Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[Montgomery Price]

I have no clue what this means.

You're just being difficult. You know exactly what I mean.

Consider a diabetic's preference for a safe blood sugar level.

If your model of the reality mistakenly presumes that a sugary ice-cream is sugar-free, acting on this inaccurate assumption will thwart your desire to maintain a safe blood sugar level. Your model of reality (which you adopt for pragmatic purposes) doesn't function as well to fulfill your preferences if you had determined more accurately if there is sugar in the ice-cream.

This is what I mean when I say "what works for you" might not.

The diabetic may say this ice-cream cone "works for me" because it's sugar-free and that's what he prefers. But if it isn't sugar-free, it doesn't really "work", even if he thinks it will. It's not about whether we can "trust" or "justify" a preference for safe blood sugar... it's about whether we can determine accurately the things we interpret as concerning this preference. What reason do we have to trust that our functional conception of the ice-cream will function the way we suppose?

[mfbukowski]

You're just being difficult. You know exactly what I mean.

Consider a diabetic's preference for a safe blood sugar level.

If your model of the reality mistakenly presumes that a sugary ice-cream is sugar-free, acting on this inaccurate assumption will thwart your desire to maintain a safe blood sugar level. Your model of reality (which you adopt for pragmatic purposes) doesn't function as well to fulfill your preferences if you had determined more accurately if there is sugar in the ice-cream.

This is what I mean when I say "what works for you" might not.

The diabetic may say this ice-cream cone "works for me" because it's sugar-free and that's what he prefers. But if it isn't sugar-free, it doesn't really "work", even if he thinks it will. It's not about whether we can "trust" or "justify" a preference for safe blood sugar... it's about whether we can determine accurately the things we interpret as concerning this preference. What reason do we have to trust that our functional conception of the ice-cream will function the way we suppose?

If you want to get into how Pragmatism works in science, we can do so, but here you are way out of your league and I think you should stick to the thread topic. Clearly sugar does not "work" for a diabetic to achieve his desired end, unless his desired end is suicide. The criterion for what "works" is always instrumentality- what "works" for achieving a desired purpose.

Obviously what "works" for health is an objective issue, to be settled by objective observation and science, but we are talking about what makes us happy and what can only be justified subjectively by preference.

But your confusion here really does illustrate your general confusion on the difference between how one justifies subjective religious experience (justified subjectively) with scientific truth (justified objectively)

I keep telling you that you are making this mistake, and here you make it again. You just do not understand the difference between subjective and objective I guess, even after all this.

You still believe in sources for experience, which we can not see feel or touch, or know anything about. You have more faith than I do.

What is so frustrating is that I can understand what you mean by "sources of experience", but you have no clue how to even understand what I am saying much less argue rationally against it. As far as I am concerned we haven't even started a conversation yet, because you cannot get past the first paragraph of the introduction.

See- we should be arguing this stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

But instead we are stuck where we are- way before page 1.

Edited July 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

The no girlfriend comment is a metaphor for no relationship with God. I would not think to question your jockularity. I'm investigating the utility of this mode of thinking.

Clearly.

I might look at MP's thought process with regard to poisoned food, or business ventures as an entrepreneur..

I don't think it useful in these areas either. You may starve as "not eating of any food" is the only reasonable course of action.

The thought process is designed to identify the choice of eating as even worse than starvation. Your attempts to demonstrate that my arguments over-shoot their targets is just to protect the one target you can't accept being hit.

In imagining conflicts in religious experiences you have left out the existence of false sources that exist with motives to deceive. You left out motives of the individual for not believing. You left out proof that others claim the same kind of religious experience as the foundation to their faith.

No, I haven't. Those cases are very possible and I've already addressed them in different ways. My argument is that we have no useful way to determine which cases they describe.

Muslims do not pray to get an answer that their faith is true. They may accept it based upon some other standard. So you have not proved that the false and contradictory experiences are even real or valid. You simply accept the claims on their face as equivalent. Try using that approach in science. There are those who still claim Relativity is incorrect. There are flat-earthers too. I guess we should chuck the scientific method since there exist those who claim it isn't valid.

The standard by which Muslims establish their faith as true is no better than the standard which establishes contradictory faiths. That's the contradiction. I never claimed there was a contradiction between the epistemologies adopted by the religious. My argument is that the standard by which we determine which epistemologies work is inconsistent. The reasons we give for accepting this epistemic tool which establishes this truth is no better than the reason we give for accepting that tool which establishes a contradictory truth. It's not about whether the tools equate. You've misunderstood again.

If you had read that post as I have repeatedly requested of you, you would already know what I think about this. The only equivocation being made is by you. The scientific method passes the test and religious experiences don't. Science provides a reliable method to determine which of contradictory claims can be preferred. There's no reason to remain indecisive with many areas of science because it secures reliable tools of evaluation where they are needed.

And since even if you arrive at a utopia where all agree about everything, since there is no way to prove that my blue is your blue you are still unjustified in accepting that the source of agreement is correct.. so ultimately what you are requesting is without utility.. so useless..

If we can never evaluate whether your blue is my blue, by what possible standard do you determine you have experienced the "true" blue and I haven't? What tool studies this?

Since scientism does not accept anything unprovable by the scientific method you have no basis upon which to seek redress against someone who murders your parents. They did nothing provably wrong by this philosophy indeed there is no way to prove that murder is wrong or indeed that wrong even exists.. so useless..

Sorry, science is not my god. It's extremely useful... but not always. Where science fails, there is often something else which can be picked up. With religious experiences, there's nothing to pick up. No reasonable choice can be made. The best we can do is gamble on this or that.

If you are not justified in behaving as if God exists neither are you justified in behaving as if He doesn't.. so useless

So, I leave the question open; study the question more. Meanwhile, my life goes on.

[Montgomery Price]

Are you supposing that accuracy is something that can be objectively measured when determining the source of religious experiences? If so, can you explain how that is plausible? If not, then what kind of accuracy do you have in mind? Subjective accuracy?

Objective accuracy is what I have in mind, and let's just say no, I don't think it can be measured in the case of religious experiences. So, for what reason do we behave as if has been measured accurately?

Are you supposing that our preferring a given spiritual experience somehow determines the source of that spiritual experience? If so, can you explain how, since I am not seeing it. If not, could you rephrase your question above?

If I ask someone, "How do you know God exists?" The answer is often, "My spiritual experience." Logically, the next question is, "How do you know God is the source of that experience?" The answer to this question is often to appeal to the spiritual experience as somehow determining this. I usually don't understand it, but that's just my fault according to many here.

By the way, before you ask, I chose not to respond to your warping of my chemical strip example because it had nothing to do with what actually happened. It only confuses the issue.

No, it doesn't. We have the same epistemic situation for both scenarios, but two differently categorized conclusions. The analogy makes clear that the conclusion made in the case of religious experience is unreasonable by showing why it would be unreasonable to make an equivalent conclusion in the classroom.

You wouldn't claim, before you were aware of any objective evaluation of possible sources, that your experience of the paper strip, in and of itself, establishes some rare genetic trait as the specific source. I argue that this is the same reason you wouldn't claim your spiritual experience, in and of itself, establishes some specific God as the source of your spiritual experience. There must be something additional, yet many don't believe this is possible. The experience is all we have, just like the experience of the paper strip is all you had before the "secret" was revealed. Yet we pretend we know the "secret".

[mfbukowski]

I must be certifiably insane, if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

One more try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

Constructivism's concepts and ideas

The common thread among all forms of constructivism is that they do not focus on an ontological reality, but instead on a constructed reality.^{[citation needed]} Indeed, a basic presupposition of constructivism is that Reality-As-It-Is-In-Itself (Ontological Reality) is utterly incoherent as a concept, since there is no way to verify how one has finally reached a definitive notion of Reality. Talk of verification in this connection is beside the point. According to constructivism, one must already have Reality in mind—that is, one must already know what Reality consists of—in order to confirm when one has at last "hit bottom." Richard Rorty has said that all claims to Realism can be reduced to intuition (Consequences of Pragmatism, chs. 9, 11). The Realist/Anti-Realist debate can be reduced, in the end, to a conflict of intuitions: "It seems to us that..." vs "Well, it seems to us that..." A realist would not view the argument in this way, and would say that one of these is misled, that one group perceives correctly, and the other perceives incorrectly. Strict constructivists will attest that there is no way to confirm one way or another, since the goal of inquiry (Reality) must be assumed to be understood at the outset. Constructivism proposes new definitions for knowledge and truth that forms a new paradigm, based on inter-subjectivity instead of the classical objectivity and viability instead of truth. The constructivist point of view is pragmatic as Vico said: "the truth is to have made it".^{[citation needed]}

In this paradigm, "sciences of the artificial" (see Herbert Simon) as cybernetics, automatics or decision theory, management and engineering sciences can justify their teaching and have a space in the academy as "real sciences".

Several scientists and researchers see a close connection between constructivism and modeling and simulation. A model is a purposeful abstraction and simplification of a perception of reality, captured as a formal but implementation independent specification of the resulting conceptualization of things, processes, and relation. The simulation implements the model, often on a digital computer. The result is a constructed reality in the computer from which new ideas can be generated. As these ideas, however, are rooted in the implementation of a model, hence being derived from a constructed reality, the principles are strongly connected with constructivism.

We can't objectively know "sources" only "models", because to speak about it means we are already in MODEL mode. We are in abstractions about experiences

Subjective experience IS experience. It IS the "source". It is directly apprehended, no models. The minute we speak we have created a MODEL of experience.

We have taken the cluck out of the chicken and made it into chicken tenders.

Once you have a chicken tender in front of you, good luck in making that back into a chicken! Getting to "the source" is gone forever.

[mfbukowski]

A wise man once said "Reality? Can you show me some"?

Show me one "source" of experience. Just one.

[Montgomery Price]

If you want to get into how Pragmatism works in science, we can do so, but here you are way out of your league and I think you should stick to the thread topic.

What I just explained is the thread topic.

Clearly sugar does not "work" for a diabetic to achieve his desired end, unless his desired end is suicide. The criterion for what "works" is always instrumentality- what "works" for achieving a desired purpose.

Yes, and religious desires involve things which are interpreted as existing beyond subjective experience. Those desires may be thwarted because our functional models of reality are inaccurate. We are wise to find someway to determine which models of reality are more functional to fulfill our desires.

Obviously what "works" for health is an objective issue, to be settled by objective observation and science, but we are talking about what makes us happy and what can only be justified subjectively by preference.

What makes us happy, huh?

Well, I tried temple ordinances, and they don't make me happy. I guess I should expect no consequence for rejecting offers to perform temple ordinances.

You can't shy away from this. If you're Mormon in any non-distorted sense, you would assert that I should expect consequences, specifically, the inability to attain Celestial Glory, for rejecting temple ordinances. The justification for this assertion is what I'm isolating as problematic. Whether or not being in a temple makes me feel good has nothing to do with why you believe I should expect consequences. Whether or not it makes me happy is not the only relevant criteria for instrumentality in this case. But when I ask for this additional something, you can only come up with what makes us happy. You say there is no other answer. This doesn't help or justify the objective expectation you have for not performing temple ordinances. So, I guess there is no reason to expect consequences for rejecting them.

But your confusion here really does illustrate your general confusion on the difference between how one justifies subjective religious experience (justified subjectively) with scientific truth (justified objectively)

I keep telling you that you are making this mistake, and here you make it again. You just do not understand the difference between subjective and objective I guess, even after all this.

You still believe in sources for experience, which we can not see feel or touch, or know anything about. You have more faith than I do.

I never said I believe in sources for experience. I made it very clear that we interpret sources for our experiences as functional models of reality. Of course we can't know if they actually exist outside of our subjective experience, but for the last time I AM NOT SEARCHING FOR NOR HAVE I CLAIMED TO HAVE FOUND TRUTH WITH A CAPITAL "T". I never even suggested it. Your imagination is projecting these beliefs on to me and they're not even relevant to my argument. This is why we can't have a discussion.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Ahab]

A wise man once said "Reality? Can you show me some"?

Sounds like something a blind man would say when he can't see or discern what is all around him, or even himself.

Show me one "source" of experience. Just one.

Define what YOU mean by experience, perhaps by telling me about one you have had recently.

[mfbukowski]

Science provides a reliable method to determine which of contradictory claims can be preferred.

Which are to be preferred according to scientific method that is. It is self-referential.

What if you are not looking for something to be scientifically preferred, but emotionally preferred?

Belief in God is about what works for you emotionally. Does that help?

[mfbukowski]

Sounds like something a blind man would say when he can't see or discern what is all around him, or even himself.

Define what YOU mean by experience, perhaps by telling me about one you have had recently.

The point is that we don't experience "reality"- just what our senses show us.

But on the other hand, that makes what our senses show us "reality". My point is that what we experience subjectively like spiritual experiences, are also as "real" as what we see around us.

[Montgomery Price]

That "category of experience" is actually 2 different categories, if I understand you correctly.

Speaking from my own personal perspective, there is the category of me having my own personal relationship with God where I know God is communicating with me, and then on the other hand there is the category of other people who SAY they have had the same type of experiences as I have... or perhaps some other type of experience(s) which they think constitute revelation from God... while what they say contradicts what God has told me.

Do you not see those as 2 different types of experiences, from my perspective???

I've made it very clear that I understand this perspective. Too bad you can't clear your mind well enough to realize that this perspective is not the perspective from which I am suggesting you view the situation. You have repeatedly refused to see it any other way.

Yes, you can group everyone into two categories. One being those who agree with what God has said to you, and those who think God has said something else.

I don't care.

The category I care about has one criteria for inclusion: Thinking God has spoken to you.

Until you understand that this is the perspective from which I make my argument, you will continually embarrass yourself by attacking straw-men.

I've been telling you that I my trust is based on God and what I know God has told me, based upon my own experiences and relationship with God, and that what other people say they experience as something from God which contradicts my own experiences has no meaning to me.

You are asking me for my own perspective here, aren't you? I'm not claiming to speak for other people, as if it's my job to sort out all of their problems or explain them to you.

I'm giving you my own perpsective here, and in my perspective, I see no reason to trust what anyone says when what they say contradicts what God has told me.

I've made it very clear that I understand you see no reason to trust anyone who says otherwise, because you trust what God has told you. You haven't made it clear that you understand I am questioning why you trust God has told you anything in the first place.

The standard is the sum total of all that I have personally experienced with God while getting to know who God is.

And btw, it may interest you to know that at one time I didn't know who God was, and then later on my way to try to get to know God I was deceived by Satan who claims to be God. The key is being able to tell the difference between God, and Satan, and myself, and anyone else who says anything.

Try again to understand what I've been telling you all along here, because while you may think I don't understand you or that I'm not responding to the issue at hand, I actually do and I have repeatedly responded to your questions.

When I ask, "By what standard do you determine that the elements of a perceived relationship are of God?"

To respond, "The standard is the sum total of all that I have personally experienced with God while getting to know who God is." is to, in other words, appeal to the elements I just questioned. "All that I have personally experienced with God" is to describe "elements of a perceived relationship with God." You're simply begging the question and not explaining anything.

Your "repeated responses" haven't been any better than this.

[Montgomery Price]

Good question.

It's egotistical & self-centered to believe that MY way of experiencing spirituality is the only way. It's also lacking empathy & true love for others.

Yet, how can I really understand others without living what they've been through? I can try to compare it with similar things I've experienced, yet it will still be different.

Isn't it important to BOTH love others and to love ourselves? I believe, how we define & love God & ourselves is how we define & love others.

How to love... is most significant.... IMO, love is hoping & striving for what we think is best, through trial & error (active faith).

How do we determine which feelings are from our narcaccistic ego & which are from a higher self?

This is why I love Psychology ("the study of the soul") as much as spirituality.

Figuring out what is best in the big pictures takes intellect, intuition (spiritual guidance) & wisdom (combining experience & new info to practically apply).

I believe (& I think the root of "pure Mormonism" teaches) that God looks on the heart & what is most important is living up to what we believe is right, whatever that is... Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, etc.

Shakespeare summarized this...

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet."

A Muslim believes the Koran is right when it claims Christ is not the Son of God, and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar, including Jesus.

Except everyone's just felling a different part of the elephant, right?

I never said that you believed your way of experiencing is the only way. I only claim that your experience leads you to make assumptions about other's experiences. Your response to the Muslim's belief is that assumption; your own belief.

They arrived at their belief in a way that can't be preferred over the way you arrived to your beliefs. This poses a problem when you wish to rely on your own beliefs as valid and their's invalid.

[mfbukowski]

What makes us happy, huh?

Well, I tried temple ordinances, and they don't make me happy. I guess I should expect no consequence for rejecting offers to perform temple ordinances.

You can't shy away from this. If you're Mormon in any non-distorted sense, you would assert that I should expect consequences, specifically, the inability to attain Celestial Glory, for rejecting temple ordinances. The justification for this assertion is what I'm isolating as problematic. Whether or not being in a temple makes me feel good has nothing to do with why you believe I should expect consequences. Whether or not it makes me happy is not the only relevant criteria for instrumentality in this case. But when I ask for this additional something, you can only come up with what makes us happy. You say there is no other answer. This doesn't help or justify the objective expectation you have for not performing temple ordinances. So, I guess there is no reason to expect consequences for rejecting them.

I never said I believe in sources for experience. I made it very clear that we interpret sources for our experiences as functional models of reality. Of course we can't know if they actually exist outside of our subjective experience, but for the last time I AM NOT SEARCHING FOR NOR HAVE I CLAIMED TO HAVE FOUND TRUTH WITH A CAPITAL "T". I never even suggested it. Your imagination is projecting these beliefs on to me and they're not even relevant to my argument. This is why we can't have a discussion.

Montgomery

OK I get it.

I am not in the church to receive a celestial reward which I cannot prove (objectively) exists.

I am not in the church to receive a celestial reward which I cannot prove (objectively) exists.

I am not in the church to receive a celestial reward which I cannot prove (objectively) exists.

I am not in the church to receive a celestial reward which I cannot prove (objectively) exists.

I have some hope in some kind of reward, but honestly it is so abstract that it doesn't matter much. I am not in the church for that.

I am in the church because it goes well with my world view about what is important in life, and my worldview of how the world works, and because I have had spiritual experiences.

You are no longer in the church because it does not go well with your world view about the nature of what is rational (ie: how the world works) and you have not had experiences you are willing to define as "spiritual".

The temple makes me indescribably happy.

The temple does not make you indescribably happy

Whether or not it makes me happy is not the only relevant criteria for instrumentality in this case.

Yes it is, and you have your answer.

Like I have said from the beginning, different people have different ways of constructing their worlds, and you have figured out part of yours. After all, all of this is subjective isn't it?

Good luck!

Edited July 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

by your own reasoning, no question(s) can arise. Contradiction would rely on a given "objective truth", of which you seemingly deny is in existence.

I don't deny the existence of any one religious claim to objective truth. I deny that two contradictory claims to truths can both be true, and argue that we have no reliable way to discern between the two claims.

When I ask, "By what standard do you determine that the elements of a perceived relationship are of God?"

Do you mean to refer to the Book of Mormon as justified by something besides the elements of a perceive relationship with God?

Because the prime justification offered for the Book of Mormon seems to be simply nothing more than the elements in question.

why the "in other words"? my experience shows that people do this when they either do not understand the answer given them, or when they are trying to manipulate an answer to suit their own prejudices.

Nevertheless, "i have determined" is an incorrect assumption on your part. "I" is not what makes the determination.

I used in other words because that's exactly what he said. And unless you've asked Ahab yourself, I'm not sure what he thinks about whether "I" makes the determination or something else. Regardless, I'm interested in the determination at this moment, what makes it may or not be relevant.

i suggest you read and contemplate 1 Cor 2:14.

In other words, "you're just wrong". I see you know exactly how to make significant contribution to discussion.

called into question? why? by what standard do you determine that this scenario requires "question"?

A and B are presumed to be mutually exclusive.

If you propose that A and B were intended to be about a yet to be stated C, which is outside of those you mention above, then the existence of C must be the point of discussion.

I didn't propose that. But if that is the case, the scenario still requires question because C has yet to be stated.

In either case, you correctly note that Person X is consistent and present. A and/or B have not been proven to be a relevant to the existence of Person X, which seems to be a required given in your scenario.

Not really necessary. It could be about which Holy Book Person X finds most important... Doesn't matter too much.

Perhaps the "someone" was not intimately involved with Person X, but rather was involved with Person D who simply pretended to be Person X?

Perhaps, I never ruled out the possibility. I searched for it.

Again, why shouldn't I reject these methods of evaluation as they are derived from books which presume to be justified by the what we're evaluating in the first place. Should we justify this presumption first?

you have not proven that a contradiction exists.

One distinct experience is A and the other is B. Your example does not have Person X telling the same person both A and B.

Yes, I have. A and B cannot both be true. The point is that one person is experiencing a deception, but we can't tell which. But instead of caring about this problem, we pretend it doesn't exist and choose which experience makes us happier, as if it's simply our last resort.

I can agree that you are unable to see a reason, just as the student does not yet see what he will learn. I would suggest you start with fundamentals, one can not see algebra without first learning to count.

Start with natural man and spiritual man, then work your way into what "Faith" means.

I fear that your logic and/or reasoning is a trap for reducing man to nothing more than a bag of chemicals, in which no freedom, original thought, or individuality may exist.

And I believe you've fallen into a similar trap. Aren't all of our unsubstantiated preconceptions interesting?

[Vance]

I am reluctant to post this, but here is hoping it will help.

I live in the Southwest. We have several species of snakes that live here also. Two in particular I want to talk about. The "bull" or "blow" snake and the western diamondback. On close examination they are easily distinguishable. (You know, length to diameter ratios and slight color differences and patterns and the rattles, of course.) But from a slight distance at a quick glance (say like on the side of the road from a vehicle traveling 25-65 mph), it is less so.

From my experience, (from a slight distance at a quick glance);

when I see a "bull" snake I think I see a rattle snake, but I am left with some doubt, and after I run it through my mind I conclude I was likely mistaken.

and when I see a rattle snake I "know" I see a rattle snake.

So, how do I "know" the truth? What is the "source" of this truth?

[subgenius]

....Again, why shouldn't I reject these methods of evaluation as they are derived from books which presume to be justified by the what we're evaluating in the first place. Should we justify this presumption first?

incorrect conclusion, i think, your statement is a little muddy here. It seems that you are misunderstanding the purpose of the scriptures and the definition of Faith.

as for rejection...you certainly are free to choose that......aren't you?

Yes, I have. A and B cannot both be true.

this is a supposition that you have not previously proposed nor supported.

The point is that one person is experiencing a deception, but we can't tell which.

you assume that your observation is not the "deception"? Please, provide your support that you can differentiate A from B, in this context.

And i submit that we can tell which.

But instead of caring about this problem, we pretend it doesn't exist and choose which experience makes us happier, as if it's simply our last resort.

not true.

your admittance that we can actually "choose" defies your reasoning on this thread and supports the notion that we are capable of having freedom to choose otherwise, and if we are able to choose otherwise then we are, in fact, not bound by the simple laws of chemical reactions (which are unable to choose otherwise). Therefore we see that there is that which is supernatural and "outside" of the rules you would try and impose. Its like the fallacy of asking a riddle about whether or not God can make a rock so heavy even He can not lift it....of course He can, to try and impose the natural laws upon the spiritual is a fundamental mistake many people make. That is why you must learn to discern things spiritually (see above reference).

And I believe you've fallen into a similar trap. Aren't all of our unsubstantiated preconceptions interesting?

i believe you are truly fascinated with an automobile, its parts, its engineering, its symphony of systems - amazed with the motor you are! But you would assume that a car drives itself and have never bothered to open the door and look in the driver's seat.

[Ahab]

I've made it very clear that I understand this perspective.

Understand, to some extent, maybe, but you don't seem to accept it as my reponse to your question, while I do. I wonder why that is.

Too bad you can't clear your mind well enough to realize that this perspective is not the perspective from which I am suggesting you view the situation.

The perspective you seem to want me to view it from is from somebody else's perspective, particularly from someone's perspective who doesn't see what I see.

Why would I want to do that? Why would I want to give up what I can see for what someone else can't see?

I can't think of a good reason. Can you?

You have repeatedly refused to see it any other way.

Exactly. I see it the way God has shown it to me, and his way is the way that I want to see things.

Yes, you can group everyone into two categories. One being those who agree with what God has said to you, and those who think God has said something else.

I don't care.

I do.

The category I care about has one criteria for inclusion: Thinking God has spoken to you.

Okay, well I'm in that one.

Until you understand that this is the perspective from which I make my argument, you will continually embarrass yourself by attacking straw-men.

Heh, that's what you think, and I'm not really interested in what you think because you don't agree with me nor do you see what I see which God has told me.

Hence, you're on the "other" side and I"m not really interested in accepting your perspective as my own.

I've made it very clear that I understand you see no reason to trust anyone who says otherwise, because you trust what God has told you. You haven't made it clear that you understand I am questioning why you trust God has told you anything in the first place.

For clarity's sake, to make sure I understand you correctly, I'm going to tell you that I think you're asking me why I trust God has told me anything in the first place.

Is that right? Is that what you are asking me? I think it is, so I will answer, yet again.

I trust God has told me something because... get ready for it.. I've gotten to know who God is, after going through the experiences I have gone through to get to know both who and what God is, and by virtue of the fact that I know God, in the first place, I can recognize what he has told me.

I hope you understood me that time.

When I ask, "By what standard do you determine that the elements of a perceived relationship are of God?"

To respond, "The standard is the sum total of all that I have personally experienced with God while getting to know who God is." is to, in other words, appeal to the elements I just questioned.

Okay, try this analogy: When you get to know anyone, how do you know who you are getting to know? I say it's by personally getting to know that person over time by having certain experiences with that person whereby you get to know who they are. Do you see it any other way?

You get to know anyone you know by getting to know them through the experiences you have with them, and that's the same way I have gotten to know God.

It's really as easy as getting to know anyone else, if not easier, because with God I can talk to him anytime with no need for a cell phone or to go where he is, physically.

"All that I have personally experienced with God" is to describe "elements of a perceived relationship with God." You're simply begging the question and not explaining anything.

You're showing how blind you are, bro. You may not intend to, but you're the one who looks really silly, from my perspective.

... although from your perspective and the perspective of others who agree with you I'm sure you see it the other way around.

You are my opposition, in the sense that you see things opposite from the way I do... at least on some issues, like this one in particular.

Your "repeated responses" haven't been any better than this.

Probably not, and yet I am perfectly satisfied with all of my responses to you even though you don't see the value in what I am telling you.

... and someone is telling me that you're not going to be satisfied with my responses until I see things the way you do.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Ahab

[HeatherAnn]

Yes, and religious desires involve things which are interpreted as existing beyond subjective experience. Those desires may be thwarted because our functional models of reality are inaccurate. We are wise to find someway to determine which models of reality are more functional to fulfill our desires.

What makes us happy, huh?

Well, I tried temple ordinances, and they don't make me happy. I guess I should expect no consequence for rejecting offers to perform temple ordinances.

You can't shy away from this. If you're Mormon in any non-distorted sense, you would assert that I should expect consequences, specifically, the inability to attain Celestial Glory, for rejecting temple ordinances. The justification for this assertion is what I'm isolating as problematic. Whether or not being in a temple makes me feel good has nothing to do with why you believe I should expect consequences. Whether or not it makes me happy is not the only relevant criteria for instrumentality in this case. But when I ask for this additional something, you can only come up with what makes us happy. You say there is no other answer. This doesn't help or justify the objective expectation you have for not performing temple ordinances. So, I guess there is no reason to expect consequences for rejecting them....

(Other post...)

A Muslim believes the Koran is right when it claims Christ is not the Son of God, and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar, including Jesus.

Except everyone's just felling a different part of the elephant, right?

I never said that you believed your way of experiencing is the only way. I only claim that your experience leads you to make assumptions about other's experiences. Your response to the Muslim's belief is that assumption; your own belief.

They arrived at their belief in a way that can't be preferred over the way you arrived to your beliefs. This poses a problem when you wish to rely on your own beliefs as valid and their's invalid.

I understand that Muslims & those of other faiths, have unique criteria for spiritual experience & progression & their perspective is as valid as any. (All are illusional anyway, which is funny & sad.)

Your concern seems to be that Mormon doctrine on one hand, teaches personal (unique) revelation & on the other hand... group agreed revelation which requires compliance.

I, too, found that temple ordinances don't make me happy, yet I respect that it makes others happy. And some may believe that temple attendance is required to be happy after death, but to me, what is most significant is what happens in this life.

Temple ordinances, scriptures (including "biblomacy" that you hear about in testimonies) are like divination tools... not too different from the urim thumim or stones Lehi & Joseph Smith used.

I've always thought that divination tools were of the devil - but as with anything, only if they're used for bad, or if they take away free agency.

They are ways to resonate... they are not the end in themselves, but a tool to helps us feel the spirit, learn, love & progress. If they don't do this, then they aren't working for the intended purpose.

I've gone with friends to churches where they raise their hands up in the air & yell, "Praise the Lord" etc... That doesn't resonate with me, so I don't, yet I respect that it works for them.

Maybe you're arguing with yourself about this... ingrained in you is a peer pressure idea that you must go to the temple to receive heavenly rewards after death, yet you don't enjoy it, so you feel ashamed & confused about how to reconciled this discrepency.

[shalamabobbi]

The thought process is designed to identify the choice of eating as even worse than starvation.

Well, there you go. Point made and accepted. You are decided upon rejection of God a priori. The very fault you claim to be finding with the Moroni test you are admitting to making yourself, just in the opposite direction. Why am I not surprised.

MP, I get your argument. It is one step removed from this class of argument: "Can God create a rock so big that He can't lift it?". It boils down to "Even if God appears to you personally, how do you know that He is what He represents Himself as being? How do you know He is not lying? etc."

You mix the objective method with subjective experiences even though the one is USELESS in determining anything about the other and then wave your arms as though your argument has any more weight than the simple personal rejection of religion that it is.

When sharing a couple of spiritual experiences with you via email that you could not explain away, you reassured yourself with the cliche "there are many things that exist that cannot be explained."

In other words you are guilty of confirmation bias. You only allow to enter your world that which confirms your pre-existing world view. You are not above the very faults you think you perceive in me.

I was a casual atheist before becoming LDS (as opposed to the proselyting variety). I did not think about religion. I did not seek out religion. Yet when it came around I knew it was true by a communication from the Spirit before I even understood the name of the religion represented by the two missionaries standing before my door.

When I decided to go on a mission though only a member for a brief time I was blessed with the opportunity to attend the temple in preparation for that adventure. Not only did I receive my endowment but I had the opportunity to do the work for my father who had passed away three years previous to my joining the church. Shortly before leaving for the mission field he visited me to thank me for doing his work for him. That was the happiest day of my life. I am truly saddened by your attitude.

I assure you God does in fact exist. He knows how to communicate in a manner that leaves no possible doubt as to Who it is that is communicating. Having tasted the food I can declare it tastes good and that it is not poisoned. But starve if you'd rather and assume that is the better course, for assumption is all you'll ever have.

[Xander]

He knows how to communicate in a manner that leaves no possible doubt as to Who it is that is communicating.

I used to think along these lines too, but it can hardly be said to be "no possible doubt" it is God when you can't even describe what it should be like. I was deceiving myself into thinking my feelings. along with anything that popped into my conscience during a mental question, was God's way of answering me. The problem with this, and the LDS method in general, is that you cannot even explain this communication beyond saying God will make you feel like he is answering you in some way that only you can understand. The leeway here is tremendous, as a person is free to interpret anything, from goosebumps to a cool breeze, as God's way of answering a question in the affirmative. Bad feelings or even no feelings at all are commonly understood as God answering you in the negative.

And if you experience neither, then something must be wrong with you. You don't have enough faith or God's time isn't your time. It is the perfect no fault system created by Joseph Smith. The problem, however, is that we now know enough about the body chemistry to explain these feelings. There is no reason to invoke God since humans can essentially create any spiritual experience they want, short of visions and miracles, which I think we all know are not happening in ways that can be verified by others.

And in my experience, relying on other testimonies is not a good idea, and yet the Church has made this an instituted affair every first Sunday of the month. On my mission the Mission President would frequently tell certain Elders to get up and bear their testimony, and the pressure was on them to come up with something spiritual and to shed some tears. When I returned, pressure was on me to come up with spiritual stories to tell the ward because that is what they expected. Mormons love to tell stories and then to use them as evidence for the truthfulness of the Church. From the dozens of returned missionaries telling tales of how their garments saved their lives from fire and bullets, to LDS authorities making up stories about anything they can in order to create a "spiritual moment" for the audience. So if you ask me why I'm skeptical of this method, in short the answer is that it is too unreliable, and especially so when the spiritual claims come from other people.

[shalamabobbi]

What makes us happy, huh?

Well, I tried temple ordinances, and they don't make me happy.

I thought you were eighteen. This isn't adding up. Was your family rearranged on you? Were you sealed to a new parent?

[Xander]

I have spoken to enough people to believe most people aren't "indescribably happy" when they first go through the temple. Although such feelings can be conditioned through time. My entire district at the MTC opened up about the matter with our Spanish teacher. We all admitted we were "freaked out" and our teacher said that he was too "at first." For many people, it is the closest they will ever come to questioning their faith.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Xander

[Kenngo1969]

The attitudes of some on this thread, including its originator, remind me of the old Ado-Annie song from Oklahoma!:

With you, it's all er nuthin'!

All fer you, and nuthin' fer me!

I've used this analysis here before when Evangelicals try to dismiss my faith, and I think it's equally appropos in this thread. Although I hold no illusions about whether it will hold water with anyone on the other side of the debate, it is, nonetheless, a way of resolving the "Both-religions/answers-can't-be-from-God" conundrum. Jesus says His Father knows how to give good things to those who ask him just as earthly fathers give good things to their children, that good fruit cannot come from evil trees and vice-versa, and that not all good seeds bear an equal harvest.

I don't believe God gives me bread, fish, and fruit while giving my Evangelical brothers and sisters (for example) stones, serpents, thorns and thistles. And if I sow a seed which brings forth a hundredfold harvest, I don't dismiss seeds sown by others simply because those seeds only bring forth thirty- or sixtyfold harvests. And the Doctrine and Covenants says that inasmuch as men do good (men of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no religious persuasion whatsoever, Montgomery Price) they shall in nowise lose their reward.

And I'll take a good Catholic, or even a good atheist (that is, one who believes in doing good for one's fellow human beings, even when religion is removed from the equation) over a "bad" Mormon any day.

[shalamabobbi]

I used to think along these lines too,..

Yes, we all know that those who claim spiritual experiences are either lying or deluded. What's really going to bake your noodle later on, is why they were obeying the commandments prior to having the spiritual experience in the first place..

a person is free to interpret anything, from goosebumps to a cool breeze, as God's way of answering a question

And thinking goosebumps is a spiritual experience is why I think threads like this get started and entertained in the first place..

There is no reason to invoke God since humans can essentially create any spiritual experience they want, short of visions and miracles, which I think we all know are not happening in ways that can be verified by others.

Except by those experiencing them personally..

[shalamabobbi]

I have spoken to enough people to believe most people aren't "indescribably happy" when they first go through the temple..

I wasn't happy or unhappy when I went through the temple for myself or for my father. I was happy when I knew my father though dead was alive..

Why is MP an 18 year old going through the temple? Has the age to go on a mission dropped a year now?