Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[wenglund]

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?

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....

I may have mentioned this before, but this point was indirectly brought home to me during a collegiate course on communication. The professor had passed out strips of paper to the class and asked us to touch it to our tongues. Out of the 100 or so students who tasted the paper, three of us nearly wretched.

Because so many students hadn't experienced what we three had experienced, and in fact most of the students had sucked on their strips of paper and tasted nothing but the paper, some of them began to question what we three had experienced. They thought we were faking.

Other students thought it possible that our three strips may have had a bitter chemical applied that wasn't applied to the rest of the strips. To test this, I touched my neighbor's strip to my tongue and once again almost involuntarily wretched.

This raised even more suspicions about me faking it. But, I knew what I was experiencing even though they did not. We each rightly trusted our own contrary subjective experiences.

The professor later explained that all of the strips had been treated with a chemical that could only be tasted by tongues with a rare genetic trait.

The question then became, what is the "truth"? Does the chemical on the strips taste bad or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2011 by wenglund

[Ahab]

If you think it's irrelevant then you're in the wrong thread.

My point was that the "plain and simple truth" is the plain and simple truth whether or not the majority of people agree that it is the plain and simple truth.

That was my point, in context, and you can take that for what it's worth or you can come up with all kinds of other things you think I meant by saying that.

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".

So what, though?

If you're someone who knows what the plain and simple truth is, at least on some issues... as I am... what difference does it really make if other people do not agree with you? The fact that others don't agree with me on what I know about the plain and simple truth doesn't cause me to doubt that I know what the truth is because I know in whom I have put my trust and it's not the people who don't agree with me... nor is it even the people who agree with me on those issues, even though they are also right on those issues, as I am.

When God is your source of truth, and you know what God has told you, the whole world could disagree with you and you would still know what the truth is. Right?

Ergo, the fact that people disagree with each other doesn't mean diddly in the overall end scheme of things because what really matters is what God has told you.

Show me that you understand that and then I think we'll have made some progress here in this thread.

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.

No, that's not the reason. I call them wrong because they don't agree with what God has told me, and I know that God tells the truth.

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.

Yes, because my personal experience includes the experiences I have had with God telling me things which are true.

Unfortunately, they believe the same thing about you.

It doesn't make any difference to me. I still know that God has told me the truth.

This is establishes that someone can think their personal experiences establish they "know" they are correct, but are in fact wrong.

If God isn't wrong, and your knowledge comes directly from what God has told you, then you can't be wrong, either, unless you mix in your own ideas with the ideas God has given you, personally.

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.

Because God isn't wrong about the things he has told me.

Enough for now.

[Ahab]

I may have mentioned this before, but this point was indirectly brought home to me during a collegiate course on communication. The professor had passed out strips of paper to the class and asked us to touch it to our tongues. Out of the 100 or so students who tasted the paper, three of us nearly wretched.

Because so many students hadn't experienced what we three had experienced, and in fact most of the students had sucked on their strips of paper and tasted nothing but the paper, some of them began to question what we three had experienced. They thought we were faking.

Other students thought it possible that our three strips may have had a bitter chemical applied that wasn't applied to the rest of the strips. To test this, I touched my neighbor's strip to my tongue and once again almost involuntarily wretched.

This raised even more suspicions about me faking it. But, I knew what I was experiencing even though they did not. We each rightly trusted our own contrary subjective experiences.

The professor later explained that all of the strips had been treated with a chemical that could only be tasted by tongues with a rare genetic trait.

The question then became, what is the "truth"? Does the chemical on the strips taste bad or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting. I wonder if there is anyone who is able to taste the chemical who actually likes it, instead of being repulsed by it.

And btw, the salt analogy still works even if not everybody likes the way salt tastes.

[Chris]

I may have mentioned this before, but this point was indirectly brought home to me during a collegiate course on communication. The professor had passed out strips of paper to the class and asked us to touch it to our tongues. Out of the 100 or so students who tasted the paper, three of us nearly wretched.

Because so many students hadn't experienced what we three had experienced, and in fact most of the students had sucked on their strips of paper and tasted nothing but the paper, some of them began to question what we three had experienced. They thought we were faking.

Other students thought it possible that our three strips may have had a bitter chemical applied that wasn't applied to the rest of the strips. To test this, I touched my neighbor's strip to my tongue and once again almost involuntarily wretched.

This raised even more suspicions about me faking it. But, I knew what I was experiencing even though they did not. We each rightly trusted our own contrary subjective experiences.

The professor later explained that all of the strips had been treated with a chemical that could only be tasted by tongues with a rare genetic trait.

The question then became, what is the "truth"? Does the chemical on the strips taste bad or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think that analogy directly address all the necessary and important points of Moroni 10:4.

I would change the following:

Instead of tasting the strip in a public setting, you instead go into an isolated, dark room and stick your tongue out and wait for something to graze your tongue. You hear foot steps and somebody presses a strip to your tongue. Some people taste nasty flavors, others don't. But the people who did taste nasty flavors, some say that it was the professor who applied the strip but others say it was the teaching assistant. Some even say that it could have been a robot.

Nobody denies that something happened in the dark room. The point of contention is who or what caused that experience. Since only one person is allowed in the room and nobody is allowed to turn on the light, why are people so certain that it was a human being, let alone, their professor (or t.a.) that applied the strip to their tongues?

EDIT:

My changes are still not perfect though... it's hard to create a precise analogy to the method of prayer and the emotional experience that may or may not result.

I may also add that nobody has met the professor or the assistant. However, one person claims to have met the professor but we're not sure. He said that you'll know it's the professor because of the cologne he wears. It smells like [insert cologne here]. So that's why some think it was the professor who applied the strip to their tongues. The skeptical ones say that it isn't reasonable to assume that the professor should be wearing that certain cologne (let alone a cologne at all). [Why is God assumed to be good and produce certain kinds of feelings?]

Edited July 26, 2011 by Chris

[wenglund]

I don't think that analogy directly address all the necessary and important points of Moroni 10:4.

It wasn't intended to. The analogy was only intended to speak to the matter of preferring one's own subjective experience over the subjective experience of others (which happened to be the point I had been addressing at the time I posed the analogy).

I would change the following:

Instead of tasting the strip in a public setting, you instead go into an isolated, dark room and stick your tongue out and wait for something to graze your tongue. You hear foot steps and somebody presses a strip to your tongue. Some people taste nasty flavors, others don't. But the people who did taste nasty flavors, some say that it was the professor who applied the strip but others say it was the teaching assistant. Some even say that it could have been a robot.

Your changes are inconsequential or perhaps irrelevant to the point for which the analogy was intended. But, perhaps you will identify below the point you wish to make via the changes.

Nobody denies that something happened in the dark room. The point of contention is who or what caused that experience. Since only one person is allowed in the room and nobody is allowed to turn on the light, why are people so certain that it was a human being, let alone, their professor (or t.a.) that applied the strip to their tongues?

EDIT:

My changes are still not perfect though... it's hard to create a precise analogy to the method of prayer and the emotional experience that may or may not result.

I may also add that nobody has met the professor or the assistant. However, one person claims to have met the professor but we're not sure. He said that you'll know it's the professor because of the cologne he wears. It smells like [insert cologne here]. So that's why some think it was the professor who applied the strip to their tongues. The skeptical ones say that it isn't reasonable to assume that the professor should be wearing that certain cologne (let alone a cologne at all). [Why is God assumed to be good and produce certain kinds of feelings?]

Evidently, you wish to make the point that people differ as to who or what they believe may be the sources of subjective spiritual experiences. I don't know that anyone here would disagree.

Why do you think this point matters to the over-all discussion about subjective spiritual experiences? Do you not expect people to differ over subjective things?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 26, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Sorry about the formatting- there was some error and I don't feel like messing with it at the moment.

<br>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, <i>exactly as you just did</i>. The OP and several of my posts have been critiques of methods to prefer or "justify" some spiritual experiences over others, <i>not</i> 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 <i>requesting</i> the methods, not providing them. I don't predefine "truth", I want others to.

<br><br>Well I hope we understand each other, but it is hard to believe after all this time- I have my doubts.<br>How is the statement "I am hungry" justified?   How about the statement "I am in love"?  How is that justified?   You seem to continually be saying that there is some "external reality" which justifies statements making them "true"- what I am saying is that in all these are justifiable only to YOU, IN YOUR OWN HEAD.    The same is true of spiritual experiences- ONLY YOU know if you have a pain in your knee, or are in love, or are angry, or if God spoke to you this morning.   There is no "external experience" of God (which  can be experienced by others) to justify belief in God- all we have is an experience LIKE being in love or being hungry or having a pain - you know it when you feel it, but you can't describe it to others.   And can you be mistaken?  What would that mean?  What standard would you have to say that you are NOT in love?  NOT feeling a pain?   What you feel is what you feel- the experience stands on its own.<br><br>So someone else tells you that God spoke to THEM and told them something different?  So what?   That is like saying that I love Ruth and you love Susie- remember that one?   I don't know if you are lying about loving Susie or not- and besides what does that have to do with me?   All I know for sure is that I love Ruth.   There is no external criteria possible to decide between either of our statements- so what?  Does that mean that in fact I do not love Ruth or you do not love Susie?   <br><br>Belief in God cannot be justified by any experience other than subjective experience, and different people will have different testimonies.   Get over it!   What works for one person doesnt work for the other.

<br><br>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.

<br><br>What is the framework or methodology for deciding that you are in love?   There is none.  It is what you feel inside- that's all there is THE EXPERIENCE ITSELF.<br><br>

Does this clear anything up?

<br><br>I doubt it!

<br><br>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.

<br><br>He may be right or wrong, but there is no way to discern that.  In the most technical sense, I personally THINK he is right- but if that is what he is saying, there is no methodology which he could justify, in my opinion.  <br><br>(But it is logically possible he is right- as I tend to think he is- but we cannot describe a methodology to describe that)<br><br>SIGH.   I hope that was worth the time it took to write it.  I am feeling my life's blood (time) draining away.............<br><br><br><br> Edited July 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The question then became, what is the "truth"? Does the chemical on the strips taste bad or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Precisely!

Montgomery- this IS what we are discussing!

[mfbukowski]

Ergo, the fact that people disagree with each other doesn't mean diddly in the overall end scheme of things because what really matters is what God has told you.

Show me that you understand that and then I think we'll have made some progress here in this thread.

Montgomery- ok that is number 3- Wade, Ahab and I are saying essentially the same thing.

[mfbukowski]

Nobody denies that something happened in the dark room. The point of contention is who or what caused that experience.

That is unknowable, so it is irrelevant. It can never never be determined from the data.

All we have is the experience itself.

So was it good or not? That is all we have. There is nothing "outside" of the experience to help.

Do you want more of that experience or not?

Edited July 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

[Why is God assumed to be good and produce certain kinds of feelings?]

God is generally understood to be the "good" guy while the opposite "evil" one is generally understood to be Satan because that's what people have been taught, forever.

The interesting thing about that, though, is that some people prefer the evil side and would call the evil side "good" while they would call the opposite side "evil", thus to them their good guy is Satan while the one they don't like is God.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Ahab

[Montgomery Price]

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

You're welcome. Such satisfying progress we're making.

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?

Of course. This question has been rephrased and reposted several times.

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.

It seems obvious for the same reason it fails to answer my objection. We often tend to prefer our own experiences over others for no reason other than our innate, irrational bias. We are biologically and culturally conditioned to trust our own experiences over others. It's far from given that we are justified in doing so in every circumstance. To simply acknowledge that we are wise to question our experiences where it is warranted defies your objection, and the case of religious experience warrants plenty of questions.

When we are evaluating religious experiences, we are looking to more accurately discern the source in question. To say, "My experience is more accurate because I experienced it" reveals your suggestion to be an absurd response to the question at hand. If we accept this standard, then we must accept that others may be justified in claiming their contradictory experiences to be more accurate than ours. In matters of accuracy, it's an inconsistent standard which defeats itself.

Where we tend to prefer our own experiences over others for good reason is where we have some objective evaluation which supports one experience and not the other. Or as in your example, some objective evaluation which supports your subjective experience when it was questioned:

This raised even more suspicions about me faking it. But, I knew what I was experiencing even though they did not. We each rightly trusted our own contrary subjective experiences.

The professor later explained that all of the strips had been treated with a chemical that could only be tasted by tongues with a rare genetic trait.

You each trusted your own experience because that's how human beings are wired. We have an interest in protecting ourselves as most often correct, because we're uncomfortable with acknowledging that our intuitions are in actuality often misguided. This is well established by the study of cognitive dissonance and the long list of fallacious reasoning methods we utilize to resolve dissonance.

So in this case, you only happened to be right before the secret was revealed. Prior to this disclosure, you believed you were right for the wrong reasons, just as your classmates believed you were faking for the same bad reasons. With insufficient evidence available, you may have felt that you were properly justified in claiming the source of your experience was not your attempt to deceive your classmates, but your experience itself is not sufficient to establish this. It only seems so upon retrospect because a good reason, one that supersedes any subjective experience, was provided. That good reason was not that you, yourself had experienced the awful taste, but that the rare genetic trait was established as the source using objective methods of evaluation. This decisive piece of evidence simply confirmed your experience in this specific case, it doesn't support the more general suggestion that you are more likely to be accurate if you trust your own experience.

The state of evaluation of our religious experiences is more like the situation prior to the professor's disclosure of additional evidence. Of the possible sources of your experience, your classmates couldn't properly justify any answer. It's was an open question. The reason they could not answer the question is because the source was not clear. They needed a way to evaluate the source if they wanted an answer, because to rely on their own experiences wasn't enough.

As with our religious experiences, the source is in question and there's been no method provided which can properly justify any answer. But according to many members of this forum, the objective evaluation used to solve the dilemma in your college classroom will never be possible for our religious experiences. If this is so, we are still left with the open question. Yet we behave, for no good reason, as if the question is closed.

The question then became, what is the "truth"? Does the chemical on the strips taste bad or not?

We have two questions:

The relevant question is not "Does the chemical on the strips taste bad or not?"

The question is "What causes the chemcial on the strip to taste bad or not?"

The answer to the latter question will answer the former. The reverse is not true.

[Ahab]

We have two questions:

The relevant question is not "Does the chemical on the strips taste bad or not?"

The question is "What causes the chemcial on the strip to taste bad or not?"

Or, more to the point, does everyone who can taste the chemical think it tastes bad, or are there others who think it tastes good?

I'm reminded of a son I have who said (and often still says) Yuk!, that's bad! just because he doesn't like the taste of something... like chocolate, for example.

Strange kid, that one, but to him it really tastes bad...or at least he says it does.

I and others I know, on the other hand, actually like the taste of chocolate and some other thing my son doesn't like, and it doesn't taste bad to us at all.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

You each trusted your own experience because that's how human beings are wired. We have an interest in protecting ourselves as most often correct, because we're uncomfortable with acknowledging that our intuitions are in actuality often misguided. This is well established by the study of cognitive dissonance and the long list of fallacious reasoning methods we utilize to resolve dissonance.

Can you see how you are presuming there IS something called "fallacious reasoning"? And a "fallacious reasoning method"? You just told me there was no True or False on these experiences?

There is no true or false in this case- nothing to measure the experience by but our personal preferences. THAT is the entire point that you are not understanding. There IS nothing to measure the preference against- no up, no down, no north south east or west. No "reality" outside the experience itself.

It is pure preference- what works for you to give your life meaning.

We pick and choose beliefs that give our lives meaning- much as, I would assert, you believe that somehow there IS some methodology which will show the TRUTH of personal preferences. There is none.

Edited July 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

I never claimed spiritual experiences can't happen outside the restored church. The church claims itself to be the superior pathway to truth and false teachings incapable of persuading any man to do good. False teachings being the faiths which you assert are followed by "good" people. This is clearly rejected by LDS doctrine.

A person can follow a lesser doctrine and it can be light to them, in that it moves them forward from an even darker position that they occupied previously.

With this in mind, I claim that spiritual experiences within the church cannot be preferred over those outside the church. Yet the Church pretends otherwise.

They can be preferred on the same basis as above, in that they move you to a position of greater light.

There is no way to validate a spiritual experience of an individual by a group. If you wish to conclude from this that the experience can't be real because there is no group validation that is your assertion. That you conclude from this that we cannot determine among conflicting claims to religious truths is correct. We cannot, as a group. But I can as an individual. And others can as individuals.

However you've determined that you can "know" as individual is a standard which you must allow others. If you can use this method to "know" your own claims are true, then why can't others possibly use this method to "know" their contradictory claims are true? If they could possibly do this, your standard is, as far can be determined, inconsistent. Two mutually exclusive things cannot each be "known". You must have a way to discern between an experience which leads you to think you "know" and one that actually does produce knowledge. I don't see that Mormonism has provided this.

Because you are trying to throw it into the scientific paradigm which cannot be done. The pattern established by God for all of us is that we receive truth and light based upon personal worthiness not group effort.

The standard is not inconsistent because as explained above the standard is whether one is moved to a better position than they were in previously.

One who has no understanding of math beyond arithmetic can discover algebra and think it is the holy grail, while another who has mastered algebra can move on to calculus.

There will always exist areas of disagreement as witness those within the church who disagree about evolution for example. These conflicts/contradictions as you call them do not mean anymore among members of the same church than they do between differing religions. They are the result of areas where knowledge is less than complete, for one individual or another, or for one group/religion or another.

For example take someone that relies upon the bible as the sole source of truth. They are limited in knowledge to what can be gleaned from the content of that book. They can read of baptisms for the dead and a glory of the celestial and of the terrestrial but they are in the dark as to the meaning of those passages.

Of course there is a need for spiritual experiences beyond that of the individual.

Now you are getting into the reasons for prophets and the law of witnesses. Like the three witnesses to the BoM and the testimony of the eight witnesses.

With these you are leaving the OP which is about Moroni's promise.

[Vance]

We often tend to prefer our own experiences over others for no reason other than our innate, irrational bias.

Or because of our own experience (or what we learn from the experiences of others).

We are biologically and culturally conditioned to trust our own experiences over others.

I don't see that as a bad thing, do you? Are we better off by blindly (yes, blindly, for that is what it is) following someone else? (For some reason, Hitler and Jim Jones come to mind.)

Why should we trust our "benevolent" elitists (if there really was such a thing)?

It's far from given that we are justified in doing so in every circumstance.

True, there are those, who by their actions (again based on our experience) have demonstrated that they are trustworthy to lead us.

To simply acknowledge that we are wise to question our experiences where it is warranted defies your objection, . . .

Who is claiming that we don't question our experiences? We are forced to reconcile ALL of our experiences, as not all of our experiences are consistent.

. . . and the case of religious experience warrants plenty of questions.

Again, who is saying that this isn't being done?

When we are evaluating religious experiences, we are looking to more accurately discern the source in question.

And we, again, do this based upon our experiences. I don't see how you avoid this.

Back to lurking mode.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Vance

[Montgomery Price]

My point was that the "plain and simple truth" is the plain and simple truth whether or not the majority of people agree that it is the plain and simple truth.

That was my point, in context, and you can take that for what it's worth or you can come up with all kinds of other things you think I meant by saying that.

No one questioned that truth is truth. It's completely beside the point of this thread.

So what, though?

Oh, dear... I've told you exactly what, several times.

When God is your source of truth, and you know what God has told you, the whole world could disagree with you and you would still know what the truth is. Right?

Ergo, the fact that people disagree with each other doesn't mean diddly in the overall end scheme of things because what really matters is what God has told you.

Show me that you understand that and then I think we'll have made some progress here in this thread.

Of course I understand that if God is in fact providing you with revelation, that others who disagree are wrong. There is no question that this logically follows your premise, but you're completely missing my contention.

Pay attention.

My objection is to your premise that you can know God has given you revelation which invalidates others.

My argument is not that the presence of disagreement invalidates your experience of revelation, given your premise is true. This is one step removed.

My argument is that the disagreement brings your premise into question, and you've provided no reliable solution.

You have yet to provide any response to my argument against your premise, except to repeatedly state your premise.

No, that's not the reason. I call them wrong because they don't agree with what God has told me, and I know that God tells the truth.

I question your premise, and in response, you state your premise.

The reverse accusation in this case would be:

"They call you wrong because you don't agree with what God has told them, and they know that God tells the truth."

Your statement relies on the premise that you know God tells you the truth. Their reciprocal statement relies on the premise that they know God tells them the truth. You have not shown that the support for your premise is any better than the support for theirs. This is exactly what I meant when I said:

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.

So to reply, as you just did, with the premise in question, you are reasoning helplessly in a circle. You need to support your premise over theirs, not just repeat what follows from your premise.

Yes, because my personal experience includes the experiences I have had with God telling me things which are true.

It doesn't make any difference to me. I still know that God has told me the truth.

I question your premise, and in response, you state your premise.

Well, I am saying that it should make a difference because there are good reasons to question that you know God has told you the truth.

Again... Of course it doesn't make any difference given your premise is true. I never even suggested it made a difference given your premise.

If God isn't wrong, and your knowledge comes directly from what God has told you, then you can't be wrong, either, unless you mix in your own ideas with the ideas God has given you, personally.

I question your premise, and in response, you state your premise.

Because God isn't wrong about the things he has told me.

Enough for now.

I question your premise, and in response, you state your premise.

You're really having a difficult time wrapping your head around my contention. You can't even get past the most basic logical fallacy there is. I suggest you cease embarrassing yourself, forget the argument you've imagined I made, and acknowledge my actual contention by at least attempting to support your premise.

[mfbukowski]

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.

No one questioned that truth is truth. It's completely beside the point of this thread.....

You're really having a difficult time wrapping your head around my contention.

?????

[Ahab]

My objection is to your premise that you can know God has given you revelation which invalidates others.

Pay attention, yourself, now.

For me to know that God has given me revelation which invalidates others... if by "others" you mean other people's claims to have received revelation from God... all it takes is for me to be able to tell the difference between what those other people are saying and what God has told me.

That's it.

Do you understand me now?

My argument is not that the presence of disagreement invalidates your experience of revelation, given your premise is true. This is one step removed.

My argument is that the disagreement brings your premise into question, and you've provided no reliable solution.

You seem to think that when someone claims to have received some revelation from God, all I'm supposed to do is believe what they're saying, as if someone's claim to have received revelation from God means they really have.

You're the one who is one step removed from reality on this issue.

What I have is revelation from God, and I know I have that based upon my own personal experience with God when he gave me revelation.

The fact that someone else may come along later and say they have some revelation from God which contradicts my revelation from God doesn't do diddly to counteract my own experiences of receiving revelation from God, because to me all they are giving me is hearsay while I have my own personal experiences with God to back up what I know God has told me.

You seem to think my world goes ballistic just because someone else claims to have received revelation from God which contradicts my own experiences, but it really doesn't work that way.

Now tell me if you can understand why.

Can you come up with a viable reason for why I should doubt anything God has ever told me just because someone else is saying something diferent?

Give it your best shot, dude. Others have tried and failed miserably.

"They call you wrong because you don't agree with what God has told them, and they know that God tells the truth."

Yeah, well, so what?

Do you think my goal is to agree with them, or with God?

Hint: If I tried to agree with everybody other than God, I'd be all in a tizzy, because I wouldn't know which group of people to put my trust in. On the other hand, though, if I just put my trust in what God tells me, it's really just a simple matter of knowing the difference between God and everybody else.

Your statement relies on the premise that you know God tells you the truth. Their reciprocal statement relies on the premise that they know God tells them the truth. You have not shown that the support for your premise is any better than the support for theirs. This is exactly what I meant when I said:

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.

No, that's not the reason, as I have told you before. I call them wrong because they contradict what God has told me. That's the reason.

Get that through your head.

I'm done with you now.

[beckstcw]

Ahab, I think he would agree with everything you said IF there was a way for us to know that God was actually the source for what you think God told you.

He's not saying that other people's claims invalidate your own inherently, he's asking why you believe God talks to you in the first place.

What if you only THOUGHT God had spoken to you? I'm pretty sure that's the point he's trying to get across. You guys are on two separate wavelengths.

[Montgomery Price]

Sorry about the formatting- there was some error and I don't feel like messing with it at the moment.

I'm happy to do that for you...

Well I hope we understand each other, but it is hard to believe after all this time- I have my doubts.

I think I know how to help. I've isolated the problem that keeps confusing you.

Everything will be clear when you consider all your thoughts while keeping in mind the distinction between the content of an experience and its source. My contention is against whether we can determine the source of the experience, not whether we, ourselves or someone else can determine the content of our experience.

Obviously, only we, ourselves can determine the content, but you are confused that this is the point of this thread. As has been said many times, the source of the experience is in question, not the experience itself.

So keeping this in mind, let's address the examples you gave:

How is the statement "I am hungry" justified?

Whether or not someone is experiencing hunger concerns the content of their experience, not the source. The statement "I am hungry" is justified by your own personal experience, but the experience in and of itself, which gave rise to the statement, does not establish its source.

How about the statement "I am in love"? How is that justified?

Whether or not someone is experiencing love concerns the content of their experience, not the source. The statement "I am in love" is justified by your own personal experience, but the experience in and of itself, which gave rise to the statement, does not establish its source.

The same is true of spiritual experiences- ONLY YOU know if you have a pain in your knee,

Whether or not someone is in pain concerns the content of their experience, not the source. The statement "I am in pain" is justified by your own personal experience, but the experience, in and of itself, which gave rise to the statement does not establish its source.

or are in love,

Whether or not someone is experiencing love concerns the content of their experience, not the source. The statement "I am in love" is justified by your own personal experience, but the experience in and of itself, which gave rise to the statement, does not establish its source.

or are angry,

Whether or not someone is experiencing anger concerns the content of their experience, not the source. The statement "I am angry" is justified by your own personal experience, but the experience in and of itself, which gave rise to the statement, does not establish its source.

or if God spoke to you this morning.

Now, this statement is different. It presumes the source of the experience, God.

Whether or not someone is experiencing being spoken to by God concerns the content of their experience. Whether God is actually doing so concerns the source. The content of the experience in and of itself does not establish its source.

There is no "external experience" of God (which can be experienced by others) to justify belief in God- all we have is an experience LIKE being in love or being hungry or having a pain - you know it when you feel it, but you can't describe it to others. And can you be mistaken? What would that mean? What standard would you have to say that you are NOT in love? NOT feeling a pain? What you feel is what you feel- the experience stands on its own.

It's about being mistaken in the content of your experience, but its source. Questions like "What standard would you have to say that you are NOT in love? NOT feeling a pain?" concern the content, not the source.

You seem to continually be saying that there is some "external reality" which justifies statements making them "true"- what I am saying is that in all these are justifiable only to YOU, IN YOUR OWN HEAD.

Again, you've imagined that I ever suggested this. I am suggesting that statements about the source of our subjective experiences are not simply justified by the experiences alone. When considering the source of our experience, we appeal to what is believed to be beyond our subjective experience, even if we are restricted to making such an evaluation from a subjective perspective. I never suggest that a successful appeal makes our statement True with a capital "T", it's just the best we can do when we operate with a model of the universe which presumes there are things beyond our minds which act as a external sources for our experiences.

So yes, the content of the experience themselves are "justifiable only to YOU, IN YOUR OWN HEAD."

But, when the source of the experience is in question, that you can justify the content to yourself doesn't help anything.

The external sources Mormonism has proposed have yet to be substantiated.

So someone else tells you that God spoke to THEM and told them something different? So what? That is like saying that I love Ruth and you love Susie- remember that one? I don't know if you are lying about loving Susie or not- and besides what does that have to do with me? All I know for sure is that I love Ruth. There is no external criteria possible to decide between either of our statements- so what? Does that mean that in fact I do not love Ruth or you do not love Susie?

I never suggested that the contradiction brings into question the content of our experience, only the source. Whether we love Ruth or Susie does not concern the source of our experience, but its content. So, to apply questions concerning the source of experience to situations which only concern their content is obviously absurd. You fail to realize that this absurdity is not my objection.

Given that Susie and Ruth are two mutually exclusive beings, the proper questions are:

Does Susie or Ruth exist as the source of our experiences?

Does the content of our experience of love for either Susie or Ruth have any value in determining which is the source of our experiences?

When you consider the correct questions, your response is clearly irrelevant and confused.

Belief in God cannot be justified by any experience other than subjective experience, and different people will have different testimonies. Get over it! What works for one person doesnt work for the other.

Again, belief in God is a statement about the source of your experience, not its content. You get over it. When someone is mistaken in the source of their experience, what they think "works for them" won't when it depends on the source in question.

What is the framework or methodology for deciding that you are in love? There is none. It is what you feel inside- that's all there is THE EXPERIENCE ITSELF.

It's not about deciding that you are in love, it's about determining its source.

I doubt it!

Let me try one other analogy you may like...

You would propose to me that questions of religious experience are similar to questions about our experience of color.

I may experience something I call "red", and this may or may not be what someone else calls "red". Concerning the content of our experience, it is true as you assert that we can't know whether what we call "red" is what others call "red". We are the only judge of what is "red". "Red" is our own subjective experience, which we have no way to properly transfer to someone else.

What you need to understand is my argument is not about the content of our experience of red, but the source. When someone claims that a Mormon God is the source of their experience, I argue that this is the same as claiming you experience the true red, and others don't. Whether you wish to insist that it's impossible to evaluate what others experience when they see "red", we still have no basis for asserting that we have reliably determined the source of red and we are privileged to be experiencing the true red.

The reason it is ridiculous to claim you are experience the true source of "red" is the very same reason it is ridiculous to claim you are experiencing the true God as the source of your spiritual experience.

SIGH. I hope that was worth the time it took to write it. I am feeling my life's blood (time) draining away.............

I like the mental practice, so it was worth it.

[Montgomery Price]

?????

Are you suggesting that I ever questioned truth is truth? Read again:

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.

[HeatherAnn]

...Whether or not someone is experiencing hunger concerns the content of their experience, not the source. The statement "I am hungry" is justified by your own personal experience, but the experience in and of itself, which gave rise to the statement, does not establish its source.

Whether or not someone is experiencing love concerns the content of their experience, not the source. The statement "I am in love" is justified by your own personal experience, but the experience in and of itself, which gave rise to the statement, does not establish its source.

...The reason it is ridiculous to claim you are experience the true source of "red" is the very same reason it is ridiculous to claim you are experiencing the true God as the source of your spiritual experience.

The source of hunger creates the experience. The source of hunger can be either physiological (stomach cramp/emptiness, low blood-glucose levels)... or psychological (habitual eating time or at the sight of something delicious).

One's experience of love also depends on the source... or motivation or hope. Are you in love because you found the most amazing person ever, or is it because you are in infatuated obsession with an idea of the most amazing person ever? If your self-esteem & self-love are lacking, you may look to another for your source of self-esteem & self-love.

It's written that "God is love." There's a book called "5 Love Languages" - but there are countless expressions & interpretations of love! It's what we resonate with. If I feel close to God by hiking up a mountain & you feel close to God by going to the temple, fine! We're given tools... our senses, & a beautiful world, with beautiful people & ideas... that can help us resonate. As inspiring as a clear star-lit night or celestial room is, they are not what God is... but the resonating itself. Some interpretations of what those resonating spiritual feelings are - can be more healthy than others. This is where good ol' common sense can help. We can discern between what's productive & what's destructive. Interpreting spiritual experiences isn't easy. It's like trying to interpret dreams - which can seem so illogical, because they're subconscious - it's the source of most of our emotions & is the most powerful part of our minds.

Truth is perspective. The more perspectives, the more truthful.

Edited July 26, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[mfbukowski]

Whether or not someone is experiencing hunger concerns the content of their experience, not the source. The statement "I am hungry" is justified by your own personal experience, but the experience in and of itself, which gave rise to the statement, does not establish its source.

Here is the problem:

You are making a distinction between "content" of an experience and the "source" of the experience.

I do not make this distinction. There is nothing we can talk about which is the "source" of any experience- all we can talk about is what someone (including you) has experienced.

You cannot get "under" the experience to get to its "source"- all you will have is your INTERPRETATION of what you THINK is the "source"- in other words what you have manufactured in your head- or that humans have manufactured through language in their collective heads describing- in language invented culturally- what the human experience and its explanation is.

But you can never get below what we see or can talk about to any "sources" except interpretations.

There IS no distinction between content of an experience and it s source- the source will just be another experience and another experience in an infinite regress of experiences. You cannot get to the "source" independent of any experience at all.

Experience IS what we call "reality". There is no "truth" except a justified EXPLANATION of what you believe- and those explanations are just ultimately experiences.

No source we can talk about- because talking is language which is interpretation-

Please please please listen to this one more time - every word

"There are no effects only interpretations"

[Ahab]

Ahab, I think he would agree with everything you said IF there was a way for us to know that God was actually the source for what you think God told you.

There is a way to know it is God, or if instead it is Satan or yourself or somebody else, instead.

All it takes is a personal relationship with the people who speak to you until you can tell the difference between your own self and God, and/or Satan, and/or whoever else it is you communicate with.

He's not saying that other people's claims invalidate your own inherently, he's asking why you believe God talks to you in the first place.

I've had a lot of personal experience getting to know God, as well as Satan, as well as myself, as well as some other people... enough to know the difference between myself and all of those other people.

What if you only THOUGHT God had spoken to you?

Have you ever had a thought which you knew came from someone other than yourself because you had never had that thought before?

When you get thoughts like that, you should be able to tell that they're coming to you from someone else outside of yourself.

The "good" thoughts I get like that are those I attribute to God, and the "evil" thoughts I get like that are those I attribute to Satan, and telling the difference between them is as easy as knowing the difference between good and evil.

I'm pretty sure that's the point he's trying to get across. You guys are on two separate wavelengths.

Apparently he doesn't know God, himself, otherwise he would know there is a way to know God, just as it is possible to get to know anyone else.

[mfbukowski]

There are no "sources" of experience we can talk about- there are only experiences and interpretations "all the way down".