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

[wenglund]

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?

Because of the subjective nature of spiritual experiences, we aren't in a position to determine the source for others. That is between them and God. We can only determine the source for our own spiritual experiences. As such, the issue isn't what is their source, but rather, in consultation with God, what we are willing to accept or reject in terms of their claims and their actions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

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?

I do not agree that the only way Moroni's Promise works is if you pre-assume that spiritual experiences have a source outside of the brain. It works for people of all kinds with all kinds of assumptions (and not) about where God is located. However, the common requirements for receiving a genuine answer from God that are listed in the verses.

The source of the super devout suicide bomber’s spiritual experiences may well be identical to someone receiving an answer from Moroni’s Promse, but he obviously uses it differently than God or Moroni intended and instructed, and is not true to the testimony. Theoretically, a fanatical Mormon could strap on a bomb, having once received the same kind of spiritual witness about the Book or Mormon as other well-balanced members.This is why it is helpful that Moroni wrote verses 6-18 (especially 6 and 18), and 23. Verse 29 takes nothing away from any other sources of truth (as Moroni characterizes it) that God shows to His children.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think anyone is disputing that others have what they regard as spiritual experiences which may lead them to do evil things.

First, it cannot be proven that any subjective experience is the "same" as anyone else's spiritual experience- that is logically contradictory since what we mean by "subjective" in this context is that no one else experiences it but the subject.

But one can judge those experiences "by their fruits".

That's the only objective measure we have.

To me, this whole line of discussion is kind of silly. Since we cannot get into anyone else's brain, speaking about the "cause" of a subjective experience is irrelevant. All we know is that we are pretty sure that others have them and we judge others by what they do.

I mean we could talk about whether or not salt taste the same to me as it does to you- which is about the same- same cause same effect supposedly- but don't you think that is kind of silly?

[mfbukowski]

The source of the super devout suicide bomber’s spiritual experiences may well be identical to someone receiving an answer from Moroni’s Promse, but he obviously uses it differently than God or Moroni intended and instructed, and is not true to the testimony. Theoretically, a fanatical Mormon could strap on a bomb, having once received the same kind of spiritual witness about the Book or Mormon as other well-balanced members.This is why it is helpful that Moroni wrote verses 6-18 (especially 6 and 18), and 23. Verse 29 takes nothing away from any other sources of truth (as Moroni characterizes it) that God shows to His children.

Clearly you and I are on the same wavelength

[Xander]

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

You clearly haven't paid much attention to those responding to me. On my first day the moderator asked me to ignore the taunts from others, and cdowis made a post that was so vitriolic that he was compelled to remove it immediately after reading the thoughts he had the audacity to type out.

I wouldn't say I'm a victim, but I'm not going to pretend I'm not in hostile territory. With exceptions of course (i.e. TAO, Nemesis,)

[Doctor Ninja]

You clearly haven't paid much attention to those responding to me. On my first day the moderator asked me to ignore the taunts from others, and cdowis made a post that was so vitriolic that he was compelled to remove it immediately after reading the thoughts he had the audacity to type out.

I wouldn't say I'm a victim, but I'm not going to pretend I'm not in hostile territory. With exceptions of course (i.e. TAO, Nemesis,)

Au contraire, I have seen all your posts and your very first blazing ones that required the moderators to step in to protect you from those "scary lions". You do seem pretty proud of your internet glory though?

If you need a friend in this "hostile territory", I will be there for you and listen intently. My credentials speak for themselves and I know the mind of the anti-Mormon and apostate. The mindset is found in the DSM.

In fact, I have already listened and read your story and as your new friend - I can give some encouragement to simply "move on". 11 years of complete bitterness will only make you more miserable. For I also had to figure out a way to include my wife's non-LDS family. We did a ring exchange after the temple marriage and gave a complete tour of temple square beforehand so they knew what to expect.

They had many reservations, but it worked out beautifully and they were just as edified with the proper planning. Chalk it up to your Bishop or Stake President for the failures, but seriously - the bitterness only chancres the soul and no amount of "debate" will take that away especially with Pahoran for you are completely out of your league with him so don't embarrass yourself, seriously.

[elguanteloko]

I don't think anyone is disputing that others have what they regard as spiritual experiences which may lead them to do evil things.

correct and if someone does dispute them then they should be corrected.

First, it cannot be proven that any subjective experience is the "same" as anyone else's spiritual experience-

we have VERY strong evidence that if not the "same", at least extremely similar. Doubt also requires evidence and to think that my sense experiences are qualitatively different than your own when all the physical evidence shows we have extremely similar physiology is something quite hard to doubt in any serious or relevant way. Even if what you call spiritual experiences are very different from mine, that still doesn't tell us anything about justification of your explanation for them mine.

that is logically contradictory since what we mean by "subjective" in this context is that no one else experiences it but the subject.

...

But one can judge those experiences "by their fruits".

which include ALL OF SCIENCE which you seem to dismiss all too easily in regards to testing supposed effects in the world produced by God and to God's physical existence.

That's the only objective measure we have.

...

To me, this whole line of discussion is kind of silly. Since we cannot get into anyone else's brain, speaking about the "cause" of a subjective experience is irrelevant.

That doesn't follow at all. We don't need to experience a dog's pain for ourselves to be justified in believing a dog who just got run over by a car and has a broken leg is actually suffering. You seem to be so busy etherealizing experience that you don't mind running over the most basic of "common sense". If you are pulled over and tested and are found to have a BAC of 1.0%, don't you think we are justified in saying the person is not fit to drive BECAUSE OF the BAC level in his blood? We may not know exactly how he is feeling right now but if that person has an extremely similar physiology and we have tried alcohol before and gotten drunk, why would one even accept, not the reality, but the high chance that that person is experiencing similar things to when we got drunk?

All we know is that we are pretty sure that others have them and we judge others by what they do.

not only that but we are justified in doing so based on more than mere "it appears that..." since we can do quite reliable tests.

I mean we could talk about whether or not salt taste the same to me as it does to you- which is about the same- same cause same effect supposedly- but don't you think that is kind of silly?

Indeed it is so stop doing it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[wenglund]

You clearly haven't paid much attention to those responding to me. On my first day the moderator asked me to ignore the taunts from others, and cdowis made a post that was so vitriolic that he was compelled to remove it immediately after reading the thoughts he had the audacity to type out.

I wouldn't say I'm a victim, but I'm not going to pretend I'm not in hostile territory. With exceptions of course (i.e. TAO, Nemesis,)

Oh, Kevin, this isn't hostile territory. That's just your us-vs-them way of thinking kicking in. We think you are the next best thing to Pepe Le Pew.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

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.

Well Kevin, I will admit that if it came to a contest of sheer braggadocio, you would certainly win, hands down.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I said:

Since we cannot get into anyone else's brain, speaking about the "cause" of a subjective experience is irrelevant.

That doesn't follow at all. We don't need to experience a dog's pain for ourselves to be justified in believing a dog who just got run over by a car and has a broken leg is actually suffering. You seem to be so busy etherealizing experience that you don't mind running over the most basic of "common sense". If you are pulled over and tested and are found to have a BAC of 1.0%, don't you think we are justified in saying the person is not fit to drive BECAUSE OF the BAC level in his blood? We may not know exactly how he is feeling right now but if that person has an extremely similar physiology and we have tried alcohol before and gotten drunk, why would one even accept, not the reality, but the high chance that that person is experiencing similar things to when we got drunk?

Your "common sense" example is fine, but it represents an extremely trivial example which has little to do with the question at hand- religious experience- because it is so overly simple.

Virtually no subjective experience is reliable for telling us about the objective world we all share, other than in very trivial matters.

Every subjective experience has it's own "charge" of association and meaning - its own internal context- gleaned from a life time of other experiences in interaction with us. Subjective experience is really more of a reaction to stimulus than anything else, and ever person's reaction to the same stimulus- except in very trivial examples- is different.

So as an example, take a man without a shirt walking down a crowded street.- that is the "objective reality" we can all agree that we see. That is the linguistic description.

A gay man is going to have a different experience of that stimulus than a straight man, or a woman will have. Some will not even notice him, others will. Suppose he is also bald, and someone thinks he is therefore a "gang member" and they find that fearful, so they have a fearful response.

So who's "subjective experience" is "more reliable" than anyone else's?

Is the man walking down the street the "cause" of the subjective experience of each individual, or is the "cause" of the experience- (the reaction) the person's history and psychological makeup? The gay man may feel sexual attraction- the straight man, repugnance, the woman may feel either or a combination of both, the other may feel fear etc etc. So was the man the "cause" of the reaction or was

So even in such cases we cannot say what was the "cause" of the subjective experience/reaction - even when the event occurs in a situation which can be linguistically described- "a man walking down the street without a shirt".

Suppose however the experience is completely private- a silent prayer followed by an overwhelming sense of love and peace which surpasses any experience one has had in ones life.

What's the "cause" then? Talking about the "cause" of virtually any subjective experience/ reaction to a stimulus is so complex as to be nonsensical.

Edited June 30, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Jeff K.]

Is a man with a fever cold? Or is the weather itself cold? Is it cold for a Polynesian? Perhaps it is not so cold for a Norwegian? I am sure the Norwegian will tell the Polynesian that he doesn't know what it means to be "cold". But does that negate the Polynesian being cold?

[Montgomery Price]

Are you serious? You want objective criteria for establishing that the Mona Lisa is beautiful?

I can't help you. Sorry.

Experience IS reality- it is not something which is or is not "reliable". Experiences verify propositions. How do you know any experiences are reliable? How do you know the thermometer really says what the boiling temperature of water is?

I hope your disease gets better and wish you well.

You put the cart before the horse.

Subjective experience defines what we believe- not the other way around. Your obsessive need for "reliability" is in fact a subjective need and a subjective value

You want objective criteria for establishing what is "beautiful"? You can't figure out what you like or don't like for yourself? You need to verify that "Chocolate tastes good", and that in fact that subjective experience may NOT be "reliable"?

No, I am not in a position to help you with that.

Relax and avoid stress. It's bad for your health.

Why do you think I brought up stomach pain? It was not coincidence.

Montgomery

How do you personally know what you like, anyway? How do you know for sure?

What if you're wrong? Does that bother you? After all, you want subjective experience to be "reliable"!

Do you see how absurd that sounds?

You are excluding knowing your own mind and what makes you content in life, and sticking to it. You are excluding creating your own version of what is real and important in life instead of parroting scientism to the point of absurdity- of not knowing what you want for yourself without someone else's view of what is "reliable".

Is any of this getting through? I am concerned about you!

How does explaining any of this justify the preference of a specific faith over an incompatible one? That's all I'm looking for.

Whether or not you accept the methods I propose...

Whether or not you believe speaking about reliability and subjective experience makes sense...

The observation has been made that the proponents of spiritual experiences arrive at incompatible conclusions through reported experiences that, when evaluated, can't be logically preferred over the other. Each follows a different path, yet neither can explain what justifies the distinction. It is reasonable to attempt to find an explanation for this observation.

If the preference of one over the other can't be justified, then why do many behave as if the opposite is true?

I suspect there is no good reason and this suspicion grows stronger the more believers avoid this problem.

[Montgomery Price]

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?

If we find that what we consider valid justifications can equally support contradictory claims, then this leaves us with no basis for preferring one over the other. Because we can recognize that the claims are not equal, being unable to prefer one over the other is problematic considering most everyone behaves otherwise.

[Montgomery Price]

Ask God in faith to guide and direct you (James 1:5).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Jack asked God and his personal experience guided him to Mormonism.

Jill asked God and her personal experience guided her to something else.

What now? Simply assuming that God will guide and direct you doesn't solve the conflict because there are many different experiences of Gods or other supernatural beings which are claimed to give many different answers. Claiming God guided us to Mormonism is just as valid as claiming God led someone out of Mormonism. What can you add to the equation to prefer one over the other?

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-

Regardless of whether there is a proper way to test spiritual experiences for reliability, it must be shown that it is reasonable to rely on spiritual experience lest we build our house upon the sand.

If you believe its reliability can't be established, then what brought you to such a specific conclusion and not another?

If you believe its reliability need not be established, then what brought you to such a specific conclusion and not another?

If you believe its reliability can be established, just not by methods you presume I may offer, then how do you establish its reliability?

[Montgomery Price]

No Faith of anyone is "blind". Everyones faith is built on some sort of evidences, degrees thereof, and level of accuracy.

No Mormon simply prays, and then they are converted. The read, they study, they learn, they listen, they observe, they compare this new thing with past experiences, etc.

Prayer is simply an important component to be led and inspired by God, not leaning solely on our own intellects. Involving God inspires and informs, allows us to see and understand things, that doing on our own will not always bring, especially in a timely manner. How many atheists out there just give up on seeking if there is a True Church, simply because there are so many competing ideas and Churches? When God is involved, sparks and enlightenment can happen. I know, because it's happened to me many times, even in my own reconversion to the Church. If it wasn't for my true faith, there would have been no miracle.

I simplified the personal experience to the relevant elements that expose the problem. I never precluded anything you mentioned. Actually, I'm inviting anyone to add the element which allows us to prefer one spiritual experience over another. It was sufficient for my argument to only talk about the personal experience of having a prayer answered, but my contention is that the argument still works if you add studying, learning, observing and so on.

Yes, there is always some justification.

I would strongly disagree with your premise, see above. Most normal people understand that they are not simply "accepting" the promise, for the promise is built upon certain requirements, thus not alone. And what acceptance there is, is in recognition of the fact that we are to take all things to God, beyond ourselves, so as to be taught.

Again, there is no such thing as "blind" faith. The question is depth, evidences, and reliability. Mormonism has the highest degrees of all three, even perfectly so, hence one of many reasons why I'm a Mormon. I've deeply compared, and experienced, and it's the real deal.

Then you should have no problem explaining why you believe the personal experience that led you to Mormonism can be preferred over personal experiences that have led others to different faiths.

[Montgomery Price]

You mean, apart from the fact that you have repeatedly asserted that such examples are available to you? And that you chose to start this thread on this topic, and to construct your argument as you did? And that it is the expected usage on this forum, when asked to support your assertions, you do so?

Pahoran, for someone who places much importance on supporting assertions and avoiding the image of arrogance, your behavior seems well below your standard.

Your conclusion that I have no examples is fallacious and has since been demonstrated to be false. I especially don't need to explain to you that the just because you can't "see" something means that it is therefore not there.

Your conclusion that I am prejudiced isn't based on anything but the belittling caricature you've constructed of me to make an easy target. My conclusion that there have been several conversion based on credulity is an observation, not some irrational, premature judgement.

That is just what I am looking for, in fact.

If you're referring to your smug "Jack and Jill" hypothetical, I'm sure you think it is valid for some purpose or other. But given that it does not answer the question I asked, it appears to be a red herring. As such, I see no reason to be distracted by it.

Yes, I do remain insistent. I would like to discuss these in detail. I would like to examine, carefully, just what they regard as the sources of their conviction and compare them with Moroni's Promise.

Your conclusion that I need to provide specific examples doesn't seem to be based on anything but your attempt to modify the discussion through hand-waving. Sorry, I started this thread to look at something slightly different. I've attempted to explain that for my argument to function it's unnecessary to go into complicated detail about any few of millions of specific spiritual experiences. You haven't explained why it is necessary to discussion of my argument at all. This is my thread, and my argument... What you're asking for is irrelevant until you can convince me that it is. You haven't even tried yet.

Your conclusion that "Mere hypotheticals aren't good enough", and that I believe "what is sufficient for me is therefore sufficient for everyone else", has yet to be supported. My example is sufficient because it isolates the relevant elements of the experiences needed for the comparison that exposes the issue with relying on our spiritual experiences. It supports my argument more clearly and our discussion begins closer to the core of the problem. It has also undoubtedly occurred in reality, which makes it more than a mere hypothetical situation. You've completely ignored this as I have asked you to explain why the Jack and Jill example is insufficient. I'm not being evasive, I'm trying to keep on track.

Should I accuse you of hand-waving since you haven't explained why my argument can't function without more detailed examples? Because that's what I'm here to discuss, my argument. Yes, it is valid for the purpose I started this thread for. If you want to discuss something else, then take it elsewhere. You can try and derail my thread, but I'm likely not to respond if it doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I'm not here to be cyber-bullied into accepting your demands when you've provided no good reason to believe it's immediately relevant to the argument.

You, Pahoran, are the frighteningly arrogant one until you explain these things.

As to that, I'd rather not speculate.

Good answer for a silly question.

[elguanteloko]

mf, do you accept science as a reliable method of testing physical phenomena and what produces what, for example? If you believe LSD doesn't produce or cause hallucinations then we just don't have anything to talk about. If you think certain chemicals don't make certain cells grow abnormally so as to produce what we call "cancer", then we have nothing to talk about.

In other words, if you reject ALL of science then we have nothing to talk about.

If, however, you do accept science, then you can understand, I hope, that every time we speak of "cause" we refer to the same type of relationship that hallucinations and LSD have and that toxic chemicals and cancer have.

[elguanteloko]

Is a man with a fever cold? Or is the weather itself cold? Is it cold for a Polynesian? Perhaps it is not so cold for a Norwegian? I am sure the Norwegian will tell the Polynesian that he doesn't know what it means to be "cold". But does that negate the Polynesian being cold?

I think it has been pointed out to you MANY times that the experiences are NOT what are in question neither are the qualifications you make of them. What is in question is what produced such effects. "Being cold" didn't cause the person to be cold, something else did. The experience of being cold is NOT what is in question but what caused that experience.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Montgomery Price]

Because of the subjective nature of spiritual experiences, we aren't in a position to determine the source for others. That is between them and God. We can only determine the source for our own spiritual experiences. As such, the issue isn't what is their source, but rather, in consultation with God, what we are willing to accept or reject in terms of their claims and their actions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Even if it is granted that we are in no position to determine the source for others, what makes you think we, ourselves, can reliably determine the source of an experience other than the fact that it's the only thing we have? You must have more justification than, "Well, it's the only thing we've got."

[elguanteloko]

Because of the subjective nature of spiritual experiences, we aren't in a position to determine the source for others.

This makes no sense. That you don't know with certainty how I'm feeling when I get a broken bone from a car running over me doesn't mean you are not justified in saying the broken bone is causing the pain (unless you think a TON of silly things like that the vast majority of people that say broken bones cause pain are lying). There is absolutely no good reason to doubt that broken bones are EXTREMELY likely to cause pain. If what you are saying is the case then we wouldn't even be in a position to determine the best explanation for our own experiences! If you take LSD you couldn't say it caused the crazy hallucinations you had, for example, which is totally absurd.

That is between them and God.

The point is that you already assert God is causing anything when that is what is in question.

We can only determine the source for our own spiritual experiences.

No, you can say what you think is the source of your own spiritual experiences but that is very far from justifying what you think is the cause. There are MANY explanations you can come up with for why I felt pressure in my chest and most of them would be wrong. We need more than just imagining stuff, wenglund.

As such, the issue isn't what is their source, but rather, in consultation with God, what we are willing to accept or reject in terms of their claims and their actions.

...the point is to see if you are "consulting with God" in the first place. You aren't discussing that here, apparently. Being "willing to accept" that reading books causes lung cancer doesn't make reading books the cause of lung cancer.

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Bernard Gui]

Since we the credulous seem incabable of giving a satisfactory answer, perhaps you can instruct us. What is your explanation for "spiritual" experiences? What are your criteria for ranking them in order of validity? Can they ever be considered valid? Do they even exist apart from natural phenomena? Can they be explained and ranked using some scientific process? If so, what is the process and how can we test it's validity?

For example, in 1965, my companion John Allen and I were knocking on doors in a barrio of San Jose, Costa Rica. A door was opened by a woman who greeted us in happy amazement. "Pasen! Bienvenidos. Hemos estado esperandoles." We had never seen her before, so we were somewhat surprised. She called for her husband, and he, too, was very glad to see us as were all of their 6 children. She and her husband had recently dreamed that two North American men dressed in white shirts and ties and carrying portfolios would come to them with very important information for their family. They had discussed this and thought it was rather unusual. So, when she answered the door, she knew we were the men in their dreams. We missionaries used the flannel board discussions, so we carried our materiasl in leather portfolios made by local leather craftsmen, plus we were North Americans wearing white shirts and ties. They readily accepted our invitation to learn about the Church. In fact, they wanted to be baptized right away. On our second visit, the oldest son had memorized all 13 Articles of Faith, and the parents and older children were reading the Book of Mormon. The family was baptized a few weeks later.

Talking with the parents, we all concluded we had had a spiritual experience that was associated with God and the message of the Restoration and the Book of Mormon that we were trying to share with strangers that day.

On another occasion, Elder James Plaster and I were working in the beautiful town of Heredia, Costa Rica, on the slopes of the Poas volcano. Every evening as we went home we would stop at a certain cafe for a soft drink or juice and pastries. One night our waiter asked us if we would come to his home and talk with him about the Bible. Turned out he was a Mennonite, and a very good man. Over a period of several weeks we became friends. He came to our branch and we went to his church. I even played the little organ for his services because they didn't have anyone who could play it. One evening at his home, he asked us what we believed about Jesus and why we believed. I started to read the experience of Joseph and Sidney in the Kirtland temple when they saw Him and bore witness that He lives, because I believe it really happened and that would adequately express my feelings. As we read, what I believe is the Holy Spirit entered the room and bore unmistakable witness to each of us that what we were reading was true. It was so powerful that we were immediately in tears. This was totally unexpected. It was our conclusion that we had just had a "spiritual" experience. We had identical feelings about what was revealed to us. As far as I know, our friend never joined the church, but he cherished the testimony he had received that night that Jesus is the Christ. These are two of several experiences upon which I base my beliefs.

I have no idea how to prove to you they happened or how to rank them on some sort of objective, arbitrary, scientific scale, but I assure you they did happen After almost 50 years, they are still vivid in my memory and influence the way I live.

Perhaps you have a better explanation?

Bernard

I think it has been pointed out to you MANY times that the experiences are NOT what are in question neither are the qualifications you make of them. What is in question is what produced such effects. "Being cold" didn't cause the person to be cold, something else did. The experience of being cold is NOT what is in question but what caused that experience.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Storm Rider]

I totally understand that distinction.

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?

Now that is strange. I have never heard a single Arab suicide bomber declare they are blowing themselves up because Allah instructed him to do so. They are convinced that they "serve" Allah and that they believe in a specific, very narrow interpretation of the Qur'an, but never that their actions are the result of a personal revelation.

You have mistakenly confused a spiritual commitment with a spiritual revelation to act or choose. LDS beliefs and doctrines state just as clearly as the Bible does that spiritual revelation is open to all. There is no limitation on who may receive a revelation; it is not just for the "elect" whoever they may be. God gives to all men liberally. You have created a host of bad assumptions to create a poor example in the hope that your opinion holds value. I apologize, but it is a false dichotomy you have created.

[CV75]

If we find that what we consider valid justifications can equally support contradictory claims, then this leaves us with no basis for preferring one over the other. Because we can recognize that the claims are not equal, being unable to prefer one over the other is problematic considering most everyone behaves otherwise.

Interesting that you mention how people behave. You have received many responses on choosing a method, and even how Moroni’s Promise requires and provides a qualified justification in the verses, but you seem unable to provide a satisfactory response to the question as to which method you use and how you decided it has a valid justification (since you seem to require justification for its use).

For example, do you have no basis for making a decision either way; do you not make a decision; do you leave the decision up to chance; have you found an alternative method; do you use trial and error on methods that have indeterminate or no valid justification; do you still behave as if you prefer a method and don’t or are unable to prefer one method over another (and if so, why are these problems for you—how is your resultant behavior problematic)?

Also, give exampleswhere valid justifications equally support contradictory claims in the realm of Moroni's Promise.

[Questing Beast]

...

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.

...

I cannot pass this bit up. It strikes very close to me. My younger brother's family went through seven months of watching his 18 year-old boy waste away and DIE of cancer. Some weird "blue cell" derivative that had all the docs stumped. They tried at least three different kinds of chemotherapy. Friends and family across the country joined in fasting and prayer. All to no effect whatsoever.

The conclusion I draw is that as likely as not, the chemotherapy weakened my nephew's immune system enough to make sure he would not recover. It is a difficult topic for me. I can't share my feelings with my brother's family. Of course, "God" could have said clearly, "Don't do the chemotherapy, let me handle this." But if that occurred, then nobody got the "message".

These things happen. It's why the widely-held view is passed around: "Bad things happen to good people." Nobody can point to ANY correlation between faith and prayer and consistent blessings. If someone goes through what my brother's family are going through, they can say: "God is giving me peace." But that's problematic, isn't it? Another popular saying even used in general conference says words to the effect of: "You're not done until you're safely dead." And if there's one thing about "inner peace" it is mercurial. On a "good day" you feel fine. On a "bad day" you are flogged by your personal demons of doubt. "Oh Lord I believe. Will you help me with my unbelief?" And we are returned to the perspective of the entire human race floundering for answers.

Religious faith is equal, no matter where it originates from. And skepticism is equal, no matter whose religious faith is lacking, because it was never there in the first place, or because it has eroded and can no longer be sustained in the face of horrible realities....

[elguanteloko]

Since we the credulous seem incabable of giving a satisfactory answer, perhaps you can instruct us. What is your explanation for "spiritual" experiences?

First of all, the answer looked for in this thread is NOT the answer to "what causes spiritual experiences?" but to "Is Moroni's promise a valid epistemic test of Mormon belief?", which is what the vast majority of us seem to be discussing. Secondly, if you want an empirically founded answer for the former question ("what CAUSES an S.E.?" instead of "what is an S.E.?") then you will have to wait for science to continue since there isn't such an answer yet (though many useful studies, though, which is a great deal to understand). However, to leap forward and find this as a justification for choosing any explanation you wish is true is imprudent and reckless.

What are your criteria for ranking them in order of validity?

Parsimony, falsifiability, predict-ability, statistical analysis, etc.

Can they ever be considered valid?

Indeed, and as I think everyone should say with the great Isaac Asimov, "I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."

Do they even exist apart from natural phenomena?

How can a physical god be "apart" from natural phenomena? How could "spiritual matter" be outside natural phenomena? How could priesthood powers make cancers go away and not be said to, at least, have those effects confirmed through the study of natural phenomena? It seems to me it would be pretty similar to testing a drug for cancer in the confirm-ability of its results, not in its workings.

Can they be explained and ranked using some scientific process?

If you say they don't then you need reasons for why that is so. mfbukowski has been arguing for a while that God's existence is outside the purview of scientific but he fails to give any reason for it. We can argue why logic, mathematics, and even ideas are not properly named "physical phenomena" but that is arguable... is the statement "God is outside the purview of science" arguable? If so, please start.

If so, what is the process and how can we test it's validity?

It's called 'scientific method' and also the 'philosophy of science'.

For example, in 1965, my companion John Allen and I were knocking on doors in a barrio of San Jose, Costa Rica. A door was opened by a woman who greeted us in happy amazement. "Pasen! Bienvenidos. Hemos estado esperandoles." We had never seen her before, so we were somewhat surprised. She called for her husband, and he, too, was very glad to see us as were all of their 6 children. She and her husband had recently dreamed that two North American men dressed in white shirts and ties and carrying portfolios would come to them with very important information for their family. They had discussed this and thought it was rather unusual. So, when she answered the door, she knew we were the men in their dreams. We missionaries used the flannel board discussions, so we carried our materiasl in leather portfolios made by local leather craftsmen, plus we were North Americans wearing white shirts and ties. They readily accepted our invitation to learn about the Church. In fact, they wanted to be baptized right away. On our second visit, the oldest son had memorized all 13 Articles of Faith, and the parents and older children were reading the Book of Mormon. The family was baptized a few weeks later.

Talking with the parents, we all concluded we had had a spiritual experience that was associated with God and the message of the Restoration and the Book of Mormon that we were trying to share with strangers that day.

On another occasion, Elder James Plaster and I were working in the beautiful town of Heredia, Costa Rica, on the slopes of the Poas volcano. Every evening as we went home we would stop at a certain cafe for a soft drink or juice and pastries. One night our waiter asked us if we would come to his home and talk with him about the Bible. Turned out he was a Mennonite, and a very good man. Over a period of several weeks we became friends. He came to our branch and we went to his church. I even played the little organ for his services because they didn't have anyone who could play it. One evening at his home, he asked us what we believed about Jesus and why we believed. I started to read the experience of Joseph and Sidney in the Kirtland temple when they saw Him and bore witness that He lives, because I believe it really happened and that would adequately express my feelings. As we read, what I believe is the Holy Spirit entered the room and bore unmistakable witness to each of us that what we were reading was true. It was so powerful that we were immediately in tears. This was totally unexpected. It was our conclusion that we had just had a "spiritual" experience. We had identical feelings about what was revealed to us. As far as I know, our friend never joined the church, but he cherished the testimony he had received that night that Jesus is the Christ. These are two of several experiences upon which I base my beliefs.

I have no idea how to prove to you they happened or how to rank them on some sort of objective, arbitrary, scientific scale, but I assure you they did happen After almost 50 years, they are still vivid in my memory and influence the way I live.

Perhaps you have a better explanation?

...a better explanation than what, exactly? Than the influence from a spiritual God?

well, yes, actually. In fact, there are an almost unlimited number of more plausible explanations to account for those events but I won't tell you any of them since I think you can come up with better ones.

so, try it out. What is the most likely explanation YOU can think of for those events? Is the influence of a Mormon spiritual God (Holy Ghost) who loves people and knows almost everything (or everything) the best explanation you can come up with?

Edited June 30, 2011 by elguanteloko