Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[Montgomery Price]

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.

So, here it is unquestionably defined what we can expect of good and evil. These verses clearly and officially establish good, evil, and their extensions as mutually exclusive as day and night. Without exception, this is doctrinal confirmation that there can be no mixture of the two. Also established in these verses are the instructions given to discern perfectly between good and evil. The language is absolute and unequivocal. If you are Mormon, you must believe this fully.

Keeping this in mind, the following from the talk "The Only True Church", given by Elder Packer becomes quite powerful:

(Underlining added)

Inevitably (and properly) the “true church” doctrine emerges very early in any serious discussion of the gospel, for there is no better place to start such a discussion than with the First Vision. And there, in that very first conversation with man in this dispensation, the Lord presented it in unmistakable clarity.

Joseph Smith sought answer to the question “which of all the sects was right … and which … should [he] join?” (JS—H 1:18.) Surely he supposed that somewhere the “right” church was to be found. A simple direction to it would end his search. He could then join that church, live the tenets it proclaimed, and that would be that.

But that was not to be. In response to his humble prayer, the Father and the Son appeared to him. When he gained possession of himself so as to be able to speak, he asked “which of all the sects was right, that [he] might know which to join.” (JS—H 1:18.)

He recorded this:

“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’

“He again forbade me to join with any of them.” (JS—H 1:19–20.)

That is very blunt language. Little wonder that when he repeated it, the troubles began.

If ever he was tempted to disregard those words, they were repeated and sustained in subsequent revelations. A little more than a year after the Church was organized, the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants was revealed. In it the Lord said that the Book of Mormon was given in order that his servants “might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.” (D&C 1:30; italics added.)

After making it clear that he was “speaking unto the church collectively and not individually,” the Lord warned, “I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” (D&C 1:31.)

We know there are decent, respectable, humble people in many churches, Christian and otherwise. In turn, sadly enough, there are so-called Latter-day Saints who by comparison are not as worthy, for they do not keep their covenants.

But it is not a matter of comparing individuals. We are not baptized collectively, nor will we be judged collectively.

Good conduct without the ordinances of the gospel will neither redeem nor exalt mankind; covenants and the ordinances are essential. We are required to teach the doctrines, even the unpopular ones.

Yield on this doctrine, and you cannot justify the Restoration. The doctrine is true; it is logical. The opposite is not.

A few weeks ago I was returning from the East with President Hinckley. We conversed with a passenger who said something to the effect that all churches lead to heaven. How often have you heard that—the parallel path to heaven philosophy?

They claim one church is not really better than another, just different. Eventually the paths will converge. One is, therefore, quite as safe in any church as in any other.

While this seems to be very generous, it just cannot be true.

I find it so interesting that those who condemn us reject the parallel path philosophy themselves when it comes to non-Christian religions.

For if they do not, they have no reason to accept the Lord as our Redeemer or regard the Atonement as essential. And what could they do with his statement that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”? (Mark 16:16.)

While the converging path idea is very appealing, it really is not reasonable.

Suppose schools were operated on that philosophy, with each discipline a separate path leading to the same diploma. No matter whether you study or not, pass the tests or not, all would be given the same diploma—the one of their choice.

Without qualifying, one could choose the diploma of an attorney, an engineer, a medical doctor.

Surely you would not submit yourself to surgery under the hands of a graduate of that kind of school!

But it does not work that way. It cannot work that way—not in education, not in spiritual matters. There are essential ordinances just as there are required courses. There are prescribed standards of worthiness. If we resist them, avoid them, or fail them, we will not enter in with those who complete the course.

Do you realize that the notion that all churches are equal presupposes that the true church of Jesus Christ actually does not exist anywhere?

Now, others may insist that this is not the true church. That is their privilege. But to claim that it does not exist anywhere, that it does not even need to exist, is to deny the scriptures.

The New Testament teaches of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” and speaks of “[all coming] in the unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:5, 13) and of a “restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21.)

We did not invent the doctrine of the only true church. It came from the Lord. Whatever perception others have of us, however presumptuous we appear to be, whatever criticism is directed to us, we must teach it to all who will listen.

The Lord commanded the Latter-day Saints that “notwithstanding the tribulation which shall descend upon you,” the Church must “stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world.” (D&C 78:14.)

And also 1 Nephi 14:10:

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

Why do I emphasize these ideas so strongly? Because it precludes the most common response to the following argument:

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

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

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

(4) Because there has been no way provided to reliably determine whether a "stamp" is genuine, we have no standard to determine that any truth which purports to be verified by those relevant "stamps" actually is.

(5) Mormonism makes claims to truth which purport to be verified by these "stamps" which are in question.

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Mormonism, as verified by those "stamps" in question, must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

That common response being that there is no contradiction in (2), as justified by the false "parallel paths" doctrine.

If we are to accept (1) as a valid premise, that simply having a spiritual experience for a very specified faith, then as demonstrated by (2) through (6), we are accepting an inconsistent standard which requires resolution. We are forced to consider this standard inconsistent until we can find a way to reliably discern between experiences; which can be preferred over others.

Fortunately, Mormonism provides the solution to (4) in Moroni 7; the instructions by which we can determine this perfectly. But unfortunately, what is claimed to be perfect, is clearly not so.

For what reason do we accept that these instructions do as they describe? That is, why do we accept the Book of Mormon?

Mormonism doctrinally prescribes the reason as Moroni's Promise. But Moroni's Promise is a test which accepts (1), and is therefore subject to that same inconsistency which it attempts to resolve. To reason that we can discern between spiritual experiences by using a standard which is justified by those same spiritual experiences in question is circular. This "perfect" solution Mormonism pretends to fails to justify its epistemic test. If Mormonism were true, its test would not fail.

As far as can be discerned, Mormonism is doctrinally structured around circular reasoning, and can therefore not be true.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[KevinG]

Your broad brush approach to the validity of religious claims does not consider that the Holy Ghost testifies of the truth of all things. In particular the Divinity of Jesus Christ and His mission as Savior. Many competing religious claims can be unified and receive verification from the Holy Ghost of these things.

The unique LDS claim is not that we are the only ones to know Christ, but that we are His authorized church on the earth (authorized priesthood, church organization, living prophets, etc.) We do not claim to be the perfect church - that cannot exist in mortality.

There cannot be a partially authorized church, it is either authorized by God or not. But there can be varying degrees of truth within the set of doctrines a church follows.

The claim that someone is following the right denomination or is going to h*** is more appropriate for Evangelical and Calvanist denominations than it is for the LDS. I think perhaps your own assumptions about religion and truth are clouding your perception of the LDS.

[Montgomery Price]

Your broad brush approach to the validity of religious claims does not consider that the Holy Ghost testifies of the truth of all things. In particular the Divinity of Jesus Christ and His mission as Savior. Many competing religious claims can be unified and receive verification from the Holy Ghost of these things.

The unique LDS claim is not that we are the only ones to know Christ, but that we are His authorized church on the earth (authorized priesthood, church organization, living prophets, etc.) We do not claim to be the perfect church - that cannot exist in mortality.

There cannot be a partially authorized church, it is either authorized by God or not. But there can be varying degrees of truth within the set of doctrines a church follows.

The claim that someone is following the right denomination or is going to h*** is more appropriate for Evangelical and Calvanist denominations than it is for the LDS. I think perhaps your own assumptions about religion and truth are clouding your perception of the LDS.

This isn't the point.

Others claim to "know" that X religion is superior to Mormonism and its church. While Mormonism can accept that there are varying degrees of truth within X faith, Mormonism cannot accept that which contradicts. That is, Mormonism cannot accept, as the X follower does, that X is superior. Again, the point is that "the Church must “stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world.” (D&C 78:14.)" This is not compatible with the personal experiences of many non-Mormons.

[Pahoran]

So, here it is unquestionably defined what we can expect of good and evil. These verses clearly and officially establish good, evil, and their extensions as mutually exclusive as day and night. Without exception, this is doctrinal confirmation that there can be no mixture of the two. Also established in these verses are the instructions given to discern perfectly between good and evil. The language is absolute and unequivocal. If you are Mormon, you must believe this fully.

Keeping this in mind, the following from the talk "The Only True Church", given by Elder Packer becomes quite powerful:

Why do I emphasize these ideas so strongly? Because it precludes the most common response to the following argument:

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

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

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

(4) Because there has been no way provided to reliably determine whether a "stamp" is genuine, we have no standard to determine that any truth which purports to be verified by those relevant "stamps" actually is.

(5) Mormonism makes claims to truth which purport to be verified by these "stamps" which are in question.

(6) If (1) is to be accepted, Mormonism, as verified by those "stamps" in question, must be rejected until (4) can be corrected.

Why?

How does point 6 actually follow from anything that went before?

The point your argument resolutely ignores -- and which you determinedly dodged on the thread you are now trying to relitigate (which is, just BTW, considered to be bad form) -- is that nobody can validate anyone else's religious experience. The corollary of that is not that all religious experiences are equally valid, but that each religious experience can only be of binding force to the person receiving it.

So I can't take out my religious experience, lay it alongside yours, and run them both through a RE-Meter to determine which one carries the most weight. All either of us can do is to be true to whatever we genuinely believe to be true, however we might have determined its truthfulness.

That common response being that there is no contradiction in (2), as justified by the false "parallel paths" doctrine.

I believe that is what is known as a "straw man."

If we are to accept (1) as a valid premise, that simply having a spiritual experience for a very specified faith, then as demonstrated by (2) through (6), we are accepting an inconsistent standard which requires resolution. We are forced to consider this standard inconsistent until we can find a way to reliably discern between experiences; which can be preferred over others.

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. You might as well talk about judging musical compositions based upon their nutritional content. Since religious experiences have to be experienced, the only way they can be compared is if one person has two or more such experiences so that she can compare them. But in so doing, she is comparing only her experiences; she cannot compare them to anyone else's.

You really are knocking the stuffing out of that poor defenceless straw guy. What did he ever do to you?

Fortunately, Mormonism provides the solution to (4) in Moroni 7; the instructions by which we can determine this perfectly. But unfortunately, what is claimed to be perfect, is clearly not so.

How so?

For what reason do we accept that these instructions do as they describe? That is, why do we accept the Book of Mormon?

Mormonism doctrinally prescribes the reason as Moroni's Promise. But Moroni's Promise is a test which accepts (1), and is therefore subject to that same inconsistency which it attempts to resolve.

Does it?

Actually Moroni's promise does not rely upon any "self-authenticating quality or 'stamp'" of any kind. It is actually something much more straightforward than that. It simply asserts that if you ask a question and you get an answer, then the fact that you've received an answer ought to mean something.

To reason that we can discern between spiritual experiences by using a standard which is justified by those same spiritual experiences in question is circular. This "perfect" solution Mormonism pretends to fails.

Actually Monty, it is your laboured argument that fails.

As far as can be discerned, Mormonism is doctrinally structured around circular reasoning, and can therefore not be true.

Monty,

I'm trying to remember when was the last time I met anyone quite that impressed with his own cleverness. Please don't make personal remarks like this. -Ares

I think it was me, about age 14.

Your argument is nonsense. I assert that a particular object on my desk is a computer. I support that claim by pointing out that it has certain characteristics that are shared only by computers. It is black and silver in colour; it has the word "Samsung" on the front; it has buttons in various places and cables plugged into the back. Actually I cite these evidences by looking at my computer. Furthermore, there are many computers that do not have many or most of those features, and many non-computers that do have them. My argument is completely circular. But it is nonetheless absolutely true that the object in question is a computer.

Since true assertions can be (and often are) supported by weak, flawed, fallacious or otherwise bogus arguments, your argument fails. Even if Moroni's Promise were circular, which it is not, that would not show that "Mormonism cannot be true," nor would it support the claim that "Mormonism must be rejected."

There is one safe conclusion that can be drawn from those arguments, however. And that is that the person making them is an anti-Mormon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Montgomery Price]

For example,

Many Muslims report personal experiences which confirm to them the divine inerrancy of the Koran. The Koran explicitly denies the divinity of Christ. We can therefore know with perfect knowledge that it is not of God, and their experience is not as they interpret. But this conclusion is based on the Book of Mormon which itself is accepted for no better reason than the Muslim accepts the Koran.

To claim that there are varying degrees of truth within the Koran is incompatible with what the Koran claims about itself and what Moroni 7 tacitly teaches about the Koran.

[KevinG]

As much as I respect my other brethren and sisters in the world of Christianity and other religions, I will stick to listening to God via the Holy Spirit to choose my direction.

When others have told me they have received revelation to the contrary I honestly tell them "by all means follow what God has told you."

I also believe that God is merciful enough to bless and save those who seek Him in earnest and live according to their beliefs.

[Pahoran]

For example,

Many Muslims report personal experiences which confirm to them the divine inerrancy of the Koran. The Koran explicitly denies the divinity of Christ. We can therefore know with perfect knowledge that it is not of God, and their experience is not as they interpret. But this conclusion is based on the Book of Mormon which itself is accepted for no better reason than the Muslim accepts the Koran.

To claim that there are varying degrees of truth within the Koran is incompatible with what the Koran claims about itself and what Moroni 7 tacitly teaches about the Koran.

Monty,

You are monologuing.

CFR that "Many Muslims report personal experiences which confirm to them the divine inerrancy of the Koran"[sic]. Also please define "many." While there is no doubt that enormous varieties of religious experience will be found in a religious tradition with hundreds of millions of adherents, the notion of becoming converted to Islam through spiritual experiences is actually rather foreign to the Muslim paradigm, according to the best sources available to me.

Moroni 7 does not mention the Qur'an.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

For example,

Many Muslims report personal experiences which confirm to them the divine inerrancy of the Koran. The Koran explicitly denies the divinity of Christ. We can therefore know with perfect knowledge that it is not of God, and their experience is not as they interpret. But this conclusion is based on the Book of Mormon which itself is accepted for no better reason than the Muslim accepts the Koran.

To claim that there are varying degrees of truth within the Koran is incompatible with what the Koran claims about itself and what Moroni 7 tacitly teaches about the Koran.

Now I'm amused. Moroni 7 was written about 200 years prior to the Koran. I don't think it was tacitly or expressly teaching anything about the Koran.

You might also check your knowledge of Islam. I've been reading the Koran recently and have found no comprable claim to verification by revelation that we find in James and Moroni. In fact the revelation the Koran talks about is received through the prophet Muhammed only and the Koran appeals to the reasoning of the reader as well as tradition to verify its truthfullness.

I find that on a practical level Islam and Calvanism have more similarities in their claims to verifying truthfullness than either religion has to Mormonism. But Professor Peterson can probably expound on that in a much more expert manner.

[KevinG]

I see that we are double teaming you Monty. I have no desire to do that so I'll take polite leave of this thread.

[Montgomery Price]

Why?

How does point 6 actually follow from anything that went before?

The point your argument resolutely ignores -- and which you determinedly dodged on the thread you are now trying to relitigate (which is, just BTW, considered to be bad form) -- is that nobody can validate anyone else's religious experience. The corollary of that is not that all religious experiences are equally valid, but that each religious experience can only be of binding force to the person receiving it.

So I can't take out my religious experience, lay it alongside yours, and run them both through a RE-Meter to determine which one carries the most weight. All either of us can do is to be true to whatever we genuinely believe to be true, however we might have determined its truthfulness.

Is it not obvious? The personal experience which supposedly verifies Mormonism is in question with no solution. This justifies the rejection of Mormonism.

You've simply imagined that my argument ignores that we can't measure the experiences of others. You and others have repeatedly ignored that this is my argument. That we can't measure the experiences of others supports the problematic premise that we can't discern between them.

I never offered the soultion for determining which experiences can be preferred. I requested it. That you can't fill my request is my argument.

To say that "each religious experience can only be of binding force to the person receiving it." Doesn't solve the problem because we know that many people think their experience has a binding force, when they cannot each actually do this. You're just describing the self-authenticating element I've already addressed.

I believe that is what is known as a "straw man."

For you, maybe. It's been given by others. You don't mean to suggest that I was only directing this argument at you?

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. You might as well talk about judging musical compositions based upon their nutritional content. Since religious experiences have to be experienced, the only way they can be compared is if one person has two or more such experiences so that she can compare them. But in so doing, she is comparing only her experiences; she cannot compare them to anyone else's.

You really are knocking the stuffing out of that poor defenceless straw guy. What did he ever do to you?

You're ignoring that even if we accept as you insist, it doesn't solve the problem.

How so?

I explained already.

Does it?

Actually Moroni's promise does not rely upon any "self-authenticating quality or 'stamp'" of any kind. It is actually something much more straightforward than that. It simply asserts that if you ask a question and you get an answer, then the fact that you've received an answer ought to mean something.

That something being a self-authentication of the Book of Mormon. To pretend that it's a vague "something" is absurd. Saying "the fact that you've receive an answer" is exactly that self-authenticating quality. It is asserted that simply experiencing this answer means the answer is true.

Actually Monty, it is your laboured argument that fails.

We can each believe what we want about it, but only one of us can demonstrate our view is correct.

Monty,

I'm trying to remember when was the last time I met anyone quite that impressed with his own cleverness.

I think it was me, about age 14.

Your argument is nonsense. I assert that a particular object on my desk is a computer. I support that claim by pointing out that it has certain characteristics that are shared only by computers. It is black and silver in colour; it has the word "Samsung" on the front; it has buttons in various places and cables plugged into the back. Actually I cite these evidences by looking at my computer. Furthermore, there are many computers that do not have many or most of those features, and many non-computers that do have them. My argument is completely circular. But it is nonetheless absolutely true that the object in question is a computer.

Since true assertions can be (and often are) supported by weak, flawed, fallacious or otherwise bogus arguments, your argument fails. Even if Moroni's Promise were circular, which it is not, that would not show that "Mormonism cannot be true," nor would it support the claim that "Mormonism must be rejected."

There is one safe conclusion that can be drawn from those arguments, however. And that is that the person making them is an anti-Mormon.

Regards,

Pahoran

Your argument is not circular because it appeals to objects which aren't the object in question. That is, your specific computer. You're imagining things again.

A properly circular argument would be to claim you have a computer because the "computer" in question said so. You don't believe it is a computer because it said so, but because you have observed qualities which are only found with computers. That is, you appeal to observations besides your specific computer.

To suggest that a flawed argument can be acceptable is absurd, whether or not it may support something that is true. To accept an argument that is bogus, yet supports something that happens to be true, is to believe something for the wrong reasons. It's like believing the Earth is round because you lost your baby tooth. Absurd in every sense.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

I see that we are double teaming you Monty. I have no desire to do that so I'll take polite leave of this thread.

I don't mind the challenge, but it is appreciated. Feel free to return whenever you like.

[Montgomery Price]

Monty,

You are monologuing.

CFR that "Many Muslims report personal experiences which confirm to them the divine inerrancy of the Koran"[sic]. Also please define "many." While there is no doubt that enormous varieties of religious experience will be found in a religious tradition with hundreds of millions of adherents, the notion of becoming converted to Islam through spiritual experiences is actually rather foreign to the Muslim paradigm, according to the best sources available to me.

Moroni 7 does not mention the Qur'an.

Regards,

Pahoran

Alright, one experience being the experience of the Prophet Muhammad.

That there are "many" isn't the critical point. That there are any at all which can't be preferred over contradictory experiences is the issue.

Moroni 7 does tacitly claim that because the Koran denies Christ it cannot be of God. It must be of the devil, evil, and therefore no good can come of it.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Pahoran]

Is it not obvious? The personal experience which supposedly verifies Mormonism is in question with no solution. This justifies the rejection of Mormonism.

Your highlighted conclusion does not follow.

But I thank you for at last being honest enough to admit that you are merely trying to work up a way to "justify the rejection of Mormonism." I did not notice that you were quite that forthcoming before.

You've simply imagined that my argument ignores that we can't measure the experiences of others. You and others have repeatedly ignored that this is my argument. That we can't measure the experiences of others supports the problematic premise that we can't discern between them.

Which is an utterly and completely irrelevant objection.

We have never purported to provide a way to "discern between" the religious experiences of any two individuals.

I never offered the soultion for determining which experiences can be preferred. I requested it. That you can't fill my request is my argument.

You demanded it based upon the assumption that such a determination is necessary. I reject that premise.

To say that "each religious experience can only be of binding force to the person receiving it." Doesn't solve the problem because we know that many people think their experience has a binding force, when each cannot. You're just describing the self-authenticating element I've already addressed.

That's false. The fact that religious experiences cannot be examined leads to no other conclusion than that they cannot be examined. The assumption that whatever cannot be examined must therefore be rejected as spurious is exactly that -- an assumption -- and you have failed to even attempt to argue why it should be so.

For you, maybe. It's been given by others. You don't mean to suggest that I was only directing this argument at you?

I suggest you look up "Straw Man Fallacy." You selected that argument not because it even begins to represent normative LDS thought on the subject (it does not) but because it was an easy target.

You're ignoring that even if we accept as you insist, it doesn't solve the problem.

You're ignoring that the "problem" is artificial, completely manufactured out of thin air.

I explained already.

"Explained" is an unusual spelling for "merely asserted." Proof by mere assertion does not work.

That something being a self-authentication of the Book of Mormon. To pretend that it's a vague "something" is absurd. Saying "the fact that you've receive an answer" is exactly that self-authenticating quality. It is asserted that simply experiencing this answer means the answer is true.

Actually it is asserted that anyone who has received such an answer needs to decide what he or she is going to do about it. As an intellectual problem, the fact that an answer is received does need to be explained; mere hand-waving at the fact that non-Latter-day Saints also have religious experiences is a red herring and explains nothing. But the notion that the intellectual problem must be solved -- to the satisfaction of a hyper-critical naysayer -- before the one who received the experience can act upon it is the most exquisite nonsense.

Your argument is in fact an exact corollary of the straw man you purport to reject. You heap great scorn and derision upon the notion that all such experiences might be equally valid, but you assume--rather unthinkingly, I might add--that they must therefore all be equally invalid. In reality, both assumptions are equally flawed. It is equivalent to observing the fact that you might not be able to tell counterfeit money from the genuine article, and concluding thereby that there is no genuine money anywhere. You seem incapable of considering that there might be a truth proposition that is beyond your competence to establish; and rather than accept the limitations of the tools you've chosen to use, you insist that anything your tools can't deal with must be rejected out of hand.

And if that makes you feel safe, then perhaps you should do just that. But don't expect wiser minds than yours to follow along behind.

We can each believe what we want about it, but only one of us can demonstrate our view is correct.

And that one of us has not been you.

Your argument is not circular because it appeals to objects which aren't the object in question. That is, your specific computer. You're imagining things again.

Actually I was appealing exactly to my specific computer.

A properly circular argument would be to claim you have a computer because the "computer" in question said so. You don't believe it is a computer because it said so, but because you have observed qualities which are only found with computers. That is, you appeal to observations besides your specific computer.

This is quite entertaining, watching you try to school me, Monty. The was looking at my specific computer, and mentioning features that apply to a large number of non-computer objects and do not apply to some actual computers. I happen to know this to be the case because I am a computer specialist. The notion that an argument can only be circular if the arguer claims an object (animate or otherwise) "said" what it was, is to absurdly -- and tendentiously -- confine the definition of "circular argument." In reality, all it means is that the argument assumes its conclusion. If I pick up a rock and believe it to be a computer, and I then support that conclusion by claiming that that rock's features are those of actual computers, then I have made a circular argument.

To suggest that a flawed argument can be acceptable is absurd, whether or not it may support something that is true. To accept an argument that is bogus, yet supports something that happens to be true, is to believe something for the wrong reasons. It's like believing the Earth is round because you lost your baby tooth.

But to follow your logic, if someone did argue that the Earth is round because they lost their baby tooth, you'd then be justified in rejecting the claim that the earth is round.

Absurd in every sense.

Exactly.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Alright, one experience being the experience of the Prophet Muhammad.

The same Muhammad who questioned the reality of his experiences and wondered if he might be going mad?

Okay.

That there are "many" isn't the critical point. That there are any at all which can't be preferred over contradictory experiences is the issue.

Those who have tested Moroni's Promise and who testify that they received a positive answer to their prayers tend to prefer their experience over the contradictory experiences of others.

Moroni 7 does tacitly claim that because the Koran denies Christ it cannot be of God. It must be of the devil, evil, and therefore no good can come of it.

That's an interesting argument. Have you read the Qur'an? I would say that, rather than denying Christ, it imperfectly supports Him. That would make it an imperfect human production.

But it doesn't matter anyway. The fact that other people claim to have religious experiences has never been denied by us, and contradicts none of our truth claims. Therefore, it is irrelevant to those claims.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Yawn.

Already did this one.

You didn't listen the first, second, third, fourth or- how many times have we been over this?

One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

[Montgomery Price]

Yawn.

Already did this one.

You didn't listen the first, second, third, fourth or- how many times have we been over this?

One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

I'd say I'm refining my argument. You can try addressing the argument in the OP and demonstrating where my reasoning fails.

[Montgomery Price]

Your highlighted conclusion does not follow.

But I thank you for at last being honest enough to admit that you are merely trying to work up a way to "justify the rejection of Mormonism." I did not notice that you were quite that forthcoming before.

If I honestly believed that's what I was doing, I obviously wouldn't be here. Take Ares advice and lay off the personal remarks.

You're ignoring that the "problem" is artificial, completely manufactured out of thin air.

I don't know what you're speaking of, because you haven't shown that you understand the problem I've exposed.

"Explained" is an unusual spelling for "merely asserted." Proof by mere assertion does not work.

I didn't simply assert. I explained why the instructions to discern perfectly between good and evil doesn't help. These "perfect" instructions are insufficient, and are subject to the problem they pretend to solve.

And that one of us has not been you.

And I'm done with these back and forth distractions...

Which is an utterly and completely irrelevant objection.

We have never purported to provide a way to "discern between" the religious experiences of any two individuals.

Moroni 7 claims otherwise. If it persuadeth man to believe in Christ, do good, and serve God, it is of God. If it persuadeth man to deny Christ, do evil, and serve not God, it is of the devil. Very simple.

My objection is centrally relevant to my argument which you have yet to address. You have simply supported it's premise repeatedly, imagining that you're refuting whatever you think I've been arguing.

You demanded it based upon the assumption that such a determination is necessary. I reject that premise.

You claim to reject that premise, but I haven't seen any expressed reason or that you even understand my argument.

That's false. The fact that religious experiences cannot be examined leads to no other conclusion than that they cannot be examined. The assumption that whatever cannot be examined must therefore be rejected as spurious is exactly that -- an assumption -- and you have failed to even attempt to argue why it should be so.

I have argued why it should be so, you just seemed to have missed it. Let me explain exactly what I mean again, and maybe you can address it directly.

My argument is not to dismiss all religious experience as false because they cannot be examined.

My argument is that we cannot prefer one religious experience over another because they cannot be examined. Whether or not a religious experience is valid, I contend that we have no way to know this and the instructions offered by Mormonism also fail.

Learn the difference. I am not claiming that the inability to discern between them makes them false.

I am claiming that the inability to discern between them leaves our selection of one over the others unjustified.

I am claiming that Mormonism pretends to discern between them, but fails because this method is subject to the problem it wishes to solve.

I suggest you look up "Straw Man Fallacy." You selected that argument not because it even begins to represent normative LDS thought on the subject (it does not) but because it was an easy target.

Do you mean Elder Packer's interpretation of the First Vision? Do you mean my interpretation of Moroni 7? Please explain exactly where I've misrepresented LDS thought.

Actually it is asserted that anyone who has received such an answer needs to decide what he or she is going to do about it. As an intellectual problem, the fact that an answer is received does need to be explained; mere hand-waving at the fact that non-Latter-day Saints also have religious experiences is a red herring and explains nothing. But the notion that the intellectual problem must be solved -- to the satisfaction of a hyper-critical naysayer -- before the one who received the experience can act upon it is the most exquisite nonsense.

That's all dandy after you demonstrate that there is no real problem. All my argument requires is that Moroni's Promise is a test which accepts that simply having a personal experience that you "know" the Book of Mormon is true, is sufficient to accept that you know the Book of Mormon is true. The conclusion is derived from the personal experience which is claimed to be self-authenticating.

Your argument is in fact an exact corollary of the straw man you purport to reject. You heap great scorn and derision upon the notion that all such experiences might be equally valid, but you assume--rather unthinkingly, I might add--that they must therefore all be equally invalid. In reality, both assumptions are equally flawed. It is equivalent to observing the fact that you might not be able to tell counterfeit money from the genuine article, and concluding thereby that there is no genuine money anywhere. You seem incapable of considering that there might be a truth proposition that is beyond your competence to establish; and rather than accept the limitations of the tools you've chosen to use, you insist that anything your tools can't deal with must be rejected out of hand.

And if that makes you feel safe, then perhaps you should do just that. But don't expect wiser minds than yours to follow along behind.

Counterfeit money is a good analogy... I'll use it to again explain where you have misunderstood my argument.

There are several different Money Machines which each produce several different bills. The authenticity of these bills are in question.

X bills are produced by X machine.

Y bills are produced by Y machine.

Z bills are produced by Z machine.

I am not claiming that because we can't tell which bills are counterfeit, there can be no genuine bills.

I am claiming that because we can't tell which bills are counterfeit, we can't justify the selection of one bill over the others as genuine.

But there's more, the bills have fine print:

X bills read, "To verify that X bills are genuine, use X machine. If you receive X bills, then you may know that X bills are genuine."

Y bills read, "To verify that Y bills are genuine, use Y machine. If you receive Y bills, then you may know that Y bills are genuine."

Z bills read, "To verify that Z bills are genuine, use Z machine. If you receive Z bills, then you may know that Z bills are genuine."

My argument is that to accept that any bill is genuine by using the test written on the bill would be unjustified because the test appeals to that which is in question.

Because the fine print doesn't accomplish what it pretends to, we can know that the bill itself has "lied". This is all we need to establish that the bill is counterfeit. A genuine bill would not prescribe a counterfeit test for its authenticity.

Please demonstrate that you understand my argument.

Actually I was appealing exactly to my specific computer.

This is quite entertaining, watching you try to school me, Monty. The was looking at my specific computer, and mentioning features that apply to a large number of non-computer objects and do not apply to some actual computers. I happen to know this to be the case because I am a computer specialist. The notion that an argument can only be circular if the arguer claims an object (animate or otherwise) "said" what it was, is to absurdly -- and tendentiously -- confine the definition of "circular argument." In reality, all it means is that the argument assumes its conclusion. If I pick up a rock and believe it to be a computer, and I then support that conclusion by claiming that that rock's features are those of actual computers, then I have made a circular argument.

I didn't say that was the only way an argument can be circular. You imagined that.

And no, you were observing your own computer and then appealing to observation of other computers. Not appealing to your specific computer as proof that it was a computer. That would be claiming you had a computer because the object in question said so.

But to follow your logic, if someone did argue that the Earth is round because they lost their baby tooth, you'd then be justified in rejecting the claim that the earth is round.

No. Please acknowledge that my argument is that we are unjustified in accepting that the Earth is round because we lost our baby teeth, whether or not the Earth is round. It is not a refutation of the Earth being round. You have imagined this. You are the one arguing against straw-men. I've explained this clearly enough.

The same Muhammad who questioned the reality of his experiences and wondered if he might be going mad?

Okay.

I'm sure every Muslim would agree with what you seem to be suggesting.

Those who have tested Moroni's Promise and who testify that they received a positive answer to their prayers tend to prefer their experience over the contradictory experiences of others.

For no good reason, I have argued.

That's an interesting argument. Have you read the Qur'an? I would say that, rather than denying Christ, it imperfectly supports Him. That would make it an imperfect human production.

But it doesn't matter anyway. The fact that other people claim to have religious experiences has never been denied by us, and contradicts none of our truth claims. Therefore, it is irrelevant to those claims.

The Koran explicitly denies that Jesus is the Son of God several times, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. The Koran accuses Jesus himself to be a liar.

I never questioned the fact that people claim to have religious experience. You imagined this.

Their experiences do lead them to contradict Mormon truth claims, and they are therefore relevant to those truth claims.

[shalamabobbi]

If I address this will you promise to stay out of my personal mail box?

I am not arguing that spiritual truths are scientific in their epistemology. When being interviewed for a temple recommend the person being questioned is the person deciding the answers. The bishop does not send out undercover agents to ascertain the validity of the answers given.

It is the individual that decides whether they are justified or not in believing there is a God and whether or not it is right to follow His commandments. How each chooses to decide this is their business, not mine nor that of society.

Spiritual experiences can happen outside the restored church. I know. I had some prior to hearing about the LDS faith. That there is only one completely true church does not mean there are not good people in other faiths that are doing the best they can with what they know and who might be worthy of blessings of the spirit. So you wanting this in your argument is just that, you wanting it in your argument.

(4)we have no standard to determine that any truth...

There is no way to validate a spiritual experience of an individual by a group. If you wish to conclude from this that the experience can't be real because there is no group validation that is your assertion. That you conclude from this that we cannot determine among conflicting claims to religious truths is correct. We cannot, as a group. But I can as an individual. And others can as individuals.

(Sorry if there is repetition here from other posts. I have not read any posts other than the OP.)

And just what is it that you seem so concerned about? If I follow the LDS religion I will (gasp!) refrain from adultery and fornication. Curb the desire to look at porn. Eat and drink in a healthful manner. Learn to be concerned about others rather than stay focused in my own little world. Learn to curb anger and to become kind. Learn to care for the poor by donating of my excess. How horrible is all of this! If only I could be freed from it!

Am I to be kind to my fellow man in an LDS way or a Catholic way, perhaps a Protestant way or a Muslim way?

Gasp! If I cannot decide which way to be kind is best, I should not be kind at all! How absurd is the entirety of this argument..

[Montgomery Price]

If I address this will you promise to stay out of my personal mail box?

Sure. I was only inviting you to continue the conversation.

I am not arguing that spiritual truths are scientific in their epistemology. When being interviewed for a temple recommend the person being questioned is the person deciding the answers. The bishop does not send out undercover agents to ascertain the validity of the answers given.

I never claimed you were.

It is the individual that decides whether they are justified or not in believing there is a God and whether or not it is right to follow His commandments. How each chooses to decide this is their business, not mine nor that of society.

As with every decision, it is made by the individual. But we can attempt to persuade others on how to make the best decision.

Spiritual experiences can happen outside the restored church. I know. I had some prior to hearing about the LDS faith. That there is only one completely true church does not mean there are not good people in other faiths that are doing the best they can with what they know and who might be worthy of blessings of the spirit. So you wanting this in your argument is just that, you wanting it in your argument.

I never claimed spiritual experiences can't happen outside the restored church. The church claims itself to be the superior pathway to truth and false teachings incapable of persuading any man to do good. False teachings being the faiths which you assert are followed by "good" people. This is clearly rejected by LDS doctrine.

With this in mind, I claim that spiritual experiences within the church cannot be preferred over those outside the church. Yet the Church pretends otherwise.

There is no way to validate a spiritual experience of an individual by a group. If you wish to conclude from this that the experience can't be real because there is no group validation that is your assertion. That you conclude from this that we cannot determine among conflicting claims to religious truths is correct. We cannot, as a group. But I can as an individual. And others can as individuals.

However you've determined that you can "know" as individual is a standard which you must allow others. If you can use this method to "know" your own claims are true, then why can't others possibly use this method to "know" their contradictory claims are true? If they could possibly do this, your standard is, as far can be determined, inconsistent. Two mutually exclusive things cannot each be "known". You must have a way to discern between an experience which leads you to think you "know" and one that actually does produce knowledge. I don't see that Mormonism has provided this.

And just what is it that you seem so concerned about? If I follow the LDS religion I will (gasp!) refrain from adultery and fornication. Curb the desire to look at porn. Eat and drink in a healthful manner. Learn to be concerned about others rather than stay focused in my own little world. Learn to curb anger and to become kind. Learn to care for the poor by donating of my excess. How horrible is all of this! If only I could be freed from it!

Am I to be kind to my fellow man in an LDS way or a Catholic way, perhaps a Protestant way or a Muslim way?

Gasp! If I cannot decide which way to be kind is best, I should not be kind at all! How absurd is the entirety of this argument..

This was never about the reasons for being kind. It's about the reasons for believing that you'll receive certain blessings in the after-life for believing certain things or suffer consequences for rejecting them.

[mfbukowski]

Learn the difference. I am not claiming that the inability to discern between them makes them false.

I am claiming that the inability to discern between them leaves our selection of one over the others unjustified.

I am claiming that Mormonism pretends to discern between them, but fails because this method is subject to the problem it wishes to solve.

I will reply exactly once

The problem is that you do not define "justification", and all that counts as "justification" of a religious experience IS MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE

You have your preference, I have mine. There is no other justification possible. Yes, that means that two people can disagree about what is "true" and BOTH be right, for them.

Using church language, the church would say "there is truth in all religions" while yet asserting that we are the "one true church". There is no conflict there, even if there appears to be, because the church also asserts the importance of personal revelation and following one's conscience, and the importance of gaining a personal testimony of every principle.

What you cannot seem to understand is that there are many paths to one truth, and we get to choose the path we take, but eventually "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ."

The whole notion of a "justified path" to the same destination is confused, but you seem to be stuck on that point. When "all roads lead to Rome" picking one that works for you is a matter of personal preference. Our journeys will continue long after this life is over- so if you want to go down the road of Scientism, be my guest- you will figure it out eventually anyway when you understand these principles better.

You continually confuse objective scientific justification of what is empirically determinable with choosing a path for what gives one's life meaning, and they cannot be confused.

I thought I would try one last time this time using different words, though I dont actually suppose it will make a difference

Edited July 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

Mormonism doctrinally prescribes the reason as Moroni's Promise.

Fundamental to that, doctrinally the Light of Christ guides a person to truth. The genuineness of the seeker of truth, or his aligning his conscience with the Light of Christ, governs his recognizing spiritual truths, receiving authentic experiences and enjoying genuine progress.

[Montgomery Price]

I will reply exactly once

The problem is that you do not define "justification", and all that counts as "justification" of a religious experience IS MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE

You have your preference, I have mine. There is no other justification possible. Yes, that means that two people can disagree about what is "true" and BOTH be right, for them.

Using church language, the church would say "there is truth in all religions" while yet asserting that we are the "one true church". There is no conflict there, even if there appears to be, because the church also asserts the importance of personal revelation and following one's conscience, and the importance of gaining a personal testimony of every principle.

What you cannot seem to understand is that there are many paths to one truth, and we get to choose the path we take, but eventually "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ."

The whole notion of a "justified path" to the same destination is confused, but you seem to be stuck on that point. When "all roads lead to Rome" picking one that works for you is a matter of personal preference. Our journeys will continue long after this life is over- so if you want to go down the road of Scientism, be my guest- you will figure it out eventually anyway when you understand these principles better.

You continually confuse objective scientific justification of what is empirically determinable with choosing a path for what gives one's life meaning, and they cannot be confused.

I thought I would try one last time this time using different words, though I dont actually suppose it will make a difference

Mf,

Your struggle to clearly explain these ideas could just as well reflect your own stubbornness. It all depends on our arguments.

I contend that your standard for what is "justified" is a foolish one. Regardless of how I may determine what a proper justification, Mormonism claims to some sort of justification. My argument has always been against the justifications.

Your view in particular is exposed as insufficient with one simple question:

How can something which depends on some objectively existing factor for its desired results "work for you" if that factor doesn't exist?

Your familiar with this question already, the previous version being "How can the Celestial Kingdom "work for you" if the Celestial Kingdom doesn't exist?"

The point I'm making is to completely disregard or dismiss any investigation into objective reality when the standard you wish to apply depends on the questionable existence or non-existence of objective realities is foolish.

Your only response to this thus far is "So, what?" Your dismissal of objective-minded discussion may be justified, but to pretend that there is no problem because you have no solution is absurd. Mf, your issue is that you're not defending Mormonism, your defending your own right to be as irrational as you wish. You just seem to have happened to choose to be irrationally Mormon.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

Fundamental to that, doctrinally the Light of Christ guides a person to truth. The genuineness of the seeker of truth, or his aligning his conscience with the Light of Christ, governs his recognizing spiritual truths, receiving authentic experiences and enjoying genuine progress.

Yes, this is the claim I have questioned.

[mfbukowski]

How can something which depends on some objectively existing factor for its desired results "work for you" if that factor doesn't exist?

It does not depend on some objectively existing factor. Read the previous thread. It exists subjectively.

Edit:

This time actually watch this video and think about it.

We know a belief can be "true" without being (scientifically) "justified" ....

No interpretation is any closer to reality than any other, some are more useful for some purposes than others but that is about all you can say.

Nietzschean perspectivism, which says you cannot dig down below interpretations to get to facts is substantially the same thing as I said before that

Pragmatists try to get rid of the reality/appearance distinction

I also inserted the word "scientifically" in parenthesis in the written quote above.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Richard_Rorty

This guy is a major philosopher. By calling him "irrational" you betray your ignorance. You are not taking me on- you are taking on all of Pragmatism.

Unless you comment something useful, this will be "over and out"

Edited July 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

The real question is, what will it finally take for MP to figure out the absurdity of trying to fit the round peg of subjective epistemics into the square hole of objective justification?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-