Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[Montgomery Price]

Whether or not you will receive celestial glory depends on the objective existence of an afterlife that so rewards the path you've chosen as "working for you".

This demonstrates that there many possible things which you can think "work for you", yet also depend on objective things. When your desired result depends on some objective thing, you can think something "works for you" if you dismiss any investigation into that objective thing, when in fact, it could not.

You've ignored this again. I think I've made it clear that I'm not the one being difficult in this conversation.

[mfbukowski]

Montgomery

William James, The Will to Believe.

I'll make it easy and give you the wikipedia version

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

[Montgomery Price]

Wade,

You haven't shown that you understand my argument, so it could very well be you who is wrong. The only way to settle our accusations of persistent misunderstanding is to make formal argument. I presented mine in the OP, and have invited you to crtique it.

But if your going to misunderstand as you have previously, I'll try to explain once again:

My argument here is not that there is some certain tool we should be using to investigate these questions, though it could be.

My argument is that the tools proposed to investigate these questions don't work as well as they claim to. This is the argument I'd like you to respond to. The former argument can be for another time.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[wenglund]

Whether or not you will receive celestial glory depends on the objective existence of an afterlife that so rewards the path you've chosen as "working for you".

As I understand faith and salvation, celestial glory isn't just an event. It is also a process (in many respects a subjective process--intentionally so). Accordingly, it "works for you" not just in terms of the ultimate result, but also with interim results leading progressively to the end result.

Celestial glory, then, is, in large part, dependent on the subjectively determined existence of God and spiritual life during mortality, and "works for you" as we progress therein.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 18, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

My argument is that the tools proposed to investigate these questions don't work as well as they claim to. This is the argument I'd like you to respond to.

Specifically, how well are they supposed to work?

And, what are you using to measure their workability?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Montgomery Price]

As I understand faith and salvation, celestial glory isn't just an event. It is also a process (in many respects a subjective process--intentionally so). Accordingly, it "works for you" not just in terms of the ultimate result, but also with interim results leading progressively to the end result.

Celestial glory, then, is, in large part, dependent on the subjectively determined existence of God and spiritual life during mortality, and "works for you" as we progress therein.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you intended this only as a clarification... Ok. It doesn't settle the objection. If there is no after-life, then having some certain after-life won't "work for you". This is the objection, no matter the "Who cares if I think the after-life exists and it doesn't?!? I won't exist to care!". That's a bit irrelevant.

Specifically, how well are they supposed to work?

And, what are you using to measure their workability?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All your questions are answered in my OP. The tools being Moroni's Promise, 1 Nephi, Moroni 7, JSH 1, etc. The measure of their success is already prescribed in the verses.

[CV75]

Yes, this is the claim I have questioned.

The focus and emphasis on Moroni’s Promise seemed to mask this more fundamental principle.

Someone must be aware of himself as a “who” rather than as a “what” before he can engage his conscience. He must primarily sense that he is one who acts and not as a thing that is acted upon or caused to act. This awareness is usually instinctive, but sometimes needs to be developed or reclaimed. It leads to an association with like individuals (including God) and the rest follows suit. Whether he acts or is acted upon determines the success with which he can question.

[Montgomery Price]

Edit:

This time actually watch this video and think about it.

I did watch it the first time and found it very clear and agreeable. You are imagining that I disagreed with anything said by Rorty in this video. For the last time, I am not attempting to find Truth with a capital T, nor have I ever suggested such.

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.

While I haven't made any serious investigation into these ideas yet, I don't find anything immediately wrong with the statement.

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"

Everyone already understands that anyone can make an argument from authority. No need to remind everyone, mf.

Montgomery

William James, The Will to Believe.

I'll make it easy and give you the wikipedia version

http://en.wikipedia....Will_to_Believe

Thanks for the reference. I'll read through and consider it according to its relevance to my argument. Not everything you've gone on about has been quite to this standard yet.

And, in case you missed it...

Whether or not you will receive celestial glory depends on the objective existence of an afterlife that so rewards the path you've chosen as "working for you".

This demonstrates that there many possible things which you can think "work for you", yet also depend on objective things. When your desired result depends on some objective thing, you can think something "works for you" (especially if you dismiss any investigation into that objective thing), when in fact, it could not.

You've ignored this again. I think I've made it clear that I'm not the one being difficult in this conversation.

[Montgomery Price]

The focus and emphasis on Moroni’s Promise seemed to mask this more fundamental principle.

Someone must be aware of himself as a “who” rather than as a “what” before he can engage his conscience. He must primarily sense that he is one who acts and not as a thing that is acted upon or caused to act. This awareness is usually instinctive, but sometimes needs to be developed or reclaimed. It leads to an association with like individuals (including God) and the rest follows suit. Whether he acts or is acted upon determines the success with which he can question.

Masked or not, your simply clarifying a set of instructions which I have already explained in the OP should be questioned. If this is all you intended, thanks for the update.

[CV75]

Masked or not, your simply clarifying a set of instructions which I have already explained in the OP should be questioned. If this is all you intended, thanks for the update.

It is interesting that my post would be viewed as a set of instructions and not as a description of what it takes to apply the instructions.

This demonstrates the difference between a “who” and a “what”, or the difference between someone who acts and something that is acted upon, and why the latter cannot successfully question the former. Acting is a function of faith while being acted upon is a function of compulsion, which in the OP is sought for in the form of “proof.”

[Montgomery Price]

It is interesting that my post would be viewed as a set of instructions and not as a description of what it takes to apply the instructions.

This demonstrates the difference between a “who” and a “what”, or the difference between someone who acts and something that is acted upon, and why the latter cannot successfully question the former. Acting is a function of faith while being acted upon is a function of compulsion, which in the OP is sought for in the form of “proof.”

Defining "what it takes to apply" is to instruct what is necessary for application. It's still a set of instructions. The distinction here is trivial.

I don't believe I ever used the word "proof", so I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I don't see just yet how my argument changes whether faith is the result of action or being acted upon. I'm sure you can explain by directly addressing my argument.

[wenglund]

If you intended this only as a clarification... Ok. It doesn't settle the objection. If there is no after-life, then having some certain after-life won't "work for you". This is the objection, no matter the "Who cares if I think the after-life exists and it doesn't?!? I won't exist to care!". That's a bit irrelevant.

Actually, it does address your objection, though in ways you evidently don't comprehend. What "works for us" in terms of celestial glory isn't just the alleged after-life, but also our changed nature during mortality. Regarding faith and salvation, both aspects of celestial glory (mortality and after-life) are not mutually exclusive, but intimately related and dependent. Your objection dealt with but a part of salvific equation and failed to account for this important relationship.

All your questions are answered in my OP. The tools being Moroni's Promise, 1 Nephi, Moroni 7, JSH 1, etc. The measure of their success is already prescribed in the verses.

Perhaps I should have bolded the word "specific" in my question and been more careful to clarify that I was asking YOU what YOU interpret as the line of demarcation between what supposedly "works well" and what doesn't, and what YOU use as a means of measuring the workability. After all, it is you, and not Moroni, who is claiming that the "tools" don't work as well as allegedly claimed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

It is interesting that my post would be viewed as a set of instructions and not as a description of what it takes to apply the instructions.

This demonstrates the difference between a “who” and a “what”, or the difference between someone who acts and something that is acted upon, and why the latter cannot successfully question the former. Acting is a function of faith while being acted upon is a function of compulsion, which in the OP is sought for in the form of “proof.”

It also describes the difference between the subjective and objective points of view.

Subjectively, we see ourselves as free agents who make our own decisions; objectively, some see us as automatons responding to our programming.

But freedom is no illusion- we know subjectively that we do in fact make choices.

[Montgomery Price]

Actually, it does address your objection, though in ways you evidently don't comprehend. What "works for us" in terms of celestial glory isn't just the alleged after-life, but also our changed nature during mortality. Regarding faith and salvation, both aspects of celestial glory (mortality and after-life) are not mutually exclusive, but intimately related and dependent. Your objection dealt with but a part of salvific equation and failed to account for this important relationship.

Then please explain how my argument fails after you account for this relationship. I don't see it yet.

Perhaps I should have bolded the word "specific" in my question and been more careful to clarify that I was asking YOU what YOU interpret as the line of demarcation between what supposedly "works well" and what doesn't, and what YOU use as a means of measuring the workability. After all, it is you, and not Moroni, who is claiming that the "tools" don't work as well as allegedly claimed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I consider what is claimed of the tool and follow these claims to their logical conclusions given what information can be gathered about the tool. My evaluation of Mormonism's select tools is in the OP. What followed was an inconsistent standard whose resolution is claimed, but circular.

[wenglund]

Then please explain how my argument fails after you account for this relationship. I don't see it yet.

I already explained it several times. Your objection fails because it ignores key components of the faith and salvation equation. In short, it fails because it doesn't correctly or fully comprehend what supposedly it is objecting to.

I consider what is claimed of the tool and follow these claims to their logical conclusions given what information can be gathered about the tool. My evaluation of Mormonism's select tools is in the OP. What followed was an inconsistent standard whose resolution is claimed, but circular.

This is a remarkably evasive response. Your OP is quite lengthy and not particularly precise regarding what I have specifically asked, and you have already accused me of not correctly understanding your point. I am taking your word for it and am reasonably asking YOU to be specific regarding YOUR interpretation on two particular points. If you are unwilling to do so, then just say so, and I won't bother you about it again.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Montgomery Price]

I already explained it several times. Your objection fails because it ignores key components of the faith and salvation equation. In short, it fails because it doesn't correctly or fully comprehend what supposedly it is objecting to.

The subject of Celestial Glory was raised because for this reason:

Whether or not you will receive celestial glory depends on the objective existence of an afterlife that so rewards the path you've chosen as "working for you".

This demonstrates that there many possible things which you can think "work for you", yet also depend on objective things. When your desired result depends on some objective thing, you can think something "works for you" (especially if you dismiss any investigation into that objective thing), when in fact, it could not.

This is all I wish to establish with mf. It's not exactly related to my OP, but to a discussion mf and I have been having. For a moment I misunderstood that you were claiming this changes the argument in my OP, but the argument concerning the Celestial Kingdom was a bit different. If you and I want to continue along the same vein, then you seem to be claiming that there can be an investigation into an objective thing, being the after-life as portrayed by Mormonism, and you've determined that you are justified in accepting its objective existence. You may find it important to explain that this can be confirmed before the after-life, but my objection would be how this is determined.

This is a remarkably evasive response. Your OP is quite lengthy and not particularly precise regarding what I have specifically asked, and you have already accused me of not correctly understanding your point. I am taking your word for it and am reasonably asking YOU to be specific regarding YOUR interpretation on two particular points. If you are unwilling to do so, then just say so, and I won't bother you about it again.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's not evasive if we assume that you have enough reading comprehension to surmise your own answers from my OP. But if you are unwilling to do so, I have no problem explaining it explicitly.

First, I'd like to make clear the problem at which our tools are directed.

How can we prefer one spiritual experience over another?

So, the criteria for the evaluation of candidate tools is defined in the question. The tool must provide some way to prefer one experience over another. This is my only criteria. It's up to those making claims about the tools to fulfill this criteria in any way. This is the only "line" I can define. I don't know exactly what universal evaluation criteria could define any tool as good or bad, but I can still evaluate the claims that certain tools fulfill the criteria somehow.

My argument is that the tools proposed by Mormonism don't fulfill this simple criteria for these reasons:

Fortunately, Mormonism provides the solution to [the problem of how we can prefer some spiritual experiences over others] in Moroni 7; the instructions by which we can determine this perfectly. But unfortunately, what is claimed to be perfect, is clearly not so.

This is the claim that some tool works well, that it fulfills the criteria of determining which spiritual experiences are to be preferred. But alone, it is simply a claim. Again, I don't need to provide the standard by which we can evaluate which tools work well, but I can evaluate proposed standards. What does Mormonism prescribe as the standard which justifies its claim to a working tool?

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.

In evaluation, it is clear that the justification proposed is circular given the original problem the tools are intended to address.

Ok, now what's your problem?

[CV75]

It also describes the difference between the subjective and objective points of view.

Subjectively, we see ourselves as free agents who make our own decisions; objectively, some see us as automatons responding to our programming.

But freedom is no illusion- we know subjectively that we do in fact make choices.

... and that the "who" is nothing more than the spirit, and the "what" nothing more than the body.

[CV75]

The distinction here is trivial.

I don't believe I ever used the word "proof", so I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I don't see just yet how my argument changes whether faith is the result of action or being acted upon. I'm sure you can explain by directly addressing my argument.

See posts #38 and #42. The distinction and your response to it point to the crux of your argument that no action is to be taken until proof of the results of the action make it compulsory. The problem with your argument is that proof of the results cannot be made evident to nor be imposed upon an inactive entity. This is why your argument doesn't change -- the "who" and the "what" are seen as the same thing in order for it to work, but nobody who sees the difference can buy into it.

Edited July 19, 2011 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

... and that the "who" is nothing more than the spirit, and the "what" nothing more than the body.

Yup!

Thanks for the reminder! Good point!

[mfbukowski]

"Try it- you'll like it"

But if you never try it, you won't know.

THAT is the problem here. You don't know until you try it- the confirmation is in the experience of doing

If you don't believe there is an "it" to try- it's not gonna happen

Edited July 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

Hi MP,

I appreciate you at least attempting to answer more clearly my specific questions. To be honest, I found your post somewhat baffling until I read this from you:

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.

It is evident to me that you are here conflating the epistemic tool described in Moroni 7 with the epistemic tool described in Moroni 10. These are two different tools which are designed to do two different, though complimentary things. Moroni 7 is designed similar to Alma 32 as a means of EXPERIENCIALY discerning the spirits. Whereas, Moroni 10 is designed to OSTENSIBLY confirm the truth of spiritual things. Moroni 10 is not designed to discern the spiritual experiences, themselves, as you mistakenly suppose.

So, the criteria you proposed for demarcating what "works well" and what doesn't (i.e. whether it provides a means for preferring or discerning between spiritual experiences) doesn't apply to Moroni 10, though it does to Moroni 7.

And, there is no circularity in the way you suggest. Moroni 10 isn't self justifying (it would be unreasonable to expect it to be), but as explained to you before, it is justified, in part, by Moroni 7 and more particularly by Alma 32. Each tool "works well" as designed, and does not fail--though such is unavoidably a subjective determination.

In short, your mistake has been to assume that there is but one epistemic tool, rather than multiple tools, and to conflate as one the different tools that are actually designed for different functionality and assess "workability" of the different tools according to the functionality of but one of the tools. Hopefully, you understand correctly now and won't continue to make the same mistake.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Montgomery,

I'd really like to know how this reasoning applied to Non-Deoniminational Evangelical doctrines reconciles your ideas about personal witness and truth?

[Ahab]

Whether or not you will receive celestial glory depends on the objective existence of an afterlife that so rewards the path you've chosen as "working for you".

Let's get down more to the point of your OP now, shall we.

Whether or not you will receive a true answer from God to tell you what is true depends on the objective existence of a true God who can and will give you a true answer to tell you what is true.

As the scriptures written by holy men who have received answers from God explain, God tells us what is good and what is evil through the light of Christ that is given to every one of us, and in addition to that, we can also know the truth by receiving direct answers from God through the Holy Spirit.

So, what is it that you think is so hard to figure out? The way to know the difference between good and evil is clearly set before you, and all you need to do is soak it up.

[Gervin]

And, there is no circularity in the way you suggest. Moroni 10 isn't self justifying (it would be unreasonable to expect it to be),

Of course, Moroni 10 is circular. If I ask God, in the name of Christ, if “these things” [the records contained in the Book of Mormon] are not true, on what basis am I asking and expecting an answer? The Book of Mormon. Put another way, I am asking God for a manifestation of truth about the Book of Mormon based on Moroni’s instructions (sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ), the source of which is the Book of Mormon. By asking God I am affirming my belief that the test is valid. A positive manifestation confirms what I already believe, that the test is valid. And if I don’t get a positive answer … well, where does the problem lie?

[Bernard Gui]

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.

I believe it fully; therefore, I am able to discern the origin of your criticism.

Bernard