think the Church doesn't invoke the correspondence truth theory, even a little bit? One might as well throw out all the apologetic efforts to find truth via biblical parallels, Meso-American archaeology, spiritual experiences that are supposed to prove God is involved with Mormon life, etc. What's the point of it all, if all that matters is a prayer and an experience of truth?

Edited June 29, 2011 by Xander

[fatherofone]

Cool, I'll try this one on the missionaries next time. I wonder if they've done their homework on this. I'll explain to them that my experience tells me the Church isn't what it claims to be, and that it is simply something that cannot be explained in a way that would be knowable to them. They just have to experience it too, and then leave it at that. Then I'll watch them do what they usually do, which is to point to all sorts of "truths" that correspond to knowable facts in the real world.

But seriously, do you think the Church doesn't invoke the correspondence truth theory, even a little bit? One might as well throw out all the apologetic efforts to find truth via biblical parallels, Meso-American archaeology, spiritual experiences that are supposed to prove God is involved with Mormon life, etc. What's the point of it all, if all that matters is a prayer and an experience of truth?

I would love to see what the missionaries would do if you did that

[mfbukowski]

Cool, I'll try this one on the missionaries next time. I wonder if they've done their homework on this. I'll explain to them that my experience tells me the Church isn't what it claims to be, and that it is simply something that cannot be explained in a way that would be knowable to them. They just have to experience it too, and then leave it at that. Then I'll watch them do what they usually do, which is to point to all sorts of "truths" that correspond to knowable facts in the real world.

But seriously, do you think the Church doesn't invoke the correspondence truth theory, even a little bit? One might as well throw out all the apologetic efforts to find truth via biblical parallels, Meso-American archaeology, spiritual experiences that are supposed to prove God is involved with Mormon life, etc. What's the point of it all, if all that matters is a prayer and an experience of truth?

Well of course I did not say half of that- you did, and most of it makes no sense whatsoever.

And of course the church does not take philosophical positions, but yes, I think it is clear that eternal progression and continuing revelation, put together, fit extremely well within a process theology combined with a social Godhead.

The church does not use those terms, but it is not their place to do so. And it is what "it claims to be".

As I have said before, there is a difference between historicity and our beliefs about it.

Historicity generally cannot be proven, scientifically, but that doesn't mean the event did not "in fact" happen. The question becomes what is the result of the BELIEF in the event in my personal life.

Go ahead and try that on the missionaries all you like. I think they know the difference between proving the existence of God scientifically and and Alma 32 test of the effects of BELIEF in those principles.

Read your Rorty, Kuhn, Wittgenstein, Dewey et al- experience and language is all anyone can possibly know.

And frankly, all that other stuff really doesn't matter much to me at all. All there IS is a prayer and an experience of truth.

That's what converted this ex-atheist.

Edited June 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I would love to see what the missionaries would do if you did that

They would probably say it was nonsense- which it was, the way it was stated.

[wenglund]

For some reason several of the practitioners of Scientism here have evidently deemed "reliability" as the ultimate test for testing epistemic tests (particularly Moroni 10 and Alma 32).

More specifically, they hae evidently deemed the inter-rater reliability test (i.e. the variation in measurements when taken by different persons but with the same method or instruments) as the ultimate means for testing the LDS tests.

They have deemed such without specifying the method of measurement (litmus, EKG, brain scans, spirit-o-meter, survey, etc.), what specifically is being measured (brain waves, spiritual knowledge, spiritual stimuli, personal opinions, etc) or what they consider acceptable levels of reliability needed to pass the inter-rater reliability test.

I would like to know what justification they have for deeming reliability to be the ultimate test of LDS tests instead of things like workability or validity, and what justification they have for employing inter-rater reliability rather than other ways for estimating reliability (test/retest, Inter-method, internal consistency, etc.)?

And, once they specify the method of measurement, what is being measured, and acceptable levels of reliability, what justification they have for each.

Most important, I would like to know if they have put their ultimate test to the ultimate test (i.e. have they tested the reliability of their inter-rater reliability test), and if so what were the results?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ldsfaqs]

What is reliable about the "pray and know" method? By what metric are you using to assert that it is reliable? Simply because it worked for you? In any other context, reliability would be determined by frequency of success. So shouldn't the fact that this method usually results in no answer or a negative answer, say something about its reliability?

For example, scientific methods yield certain degrees of success. This method adopted by Mormons yields an unknown rate of success.

If I pray to know if something is true, can I test its reliability? Should I be able to test the reliability before accepting it as reliable?

For example, why can't someone just pray about anything to know if it is true?

If someone has three cards with three different shapes, and holds one in front of my blindfolded eyes, shouldn't I be able to pray and ask God which shape it is? Shouldn't we be able to test it in this way before trusting our mind to interpret the chemical reactions in our body that produce this "knowledge" as God's attempt to communicate to us? The Bible does say, after all, we can know the truth of all things, so why is it limited to strictly to knowing if a Book, a Prophet or a Church is true? So it seems that I should be able to test the prayer method and then record the hits and misses to determine a level of reliability.

And what do we do with the millions of folks who pray and receive answers to the contrary? Do their test results not count at all?

Everyones "answer" is based on what they are able and willing to accept. Did you miss the parts in which I mentioned the various requirements beforehand? The praying doesn't happen in a sanitary box. People bring all kinds of backgrounds and thinking to the table. The prayer is only a "key", not the end all requirement to the process. The person in question still has to open the door, and each individual is going to be bringing all kinds of ability's to the effort of opening that door.

The person who hasn't studied enough, experienced enough, compared enough, etc. is going to get a different answer than the person who has.

The "prayer" challenge only works on those who are actually "prepared" to receive it.

If a persons glass is already full, if they don't read the book with objectivity, etc., then they are not going to receive the same answer as someone who is ready.

Missionary's don't go out to convert everyone they come across. That's not how it works. They go out and gather the "wheat" that is ready to harvest.

Think about that for just a moment....

The Atheist down the street is going to be much less likely to receive revelation that the BOM is true, then compared to the other guy down the street who has spent years comparing faiths, and hasn't found what he's looking for, but hasn't given up yet like the atheist. One is ready to harvest, while the other has his cup full. It's not to say miracles can't happen. But even then, there is usually "something" in that person, some sort of spark that only needs the catalyst for a change of perspective.

[CV75]

You're only explaining how within the Mormon paradigm, one method is superior. Well, of course. Within the mystic's paradigm, Moroni's Promise is equally as useless for discovering the mystic's truths as you believe the mystic is for verifying the BOM. So what? This doesn't resolve the problem of which to choose, because as you agree is obvious... they both give different results, but you've still given no reason to prefer one method or result over the other.

You must not be paying attention (talk about paradigms…). I laid out the differences between the justifications for the two methods, not why one is better than the other, or the reasons for choosing one over the other. What method do you use, and how do you justify it?

I see no problem in choosing one method over the other. Where is the problem in having a choice and choosing; what problem do you see?

[AIT]

I already essentially said that, but it isn't the same promise as the BOM promise and it usually doesn't require any study; it's a one time, immediate moment that they experience. They go to church and come home and tell everyone how they have been saved because the spirit overwhelmed them. I know many EV's and other Christians who have had this experience and it's nothing like what my experience in the church has been.

It may be nothing like your experience but it is still quite similar to many others, if not most, in that some big overwhelming feeling, or maybe a sense of deep serenity, or some other such experience is what someone believes in as some kind of interaction with the divine. Whether they come away from it feeling it was God telling them they're o.k. and now they've been saved or they come away from it saying God loves them and their church or faith tradition is Gods "true one" seems to me to be only making a distinction between two peoples interpretation of the same type of experience.

[wenglund]

It may be nothing like your experience but it is still quite similar to many others, if not most, in that some big overwhelming feeling, or maybe a sense of deep serenity, or some other such experience is what someone believes in as some kind of interaction with the divine. Whether they come away from it feeling it was God telling them they're o.k. and now they've been saved or they come away from it saying God loves them and their church or faith tradition is Gods "true one" seems to me to be only making a distinction between two peoples interpretation of the same type of experience.

I see this as a valid point.

However, I would suggest that what may, in part, separates the LDS from so-called "born again" Christians in regards to epistemic spiritual experiences, is that the Moroni spiritual experience for LDS isn't just a single event, but a series covering a variety of foundational queries. And, for us, there is also the on-going Alma 32 epistemic spiritual experiences. We LDS are intended to receive continual guidance and instruction from God. Our divine-interactive epistemic is a growth process, a faith journey, We just don't enter the epistemic gate of Christ, but are want to follow him and learn from him as he leads us along the enlightening path up towards eternal life in coming to a perfect knowledge of the Father and Son.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

You could have fooled me.

Given the fact that you think Scratch, aka Dan's malevolent stalker, has credibility, that doesn't seem to be too hard.

How so? This thread interests me.I've shared my own story as it pertains to the subject at hand.What's the problem, aside from your inability to address my post in a faith-promoting manner? You know you're not going to get any softball pitches with me, so I understand your need to get rid of me as soon as possible.

What "need to get rid of you" is that?

But if this happens it will be because the Mods have rescinded their invitation, not because you managed to bully me out.

This is hilarious! Kevin Graham, of all people, complaining about being bullied!!

This must be another Tui billboard moment.

Kevin, make no mistake: when it happens, it will be because that inimitable Kevin Graham posting style will come to the fore, as it always does.

Have a nice day, Kevin.

Regards,

Pahoran

[beckstcw]

As an Army interrogator, and former Mormon who reads this board because I still find the topics here fascinating, I'd like to bring up a point that's been in the back of my mind for a while.

How do you square your personal views on spirituality with the fact that on the other side of the world, men have immensely powerful testimonies based on spiritual experiences every bit as real as yours, but they use those testimonies as justification for mass murder and other atrocities? What makes your experiences valid while theirs are not? (I'm assuming you reject the truth claims supported by their experiences.)

If this isn't directly relevant, I apologize, I can start another thread if need be.

[Pahoran]

As an Army interrogator, and former Mormon who reads this board because I still find the topics here fascinating, I'd like to bring up a point that's been in the back of my mind for a while.

How do you square your personal views on spirituality with the fact that on the other side of the world, men have immensely powerful testimonies based on spiritual experiences every bit as real as yours, but they use those testimonies as justification for mass murder and other atrocities? What makes your experiences valid while theirs are not? (I'm assuming you reject the truth claims supported by their experiences.)

If this isn't directly relevant, I apologize, I can start another thread if need be.

Yes, I was wondering when (not if) this old chestnut would pop up.

It is, of course, completely relevant to this thread. It's also a complete canard.

The concept of a personal spiritual witness is largely unknown in Islam. The notion that every convert to every religion experiences something identical as part of their conversion process is an assumption that has no basis in reality.

Put bluntly: it is not a "fact that on the other side of the world, men have immensely powerful testimonies based on spiritual experiences every bit as real as" anything at all. Muslims don't have testimonies in the same sense that Latter-day Saints do; those who grow up as Muslims are not expected to undergo any sort of conversion experience; and those who are converts don't base their conversion upon spiritual experiences. That assumption is based upon projecting LDS expectations upon a culture whose values lie elsewhere, and that has little or no interest in such things.

BTW: Welcome to the board.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited June 29, 2011 by Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As an Army interrogator, and former Mormon who reads this board because I still find the topics here fascinating, I'd like to bring up a point that's been in the back of my mind for a while.

How do you square your personal views on spirituality with the fact that on the other side of the world, men have immensely powerful testimonies based on spiritual experiences every bit as real as yours, but they use those testimonies as justification for mass murder and other atrocities? What makes your experiences valid while theirs are not? (I'm assuming you reject the truth claims supported by their experiences.)

If this isn't directly relevant, I apologize, I can start another thread if need be.

CFR that they have "powerful testimonies based on spiritual experiences".

I have heard this thrown around so much but it is never backed up. The LDS view of things seems to be some what unique.

[KevinG]

As an Army interrogator, and former Mormon who reads this board because I still find the topics here fascinating, I'd like to bring up a point that's been in the back of my mind for a while.

How do you square your personal views on spirituality with the fact that on the other side of the world, men have immensely powerful testimonies based on spiritual experiences every bit as real as yours, but they use those testimonies as justification for mass murder and other atrocities? What makes your experiences valid while theirs are not? (I'm assuming you reject the truth claims supported by their experiences.)

If this isn't directly relevant, I apologize, I can start another thread if need be.

From what I have read and discussed so far with Muslim friends their conversion stories are distinct from the LDS description of testimony and gifts of the spirit. However they can be just as sincere in their belief system (which is what I think is your point).

I have faced this issue in a very real way with friends of other religions who claim inspiration and the gifts of the spirit. When at a crossroads in the discussion and they ask me why my testminoy is more "valid" than theirs I tell them up front. "I cannot claim to compare personal revelation with yours. But I do know that I follow the revelation I have received and I encourage them to follow theirs." I promise to continue searching and encourage them to do so as well.

To me this is the only honest answer I can give. It is up to the Spirit to teach the truth- my job is only to be an example and testify to what I have received from God.

This works up until my revelations step on the toes of your revelations (terrorism, denial of civil rights...) At that point the law must be prepared to protect the rights of all citizens to worship according to the dictates pf their conscience. This can include going to war against a religious state that seeks to impose their doctrines by the force of violence.

[KevinG]

I can't spell.

[beckstcw]

CFR that they have "powerful testimonies based on spiritual experiences".

I have heard this thrown around so much but it is never backed up. The LDS view of things seems to be some what unique.

The LDS terminology may be unique, but the feelings of warmth, peacefulness, and conviction that LDS call the Spirit are not.

For example, in Islam, the feelings of spirituality that Muslims feel are referred to as "Itminaan" or "Eman". A sort of half-English way of talking about the "burning in the bosom" you get when attending mosque or reading the Quran is to call it an "Emanrush" or "Eman-high". One good definition I found was "a rush of blood to the mind and heart, causing tears and warm whispers of repentance, hair to stand and an overwhelming urge to prostrate oneself before Allah".

If you just Google "Emanrush moments" or something similar, you can see what I mean. Of course, if you can read Arabic better than me, you can find more detailed descriptions and discussions, but that's sort of the basics.

I guess my point is this: no one (least of all me) will deny the fact that religious people have spiritual witnesses and experiences which they believe testify to the truth of [insert religion]. But, moving back to the original point of the thread, what makes "Moroni's Test" when applied to the BoM any more valid than it would be if applied to the Quran.

If you'll excuse a slightly awkward analogy, it seems to me to be like saying "If ye would know the truth of these things, stare at the sun for five minutes, and the Spirit of God will blind you". Of COURSE sincere, honest people will have feelings of awe, and warmth, and conviction if they study a holy book, and sincerely pray about a religion, having already decided that the God hypothesis has merit.

But that has little to no bearing on what the source of those feelings are, or what their implications are as far as determining objective truth in the real world. Especially when they're matched by very comparable experiences of people all over the world, regardless of their religion. I think THAT was the point of the original question.

I apologize in advance if I seem like I'm being too combative, or entirely dismissive of sacred experiences. This is just my stream-of-consciousness response to what I think is an extremely interesting topic

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can't spell.

Ur inn veary gud cumpanie.

[mfbukowski]

I have no idea why it is supposed that we LDS believe that God does not communicate to others as well as to us.

I think God leads and directs us to him through the best source of truth available. If one lives where any religion other than Islam is suppressed, there is no doubt in my mind that God would direct someone through the light which was available to him. And as I understand it, that is church doctrine. There is truth in all religions.

As far as the assertion that one can get "warm fuzzies" for terrorist acts- the very notion is absurd. Not all Muslims are terrorists obviously- and such an assertion that Muslims in fact are guided by God to commit terrorist attacks is a notion which I am certain no reasonable Muslim would condone.

Putting it in two words, they would be "straw man".

There is nothing to this assertion.

[beckstcw]

I have no idea why it is supposed that we LDS believe that God does not communicate to others as well as to us.

I think God leads and directs us to him through the best source of truth available. If one lives where any religion other than Islam is suppressed, there is no doubt in my mind that God would direct someone through the light which was available to him. And as I understand it, that is church doctrine. There is truth in all religions.

I totally understand that distinction.

As far as the assertion that one can get "warm fuzzies" for terrorist acts- the very notion is absurd. Not all Muslims are terrorists obviously- and such an assertion that Muslims in fact are guided by God to commit terrorist attacks is a notion which I am certain no reasonable Muslim would condone.

How many martyrdom videos have you seen? These guys, geared up right before their attacks, bearing their testimonies and literally crying with joy at the paradise and blessings they're about to receive... I'm obviously not asserting God or Allah or Thor or whoever is actually condoning their actions...but what I AM asserting is that the spiritual feelings which they are experiencing are just as real to them as your average Mormon's spiritual experiences are to them.

The relevant point I'm trying to make in this thread is that the only way Moroni's Promise works is if you pre-assume that spiritual experiences have a source outside of the brain...an assumption that runs into difficulties when faced with a super devout and spiritual suicide bomber in Kabul. What is the source for HIS experiences?

[Xander]

CFR that they have "powerful testimonies based on spiritual experiences".

I have heard this thrown around so much but it is never backed up. The LDS view of things seems to be some what unique.

LOL! Haven't you been paying attention? I was just told that testimonies are based on experience, and experiences cannot be transferred. Or does this only pertain to Mormons who claim to have powerful spiritual experiences?

I think the more effective apologetic response to this is, yes of course they had powerful spiritual experiences. But they were Satanic of course!

The LDS view is unique in the sense that the "test" is used strictly to determine truth about the Church. Whereas the Bible said you can use the Holy Ghost to know "all things," whenever I ask Mormons to pray to determine which card I'm holding up, they'll say something like that's tempting God. The test must always remain within the realm of unfalsifiability. That's what's so unique about it.

[mfbukowski]

If you want to place another standard for confirming the existence of a PHYSICAL God, then please explain why that should be the case. We are not speaking of feelings of beauty, or of fulfillment. We are speaking of a PHYSICAL God who is said to have PHYSICAL effects on the world around us. How doesn't that fall within the purview of science?

No

We are talking about BELIEF in a God who is not only physical, but who is a "Man" who creates his own reality just as we all do. His physical effects are impossible to prove scientifically- one cannot prove miracles with science. The best science can do in such a case is to call it "unexplained". I have seen cancer disappear- and the best the doctors could say scientifically was that it was "unexplained" where I KNEW it was a "miracle". IT LITERALLY DISAPPEARED OVERNIGHT, just before surgery! Gone.

Can you see how the BELIEF in a God who is in some ways like us and yet perfect would have tremendous potential to help us desire to be perfect, and therefore the belief itself having tremendous pragmatic value?

Can you see that BELIEF in a God who organizes reality from matter unorganized in a similar fashion to the way we organize "reality" every time we look at a computer screen streaming chaotic light waves into our eyes- and our brains organize the chaos and turn it into a "computer" with actual messages from other beings like us from thousands of miles away- can you see how seeing ourselves as mini-gods similar to the "big God" would have tremendous pragmatic value in giving our lives meaning?

No, I suppose you can't.

You will still find something "unreliable".

Fine. I will keep my miracles and you keep your "unexplained phenomena".

Edited June 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Xander]

Given the fact that you think Scratch, aka Dan's malevolent stalker, has credibility, that doesn't seem to be too hard.

Don't be shy with the well poisoning Pahoran, just pour it hard in broad daylight in front of the entire town why don't ya. I'm sure no one will notice. LOL!

I don't recall every saying Scratch has credibility, except maybe in the context of saying he has more than you. But then, that wouldn't really be saying much. I don't pay much attention to the scratch saga between you folks.

What "need to get rid of you" is that?

The one that drives you posts such vitriolic nonsense, of course. You know as well as I that I have mopped the floors with you in every instance you tried to debate - that was, before you fled the scene to come back to your stomping grounds to talk about me knowing I couldn't defend myself.

Now that I'm here in the Lion's den, you want to take full advantage of your home field advantage. I expect no less. I suppose you deserve a break given your utter failures to debate issues with me elsewhere. So enjoy the moment while I lasts. Take your best shots and let's see how the integrity of my jaw differs from yours.

This is hilarious! Kevin Graham, of all people, complaining about being bullied!!

Who's complaining? I never report anyone, no matter how badly they break the rules. I have tough skin. I didn't complain about your bullying, I simply said it won't work. There is a difference. Think long and hard about it and maybe you'll figure it out. I have faith in you.

Kevin, make no mistake: when it happens, it will be because that inimitable Kevin Graham posting style will come to the fore, as it always does.

I'll leave my style to others to judge. As far as I can tell, the only folks who "dig" your style are anonymous posters who hail from the extreme end of the die-hard apologetic spectrum. I'll put my style up against yours any day of the week. Incidentally, and much to your chagrin, I have friends on both sides of the fence, and most critics will tell you I have mellowed out substantially since leaving apologetics. It is funny because you never complained about my style when the critics were my targets.

[Doctor Ninja]

LOL! Haven't you been paying attention? I was just told that testimonies are based on experience, and experiences cannot be transferred. Or does this only pertain to Mormons who claim to have powerful spiritual experiences?

I think the more effective apologetic response to this is, yes of course they had powerful spiritual experiences. But they were Satanic of course!

The LDS view is unique in the sense that the "test" is used strictly to determine truth about the Church. Whereas the Bible said you can use the Holy Ghost to know "all things," whenever I ask Mormons to pray to determine which card I'm holding up, they'll say something like that's tempting God. The test must always remain within the realm of unfalsifiability. That's what's so unique about it.

What is with this you "haven't been paying attention" or you "just aren't getting it" mantra going around with you and elguanteloko? Not convincing, not raising the discussion and quite frankly annoying.

[Doctor Ninja]

Now that I'm here in the Lion's den, you want to take full advantage of your home field advantage.

Ah yes, makes sense now. An apostate playing the "victim role".

[Xander]

What is with this you "haven't been paying attention" or you "just aren't getting it" mantra going around with you and elguanteloko? Not convincing, not raising the discussion and quite frankly annoying.

Convincing to some. Probably not many on this forum though. You'll have to read the entire thread and process the context to fully understand my purpose for saying it. It probably isn't a good idea to jump in the middle of a thread once it reaches the 3rd page or beyond, unless you're willing to read it all.