Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[CV75]

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?

Not correct. From my experience, the test only required that I believed in God and that He would reveal the truthfulness of the book.

I did not assume from the start that it was of God, but I was open to the possibility because the teachings were so good and they were important to the particular, God-fearing person who gave me the book.

The teachings that I understood at the time agreed with me, but such were the ramifications for following through on living them (hence the analogy of selling all for stock in the publishing company with joining the Church), that I wanted to be certain it was all of God—that is how I understood the book at the time. My position was, just because the teachings resonate wit me does not mean the entire book is true enough to join the Church over (especially if there was something I missed).

I agreed with the common sense approach of asking God, having applied it (going to the source) in non-spiritual investigative pursuits in my life before. Even if I hadn’t, it made sense to go to God for a confirmation that the book is true to His will.

My impression at the time was that Moroni was saying, “I’m telling the truth; but don’t just take my word for it. Remember, trust and ask God.” This was consistent with Christ's saying things like John 7:17, 8:28, and 14:24., and also it was the spirit in which the book was given to me to read.

After all that, I can now conclude that God is the author (through his servants), but I did not assume so from the start.

[Ahab]

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.

Let's get down a little bit more to the point, though. It really doesn't matter who made the promise if the promise will not be validated, so calling it "Moroni's" promise is a bit beside the point.

The underlying question is this: If we ask God if those records are not true with faith that he will answer us, will God then answer us to tell us if those records are not true?

I did and God told me those records are in fact true, rather than not true, even though Satan and other people say they're not true or that God hasn't answered their question.

So, as I see it, it's all about asking God with faith that he will actually answer while also having something to do with being able to tell the difference between God and Satan and any other person, including being able to tell the difference between myself and someone else who tells me something.

The fact that some people say it's not true doesn't phase me in the least because I am putting my faith in what God has told me, personally... even though I often get ideas from other people to ask God about when I want to know the truth on any issue.

You assume that you are correct in going to God to ask Him...

I have learned by experience that it is wise to ask God about anything rather than assuming I know the right answer or that someone else is giving it to me.

You say whatever you say, and everyone else does the same thing, but those who I call "God" are the only persons I know who always tell the truth and try to teach me about righteousness.

if the Book of Mormon is true and you base the assumption on personal experience and trust in God.

To "assume" something isn't the same thing as to "be sure" about something. You have to start off being sure that God will answer you, rather than "assume" that he will.

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?

No, not correct. I didn't know whether or not God was the author of the Book of Mormon, or if instead it was Joseph Smith or some other guy, until I asked God and he told me who the true author(s) were.

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.”

It's good common sense for anyone who knows "God" is the name/title we use for the one who always tells the truth, rather than someone else who tells lies.

Once you know that much about God, through personal experience, why wouldn't you trust what God tells you?

If you later found out that the one you called God lied to you, you would then know you were tricked by someone else who really wasn't God in the first place and thus one step closer to knowing Satan as you continued your search to find God.

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).

You don't seem to understand the nature of the test Moroni was suggesting, and I have clarified that for you already.

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.

Indirectly, it actually does. Jesus advised us all to ask our Father for whatever we stand in need of, and since we all need truth to function in reality, we can all ask God to tell us the truth.

Of course, Jesus didn't actually write any scripture, so you'll have to ask God if what some who we call "prophets" and/or "apostles" were telling the truth when they said that Jesus said that, as well as what he meant when he said that, and until you do and God answers you, personally, you won't know if those words actually have the truth in them.

[wenglund]

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.

The analogy does justice to the issue of circularity. You unwarrantably dismiss it because it provides a compelling counter to your misguided claim of circularity.

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?

Incorrect. It merely assumes that God, like the analogous Rabboni, exists and is able and willing to reveal spiritual truths to those who ask him.

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.”

Not quite. We are demonstrating the apparent lack of circularity while also pointing out the sensibleness of doing as Moroni suggests.

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).

The so-called test isn't self-authenticating. It isn't suggesting that we pray to God to know if praying to God is true. It is no more self-authenticating than were the scientific method to be contained in a book on science.

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.

Actually, in a way it does. See Jm 1:5.

Also, by first assuming that God is the author then any answer that doesn’t validate that assumption is considered to be “wrong.”

Incorrect. The assumption isn't that God is the author. In a way, that is the question being asked of God. If God answers in the negative, the assumption isn't necessarily that the answer is wrong--though questions can reasonably be raised as to whether it was God who was answering and whether the answer was given or heard and interpreted correctly.

“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.

Incorrect. The scope of Moroni's promise is a function of the question being posed to God. It may be applied to "these records," but it also may be used to ostensibly learn the truth of all spiritual things--including the Bible.

Furthermore, verse 4 also doesn't mention universal or absolute or definitive or unqualified truth, so you can't reasonably claim that if the Book of Mormon in general is deemed to be not correct, then Moroni 10 is therefor incorrect. To do so would be to commit the fallacy of division.

To do so would also inadvertently create a self-undermining paradox. Since the Book of Mormon in several verses admits to the possibility of errors in the book, then by your "reasoning", were the Book of Mormon deemed to be incorrect, then these verses would be incorrect, which would mean that there is no possibility of errors in the book. In a sense, what you would be suggesting is the incorrectness of the Book of Mormon means it is impossible for it to be incorrect. The lack of sense of this should tell you that your reasoning is mistaken.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

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).

Good point!

In my view, all that there "is" is human experience- on one hand subjective (the who- I think is how you would see it) and objective- (the what)

Have you been to Antarctica? I have not so I will speak for myself and assume you have not as well.

I have not personally experienced Antarctica, but I believe it "exists" because others have experienced it, and I believe them. I have no reason to doubt them. I have seen pictures in National Geographic, seen maps and globes all my life, we have words for that continent etc.- I have no reason to doubt other's experience of Antarctica. I call such experience "objective" because we all believe it, we all could in fact go there and see for ourselves and we would all "have the same experience"- or at least speak about it to eachother as if it were the "same experience".

We might say things like "Wow- remember that glacier breaking up! That was cool! And then when the boat got too close to that wave?" Or we might talk about our trip to the Eiffel Tower with someone else who was there.

But then we have subjective experiences that only we know about. These include the WAY we experience the Eiffel tower- how we got there, the cab or metro ride, if we speak French, how we were afraid or not afraid at the top, how far we could see on that day, the peeling paint, and the fact that we had sinus congestion that day. It will also include thoughts and feelings of course- about how the clouds inspired us to write a poem about the experience, or the reflections we had on the history of Paris from that vantage point. All of those make up the subjective- but not the objective- experience of the Eiffel Tower for us.

Having both been there, for us, there are shared experiences- objective- the whats- and subjective experiences, the personal whos

All of these other things are just as "real" as the Eiffel tower itself- they are just subjective- no one else knows about them unless we tell them. That act, puts them into the realm of the "objective" and some silly person might say to us "prove to me that your knees hurt the day you were at the top of the Eiffel Tower"

Of course we couldn't.

And of course spiritual experiences are in this same category- not objective, but "real" for specific purposes- giving our lives meaning.

Another "thing" (not) we experience is "freedom" - we cannot prove that we are free to choose to go WalMart today or put it off until tomorrow- yet we know that choice is "real". People who only acknowledge the objective- ie that we are whats and not whos- will see the choice as programming and predictible in principle, and therefore conclude that we are "determined" and do not have "real choice". There are of course many variations of this view.

So objective experience is just shared experience, while subjective experience is not sharable completely, or sometimes, not at all. But both are perfectly "real"- they just serve different purposes.

[KevinG]

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.

It does not follow because I have a defining spiritual experience that others cannot also have a defining spiritual experience.

My confirmation that I should be a Mormon and that the LDS Church is authoritative does not negate others beliefs. We allow others to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Given the Mormon God is the same heavenly Father as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael (Christianity being acknolwedged by Islam as the people of the book) I think you are seriously mistaken about "different Gods".

As far as revelation and witness goes, In reading the Koran I have seen no comparable verse to James or Moroni. What did you find about Islam that led you to believe they subscribe to receiving personal revelation about the truthfullness of Islam. In my reading they seem to appeal to tradition and scripture as written much like Calvanism.

Again Dr. Peterson being a faithful LDS Scholar and an expert in Islamic Studies would be a better person to explain this.

[mfbukowski]

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

Show me your evidence for today's temperature in the celestial kingdom, and I will agree it "exists objectively"

It is not scientifically observable. I don't want to argue with you. There will be no end to it.

[mfbukowski]

Montgomery

Perhaps the key to your quandry lies in your definition of "exists"

I asked you this before, but does freedom "exist"?

If you can't prove that freedom exists, how do you make choices?

The celestial kingdom exists (to us) as an "idea" like "freedom". Does that help?

[Montgomery Price]

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.

The same old stuff that you've again ignored. When I respond to your suggestions, you are expected to evaluate my response, not just make your suggestions again. I understand what you're trying to suggest, but you haven't dealt with my criticism of it.

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.

You misunderstand exactly what I need to be educated in. This is demonstrated by your persistent misinterpretation that I am attempting to find any Truth with a capital "T".

I'll explain this one last time, and if you insist that it's nothing new, you can say so and dismiss me. I'm done.

My critique is not "after objective, capital 'T' Truth investigation, we can see that Mormonism can't be preferred."

My critique is of the methods to prefer Mormonism over other faiths proposed by Mormonism.

I'm not offering the tools of investigation, I'm evaluating them. The ideas you've suggested (what "works for you"), come with a debilitating risk I've exposed and you have yet to resolve.

Mf, let me make this absolutely clear:

Whether or not you think the belief in the Celestial Kingdom changes your life, the belief presupposes there to be a Mormon God who designed the universe in such a way that there could be Celestial Glory. However you want to define what "exists", you are expecting certain results when you accomplish certain things (e.g., works and ordinances). It could be that you won't get what you expect.

Your standard that determines what you believe disregards investigation of the factors which our expectations undeniably depend on. What your expectations presupposes is not given.

Your response that "it does not depend on some objectively existing factor" and "exists subjectively" doesn't explain why you expect what you do and not something else. Even if we accept your impetuous insistence that "all that 'exists' is human experience", this doesn't explain why you expect what you do.

Why do you expect Celestial Glory by performing Mormon ordinances and not some other after-life in which having performed Mormon ordinances hinders or does nothing for achieving what you desire?

Expecting Celestial Glory doesn't "work for you" if there's something about whatever "exists" which is not what you expect. This is exactly what I'm trying to isolate. "Whatever 'exists'" being however you like to define it.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

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

Bernard

You're not contributing anything I haven't already addressed in my last post to you. I invite you to join the conversation with argument, if you care.

[Montgomery Price]

I have never seen any such thing.

Lehi

Muslims believe they are called to Mosques by Allah to pray. They claim to experience the call of Allah. When they pray and read the Koran they experience "inner-peace" and Allah's "oneness". If you deny Allah and the Koran, they will claim that they have experienced the "inner-peace" only the God of the Koran or the God of the Muslim places of worship would give them. They believe it originates in the strict adherence to Muslim practices. Indistinguishable from someone who claims to "fruits" after following the BOM.

I can provide plenty of Muslim testimonies on this matter if you still wish to deny it. Or you can just do a quick google search yourself.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Ahab]

In my view, all that there "is" is human experience- on one hand subjective (the who- I think is how you would see it) and objective- (the what)

I don't agree with your word choices, but I think I know what you may mean now. Just remember that along with human experience (or what humans experience) there is also animal experience (or what animals (each and every kind) experience) along with plant experience (or what plants (each and every kind) experience) along with what those who we call "God" experience.

Have you been to Antarctica? I have not so I will speak for myself and assume you have not as well.

I have not personally experienced Antarctica, but I believe it "exists" because others have experienced it, and I believe them. I have no reason to doubt them. I have seen pictures in National Geographic, seen maps and globes all my life, we have words for that continent etc.- I have no reason to doubt other's experience of Antarctica. I call such experience "objective" because we all believe it, we all could in fact go there and see for ourselves and we would all "have the same experience"- or at least speak about it to eachother as if it were the "same experience".

If you define "objective" as what we "all" experience, what do you call the stuff that some people (and/or other forms of life) experience that some others don't.

Remember, there are some of us (our kind of being) who have gone on to the Celestial kingdom and told us (at least a little bit) of what it is like there.

Your idea of "objective" sounds like what I call subjective, and I define "objective" as what actually is even if not everyone sees it or experiences it.

[Ahab]

Show me your evidence for today's temperature in the celestial kingdom, and I will agree it "exists objectively"

It is not scientifically observable. I don't want to argue with you. There will be no end to it.

I don't want to argue with you forever, but I will tell you that I know the Celestial kingdom exists even though I don't remember what it was like the last time I was there.

That's where we all were before we came here, FYI... celestial spirits running around in celestial spirit bodies as we lived with our Father in heaven... and now we just don't remember, for now.

[wenglund]

It could be that you won't get what you expect....What your expectations presupposes is not given.

Correct.

However, such is unavoidable in matters of faith (secular as well as religious), and ought to go without saying. Yet, you found a need to say them, and did so seemingly as though these things ought to give pause and are cause for serious question. What is up with that?

When I get out of bed each morning, my understanding of physics and the environment in which I have lived over the years, gives me faith that when I plant my feet on the ground and attempt to rise, I will be able to stand up as I always have and I won't slip through the molecular gaps in the floor or spin off uncontrollably into space. I do so even given the possibility that I might not get what I expect and that my presuppositions are not a given.

Such acts of faith are so commonplace and uneventful throughout the day that we tend to take them for granted and pay them little or no care or mind.

Why, then, do you bring this up in terms of religious faith?

Your response that "it does not depend on some objectively existing factor" and "exists subjectively" doesn't explain why you expect what you do and not something else.

It wasn't intended to. Obviously. Whereas, I think it self-evident that the reason we LDS have the expectations that we do, and not others, is because that is where our growth in faith has lead us.

What this has to do with supposedly analyzing methods for preferring one faith tradition over others, is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Why do you expect Celestial Glory by performing Mormon ordinances and not some other after-life in which having performed Mormon ordinances hinders or does nothing for achieving what you desire?

Expecting Celestial Glory doesn't "work for you" if there's something about whatever "exists" which is not what you expect. This is exactly what I'm trying to isolate. "Whatever 'exists'" being however you like to define it.

It's not that I expect anything. Even looking at it totally doctrinally, one could say that. Very few will make it.

Living with this understanding of the universe makes sense and makes my present life meaningful.

I am truly sorry. I think you will never get it. You simply will not listen- you are so locked into your way of seeing. As I have said, if I am wrong I am wrong. I have lived my life the best I could, and that will be true even if there is no afterlife.

It is the best possible lifestyle, and the best possible explanation for 62 years of experience, 40+ years of which have been devoted to studying philosophy and religion.

Perhaps one day you will see it- good luck to you!

[mfbukowski]

If you define "objective" as what we "all" experience, what do you call the stuff that some people (and/or other forms of life) experience that some others don't.

You have really surprised me.

That actually is an extremely important question- if you look in my siggy, one of the most famous articles about this view was written by Nagel- entitled "What is It Like To Be a Bat?"

The point of the article is that IF we were able to communicate with bats- and other creatures- we would have a totally different understanding of "reality".

Imagine for example if we could "see" with our ears, or in a hypothetical case, "see" gamma rays or radio waves. Our "reality" would be totally different in unimaginable ways.

But of course the bottom line is that none of it matters because we cannot in fact communicate with bats and other creatures. That is why language becomes so important as defining reality- because all we can talk about is......well, what we can TALK about.

So objective reality- really becomes "what we can talk about".

Yet there are certainly "real experiences" we have which we cannot discuss or describe- the old saws- the taste of salt, the sound of a trumpet, the feeling of making a choice, how I know I have a pain in my knee, etc.

I would include in those "the voice of the Holy Spirit" of course- you can know that experience just as well as you know you are seeing red- but you can't describe either to someone else if they have not experienced it- objectively. Only shared experiences - like "red" can be discussed - just because we have all experienced it and have a word for it, and we know what it means in language.

"Was the light red"? What do the witnesses say? This is objective evidence- observations made by multiple people, communicated linguistically. If you have never experienced "red" you can't answer the question, and no one can explain it to you either.

[mfbukowski]

Your idea of "objective" sounds like what I call subjective, and I define "objective" as what actually is even if not everyone sees it or experiences it.

You cannot talk about "what is" because no one has experienced it. Try to describe in detail a species which has not yet been discovered and you will understand what I mean. I "believe" there are species yet to be discovered- but can we say they "exist"?

Toss a coin- its up to you about how you want to use the word- it is just a word subject to definition. But certainly you can't describe an undiscovered species. What is it- a duck or a whale? A dinosaur or a plant?

What color is it, how does it reproduce etc- no one knows. So how is it "real"? Is it more or less "real" than a unicorn which is mythical but you can describe? Well these become semantic issues- but you can see the point I am making.

"What actually is" is a little hard to define- or know anything about.

Is a chair a chair- or just a collection of wood and fabric to be sat on? What is wood and fabric? Atoms, quarks, strings- what? All we know is what enters the senses- and that comes through filters- the "rose colored glasses" we all wear, to make sense out of the streams of photons entering our retinas and being ordered by our brains.

So "what is"?

It kind of doesn't matter- all that matters is what we can talk about, or feel inside that we know is "real", like an emotion, a pain, feeling etc. In other words- a human experience. This view is called "Pragmatism"- it seeks to eliminate the difference between what we call "appearances" and "reality". Experience is all we can call "reality".

Edited July 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don't want to argue with you forever, but I will tell you that I know the Celestial kingdom exists even though I don't remember what it was like the last time I was there.

That's where we all were before we came here, FYI... celestial spirits running around in celestial spirit bodies as we lived with our Father in heaven... and now we just don't remember, for now.

Well of course the scriptures tell us the ck will be here on this earth, so that is pointlessly debatable.

Yes, there are humans who are now exalted - Abraham etc- but are they in the ck that the earth will be? See where this goes? Nowhere.

[CV75]

In my view, all that there "is" is human experience- on one hand subjective (the who- I think is how you would see it) and objective- (the what)

***

So objective experience is just shared experience, while subjective experience is not sharable completely, or sometimes, not at all. But both are perfectly "real"- they just serve different purposes.

Agreed-- enjoy the rest of he thread!

[Montgomery Price]

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)

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).

I didn't get it backwards.

Moroni's Promise claims to confirm that what is in the Book of Mormon is true. Moroni 7 is in the Book of Mormon.

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.

This is the Mountain, according to Mormonism.

There are those that would claim that Rabboni's brochure would never include a path which involves the Book of Mormon, and what you think is reliable actually isn't.

There are those that would claim that Rabboni is not the only guide, and there are others with their own brochures who are more accurate. Those brochures may even claim that the man you think is Rabboni is a false guide, and will lead you to destruction.

There are those that would claim that there is no authoritative guide, and the way up the mountain can only be divined by the exclusive or combined use of meditation, divination, and various forms of mysticism.

It's not as simple as you portray it until you have substantiated what your view presupposes. But you know this. When asked why this particular guide should be trusted, you have offered to test the path and experimentally confirm that you have the correct way. This is the personal experience I am questioning.

Others claim to have experientially confirmed paths which have been given by different guides and in different brochures. By what standard do you determine your experience can be preferred over theirs?

What I have been arguing is that to answer this question with Moroni 7... that is, to claim what the Book of Mormon says is true, is circular given that the personal experiences (or supposedly successful testing of the path) which confirm the Book of Mormon are what is in question.

Now, it doesn't have to be circular. You can provide a way to determine which experiences can be preferred over others which doesn't depend on the personal experiences in question... But the methods proposed by Mormonism don't work because as far as can be told, their validity depends upon that which is in question.

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.

I do see now that Moroni's Promise is not circular in that particular way. Thanks for pointing it out. But sorry, it's still offered circularly to justify Moroni 7. It's not given that you can discern perfectly between good and evil by observing whether it persuades you to believe in Christ. You must believe this for some reason other than what's based on spiritual experience if you want a workable answer to my question about preferring spiritual experiences.

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-

Ostensible learning depends on the trustworthiness of the teacher. It's not given that the teacher actually exists.

Experiential learning is often superseded or established by better evidence. But if it's all we have to work with, we have to resolve inconsistencies between what is reported.

[Bernard Gui]

You're not contributing anything I haven't already addressed in my last post to you. I invite you to join the conversation with argument, if you care.

This never-ending conversation now on two lengthy threads can lead to no satisfactory conclusion because

it is a secondary riff on the fundamental question, Is there a God? Until that is resolved, it is an interesting

but ultimately pointless debate.

If the existence of God could be proven empirically, it would have been done long ago. God knows,

many have tried. Science lacks the tools to measure experiences of faith and spirit. God knows, many have tried.

You are asking Mormons to provide an experimental method to evaluate religious truth claims,

to make tools for science to examine our spiritual beliefs. I don't believe that is possible.

You had heartburn when I judged your argument by the spiritual method

you are questioning. From the faithful point of view, however, that judgment is valid.

I get heartburn when you continue to demand empirical evidence that cannot be given.

Ultimately, you are requiring Mormons to evaluate the spiritual path of every person on earth with some sort

of empirical tool. How could one be sure his is the correct path

unless he had investigated all possible paths? Of course, this is unreasonable, but it is necessary for your argument

to succeed.

If we wish to examine spiritual paths, the Mormons have some tools to do that.

Unfortunately, they cannot be subjected to the kind of scrutiny that would satisfy your demands.

They are sufficient for us, but not for you. That will have to be the way it remains. Frankly,

I see no mutually agreeable resolution.

To paraphrase Strother Martin, "What we have here is an inability to communicate."

Best wishes,

Bernard

Edited July 21, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Montgomery Price]

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 don't know what world you live in. The "plain and simple truth" is not agreed by the majority to be what goes on in a Mormon temple.

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.

And others would claim that you are experiencing something false, you just don't realize it. Some don't believe there is a Jesus Christ or Holy Ghost to shine light. So, the source of your experience is as mistaken as you believe the source of a contradicting experience to be.

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.

Your explanations of personal experience are all dependent on the personal experiences in question. I grew up active Mormon, I know what is taught in primary. That everyone has the light of Christ is not given. It's something Mormonism asserts. To say that we know this simply because we "realize" it is as valid as the next claim that someone has simply "realized" the Koran is the divine, inerrant word of God. Not everyone reports experiences which are compatible with the "Light of Christ" model of experience, given that some experiences lead people to deny Christ and they therefore can't be of Christ. The catch is that those contradicting experiences are indistinguishable from "Light of Christ" experiences. We have no way to prefer one over the other except to circularly appeal to that which is in question.

Do you understand the argument now? Your repeated attempts to explain what is in question, instead of arguing for it, seems to show otherwise.

[LeSellers]

I don't know what world you live in. The "plain and simple truth" is not agreed by the majority to be what goes on in a Mormon temple.

Personal insults are not useful here.

However, you may not know, or have forgotten that "what goes on in a Mormon [sic] Temple" is figurative. What we learn there is not taught, nor has it ever been, as "the method" God used to create the earth, man, nor anything else. It's a metaphore, and it is up to us who go there to determine what it means.

Your objection is based on a misunderstanding of LDS doctrine and practice. In fact, one is tempted to say it's based on a (willful?) distortion of LDS doctrine and practice.

Lehi

[Montgomery Price]

It does not follow because I have a defining spiritual experience that others cannot also have a defining spiritual experience.

If your spiritual experience is defined by a belief in the holiness of Christ, then you are describing a universe in which a Muslim cannot have a defining spiritual experience of Allah and the Koran who deny Christ. Given your worldview, if someone reports this, you must believe them to be mistaken or accept that your experience could be as in error.

My confirmation that I should be a Mormon and that the LDS Church is authoritative does not negate others beliefs. We allow others to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

That you allow others to worship doesn't matter. What you are implicitly claim is that others don't know exactly what they worship, because if they did in fact "know" that the God of the Koran was the source of their experiences, they would "know" that Christ is not the savior. You can't accept this.

Given the Mormon God is the same heavenly Father as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael (Christianity being acknolwedged by Islam as the people of the book) I think you are seriously mistaken about "different Gods".

This is according to Mormonism. Others would claim that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael is not the God of Mormonism or many other faiths. It's not given.

As far as revelation and witness goes, In reading the Koran I have seen no comparable verse to James or Moroni. What did you find about Islam that led you to believe they subscribe to receiving personal revelation about the truthfullness of Islam. In my reading they seem to appeal to tradition and scripture as written much like Calvanism.

Again Dr. Peterson being a faithful LDS Scholar and an expert in Islamic Studies would be a better person to explain this.

They don't need a copy of Moroni's Promise, just something that when compared, we have no way to prefer one experience over the other. As I explained to LeSellers:

Muslims believe they are called to Mosques by Allah to pray. They claim to experience the call of Allah. When they pray and read the Koran they experience "inner-peace" and Allah's "oneness". If you deny Allah and the Koran, they will claim that they have experienced the "inner-peace" only the God of the Koran or the God of the Muslim places of worship would give them. They believe it originates in the strict adherence to Muslim practices. Indistinguishable from someone who claims to "fruits" after following the BOM.

I can provide plenty of Muslim testimonies on this matter if you still wish to deny it. Or you can just do a quick google search yourself.

[Montgomery Price]

Personal insults are not useful here.

However, you may not know, or have forgotten that "what goes on in a Mormon [sic] Temple" is figurative. What we learn there is not taught, nor has it ever been, as "the method" God used to create the earth, man, nor anything else. It's a metaphore, and it is up to us who go there to determine what it means.

Your objection is based on a misunderstanding of LDS doctrine and practice. In fact, one is tempted to say it's based on a (willful?) distortion of LDS doctrine and practice.

Lehi

It's useful to describe my contention that Ahab perceives a world in which there is consistency which has been imagined and not substantiated. To take it as an insult is forget that we're in a civil discussion and are expected to give arguments. I expect you to consider my comments to be arguments, not insults, and you can expect the same of me.

What I had in mind when I said "what goes on in a Mormon temple" (and "Mormon" is a perfectly adequate way to describe it), were the holy ordinances which are believed to be required for certain blessings and must be performed in the temple. Have I misunderstood that ordinances are performed in the temple?

I was emphasizing that there are things which Mormonism holds which aren't plain and simply accepted by everyone else, and you can't get around this. There are some who strongly disagree that what you do in a Temple is of the significance believed by members.

I also responded to your last post if you happened to miss it.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

This never-ending conversation now on two lengthy threads can lead to no satisfactory conclusion because

it is a secondary riff on the fundamental question, Is there a God? Until that is resolved, it is an interesting

but ultimately pointless debate.

If the existence of God could be proven empirically, it would have been done long ago. God knows,

many have tried. Science lacks the tools to measure experiences of faith and spirit. God knows, many have tried.

You are asking Mormons to provide an experimental method to evaluate religious truth claims,

to make tools for science to examine our spiritual beliefs. I don't believe that is possible.

You must not have read those threads very closely, because you're misunderstanding my argument. This discussion is about more than the simple question "Is there a God?" The most relevant question of this kind would be "Is there a Mormon God?"

I'm not asking Mormons to provide an experimental method to evaluate religious truth claims, although I could. I'm asking them to provide any method at all.

That you believe one method is not possible doesn't answer the objection, it supports it.

You had heartburn when I judged your argument by the spiritual method

you are questioning. From the faithful point of view, however, that judgment is valid.

Yes, if my argument fails, then your judgment may be valid. I don't know why you insist on making statements which rely on the premise in question. They're not relevant responses until after you show that my argument doesn't work. Between you and I, this hasn't been shown. You can attempt to demonstrate this after you understand it.

I get heartburn when you continue to demand empirical evidence that cannot be given.

Ultimately, you are requiring Mormons to evaluate the spiritual path of every person on earth with some sort

of empirical tool. How could one be sure his is the correct path

unless he had investigated all possible paths? Of course, this is unreasonable, but it is necessary for your argument

to succeed.

You've imagined that it's necessary. I never claimed it was.

My argument is that this sort of investigation is required so that we are not helplessly insecure in our very specified religious beliefs. That performing this investigation is unreasonable only supports the argument that such an investigation is needed.

If we wish to examine spiritual paths, the Mormons have some tools to do that.

Unfortunately, they cannot be subjected to the kind of scrutiny that would satisfy your demands.

They are sufficient for us, but not for you. That will have to be the way it remains. Frankly,

I see no mutually agreeable resolution.

To paraphrase Strother Martin, "What we have here is an inability to communicate."

Best wishes,

Bernard

There's no inability to communicate... We simply disagree.

What is sufficient to establish your spiritual path is equally sufficient to establish spiritual paths which can't exist, according to Mormonism. The standard of scrutiny provided by Mormonism produces unresolved inconsistencies. So far, it seems the only argument given is that the unresolved inconsistencies are unresolvable. So no, it's not sufficient for you and that's why. It's not about my "demands" about how I would scrutinize the claims, it's about why the methods provided by Mormonism don't work. At least, not as well as you think they do.