Moroni 7 And The Argument From Personal Experience

[Chris]

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?

What if we can replicate the same feelings in a lab? And what if we find empirical evidence for what causes subjective feelings like love, hunger, etc?

[mfbukowski]

What if we can replicate the same feelings in a lab? And what if we find empirical evidence for what causes subjective feelings like love, hunger, etc?

Read my siggy regarding Nagel- answer his arguments in that article- ok?

Of course there are brainstates caused by chemicals- but we are not talking about brainstates. We are talking about giving meaning to life- we are talking about the phenomenology of the experience.

Suppose I can show you what chemical made you like your girlfriend- does that mean you now leave her?

"Sorry- our attraction is caused by a chemical xyz8345- so I am out of here"

The point is that brainstates are irrelevant to anything in our lives- decisions, right or wrong, or anything meaningful.

[Chris]

Read my siggy regarding Nagel- answer his arguments in that article- ok?

Of course there are brainstates caused by chemicals- but we are not talking about brainstates. We are talking about giving meaning to life- we are talking about the phenomenology of the experience.

Suppose I can show you what chemical made you like your girlfriend- does that mean you now leave her?

"Sorry- our attraction is caused by a chemical xyz8345- so I am out of here"

The point is that brainstates are irrelevant to anything in our lives- decisions, right or wrong, or anything meaningful.

Except subjective data is being used to claim objective (absolute, universal) truths. That's what separates the experience of love from the so-called spiritual experience. One concludes something subjective, the other allegedly concludes something objective [that gods exist, etc].

Just a few hundred years ago (if that), some have claimed that seizures were caused by devils. But we no longer believe that because we found empirical evidence. Why assume that any of our feelings are caused by something beyond our brain?

Edited July 27, 2011 by Chris

[Montgomery Price]

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?

I'm a bit worried about you now... You've simply stated your premise... and what follows from it... again.

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.

No. You've imagined this.

I never suggested you had to believe what they say is revelation from God. My contention has always been that you've provided no way to tell whether any revelation is from God or not. Including theirs. Including your own. The only method you've proposed is based on the revelations in question. You repeatedly reason fallaciously in circles by stating your premise, without support, over and over and over and over and over again....

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.

Again, all you're doing here is restating your premise as support for you premise. It doesn't work that way.

I thoroughly understand that, given your premise that God is in fact speaking to you, others who disagree are irrelevant. But your premise is not given. You need to support it.

The only support you've given is to assert that your experience is somehow self-authenticating. In other words, simply having the experience means you can accurately determine the source.

What exactly about your personal experience leads you to believe this?

When you ask for a viable reason to doubt that God has spoken to you, you're asking for a reason to doubt that simply having an experience means you can accurately determine the source.

I'll give that reason once again. It should sound awfully familiar.

Many people report that God has revealed to them many different things which can't all be true. This establishes, beyond any doubt, that someone can think their experience is self-authenticating, when it is in fact not. This could be you. This is very viable reason to doubt that simply having an experience is sufficient to establish that you have accurately determine its source, and therefore very viable reason to doubt that God has spoken to you.

You accept that even though others have had an experience, they only think that experience was of genuine revelation. In supporting this assertion, you've only offered what you reject. That is, you've only stated that you've had an experience, but based on the standard you apply to others, this isn't enough. You have yet to substantiate why we should believe your experience is self-authenticating and theirs is not.

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.

Obviously, your goal is to agree with God. You're imagining that I ever suggested otherwise.

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.

As I have told you before, you're just restating the premise in question. So, no... it's not a good reason. You're missing the point again.

You call them wrong because they contradict what you believe God has told you.

They call you wrong because you contradict what they believe God has told them.

Each of these statements rely on the reasons each of you give for believing God is the source of your experience.

When I ask for this reason, you reply with statements which equate with "I call them wrong because they contradict what I believe God has told me." You're stating the belief in question, not supporting it.

And so we continue circling around and around....

I'm not the one with the impenetrable noggin. I think it's very clear to me and other readers that it's you. An impenetrable noggin plus an unpleasant attitude.

[Montgomery Price]

I don't see that as a bad thing, do you?

In many cases, no, it's not. But when the sources of our experience are in question, yes, it is a bad thing.

Who is claiming that we don't question our experiences?

To suggest that our own experiences are more accurate simply because we had the experience questions whether we are wise to question our experiences. If it were true that simply having an experience was sufficient to determine its source accurately, there'd be no reason to question our experiences.

[Montgomery Price]

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.

Is the doctrine that Jesus was not the Savior "light"?

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

That basis above is predicated upon the spiritual experiences in question, so it's not an answer to how we can prefer on experience over another.

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.

The standard in question is not the standard used to determine whether one is moved to a better position.

The relevant standard is the one used to determine whether the premise from which this follows is supported.

That is, the relevant standard is the one used to determine whether your experience can be preferred over theirs.

So, the standard used to determine whether one is moved to a better position is beside the point until after you've supported that which it relies on.

The standard used to determine whether your experience can be preferred over theirs remains that inconsistent standard which your standard above relies on. When I point out this inconsistency, to reply with a standard based on the standard in question is not a response.

When I ask how we can prefer our experience over others, I am not asking how we can prefer our experiences as bringing us to a "better position".

I am asking how we can prefer our experiences over others as accurately determining the source of our experience.

Providing a standard which presumes the source is not a response to the suggestion which questions the source.

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

The title of the thread is Moroni 7 and The Argument From Personal Experience.

[Montgomery Price]

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.

Mr. Bukowski, you're making the same mistake again...

Here is the problem:

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

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.

I never implied that I wish to get "below". All of my arguments function within the framework that all we have is the interpretation of what we think is the source. You need to realize this, and then you can consider my argument instead of getting stuck, repeatedly, on the framework you've imagined I'm attempting to establish.

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.

I'm not trying to get to any source independent of experience. You keep imagining this.

Again, you've imagined that I disagree with anything said in this video.

Please, to clear it up... respond directly to this analogy:

(To preclude any further confusion, where I have added "interpreted" I mean interpretation in the exact way you do when you say "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'".)

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 should be interpreted as the source of their experience, I argue that this is the same as claiming you experience of red should be interpreted as the true red. 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 interpreted the source of red and we are privileged to be experiencing the true red.

The reason it is ridiculous to claim your experience should be interpreted as originating in the true "red" is the very same reason it is ridiculous to claim your religious experience should be interpreted as originating in the true God.

Please, please, please, show me that you understand this now.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[shalamabobbi]

Is the doctrine that Jesus was not the Savior "light"?

It is if that is what they believed before (no net change on that particular point) and the rest of the religion brings them to a better place than they were at previously..

That basis above is predicated upon the spiritual experiences in question, so it's not an answer to how we can prefer on experience over another.

That's the point. There is substance to the experience and there is substance to the change that results from believing and acting upon the experience, just as there is substance to getting a degree from a college. There is recognizable benefit that results from the process.

The standard in question is not the standard used to determine whether one is moved to a better position.

The relevant standard is the one used to determine whether the premise from which this follows is supported.

That is, the relevant standard is the one used to determine whether your experience can be preferred over theirs.

So, the standard used to determine whether one is moved to a better position is beside the point until after you've supported that which it relies on.

Irrelevant. If someone tells me on a hot day that it is cooler over here I have no sure basis to believe them other than to try it and see.

I am asking how we can prefer our experiences over others as accurately determining the source of our experience.

How can you prove to yourself that you are not simply a brain in a vat? How do you justify acting as though that is not the case?

Whatever you offer as justification, that is my justification for acting upon my experiences..

And just as pointless as the brain in the vat argument is, so is..

[Montgomery Price]

It is if that is what they believed before (no net change on that particular point) and the rest of the religion brings them to a better place than they were at previously..

Well, that's what many believe now. Something has taught them that Jesus is not the savior, and according to Moroni 7, that which persuades a man to deny Christ is evil, and what is evil cannot persuade a man to do good. How do you reconcile this with the fact that the Koran teaches them that Jesus is a liar and not the Savior, yet can also teach them something which "brings them to a batter place".

That's the point. There is substance to the experience and there is substance to the change that results from believing and acting upon the experience, just as there is substance to getting a degree from a college. There is recognizable benefit that results from the process.

Any Muslim will swear up and down that following the Koran to its every perfect letter has brought them inner-peace and endless benefits. Does this then mean that the Koran is in fact the inerrant dictation of Allah? No. For the same reason, the perceived "benefits" of your experience are no measure of the accuracy of its source. People perceive "benefits" in many different sources, all of which can't each be true. Therefore, our standard for accurately determining the source of our experiences must include something more than just perceived benefit.

The hypothetical man who believes he has a diamond the size of a refrigerator in his backyard comes to mind...

Irrelevant. If someone tells me on a hot day that it is cooler over here I have no sure basis to believe them other than to try it and see.

What's irrelevant?

If someone tells you that it's cooler over there, you can determine this accurately without having to experience it yourself. It's called a thermometer and it involves something that is interpreted as being beyond your subjective experience of hot or cold.

To claim that you know it can't be cooler over there because you experience heat where you are is essentially what you're suggesting if you believe this is a valid response to my objection.

There is no contradiction between two places being two different temperatures. There is contradiction between two people claiming to "know" that Jesus is or is not the Savior.

How can you prove to yourself that you are not simply a brain in a vat? How do you justify acting as though that is not the case?

Whatever you offer as justification, that is my justification for acting upon my experiences..

Well, then you're out of luck because I don't offer a justification. It's an open question. I don't act as if it's not the case. Whether my experiences are the result of a brain vat or not, the consequences of my actions prove to be the same. If I'm in actually standing on a cliff, jumping off will result in the experience of terror and pain. If I'm just a brain in a vat being manipulated to experience standing on a cliff, choosing to jump off will still result in the same experience. It doesn't make a difference which model of reality I accept because each model, as far as I can tell, results in the same cause/effect experiences. If I am a brain in a vat, who ever is in control must be manipulating me in such a way that my "world" behaves exactly as it would if I wasn't in a brain vat. The answer and reaction to each scenario is the same. Your objection proves nothing.

So, let's try this again:

I am only questioning whether we can determine that a person has been "brought to a better place" as an extension of questioning its premise. That premise being Mormonism is true. You believe Mormonism is true because you have somehow accurately determined the source of your experience.

To question your reason for believing Mormonism is true is to question whether we can accurately determine the source of our religious experiences.

So when you reply to my questioning, your reply should concern the premise in question, please. So far, your attempts to provide a way to accurately determine the source of our religious experiences has been to simply state what follows from the premise in question or the "benefits" argument which I already addressed.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[mfbukowski]

Except subjective data is being used to claim objective (absolute, universal) truths.

Disagree.

If that was true you could prove the existence of God through science. No one is claiming that.

Objective experiences (science) are justified by other objective experiences (many observations by many people)

Subjective experiences (loving your girlfriend, God speaking to you) can only be justified by other subjective experiences (loving your girlfriend makes you happy, your testimony of God gives your life joy and meaning)

That is what people seem to not understand. If God's existence cannot be proven scientifically, it is not an "objective truth". It is a misuse of those words to call it such.

Edited July 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

general reply..

You can use a thermometer or you can believe the individual enough to walk over to where he's at and experience it for yourself.

Can we find a Muslim who has converted to the LDS religion?

http://www.sodahead.com/living/a-muslim-translates-book-of-mormon-back-to-egyptian-and-is-converted/blog-356245/

Religion is all about benefits for actions and knowing that its true is discovering for yourself that those benefits do indeed result from the required actions on our part. So I disagree with you at your fundamental level of objection.

The benefits are the reality of religion.

Whether the ultimate reality claimed in the revelations not yet experienced by an individual for which he extends the principal of faith prove to be true is yet to be determined in a future day.

But he has the pattern established that the claimed benefits result from the required behavior to rest his faith upon. We all have our agency and freedom of choice.

Whether my choices make sense to you really doesn't concern me in the least..

[HeatherAnn]

I am only questioning whether we can determine that a person has been "brought to a better place" as an extension of questioning its premise. That premise being Mormonism is true. You believe Mormonism is true because you have somehow accurately determined the source of your experience.

To question your reason for believing Mormonism is true is to question whether we can accurately determine the source of our religious experiences...

Our interpretation of what we think is the source... is in itself the source! Maybe that's your & others' same points - just conveyed & understood differently.

What is your point - that Mormonism is not any truer than Islam, etc... depending on the believer?

There's a difference between realizing that the "kingdom of God" (our experience of God) is within, & believing our experience of God is found externally.

[mfbukowski]

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 should be interpreted as the source of their experience, I argue that this is the same as claiming you experience of red should be interpreted as the true red. 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 interpreted the source of red and we are privileged to be experiencing the true red.

There is no such thing as sources. I would never claim that God is the "source" of my experience or that there even is a "true red". What others experience is irrelevant-

I experience both red and God directly. God IS the experience, red IS the experience- no sources. Reality IS experience.

There is no "RELIABLE" interpretation because that implies there is something to measure interpretation against. There is no such thing. There are only interpretations (experiences) which "work" as instruments to achieve certain ends.

[Montgomery Price]

Our interpretation of what we think is the source... is in itself the source!

Are you saying that your experience is self-authenticating?

[mfbukowski]

The reason it is ridiculous to claim your experience should be interpreted as originating in the true "red" is the very same reason it is ridiculous to claim your religious experience should be interpreted as originating in the true God.

I agree it would be ridiculous if I was saying that, but I am not.

There is no "originating" in anything much less anything "true".

Remember- no source? Remember no "true"? Did you think I was kidding or something?

[mfbukowski]

Are you saying that your experience is self-authenticating?

Nearly.

I am saying subjective experience is justified by other subjective experience. I know God speaks to me because of the way it feels and what effects that belief has in my life. No source, nothing underlying- all we have is experience itself, justified by other experience

That is even true for science.

"When I do this- I experience that" "Hey- that happens to me too!- when I put the tube of mercury in the bubbling water, the mercury expands to this line I drew on the tube!"

That is the essence of science- one person's experience being replicated by others.

Subjective experience cannot be replicated- but it is still justified by other subjective experience.

[Nathair/|\]

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.

This reminds me of a conundrum I have often found fascinating, ever since I heard about it. I know it's been mentioned before on this board, but I haven't seen it in this thread or any recent ones. I think it goes to what MFBukowski is trying to get across.

If I could transfer my consciousness into your body, would chocolate taste the same to me as it does in my own body, Would the color of an oak leaf or the scent of the moss after a rainstorm, or the feel of the fur of a dog be the same? Would even something as basic as a primary color light shone on a white surface appear the same?

Yours under the individual oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Montgomery Price]

There is no such thing as sources. I would never claim that God is the "source" of my experience or that there even is a "true red". What others experience is irrelevant-

You wouldn't claim that God is the "source" of your experience. Mormonism does.

Again, you're not defending Mormonism. You're defying it.

I experience both red and God directly. God IS the experience, red IS the experience- no sources. Reality IS experience.

There is no "RELIABLE" interpretation because that implies there is something to measure interpretation against. There is no such thing. There are only interpretations (experiences) which "work" as instruments to achieve certain ends.

Then how do you respond to the objection that temple ordinances will not elicit benefits in the after-life?

I agree it would be ridiculous if I was saying that, but I am not.

There is no "originating" in anything much less anything "true".

Remember- no source? Remember no "true"? Did you think I was kidding or something?

Are you completely ignoring what I typed before "originating". I typed "should be interpreted as", not "should be considered Truth with a capital 'T'".

(To preclude any further confusion, where I have added "interpreted" I mean interpretation in the exact way you do when you say "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'".)

Try again:

The reason it is ridiculous to claim your experience should be interpreted as originating in the true "red" is the very same reason it is ridiculous to claim your religious experience should be interpreted as originating in the true God.

Mormonism claims the religious experiences of Mormons are to be interpreted as originating in the true God. When you stray from this belief in any way, you're not defending Mormonism as it describes itself. You're defending Mormonism as you have distorted it.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[Montgomery Price]

This reminds me of a conundrum I have often found fascinating, ever since I heard about it. I know it's been mentioned before on this board, but I haven't seen it in this thread or any recent ones. I think it goes to what MFBukowski is trying to get across.

If I could transfer my consciousness into your body, would chocolate taste the same to me as it does in my own body, Would the color of an oak leaf or the scent of the moss after a rainstorm, or the feel of the fur of a dog be the same? Would even something as basic as a primary color light shone on a white surface appear the same?

Yours under the individual oaks,

Nathair /|\

As has been explained several times, the content of the experience is not in question, but the source.

[mfbukowski]

This reminds me of a conundrum I have often found fascinating, ever since I heard about it. I know it's been mentioned before on this board, but I haven't seen it in this thread or any recent ones. I think it goes to what MFBukowski is trying to get across.

If I could transfer my consciousness into your body, would chocolate taste the same to me as it does in my own body, Would the color of an oak leaf or the scent of the moss after a rainstorm, or the feel of the fur of a dog be the same? Would even something as basic as a primary color light shone on a white surface appear the same?

Yours under the individual oaks,

Nathair /|\

That has some relevance to what I am saying, but is not what I am saying. I am not interested in that question because there is no possible answer.

I am only interested in defining answers to questions which have answers!

[mfbukowski]

You wouldn't claim that God is the "source" of your experience. Mormonism does.

No, "it" doesn't . Mormonism cannot speak. God is experienced directly, just as I experience you directly. I am talking to you, not to a "source". THAT is an abstraction - a reification of communication.

Again, you're not defending Mormonism. You're defying it.

No, I'm not at all! It is your philosophical understanding that is wrong.

Then how do you respond to the objection that temple ordinances will not elicit benefits in the after-life?

Let's try that again. It is my BELIEF that they will which makes my life infinitely more rich than any other belief I know of. It has nothing to do with what can be proven objectively about the after life- because guess what- we can't know anything objective about the afterlife! It is about FAITH and a BELIEF. Do I BELIEVE there is an after life? Of course!

But my BELIEF is not justified objectively- it is justified subjectively- by how it makes me feel here and now.

Mormonism claims the religious experiences of Mormons are to be interpreted as originating in the true God. When you stray from this belief in any way, you're not defending Mormonism as it describes itself. You're defending Mormonism as you have distorted it.

Ah, so now you are telling me what I believe huh?

Most people, much less Mormons believe that they speak routinely about an underlying "reality" independent of experience- it is only philosophers who discuss that point typically. It has nothing to do with being Mormon- it is about philosophy

Mormons don't believe that God's existence can be verified objectively- though, in principle it might be some day- and we are now speaking very specialized philosophical jargon. I have no problem with ordinary language- it's just not as precise as the language we are using now.

The proof is in the pudding. I haven't had any arguments with other Mormons on this point in the years I have been here, not that it would have mattered. In fact, if you look at my record- I haven't really had any TBM disagree with me.

So I think you are wrong about what "Mormons believe". I'll take my chances, thank you very much.

Edited July 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Montgomery Price]

No, "it" doesn't . Mormonism cannot speak. God is experienced directly, just as I experience you directly. I am talking to you, not to a "source". THAT is an abstraction - a reification of communication.

No, I'm not at all! It is your philosophical understanding that is wrong.

The Book of Mormon speaks as Mormonism. Are you suggesting that the Book of Mormon does not claim that God is the source of Mormon religious experience?

Let's try that again. It is my BELIEF that they will which makes my life infinitely more rich than any other belief I know of. It has nothing to do with what can be proven objectively about the after life- because guess what- we can't know anything objective about the afterlife! It is about FAITH and a BELIEF. Do I BELIEVE there is an after life? Of course!

But my BELIEF is not justified objectively- it is justified subjectively- by how it makes me feel here and now.

Your admission that you can't establish your belief objective defies your expectation of that objective presumption inherent in your belief that performing ordinances will elicit certain benefits in the after-life. Whether or not you think an objective justification is possible, you're still behaving as if it has been justified for no good reason. The only reason you've given for this behavior is your subjective experience of benefit in this life. This is an absurd standard.

Mormonism holds that Heaven exists objectively, and after you've spent your time on the objective planet called "Earth" you will be transported somewhere else. You are claiming that Mormonism is unjustified in asserting this.

Ah, so now you are telling me what I believe huh?

I don't see how you are "Mormon" in any undistorted sense if you don't believe Mormonism claims the religious experiences of Mormons are to be interpreted as originating in the true God.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Montgomery Price

[mfbukowski]

I don't see how you are "Mormon" in any undistorted sense if you don't believe Mormonism claims the religious experiences of Mormons are to be interpreted as originating in the true God.

Montgomery, relax.

All this is, is about how we think and speak about the experience- because that is all there is. This is about definitions and semantics because that is all we have in language, and surprise- we are communicating linguistically.

I believe I talk to God and he talks to me. I do not "claim the religious experience of Mormons are interpreted as originating in the true God". That is about 4 layers of metaphysics too many.

Can you see the difference?

I also don't "claim that the objective experience of me is interpreted as originating in the true Montgomery"

I just talk to you. Mormons talk to God, God talks to Mormons. (and everyone else who will listen) Now if you think that is not a Mormon belief, please complain to my bishop.

[Ahab]

I'm a bit worried about you now... You've simply stated your premise... and what follows from it... again.

No. You've imagined this.

I never suggested you had to believe what they say is revelation from God. My contention has always been that you've provided no way to tell whether any revelation is from God or not. Including theirs. Including your own. The only method you've proposed is based on the revelations in question. You repeatedly reason fallaciously in circles by stating your premise, without support, over and over and over and over and over again....

Again, all you're doing here is restating your premise as support for you premise. It doesn't work that way.

I thoroughly understand that, given your premise that God is in fact speaking to you, others who disagree are irrelevant. But your premise is not given. You need to support it.

The only support you've given is to assert that your experience is somehow self-authenticating. In other words, simply having the experience means you can accurately determine the source.

What exactly about your personal experience leads you to believe this?

When you ask for a viable reason to doubt that God has spoken to you, you're asking for a reason to doubt that simply having an experience means you can accurately determine the source.

I'll give that reason once again. It should sound awfully familiar.

Many people report that God has revealed to them many different things which can't all be true. This establishes, beyond any doubt, that someone can think their experience is self-authenticating, when it is in fact not. This could be you. This is very viable reason to doubt that simply having an experience is sufficient to establish that you have accurately determine its source, and therefore very viable reason to doubt that God has spoken to you.

You accept that even though others have had an experience, they only think that experience was of genuine revelation. In supporting this assertion, you've only offered what you reject. That is, you've only stated that you've had an experience, but based on the standard you apply to others, this isn't enough. You have yet to substantiate why we should believe your experience is self-authenticating and theirs is not.

Obviously, your goal is to agree with God. You're imagining that I ever suggested otherwise.

As I have told you before, you're just restating the premise in question. So, no... it's not a good reason. You're missing the point again.

You call them wrong because they contradict what you believe God has told you.

They call you wrong because you contradict what they believe God has told them.

Each of these statements rely on the reasons each of you give for believing God is the source of your experience.

When I ask for this reason, you reply with statements which equate with "I call them wrong because they contradict what I believe God has told me." You're stating the belief in question, not supporting it.

And so we continue circling around and around....

I'm not the one with the impenetrable noggin. I think it's very clear to me and other readers that it's you. An impenetrable noggin plus an unpleasant attitude.

One more time, with a different approach now, just because I'm curious to see if this approach will help you to understand me.

If I understand you correctly, you're wanting me to provide you with an explanation of how I know it is God who is speaking to me while telling me what he is telling me.

I've told you that I know it is God who is speaking to me because I have a personal relationship with God enough to know when it is God who is speaking to me.

Your response to my response is to tell me that other people say God has spoken to them and told them something that contradicts what I say God has told me.

My response to that response from you is to tell you I don't really care, because I'm staying grounded in what God has told me based upon my own personal experience with God rather than what they say God has told them, which is only hearsay to me.

Now, while you'll probably think (again) that I'm not doing anything to try to convince you that I know it is God who is speaking to me, I'm going to ask you to imagine yourself in my situation with someone other than God who told you something.

What would your response be if someone you knew (and had known for a long time) told you something and then someone else came along and told you that same person told them something contradictory to what they had told you.

Would you say something like: Hmm, well, I thought (person X) told me [something in particular], but if you say (person X) told you something contradictory to that, then I really don't know what to think. Maybe [person X] didn't tell me what I thought he said, after all. Maybe my ears were playing tricks on me. Maybe I should go ask him again, to see if he'll still tell me the same thing. Maybe I'm going crazy, and instead of relying upon what I know [person X] told me I should just rely upon what other people tell me [person X] says. Or maybe I should just take the word of [person X] based upon what I know he told me and let other people sort out their own problems if they think [person X] said something contradictory to what he told me.

I'd really like to know how you would handle the same situation I find myself in, Monty.

What do you do when people tell you God has told them something which contradicts what you know God has told you? Or have you not heard from God enough to recognize anything he has told you.

See, I know you have heard from him, even though you may not realize it. Anytime you get a "good' thought it is coming to you from God, perhaps through intermediataries, but still from him... because all good thoughts are centered in God. You just need to recognize that and stick to what he tells you even if other people say God has told them something different than what he has told you, based upon your own personal experience with him.

Now I'm done with you, yet again. Please get on with having a good life.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Mormonism holds that Heaven exists objectively, and after you've spent your time on the objective planet called "Earth" you will be transported somewhere else. You are claiming that Mormonism is unjustified in asserting this.

One more for the road

Mormonism does not hold that heaven exists objectively because that would be saying that heaven could be proven scientifically.

Mormonism says that heaven "exists" as a BELIEF which is justified by subjective spiritual experience- it is accepted on FAITH, not science.

You think the only way something can exist is "objectively" which is not true. Love, for example "exists" subjectively and so does freedom and courage etc.

"Reality" is not co-extensive with what can be objectively observed. God is real, heaven is real, but it is not objective.