Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[CV75]

Yup!

Thanks for the reminder! Good point!

No reminder intended! It was just a thought that came to me from reading your post.

[Montgomery Price]

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.

I'm sorry. You still don't understand my argument. My argument is not that Moroni's Promise is designed to discern between spiritual experiences, and I never conflated chapters 7 and 10.

My argument is that Moroni's Promise is prescribed by Mormonism as justification for Moroni 7, which is designed to discern between spiritual experiences. I am realizing how difficult it is to answer your questions, because I don't have the answers... I'm asking for them. When we consider the problem of discerning between spiritual experiences and ask, "what makes Moroni's Promise an effective tool, being based on the spiritual experiences in question?", we are asking Mormonism to provide the way to discern between spiritual experiences. Moroni 7 is what Mormonism provides, but its own justification, Moroni's Promise, is in question. These answers are circular. What else is there?

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.

I demonstrated that Moroni's Promise is not justified by Moroni 7 (I don't see why this couldn't apply to Alma 32 either), because Moroni 7 is supposedly justified by Moroni's Promise. You'll have to substantiate it some other way.

Moroni's Promise is self-justifying. The instructions given in the BOM for how to test the BOM is supposedly all you need to confirm the BOM. Sounds exactly like self-justifying to me.

And as for the subjective determination that each tool works, what is the best we can discern about how this determination is supposedly made?

[Montgomery Price]

Montgomery,

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

I don't understand. What do you believe my ideas about personal witness and truth are?

[Montgomery Price]

"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

It is already understood that this is the standard accepted. The problem accepting that the confirmation is in the experience was addressed in my OP. That is, people "confirm" experiences which lend to contradictory interpretations or are themselves contradictory. So, it is possible to think that your experience carries with it its own confirmation, when it in fact does not.

Are you going to respond to my last post directed at you?

Here's a direct link for your convenience.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

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.

The way to know good and evil, and solve the problem of discerning between spiritual experiences, is dependent on a premise which is justified by those spiritual experiences in question. That's what's so hard to figure out. I'm not questioning what the verses claim, I'm questioning their substantiation.

[Montgomery Price]

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

Bernard

What is this smarmy comment supposed to contribute?

It's much more than evident that a Mormon would believe Moroni 7 to be substantiated, it's not so evident that it actually is.

[KevinG]

I don't understand. What do you believe my ideas about personal witness and truth are?

Don't know. That was the question. What are they and how does that square with "stamps" et al.

Your arguments against the LDS belief in faith sound more atheist than Evangelical to me.

[Montgomery Price]

Don't know. That was the question. What are they and how does that square with "stamps" et al.

Your arguments against the LDS belief in faith sound more atheist than Evangelical to me.

My argument is that we've yet to find a reliable way to prefer any spiritual experience over another. So yes, you have the correct idea.

[KevinG]

My argument is that we've yet to find a reliable way to prefer any spiritual experience over another. So yes, you have the correct idea.

How do you know your own spiritual verification of the truth of the Gospel is valid according to your standards? Or are you agnostic in that respect?

(and for the record I don't play the "my spiritual experience is more valid than yours game". I invite people to come try what I have found but I strenuoulsy avoid elling them their experience isn't valid. As a convert I'm sensitive about others following what they believe is true.)

Edited July 20, 2011 by DaddyG

[Montgomery Price]

How do you know your own spiritual verification of the truth of the Gospel is valid according to your standards? Or are you agnostic in that respect?

(and for the record I don't play the "my spiritual experience is more valid than yours game". I invite people to come try what I have found but I strenuoulsy avoid elling them their experience isn't valid. As a convert I'm sensitive about others following what they believe is true.)

Agnostic.

And by accepting your own Mormon experience as valid, you are implicitly denying the contradictory experiences of others. You may wish to avoid it, but if you believe in a Mormon God, you must deny, for example, a Muslim God. Muslims have claimed to experience confirmation of Allah in ways you can't prefer over your respective confirmation of an incompatible deity.

But this is simply my claim... I invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

[wenglund]

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?

Let's test your reasoning by way of analogy. Suppose you wish to climb a mountain that has been scaled by only one man (let's call him Rabboni) and which has only one viable path to the summit. Let's say that a mountain climbing broshure is published alleging to have been written under Rabboni's direction and by his chosen associates. Would it be circular reasoning for the brochure to suggest that if one wishes to know whether or not the brochure is "true" or whether the path identified in the brochure is the "true" path to the summit, let one ask Rabboni, and he will declare the "truth" unto you?

I don't see how this could in any reasonable sense be considered as circular. In principle, this is essentially what Moroni 10 is suggesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

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.

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

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

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.

[mfbukowski]

Are you going to respond to my last post directed at you?

Here's a direct link for your convenience.

No, it is the same old stuff.

I was waiting for you to do what you said you would do so you could at least understand me.

Thanks for the reference. I'll read through and consider it according to its relevance to my argument.

The celestial kingdom does not "exist objectively". Even scripturally, it doesn't exist (yet).

Things don't "exist objectively" in the sense you mean it.

All that "exists" is human experience, and the celestial kingdom cannot be experienced objectively.

The belief in the celestial kingdom (ie- Mormonism) is what changes lives.

That's about it from me, unless you say something you havent said a hundred times before. And I don't use arguments from authority. I am trying to educate you.

[wenglund]

My argument is that Moroni's Promise is prescribed by Mormonism as justification for Moroni 7, which is designed to discern between spiritual experiences.

As mentioned previously and quoted below, you have it exactly backwards. Moroni 7 is justification for Moroni 10, and not the other way around--at least not in the way you seem to be using the word "justification". (See below)

I am realizing how difficult it is to answer your questions, because I don't have the answers... I'm asking for them. When we consider the problem of discerning between spiritual experiences and ask, "what makes Moroni's Promise an effective tool, being based on the spiritual experiences in question?", we are asking Mormonism to provide the way to discern between spiritual experiences. Moroni 7 is what Mormonism provides, but its own justification, Moroni's Promise, is in question. These answers are circular. What else is there?

Besides getting it exactly backwards in terms of justification, if you wish to understand what else there is, then consider the various LDS "tools" in their respective roles within a progressive epistemic process (or growth in spiritual faith process).

Consider the mountain climbing analogy in my post above. Let's say that you have read Rabboni's mountain climbing brochure (allegedly written under his direction by a number of his chosen associate) and it sounds reasonable to you, but you would like confirmation. So, you do as suggested in the brochure and you ask Rabboni if a given path up the mountain identified in the brochure is the "true" path to the summit.

And, let's say that he tells you "yes".

OSTENSIBLY, your faith and confidence and understanding has increased in a non-circular but progressively linear epistemic way toward perfect knowledge that the brochure and the path disclosed therein are "true".

This, essentially, is the role that Moroni 10 plays in confirming the path to the summit of God's spiritual mountain. It is not self justifying, but ostensible justification of what is written in the brochure.

Let's also say that armed with, and because of this increased faith, you begin to climb the chosen path, and you observe various things along the path which further confirm what was disclosed in the brochure, and you also observe yourself rising in elevation and having open to your eyes and mind the broader expanse of horizons expectantly attendant thereto.

EXPERIENTIALLY, yet again your faith and confidence and understanding has increased in a non-circular but progressively linear epistemic way toward perfect knowledge that the brochure and the path disclosed therein are "true".

This, essentially, is the role that Alma 32, and in a way Moroni 7, play in confirming the path to the summit of God's spiritual mountain. These "tools" also are not self justifying, but justify the earlier confirmation of Moroni 10 as well as experientially justifying what is written in the brochure.

I demonstrated that Moroni's Promise is not justified by Moroni 7 (I don't see why this couldn't apply to Alma 32 either), because Moroni 7 is supposedly justified by Moroni's Promise. You'll have to substantiate it some other way.

As evinced above, your demonstration is in error and I have substantiated that the justification is the other way around. Sorry.

Moroni's Promise is self-justifying. The instructions given in the BOM for how to test the BOM is supposedly all you need to confirm the BOM. Sounds exactly like self-justifying to me.

Incorrect. As I explained above, Moroni 10 ostensibly confirms the BoM, not itself. It is not self justified, but justified experientially by Alma 32 and Moroni 7.

And as for the subjective determination that each tool works, what is the best we can discern about how this determination is supposedly made?

Assuming we have a working understanding of educational processes, we can reasonably discern that the determination was made in ways that comport with long-standing and proven methods of effective learning. Ostensible learning, as with Moroni 10, is a common pedagogical instructional tool, and is oft essential to learning fundamental precepts. And, experiential learning, as with Alma 32, is a common andragogical instructional tool, and is essential to building upon the fundamental precepts.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2011 by wenglund

[Bernard Gui]

What is this smarmy comment supposed to contribute?

A bit of light-hearted sarcasm, of course.

Since you require me to believe it in the way you have defined it, then I must accept the unavoidable conclusion:

your argument does not lead one to Christ nor to do good, therefore it must be evil, and I am

justified to reject it.

It's much more than evident that a Mormon would believe Moroni 7 to be substantiated, it's not so evident that it actually is.

It has been substantiated, but not in the way you demand.

Bernard

Edited July 20, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

All that "exists" is human experience, and the celestial kingdom cannot be experienced objectively.

This is interesting, in that some human beings experience as if they are a child of I Am (a “Who”), and some as if they are a child of a big bang (a “what”). The more they gravitate toward the latter, the less they can distinguish or find meaning between between good and evil. Sometimes this behavior is the result of informed choices they have made, and sometimes not. But never does one experience as if they are a child of God and not appreciate good and evil. Of course everyone holds a mixed bag, so there is some difficulty for everyone in distinguishing and appreciating that which is good, to some extent, until they fully realize all that is good (also the result of making informed choices).

[Gervin]

Suppose you wish to climb a mountain that has been scaled by only one man (let's call him Rabboni) and which has only one viable path to the summit. Let's say that a mountain climbing broshure is published alleging to have been written under Rabboni's direction and by his chosen associates. Would it be circular reasoning for the brochure to suggest that if one wishes to know whether or not the brochure is "true" or whether the path identified in the brochure is the "true" path to the summit, let one ask Rabboni, and he will declare the "truth" unto you?

I don't see how this could in any reasonable sense be considered as circular. In principle, this is essentially what Moroni 10 is suggesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you talking about a real, physical mountain or a "spiritual" mountain? If a real mountain, then the analogy breaks down; I don't have to ask anyone if the brochure is correct - I can simply go on the mountain to see if there is indeed one trail to the top.

If your mountain is spiritual in nature, then yes, the logic is circular; To know the spiritual truth of the brochure I must ask the author-spirit (or author-directed spirit) if the "brochure" is valid, and receive a spiritual response.

Again, on what basis are you asking if the brochure is correct? On the basis that the brochure is correct in telling yyou how to determine if the brochure is correct. You assume the brochure is correct before you put it to the "test." Circular.

[CV75]

Again, on what basis are you asking if the brochure is correct?

I would say that I assume that I am correct in going to the source to ask him about the brochure.

I am asking if the brochure is correct on the basis of my prior experience with and trust in its purported author and my agreement with the reasonable exhortation to go to this source for confirmation that he wrote it and that it is correct. The exhortation is good common sense, but it does not mean that the entire brochure is correct enough to follow all of it but to sell all I have to buy stock in its publisher.

[LeSellers]

Muslims have claimed to experience confirmation of Allah ...

I have never seen any such thing.

Lehi

[Ahab]

The way to know good and evil, and solve the problem of discerning between spiritual experiences, is dependent on a premise which is justified by those spiritual experiences in question. That's what's so hard to figure out.

Why is that in question for you? Or in other words, what is it exactly about what holy men have said that is so hard for you to figure out?

To me, what they have said is not in question. To me, what they have said makes sense to me and I can also see that what they have said is true. To me, there is no question about what they have said. It's just the plain and simple truth.

I'm not questioning what the verses claim, I'm questioning their substantiation.

Their claims are substantiated by the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost. Are you telling us you don't realize when you are experiencing those influences which come from Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?

You do experience both of those influences, even though you may not realize it.

The light of Christ is something everyone is given as an influence to telll them/us the difference between good and evil, and the only ones of us who no longer experience the full influence of it are those who have "seared" their "conscience" (another name some have given to it) by basically ignoring what Jesus has told them to try to teach them. We all still experience it to some point, though... or at least I believe we all do... even though the influence isn't as strong to some as it is to some others.

The Holy Ghost, likewise, is also something given to every one of us to bear even stronger testimony of Jesus Christ when he not only tells us the difference between good and evil but also tells us some specific things which are good and true. The Holy Ghost won't always stay with someone after he bears his testimony to them, as he will for those who have been given the "gift of the Holy Ghost, but nevertheless he bears his testimony to every one of us when Jesus has something specific he wants to say to us rather than simply telling us the difference between good and evil.

You experience both of those influences during your daily life, even if you do not realize it, so for you to "question their substantiation" is for you to not fully realize what you are already experiencing in your own life.

I suggest you pay more attention to your thoughts and thinking processes from now on until you realize that whenever you have a thought which leads you toward something good and Jesus Christ, you are hearing from God.

I already realize I do, and that you do too, even though you may "question the substantiation" of what I am saying.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Ahab

[wenglund]

Are you talking about a real, physical mountain or a "spiritual" mountain?

Yes, as analogous to a spiritual mountain.

If a real mountain, then the analogy breaks down

No, not in terms of the principle the analogy is intended to address.

I don't have to ask anyone if the brochure is correct - I can simply go on the mountain to see if there is indeed one trail to the top.

While this is somewhat beside the point of the analogue (which was simply intended to demonstrate the lack of circularity--which it did), for the sake of understanding let's assume that because of persistent cloud cover and tall vegetation and surrounding hills and mountains, the view of much of the real mountain top is obscured to those standing at its base, and that there are evidently many trails leading from the base which appear to head towards the top. In other words, let's say there isn't any way to "see if there is indeed one trail to the top" except by way of personally exploring various trails and chance upon the one "true" trail and to climb it yourself to the summit, which may take more than a life time.

If nothing else, practicality and wisdom would suggest that one seek guidance from the one who knows the mountain and has climbed the "true" trail and reached the summit. Doing so would, in no rational sense, be consider circular.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I would say that I assume that I am correct in going to the source to ask him about the brochure.

I am asking if the brochure is correct on the basis of my prior experience with and trust in its purported author and my agreement with the reasonable exhortation to go to this source for confirmation that he wrote it and that it is correct. The exhortation is good common sense, but it does not mean that the entire brochure is correct enough to follow all of it but to sell all I have to buy stock in its publisher.

Correctamundo. {thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

The celestial kingdom does not "exist objectively". Even scripturally, it doesn't exist (yet).

Yes it does. It's the kingdom of our Father and Jesus right now, and they are not in it all by themselves.

Remember, there are many other worlds besides this one and many from those other worlds have already gone on to their exaltation.

The Celestial kingdom contains a lot more than you seem to realize.

Things don't "exist objectively" in the sense you mean it.

I think he means it in the sense that when something is "objectively" real, then it is "actually" real, rather than just what someone thinks is real when it isn't.

All that "exists" is human experience, and the celestial kingdom cannot be experienced objectively.

Wow. You really believe that, don't you.

[CV75]

Correctamundo. {thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This gets back to the point that people who relate to the Book of Mormon “thing-to-thing” will not see that it is really about a broader “Spirit-to-spirit” relationship that goes beyond the direct experience of reading the book and following instructions. They will not see that the book serves as a medium in this regard much like a feast is a medium for building familial relationships and not just a place to feed.

The Book or Mormon is one of many testimonies that abound of its Author. Hence the instructions can be applied to “the truth of all things” connected with that Author. But the book is unique in that a testimony of it leads one into making covenants in the Restored Church.

While any author will normally attest to the authorship of his work, not every author is the Author. And at the same time, not every person has a sufficiently functional relationship with the Author, at least vis a vis the book, and so there is a “disconnect” when reading it. They may get a witness of other truths, and of Jesus Christ, but perhaps not of the Book of Mormon or the Restored Church.

I know these ideas have been repeated several times in this thread, but that seems to be the milieu of the thread, and “when in Rome…”!

[Gervin]

I would say that I assume that I am correct in going to the source to ask him about the brochure.

I’m going to dispense with the analogous language – the subject is Moroni’s promise and the whole mountaintops, mist, and brochures don’t do justice to the topic.

I am asking if the brochure is correct on the basis of my prior experience with and trust in its purported author and my agreement with the reasonable exhortation to go to this source for confirmation that he wrote it and that it is correct.

You assume that you are correct in going to God to ask Him if the Book of Mormon is true and you base the assumption on personal experience and trust in God. Personal experience and trust aren’t bad things, but applying Moroni’s test requires that you first assume that God is the author and, as the author, He provides you with the test for validating the Book of Mormon. Correct?

You are trying to dislodge yourself from the circularity by claiming that asking God (based on your experience / trust) is simply a reasonable way of discerning truth, that it’s “good common sense.” I would argue the opposite – experience and trust should lead someone to question the validity of a test that claims to be self-authenticating (self-authenticating in that you assume God is the author of the Book and that the Book provides the test for validating the Book). Self-authentication raises red flags of provenance, extra-ordinary claims, and purpose; the Bible, for example, doesn’t instruct people to pray to God to know the truthfulness of the Bible. Also, by first assuming that God is the author then any answer that doesn’t validate that assumption is considered to be “wrong.”

The exhortation is good common sense, but it does not mean that the entire brochure is correct enough to follow all of it but to sell all I have to buy stock in its publisher.

“These things” in Moroni 10:4 refer specifically to “these records” in verse 2. If the entire Book of Mormon is not correct then Moroni’s promise is invalidated. Verse 4 makes no mention of partial or qualified truth.