Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[LDSToronto]

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.

Focus here, Monty, because this is the linchpin of your argument.

H.

[LDSToronto]

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.

Why would god tell you that you should belong to the one true and living church, and tell my neighbour that she should belong to the Muslim faith? Does he want you to succeed in attaining Celestial glory, and her to receive a lesser glory?

H.

[mfbukowski]

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.

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."

And others would claim that you are experiencing something false, you just don't realize it.

So you don't know what's "true" but you do know what is false? Experiences are only justifiable as true or false based on their results, and we cannot know the results of those choices in his life, except how they improve our lives here.

That's why we call it "faith".

I don't know why I can't just give this up. It is so obvious to me. You just can't see it.

Edited July 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[LDSToronto]

That's why we call it "faith".

Isn't faith an admittance that one lacks knowledge, that it's possible that the choice one has made based on the exercise of Moroni's Promise is wrong?

H.

[Montgomery Price]

Focus here, Monty, because this is the linchpin of your argument.

H.

Umm... no. Read again. I just admitted to Wenglund that I was mistaken in this statement, but it was a statement which my argument doesn't depend on.

[mfbukowski]

Isn't faith an admittance that one lacks knowledge, that it's possible that the choice one has made based on the exercise of Moroni's Promise is wrong?

H.

Define wrong. You are stuck in Cartesian Dualism. You really think there is something outside human experience.

Edited July 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This is from another thread, but I posted it here because I think it is highly relevant.

I think a lot of people here are stuck in number 4 or 5 and think all LDS are stuck in 2 or 3.

Oh well.

Obviously, what we think affects how we feel emotionally & spiritually, enhancing the meaning of "The kingdom of God is within you."

In Psychology Erikson described stages of development. Similarly, Jim Marion described stages of spiritual development in "Putting on the Mind of Christ."

He explained how all growth in consciousness is a death to the old way of looking at the world & a simultaneous rebirth into new perspective (thus being born again & again).

I'll summarize what I've gathered (admitting I have more to learn)...

1. Archaic Consciousness of Infants...

A child needs to learn emotional boundaries otherwise co-dependency or narcissim.

2. The Magical Consciousness of Children...

At this stage a person is unable to distinguish between the contents of its mind & those of the external world.

3. Mythic Consciousness-Pre-Adolescence...

A time of conformity... Mom & Dad represent God & can do no wrong.

Adults at this stage see their religious rules & beliefs as the only way & want to convert the whole world. (Religious wars are based on this mental level.)

4. Rational Consciousness...

Starting to analyze & even criticize conventional rules of society, including religion.

They begin to find rationality within - through both intellect & faith & less on external rote.

5. Vision-Logic Consciousness (Highest of the mental levels)...

Ability to think abstractly & from many different perspectives.

It can be a difficult time trying to find meaning.

6. Psychic Consciousness... (Healing, laying on of hands)

Being in tune with the "still small voice within" (Pray always) & also being in tune with others' energy (as Jesus was).

Power can be used for good or bad.

7. The Dark Night of the Soul & Senses

Infusion of energies from the higher self - time of pain & healing.

All feelings buried, resurface to be dealt with so we are more pure & compassionate & less judgemental since we realize we all have "issues."

8. Christ Consciousness

True compassion & free from neurotic projections & emotional addictions, so with a purer heart, we love better.

9. Nondual Consciousness - Kingdom of Heaven

All humans realize nondual & truly loving consciousness, creating heaven on earth.

[Montgomery Price]

So you don't know what's "true" but you do know what is false? Experiences are only justifiable as true or false based on their results, and we cannot know the results of those choices in his life, except how they improve our lives here.

That's why we call it "faith".

I don't know why I can't just give this up. It is so obvious to me. You just can't see it.

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.

Your defending your own right to be irrationally Mormon. You're not defending Mormonism. You're defending vanilla over chocolate. Vanilla and chocolate are trivial and inconsequential. Mormonism is not. You ignored half my post, mf. I won't be blamed for not attempting to answer you directly. Sorry, I'll spend my time discussing with those interested in finding common ground. I'm sure you feel the same way.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[LDSToronto]

Define wrong. You are stuck in Cartesian Dualism. You really think there is something outside human experience.

Wrong, as in false.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Umm... no. Read again. I just admitted to Wenglund that I was mistaken in this statement, but it was a statement which my argument doesn't depend on.

I over-clipped. This is the part I was highlighting -> "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."

You are overly technical in your argument. More Hemingway, less Derrida. You have it right but you are trying too hard to sound like a philosopher.

H.

Edited July 21, 2011 by LDSToronto

[wenglund]

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.

Among other problems, once again you fail to rightly view the "tools" in their epistemic context, as sequential parts of the learning process. Here, once more for your benefit, is the typical epistemic sequence:

1) The investigators are instructed to read the Book of Mormon and apply Moroni's promise. Rarely is the entire Book of Mormon read prior to investigators praying and asking God if it is true. Never, or almost never, is it read in such a way that the investigator is fully aware and fully understanding of each and every precept and layers of precepts in the book. It is highly doubtful that any investigator prays respectively about each and every one of the precept in the Book of Mormon. Essentially, then, the role of Moroni's promise is to ostensibly confirm the general, and not specific, truth of the book. It is not specific justification for any single passage of scripture, including Moroni 7. More to the point, it provides a seed of faith that will hopefully motivate the investigator to delve more in-depth into the book and apply the precepts in their lives. It is not the culmination of the epistemic process or the end of growth in faith, but the beginning.

2) For those investigators so motivated by Moroni 10, and who begin to apply the precepts in their lives, ALma 32 and Moroni 7 then come into play as follows: while applying the precepts, the investigators will exeriencially assess and determine if the precepts have progressively produces the desired or expected results. If they do, then this progressively justifies the verity of the precepts, and justifies what was learned ostensible via Moroni 10. If they don't, this draws the verity of the precepts into question and may give just cause for doubt and rejection. Alma 32 and Moroni 7 also aren't so much the culmination of the growth in faith process, but key components of the process, itself.

3) Sure or perfect knowledge. This is the culmination of the process and consists of seeing God, being judged by him, and receiving warranted eternal glory. This may, in part, occur during mortality, but mostly in the here-after.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDSToronto]

Essentially, then, the role of Moroni's promise is to ostensibly confirm the general, and not specific, truth of the book. It is not specific justification for any single passage of scripture, including Moroni 7.

Moroni 10 gives instruction concerning how one can know that every single word of the Book of Mormon is true. It is specific. And I doubt that Moroni would say that his promise 'appears' to confirm the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon; I think he'd say it *actually* confirms the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

More to the point, it provides a seed of faith that will hopefully motivate the investigator to delve more in-depth into the book and apply the precepts in their lives. It is not the culmination of the epistemic process or the end of growth in faith, but the beginning.

Faith is the only way one can explain the acceptance of self-referential methods found in the Book of Mormon.

H.

[LeSellers]

Moroni 10 gives instruction concerning how one can know that every single word of the Book of Mormon is true. It is specific.

That's more than a mere stretch: that's overreaching to a tipping point.

Moroni does not say what you claim, not even close.

And I doubt that Moroni would say that his promise 'appears' to confirm the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon; I think he'd say it *actually* confirms the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

While true, when coupled with your earlier statement, it is highly misleading.

Faith is the only way one can explain the acceptance of self-referential methods found in the Book of Mormon.

And faith is ... bad?

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Among other problems, once again you fail to rightly view the "tools" in their epistemic context, as sequential parts of the learning process. Here, once more for your benefit, is the typical epistemic sequence:

This is exactly the point made by William James which I referred Montgomery to earlier, which he ignored.

In section IX, James moves to investigate whether there are areas of belief where belief without evidence would be justified. James gives self-fulfilling beliefs as one example of such beliefs:

“Do you like me or not?--for example. Whether you do or not depends, in countless instances, on whether I meet you half-way, am willing to assume that you must like me, and show you trust and expectation. The previous faith on my part in your liking's existence is in such cases what makes your liking come. But if I stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence, until you shall have done something apt [...] ten to one your liking never comes. [...] The desire for a certain kind of truth here brings about that special truth's existence; and so it is in innumerable cases of other sorts.” From examples like these, James concludes: “There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming. And where faith in a fact can help create the fact, that would be an insane logic which should say that faith running ahead of scientific evidence is the 'lowest kind of immorality ' into which a thinking being can fall.”

James begins section X with the thesis that he takes himself to have already proven: “In truths dependent on our personal action, then, faith based on desire is certainly a lawful and possibly an indispensable thing.” James then goes on to argue that, like the examples he gave in section IX, religious belief is also the sort of belief that depends on our personal action and therefore can also justifiably be believed through a faith based on desire:

"We feel, too, as if the appeal of religion to us were made to our own active good-will, as if evidence might be forever withheld from us unless we met the hypothesis half-way. To take a trivial illustration: just as a man who in a company of gentlemen made no advances, asked a warrant for every concession, and believed no one’s word without proof, would cut himself off by such churlishness from all the social rewards that a more trusting spirit would earn,—so here, one who should shut himself up in snarling logicality and try to make the gods extort his recognition willy-nilly, or not get it at all, might cut himself off forever from his only opportunity of making the gods’ acquaintance. This feeling, forced on us we know not whence, that by obstinately believing that there are gods (although not to do so would be so easy both for our logic and our life) we are doing the universe the deepest service we can, seems part of the living essence of the religious hypothesis. If the hypothesis were true in all its parts, including this one, then pure intellectualism, with its veto on our making willing advances, would be an absurdity; and some participation of our sympathetic nature would be logically required. I, therefore, for one, cannot see my way to accepting the agnostic rules for truth-seeking, or wilfully agree to keep my willing nature out of the game. I cannot do so for this plain reason, that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule. That for me is the long and short of the formal logic of the situation, no matter what the kinds of truth might materially be."

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

Note especially this sentence:

"I cannot do so for this plain reason, that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule. "

[KevinG]

Montgomery,

Just a quick flash buy the board (I'm supposed to be job searching...)

The Mormon, Muslim, Christian and Jewish God can indeed be the same God seen through different lenses and Abrahamic traditions. In fact the Koran acknowledges this to be the case. Their argument is that we elevated Jesus Christ to the level of the Father while our argument is that the Father begat and elevated Jesus Christ Himself.

My personal conversations with devout Muslims verify that we are in agreement about God the Father and acknowledge each other's claim to know Him despite our differences in beliefs. I have had the same respectful conversation with other Christian believers.

I have never sought to discount someone else's spiritual experience. That would be very, very, very bad form indeed and it is distasteful listening to atheists and other believers try to dictate to me who my God is. The "different Jesus" or "different God" slander is just that. Your verbal machinations and attempts to define my experience as something it isn't are just that. Let me say it again. The Mormon experience does not seek to invalideate other experiences explicitly or implicitly. We claim our own and invite others to come unto Christ in the manner we have. If they claim revelations it is not up to us to validate or invalidate their experience. Joseph Smith's history doesn't even invalidate their experiences or claims to revelation, it only takes issue with their claims of being God's authoratative church.

Others having different experiences than me could mean that one or the other of us is wrong, or that both of us do not have a complete picture of the whole. See the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

The bottom line is that you are failing to accurately comprehend much less describe the Mormon experience about revelation, God, temples or anything else. Your explanations of Moroni 7, 10 and James are misinterpretations of LDS belief and understanding of those scriptures as has been explained. Since your premises are deeply flawed no amount of mental gymnastics will grant you the evidence you seek to disprove the Mormon experience.

In so many words stop trying to tell me what I believe while wresting my scriptures out of context. Learn more about my beliefs from the perspective of a Latter-day Saint and you may have some comprehension of what you are trying to talk about.

[KevinG]

Focus here, Monty, because this is the linchpin of your argument.

H.

If Mormoni's promise was limited to a witness of the Book of Mormon that might be a place to start. However "ask of God" is a more universal plea that incorporates the "truth of all things". Things that even the Mormons admit the do not have a complete picture of as we "see through a glass but darkly."

[LDSToronto]

And faith is ... bad?

OMW out the door, so all I have time to say is, no, faith is not bad.

H.

[wenglund]

Focus here, Monty, because this is the linchpin of your argument.

H.

Fortunately, Monty has agreed that Moroni 10 is not self-justifying, or in other words it is not circular (see post #94). Sufficient evidence has also been presented demonstrating that Moroni 10 is not all that is needed. So, there goes the supposed "linchpin."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This is exactly the point made by William James which I referred Montgomery to earlier, which he ignored.

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

Note especially this sentence:

"I cannot do so for this plain reason, that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule. "

Marvelous!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why would god tell you that you should belong to the one true and living church, and tell my neighbour that she should belong to the Muslim faith? Does he want you to succeed in attaining Celestial glory, and her to receive a lesser glory?

H.

Nothing like a false choice. Perhaps that person is not ready for the LDS faith and that Muslim faith will best prepare the neighbor to accept the gospel latter.

I do not pretend to know the mind of God.

[Montgomery Price]

I over-clipped. This is the part I was highlighting -> "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."

You are overly technical in your argument. More Hemingway, less Derrida. You have it right but you are trying too hard to sound like a philosopher.

H.

That's the very statement I referred to. It's not right, and I wasn't trying to sound like a philosopher. I'm overly technical to preempt the many misunderstandings of my argument.

My argument is not that Moroni's Promise is self-referential. My argument is that there is no reliable way to prefer one spiritual experience over a contradictory experience. To offer a method which is based on Moroni's Promise would be circular because Moroni's Promise is one of the spiritual experiences in question.

So far, the methods provided, such as Moroni 7, have no basis except for spiritual experience, such as Moroni's Promise.

Am I still missing my linchpin?

[Montgomery Price]

Among other problems, once again you fail to rightly view the "tools" in their epistemic context, as sequential parts of the learning process. Here, once more for your benefit, is the typical epistemic sequence:

1) The investigators are instructed to read the Book of Mormon and apply Moroni's promise. Rarely is the entire Book of Mormon read prior to investigators praying and asking God if it is true. Never, or almost never, is it read in such a way that the investigator is fully aware and fully understanding of each and every precept and layers of precepts in the book. It is highly doubtful that any investigator prays respectively about each and every one of the precept in the Book of Mormon. Essentially, then, the role of Moroni's promise is to ostensibly confirm the general, and not specific, truth of the book. It is not specific justification for any single passage of scripture, including Moroni 7. More to the point, it provides a seed of faith that will hopefully motivate the investigator to delve more in-depth into the book and apply the precepts in their lives. It is not the culmination of the epistemic process or the end of growth in faith, but the beginning.

2) For those investigators so motivated by Moroni 10, and who begin to apply the precepts in their lives, ALma 32 and Moroni 7 then come into play as follows: while applying the precepts, the investigators will exeriencially assess and determine if the precepts have progressively produces the desired or expected results. If they do, then this progressively justifies the verity of the precepts, and justifies what was learned ostensible via Moroni 10. If they don't, this draws the verity of the precepts into question and may give just cause for doubt and rejection. Alma 32 and Moroni 7 also aren't so much the culmination of the growth in faith process, but key components of the process, itself.

3) Sure or perfect knowledge. This is the culmination of the process and consists of seeing God, being judged by him, and receiving warranted eternal glory. This may, in part, occur during mortality, but mostly in the here-after.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes. This does help. It helps to avoid my objection simply because I don't understand exactly how your response is based on the spiritual experiences in question. Wade, why did you ignore the rest of my post?

Fortunately, Monty has agreed that Moroni 10 is not self-justifying, or in other words it is not circular (see post #94). Sufficient evidence has also been presented demonstrating that Moroni 10 is not all that is needed. So, there goes the supposed "linchpin."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In my response to LDSToronto:

I just admitted to Wenglund that I was mistaken in this statement, but it was a statement which my argument doesn't depend on.

My argument is not that Moroni's Promise is self-referential. My argument is that there is no reliable way to prefer one spiritual experience over a contradictory experience. To offer a method which is based on Moroni's Promise would be circular because Moroni's Promise is one of the spiritual experiences in question.

So far, the methods provided, such as Moroni 7, have no basis except for spiritual experience, such as Moroni's Promise.

I'd like a response to the argument I'm making, not another straw-man, please.

And from the post you largely ignored:

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.

Put simply, here are a few questions which I would have expected you to answer already...

By what standard do we prefer one spiritual experience over a contradictory experience?

I'm only interested in Moroni 7 as far as it is proposed to answer this question. So whether or not it it based on Moroni's Promise, it is based on something. What is that something?

If you don't consider Moroni 7 the method to prefer spiritual experiences over others, then what method do you use?

Again, I'm asking the questions, not providing the answers. You can critique this or that answer all you want, but I'd like to expedite things. I invite you to answer the primary objection, or explain why it's not a valid objection.

[Montgomery Price]

This is exactly the point made by William James which I referred Montgomery to earlier, which he ignored.

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

Note especially this sentence:

"I cannot do so for this plain reason, that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule. "

I didn't ignore it. You've been ignoring large parts of my posts. I said I'd get back to you. I had already planned to give my evaluation of this very section of the Wiki article when I do.

[mfbukowski]

I didn't ignore it. You've been ignoring large parts of my posts. I said I'd get back to you. I had already planned to give my evaluation of this very section of the Wiki article when I do.

Uh huh.

Gosh, considering you were arguing against the same position when Wade presented it, it would have been much easier just to dismiss both James and Wade at the same time, doncha think?

[Montgomery Price]

Montgomery,

Just a quick flash buy the board (I'm supposed to be job searching...)

The Mormon, Muslim, Christian and Jewish God can indeed be the same God seen through different lenses and Abrahamic traditions. In fact the Koran acknowledges this to be the case. Their argument is that we elevated Jesus Christ to the level of the Father while our argument is that the Father begat and elevated Jesus Christ Himself.

The Koran explicitly denies that Christ is the savior, several times. Oh yes, it also claims to be completely inerrant and the perfect word of God.

You don't believe this God exists. Others do. This is not simply a "different lens".

My personal conversations with devout Muslims verify that we are in agreement about God the Father and acknowledge each other's claim to know Him despite our differences in beliefs. I have had the same respectful conversation with other Christian believers.

These conversations don't establish the consistency required to make your response workable for my objection. You may acknowledge each other's claim to know God, but the fact remains that each believes the other is the one with the more incomplete picture. Case and point, a Muslim may think you experience some aspect of God, but he will deny that you need to perform ordinances in Mormon temple to accomplish what this God wants for you. Not everyone believes that God exists. This isolates the inconsistency which cripples your response.

I have never sought to discount someone else's spiritual experience. That would be very, very, very bad form indeed and it is distasteful listening to atheists and other believers try to dictate to me who my God is. The "different Jesus" or "different God" slander is just that. Your verbal machinations and attempts to define my experience as something it isn't are just that. Let me say it again. The Mormon experience does not seek to invalideate other experiences explicitly or implicitly. We claim our own and invite others to come unto Christ in the manner we have. If they claim revelations it is not up to us to validate or invalidate their experience. Joseph Smith's history doesn't even invalidate their experiences or claims to revelation, it only takes issue with their claims of being God's authoratative church.

Others having different experiences than me could mean that one or the other of us is wrong, or that both of us do not have a complete picture of the whole. See the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

Experiences and revelation are part of what establish the beliefs which contradict Joseph Smith's history. It's not as smooth and agreeable as you would have me believe. You must believe that Satan gives false revelation. You must believe that some are deceived in some way. Mormonism must consider these deceptions as invalid, otherwise Mormonism itself would be invalidated.

The Koran denies Christ is the savior and accuses anyone who says otherwise, including Jesus, to be a liar. The Koran accuses Jesus Christ of being a liar. According to Moroni 7, it therefore must originate in evil by Satan himself. Clearly, every Muslim would disagree that any such thing is true because they've experienced the "inner-peace" and rewards of following the Koran strictly as the inerrant dictation of Allah, who they experience calling them to Mosques, God's chosen place of worship. They would passionately contradict your belief.

We can pretend that there is no problem because we all feel different parts of the elephant. It doesn't remove that fact that we disagree which parts are to be preferred. It is clear that each justification we give for any particular limb to be most superior is no better than for the next limb.

The bottom line is that you are failing to accurately comprehend much less describe the Mormon experience about revelation, God, temples or anything else. Your explanations of Moroni 7, 10 and James are misinterpretations of LDS belief and understanding of those scriptures as has been explained. Since your premises are deeply flawed no amount of mental gymnastics will grant you the evidence you seek to disprove the Mormon experience.

In so many words stop trying to tell me what I believe while wresting my scriptures out of context. Learn more about my beliefs from the perspective of a Latter-day Saint and you may have some comprehension of what you are trying to talk about.

I'm sorry, but I haven't misunderstood anything when I suggest that you believe something which leads one to deny Christ cannot be of Christ. This precludes the happy and agreeable picture you wish to paint and try to obscure my objection.

Let me offer the most damning example, D&C 129:

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—

2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.

6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—

7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.

8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.

9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

What could this possibly be except the assertion by revelation given to Joseph Smith himself that some spiritual experiences which are believed to be of angels, are actually of demons?

I apologize again, but this completely and thoroughly undermines your response.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Montgomery Price