Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[Montgomery Price]

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?

Actually, I'm much more interested in the example given by James of producing the admiration given by another by expecting it. It's a bit strange to wrap your head around, and I more or less agree with the specific example... but the line of argument doesn't accomplish the same things for my objection. I can explain what I think about it if you still would like me to, but it'll have to wait till tomorrow. I give you my word. But sorry, I have other things to do tonight.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[wenglund]

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.

The intent of my explanation was to demonstrate that Moroni 10 is not justification for Moroni 7, but in the context of the epistemic process, it is the other way around. As long as you agree, or at least understand this, then it helped as intended. Do you agree?

Wade, why did you ignore the rest of my post?

I have noticed that a proliferating number of points of contention have been flying around which seem oft to be engaged haphazardly or without resolution, leading the participants to go around and around in argumentational circles and fruitlessly recovering old ground. I decided to pick a single point of contention and work through to resolution where possible, and where not, to at least come to a mutual understanding if not agreement.

So far, we appear to agree that Moroni 10 is not self-justifying.

In my last series of posts I have been attempting to reach agreement or understanding that, in the context of the LDS epistemic process, Moroni 10 isn't justification for Moroni 7, but rather the other way around. I am awaiting your answer to my question above to see if this point of contention has been resolved before moving to the next point.

If we have come to a meeting of the minds on that point, then the next point I wish to address is whether, to LDS, Moroni 10 is all that is needed to know the "truth". You say that it is, and I have demonstrated that, in the context of the LDS epistemic process, it is not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I'm much more interested in the example given by James of producing the admiration given by another by expecting it. It's a bit strange to wrap your head around, and I more or less agree with the specific example... but the line of argument doesn't accomplish the same things for my objection. I can explain what I think about it if you still would like me to, but it'll have to wait till tomorrow. I give you my word. But sorry, I have other things to do tonight.

No hurry whatsoever- I don't expect you to actually take on James without understanding the larger issues of his philosophy- I just wanted to show you that there are alternate views to yours.

In fact, it's ok if you don't respond at all, I don't think a real response exists - there's nothing to debate about it.

Frankly at this point, I would prefer to read your responses to Wade- I know our discussion is pretty much over.

Edited July 22, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Nathair/|\]

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

As Albus Dumbledore said, "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" And that, my friends, is the great key.

[KevinG]

My argument is that there is no reliable way to prefer one spiritual experience over a contradictory experience.

I agree. That is why telling someone how to interpret their own spiritual experience is illogical and in bad form.

[KevinG]

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".

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.

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.

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.

I don't know where to begin. You failed to understand what I wrote and the LDS doctrines you prentend to tell us we don't know.

The Mormon God, Jewish God and Muslim God are God the Father and the God of the old testament. Differences in belief about Jesus Christ do not negate that. What Suras, Torah or Old Testament passages justify your opinion that they are in fact different Gods?

I can disagee with a Mulsim or Jew until the cows come home about the divinity of Christ, and I would not argue that Islam brings someone unto Christ. That doesn't mean that all of the precepts are false or that I would have the right to tell them they are wholly wrong about their religion.

As far as your interpretation (not the LDS understanding) of Moroni 7 goes please look up Bifurcation fallacy.

[KevinG]

Time for an oldie but a goodie!

(My hair would look like that if I grew it out. Only dishwater blonde.)

Edited July 22, 2011 by DaddyG

[mfbukowski]

As Albus Dumbledore said, "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" And that, my friends, is the great key.

Everything happens inside somebody's head- and often it is happening in many heads at once! If it never happened in anyone's head, we can't say it happened at all!

Good point- thanks for that!

[mfbukowski]

I agree. That is why telling someone how to interpret their own spiritual experience is illogical and in bad form.

ZING!

[mfbukowski]

John 7:17

King James Version (KJV)

¹⁷If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

[Ahab]

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.

With you it seems to go nowhere. Others are fully aware that the Celestial kingdom already exists even though this Earth hasn't become a celestial world yet.

Maybe someday you'll gradually see more of "what is" and then we can "talk" some more as 2 people who have had similar experiences.

[Ahab]

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.

Irrelevant. The "plain and simple truth" exists even if people don't agree on what it is.

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

And those people are what I call "wrong".

Some don't believe there is a Jesus Christ or Holy Ghost to shine light.

And yet, they still are and they do.

So, the source of your experience is as mistaken as you believe the source of a contradicting experience to be.

No, the source of my experience is correct even though not everyone agrees with me and those who are shining the light.

Your explanations of personal experience are all dependent on the personal experiences in question.

Yes. So? What is your point with that come back?

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.

What do you define as "Mormonism" ? Those who wrote the Bible talked about it, and I consider the Bible and its authors to be a part of what "Mormonism" includes.

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.

If your point is that what some people "realize" is the truth isn't always true, I agree with that point, but there is still truth even if neither one of those 2 people realize it.

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.

People who are led to deny Christ have still had the light of Christ given to them even though they have chosen to deny Christ. They simply said or thought "No" in response to what Christ was telling them, choosing instead to deny him and what he was saying.

The catch is that those contradicting experiences are indistinguishable from "Light of Christ" experiences.

The "Light of Christ" experiences are those which lead a person to Christ and tell them something about what is true and good and a part of what Christ is. The "contradicting" experiences are those which do the opposite by leading those who experience it away from Christ.

We have no way to prefer one over the other except to circularly appeal to that which is in question.

You can prefer either one according to which one you like best. That's what your agency is for. You are the one who is making the choice.

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

I'm trying to explain it better for you so you can understand what is going on here. You seem to be denying the light of Christ and I'm trying to show you what you are denying.

[wenglund]

John 7:17

King James Version (KJV)

¹⁷If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

An excellent corollary to Alma 32.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

I do care about misunderstandings which is why I'm usually willing to devote quite a bit of my time and energy to try to make sure I am correctly understood.

Even after a lot of my time and effort has been expended some people still won't correctly understand me and my point of view, though, so at that point my usual rule of thumb is to agree that everyone else is not going to agree with me and what God has taught me.

Personal remarks from other poster removed along with original comment. -Ares

[Montgomery Price]

No hurry whatsoever- I don't expect you to actually take on James without understanding the larger issues of his philosophy- I just wanted to show you that there are alternate views to yours.

I'm well aware there are alternate views. It's your mistake to think otherwise.

In fact, it's ok if you don't respond at all, I don't think a real response exists - there's nothing to debate about it.

Frankly at this point, I would prefer to read your responses to Wade- I know our discussion is pretty much over.

Alright, I'll take your word for it then.

[Montgomery Price]

The intent of my explanation was to demonstrate that Moroni 10 is not justification for Moroni 7, but in the context of the epistemic process, it is the other way around. As long as you agree, or at least understand this, then it helped as intended. Do you agree?

I do understand and agree.

I have noticed that a proliferating number of points of contention have been flying around which seem oft to be engaged haphazardly or without resolution, leading the participants to go around and around in argumentational circles and fruitlessly recovering old ground. I decided to pick a single point of contention and work through to resolution where possible, and where not, to at least come to a mutual understanding if not agreement.

So far, we appear to agree that Moroni 10 is not self-justifying.

In my last series of posts I have been attempting to reach agreement or understanding that, in the context of the LDS epistemic process, Moroni 10 isn't justification for Moroni 7, but rather the other way around. I am awaiting your answer to my question above to see if this point of contention has been resolved before moving to the next point.

If we have come to a meeting of the minds on that point, then the next point I wish to address is whether, to LDS, Moroni 10 is all that is needed to know the "truth". You say that it is, and I have demonstrated that, in the context of the LDS epistemic process, it is not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, it's my turn.

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.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

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.

The argument is not that there is no explanation given Mormonism is true. The argument is that there is an unresolved discrepancy between which worldview, Mormonism or Islam, both experiences should be interpreted within. You've given the Mormon worldview, but haven't explained why we should prefer it over the Islamic interpretation. That is, LDSToronto's neighbor was lead to the Muslim faith because it is a more complete and corrected picture than Mormonism and Allah has therefore allowed you to be deceived by liars who claim Jesus to be the savior.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[wenglund]

Sorry, it's my turn.

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 appreciate you answering my questions, and I will happily answer yours. However, it would help me were you now to give me a specific example of an "other experience" that contradicts spiritual experience? (If you did so earlier in the thread, I apologies for asking again. I either missed it or don't remember it.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Montgomery Price]

Irrelevant. The "plain and simple truth" exists even if people don't agree on what it is.

If you think it's irrelevant then you're in the wrong thread. The crux of my argument relies on the fact that there is unresolved disagreement between the religious about what is the "plain and simple truth". You're imagining objections I'm not giving.

And those people are what I call "wrong".

Yes, this is readily evident. The point I am attempting to establish is that you call them "wrong" for no better reason than when they reverse the accusation.

And yet, they still are and they do.

According to you, yes. But why you believe this is what's in question. I don't know why you haven't realized this already. It's been the objection I've made in nearly every post I've made in this thread.

No, the source of my experience is correct even though not everyone agrees with me and those who are shining the light.

I wasn't asserting that the source of your experience is incorrect, at least not until you remove this comment from context like you have. The point again is that you believe, predicated upon your own personal experience, that you are correct and others are wrong. Unfortunately, they believe the same thing about you. This is establishes that someone can think their personal experiences establish they "know" they are correct, but are in fact wrong.

You've made it very clear that you really really really think you "know" you are correct. No one questioned this, alright? Ok, so now explain why.

Yes. So? What is your point with that come back?

It's not a valid response to the questions this thread was created for.

What do you define as "Mormonism" ? Those who wrote the Bible talked about it, and I consider the Bible and its authors to be a part of what "Mormonism" includes.

I'm reluctant to define "Mormonism" because I'm not Mormon. I can propose certain things and deal with corrections or definitions as they are presented by Mormons themselves, especially because not every apologist agrees on any useful definition.

If your point is that what some people "realize" is the truth isn't always true, I agree with that point, but there is still truth even if neither one of those 2 people realize it.

Of course there is still truth, but the critical point is that we don't know who has realized the truth and who just thinks they do. This is a serious problem for those who insist they fit the former category.

People who are led to deny Christ have still had the light of Christ given to them even though they have chosen to deny Christ. They simply said or thought "No" in response to what Christ was telling them, choosing instead to deny him and what he was saying.

Again, the point I was making was that they don't accept this explanation. You interpret a "No" to what Christ was telling them, they interpret a "Yes" to something incompatible with Christ.

The "Light of Christ" experiences are those which lead a person to Christ and tell them something about what is true and good and a part of what Christ is. The "contradicting" experiences are those which do the opposite by leading those who experience it away from Christ.

You can prefer either one according to which one you like best. That's what your agency is for. You are the one who is making the choice.

I never questioned the ability to make a decision, just whether or not it's a wise one.

I'm trying to explain it better for you so you can understand what is going on here. You seem to be denying the light of Christ and I'm trying to show you what you are denying.

I don't think you've explained anything I didn't already understand in sunday school.

[Montgomery Price]

I don't know where to begin. You failed to understand what I wrote and the LDS doctrines you prentend to tell us we don't know.

Heh, OK. Here is exactly where to begin:

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.

The Mormon God, Jewish God and Muslim God are God the Father and the God of the old testament. Differences in belief about Jesus Christ do not negate that. What Suras, Torah or Old Testament passages justify your opinion that they are in fact different Gods?

You've imagined that I ever suggested the differences in belief negated them. To be very clear, my argument is that there has been no useful way to choose between the differences, and to behave otherwise is simply an unjustified gamble. I don't feel the need to justify the fact that different religions believe in different Gods because it's more than self-evident. You're just misunderstanding what I mean by "different God". If you had thought about my argument a bit more carefully, it would be clear that I was only suggesting different religions hold sufficiently varying beliefs about God to warrant the term "different God". The God who directs the LDS church as the only true church is a different God than the one who dictated the Koran as the perfect and inerrant word of God. You may believe that God was involved with both, but in a different way than a Muslim would believe God was involved. This is exactly what I mean by different Gods. So, what exactly did I misunderstand?

I can disagee with a Mulsim or Jew until the cows come home about the divinity of Christ, and I would not argue that Islam brings someone unto Christ. That doesn't mean that all of the precepts are false or that I would have the right to tell them they are wholly wrong about their religion.

I never suggested that Mormonism requires you to believe that everything they believe is untrue. But I still don't know exactly what "a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water" means... But nonetheless, it's clear that you believe Satan persuades others to deny Christ, and you must therefore believe that the Koran contains deceptive passages produced by Satan. You may not say it to their face, but you believe the perfect and inerrant holy book they hold as dearly as, if not more than a Mormon would hold the Book of Mormon is, at least in part, evil.

As far as your interpretation (not the LDS understanding) of Moroni 7 goes please look up Bifurcation fallacy.

What exactly did I misunderstand?

[Montgomery Price]

I appreciate you answering my questions, and I will happily answer yours. However, it would help me were you now to give me a specific example of an "other experience" that contradicts spiritual experience? (If you did so earlier in the thread, I apologies for asking again. I either missed it or don't remember it.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I did provide some, but I'd like you to address this particular type of experience:

"As odd as this will sound, I believe in Moroni’s promise. I have a testimony of the power of prayer and although my prayers may sound differently than they did a year ago I still pray constantly. I firmly believe that intuition plays a critical role right along side logic and reason. I think plausibility is complimentary to faith. I know that some truths just feel right while other things simply feel wrong and often times for reasons that are simply not explainable.

Raised in a Mormon home of prayer and orthodoxy, I know the traditions and prescribed mannerisms and I have followed them my entire life. I have waited for the burning of the bosom; I have listened for the promptings of the spirit. I have practiced the theory of personal revelation. One of the answers I have received along the way is that in a search for truth, asking the right questions is just as important as finding answers.

There is a fine line in the search for truth for the LDS faithful. We are exhorted to learn and gain wisdom, but validation is only granted to those things learned that affirm the church. Moreover, further obstructions occur in the subtle warnings to avoid asking lines of questioning that might result in non-faith promoting answers. Regardless, Hinckley was right – the Church must be able to withstand all criticism if it is really true. If we are afraid of the hard questions then there must be something to fear. And I don’t say that with contempt or ill feelings for the church, I truly believe the church is a path to God for many, but I know now with a degree of certainty that it is not the only path. I was a happy and fulfilled active member of the church. I know that there is beauty and happiness in the Mormon faith and I can’t discard that in my past. A more inclusive view, however, has only increased my ability to love and find happiness. My journey out, still in progress, has been terribly hard but entirely worth the effort and I know I am a better person because of it.

It is with prayer that I found answers. It is with feeling AND logic that miracles were found and it is through Moroni’s promise that the truth is manifest. I have felt confirmation as real and as powerful as ever before in my life, that my journey away from the church is the right path for me. I realize that sometimes, no answer IS the answer. I have found peace and optimism and hope and acceptance of others and a more encompassing worldview. I have found humility in discarding my “chosen people” status and discovered that I have cast aside far too much good as bad.

What I ask and beg for now is that the realization that my prayers and pleas have been answered in a way that takes me away from Mormonism be accepted as real and divine. I know that this is very hard for the orthodox member to do, for how could the one true church result in such unexpected confirmations? Nevertheless, the truth has been manifest to me even as Moroni promised it would be. And I have never been happier."

From the blog "Not Very Useful Truths". Here's one of the comments:

I can really relate to much of what you have said in this post. I prayed like crazy for several months about what to do with my doubts, church history and other issues. I felt that I had received answers to my prayers too that lead me to leave the church.

It was funny though, those last few months as I prayed I would pray to know whether the church really was true or not and I knew that I would not like the answer either way. If God told me that it was true I would have to find a way to reconcile all of my doubts, and new found history with it being still somehow true. The church being false however was just as devastating because there went my entire worldview.

Yet, like you, the path that has led away from the church has been hard but I am happier than I have ever been before.

Thank you for this post. (Sorry I rambled a bit.)

Put simply, those people who have asked God to know whether LDSism is God's chosen, true religion and have received a negative answer to their prayers.

[mfbukowski]

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?

If I can stick my nose in here, no one is asserting that one cannot make mistakes in subjective experiences- optical illusions and mirages etc are perfect examples.

The question is in what cases are subjective experiences justified?

But that is precisely the point you are confused about- you still believe that experience somehow is supposed to correspond to something called "the truth" when in fact it stands on its own as justified or not.

But I am sure Wade will have his own answer- I just could not resist sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong.

Edited July 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

Mf, please do not ignore the following paragraphs. I really want to know, in detail, what you think about it.

But that is precisely the point you are confused about- you still believe that experience somehow is supposed to correspond to something called "the truth" when in fact it stands on its own as justified or not.

I think you've done it this time. This is exactly what you've been trying to beat into my brain, except you've imagined that I was ever confused about it. I never suggested anything of the sort. You've just been crippling our discussion. My argument functions based on the idea that experiences stand on their own justified or not, regardless of whether they correspond to Truth with a capital "T". I've told you several times that I'm not looking for "the truth". I'm asking which spiritual experiences can be justified, exactly as you just did. The OP and several of my posts have been critiques of methods to prefer or "justify" some spiritual experiences over others, not to provide those methods myself. Do you see why it's irrelevant when you explain I can't use methods which involve "the truth"? Again, it's irrelevant because I'm requesting the methods, not providing them. I don't predefine "truth", I want others to.

Put simply, you are trying to have me understand that a certain definition of "truth" doesn't work as a framework when we want to find successful methods for discerning between experiences. You fail to understand that my request for methods doesn't presume any "truth" framework they rely upon. I expect a framework to be provided when I ask for the method. The frameworks and methods are what I've been arguing against.

Does this clear anything up?

If I can stick my nose in here, no one is asserting that one cannot make mistakes in subjective experiences- optical illusions and mirages etc are perfect examples.

You also missed the context of the question about Joseph Smith. It was in response to DaddyG's suggestions that he holds no beliefs which define other's experiences.

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.

He was trying to rhetorically weasel himself away from the objection that the Mormonism DaddyG believes in describes a universe in which certain spiritual experiences are actually deceptions, which then avoids the problem of discerning between contradicting spiritual experiences. He accepts that people can mistake their experiences, but was shying away from my objection by claiming Mormonism doesn't assert which cases are to be considered mistaken. I've shown him that he's completely incorrect in this suggestion.

[CV75]

The Spirit of Christ (Moroni 7) enables everyone to know good from evil with a perfect knowledge. Revelation from God to the faithful (Moroni 10) enables us to know what is good by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Why is it a problem that two God-given processes should complement each other, or that both should be described in a book that is subject to the very standards it publishes? Why not ask: why both are employed? …why does someone have to be subject to the Spirit of Christ before exercising faith to ask God a question, and at the same time, why does personal revelation stimulate sensitivity to the influence of the Spirit of Christ? …what is the difference between having perfect knowledge from the Spirit of Christ (Moroni 7) and being perfect in Christ (Moroni 10)?

[wenglund]

Put simply, those people who have asked God to know whether LDSism is God's chosen, true religion and have received a negative answer to their prayers.

Thanks for the example. It helps me better understand what you are asking.

If I understand you correctly, you aren't so much asking how or why we personally prefer one of our own spiritual experience over another of our own spiritual experiences, but rather how or why we prefer our own subjective experiences over the subjective experiences of other people that conflict with our own?

The short answer is, we tend to prefer our own subjective experience to that of others precisely because they are our own experiences. We tend to know and understand and thus trust better what we have subjectively experienced more so than we know and understand and trust what others have subjectively experienced to the contrary.

This seems to me to be so obvious and uncontroversial and common-sensical as to go without saying.

For practical purpose, and where there is conflict, the instance and method for preferring our own subjective experiences to that of others, seems to me to be the general rule among humanity, with rare exceptions being made for those among us who we may personally trust to have far greater subjective experience in certain areas than ourselves, and who we trust to speak more authoritatively than ourselves in those areas.

This exception applies to secular as well as religious subjective experiences. We will, at times, prefer the subjective experience that is romantic love had by our parents and elders over our own limited romantic experience to the contrary, though the tendency is for us to go with what we personally have subjectively experienced with romance.

Does this help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2011 by wenglund