Dealing With Doubts While Finding An Informed Faith

[CV75]

I've said before several times that if I trusted spiritual experience as a valid means of truth-getting, then I'd probably believe fundamental Mormon claims, contrary evidence be damned. The central issue for me is the validity of truth-getting via spiritual experience, and after over a decade of noodling it over I've resolved that I simply don't trust spiritual experience as a valid means of truth-getting. Having concluded that, I'm left to assess the best available evidence without divine aid and the best available evidence taken as a whole seems to weigh against the truth of many of Mormonisms central claims.

Am I correct in understanding you to say that, after careful thought, you do not trust that spiritually experiencing spiritual or physical evidence is a valid (as in trustworthy--or are you using another definition of "valid"?) means of getting truth, and that this renders divine aid in assessing the evidence inapplicable?

How would you describe spiritual experience as differing from a thought process--in other words, why could not the thought process you described qualify as a spiritual experience leading you to your conclusion?

Do you believe that divine aid is available and applicable to those who have not come to the same conclusion as you have?

From your experience, is there any such thing as something spiritual or divine?

[stevedallas]

Am I correct in understanding you to say that, after careful thought, you do not trust that spiritually experiencing spiritual or physical evidence is a valid (as in trustworthy--or are you using another definition of "valid"?) means of getting truth, and that this renders divine aid in assessing the evidence inapplicable?

How would you describe spiritual experience as differing from a thought process--in other words, why could not the thought process you described qualify as a spiritual experience leading you to your conclusion?

Do you believe that divine aid is available and applicable to those who have not come to the same conclusion as you have?

From your experience, is there any such thing as something spiritual or divine?

I know this question was not directed at me, but I would like to chime in. The problem for me in relying JUST on spiritual experiences is that we can find members of every single church who has had spiritual experiences that told them they were in the true church and/or in the place God wanted them to be. I believe there is just ONE true Church. I feel a pressing need to find it. But if I rely JUST on spiritual experiences, then every church would be true.

[thesometimesaint]

stevedallas:

By its very nature this MB can strengthen a strong one, but it can also destroy a weak one. A discussion board, even this LDS friendly one, really isn't the place to gain a testimony.

I've never thought you were a troll.

Ps. What physical evidence could possibly compel you to believe?

Edited November 1, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Sky]

I just want to point out that being totally rational (in our minds) is not always the best way to develop faith. There are lots of things that we cannot explain or prove, but we take it on faith anyway. A few things that come to mind are Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, and the resurrection. And has anybody ever wondered how God is able to hear and answer everybody’s prayers? Think of how busy that must keep Him. How is He able to do it?

Mormonism is certainly not unique in this matter among the religions of the world.

The alternative that I’m left with is not believing in the existence of God at all, but I can’t do that. What a hopeless way to go through life.

I have to rely on the more sure witnesses of the Lord’s prophets and apostles. D&C 46: 13-14 puts it this way:

To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

[J Green]

I've said before several times that if I trusted spiritual experience as a valid means of truth-getting, then I'd probably believe fundamental Mormon claims, contrary evidence be damned. The central issue for me is the validity of truth-getting via spiritual experience, and after over a decade of noodling it over I've resolved that I simply don't trust spiritual experience as a valid means of truth-getting. Having concluded that, I'm left to assess the best available evidence without divine aid and the best available evidence taken as a whole seems to weigh against the truth of many of Mormonisms central claims.

Brade,

Always enjoy your posts. A few questions, if I may:

Have you taken spiritual methods of verifying truth claims off the table only for yourself or do you think it untenable for others? If the latter, why? I can understand this reticence in issues that are purely academic--e.g., a thesis on why so many Austen characters whose names start with a W are despicable--but in discussions that touch directly on things spiritual (e.g., angelic visitations, God revealing truths to prophets), shouldn't the related and very ancient belief that man can have these same types of experiences for himself have some kind of seat at the table?

But following your train of thought, what kind of methodology are you suggesting, since these kinds of discussions can be never-ending, both in the recycling of older arguments (good or bad) and in the introduction of new perspective and evidence over decades of time? How do you identify actual truth claims amidst all the white noise of assumptions about truth claims? (I believe most of the "issues" discussed on these boards fall into the latter category.) How do you verify you have the correct and latest information about those truth claims? What's your threshhold for a decision? Etc.

Regards

[stevedallas]

stevedallas:

By its very nature this MB can strengthen a strong one, but it can also destroy a weak one. A discussion board, even this LDS friendly one, really isn't the place to gain a testimony.

I've never thought you were a troll.

Ps. What physical evidence could possibly compel you to believe?

I do not hope to gain a testimony here. I am hoping my questions and reservations, thru discussion and debate, can be resolved to an extent that my testimony has a fighting chance. I have discussed issues with regular members and even missionaries, but they do not have the wealth of knowledge that people like you, Pahoran, Daddy, etc. have.

As to physical evidence, I am not sure what it would have to be. It is kind of like porn.A supreme court justice once wrote about porn "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, " That is how it is for me. I do not know, but I am hoping that, when I see it, I will know it. Of course, the discovery of an ancient road sign that says "Zarahemla- 24 kilometers" would help. (please know I am kidding). But, I am simply not sure. I believe the first step is DESIRE. And I have that.

Edited November 1, 2011 by stevedallas

[Analytics]

But following your train of thought, what kind of methodology are you suggesting, since these kinds of discussions can be never-ending, both in the recycling of older arguments (good or bad) and in the introduction of new perspective and evidence over decades of time? How do you identify actual truth claims amidst all the white noise of assumptions about truth claims? (I believe most of the "issues" discussed on these boards fall into the latter category.) How do you verify you have the correct and latest information about those truth claims? What's your threshhold for a decision? Etc.

Who was it that said the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing?

Edited November 1, 2011 by Analytics

[SeattleGrunge]

I've taken some flak for this before but I don't think we do ourselves any favors by stifling dissention among youth or other students. There is a fine balance between teaching the faith and not allowing students to explore the hard questions.

Then again some people seem to specialize in disrupting classes that should be "mostly" faith promoting.

The kids I worry about the most are the ones who grow up with the attitude of "don't make me look bad" as opposed to genuine growth, faith in Christ, mistakes and repentance... Those are the ones who I see go off the rails when they are faced with what appears to be contradictions in what they were taught.

I agree, but teaching that our church literally believes the entire earth was baptised by imersion or Jonah was literally in the belly of a whale for a few days or that the earth is really on 6,000 years old is setting people up for a fall.

[J Green]

Who was it that said the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing?

I don't know, but if true, it means I'm pretty darn wise!

[KevinG]

Perhaps praying to know something is true is a pretty high bar. Especially if you are using a strict definition of truth (as in the truth of all things or exclusive truth with a captial T)?

We do not have access to all truth except through God and obedience to His counsel. (D&C 93)

A good question for a starting point may be: where does God want me to be? or is the LDS Church the path by which God would have me come unto Christ?

Alma 32's experiment on the word seems to follow this pattern of receiving "truth" in bite size chunks rather than eating the whole elephant.

[KevinG]

I agree, but teaching that our church literally believes the entire earth was baptised by imersion or Jonah was literally in the belly of a whale for a few days or that the earth is really on 6,000 years old is setting people up for a fall.

I think a lot of believers may be surprised what was literal and what was allegorical once the final story is told.

[KevinG]

It is kind of like porn.A supreme court justice once wrote about porn "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, "

That has to be the most spiritually appropriate reference to porn I have ever seen.

[SeattleGrunge]

D&C 46:13 To some it is given by the ^aHoly Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to ^abelieve on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

I think this is the most important scripture out there when it comes to this issue and is too oft ignored. It has given me peace and might I not so humbly say that I have lived an extremely worthy life, worked much, much harder than the average member and never received much of a witness. I believe I am a perfect case of D&C 46:13. Other's words help me greatly.

[stevedallas]

That has to be the most spiritually appropriate reference to porn I have ever seen.

lol

[stevedallas]

I have read that many people who leave the LDS Church become atheists. I was not one of those people. I lost my testimony of the LDS Church, but not of God. I NEVER stopped believing in God. And, other than losing my testimony and a few bad weeks surrounding that, I have nothing but AWESOME memories of being LDS. That is another problem, because when I feel the pull I feel now, I wonder is it the Spirit or just the good memories?

Was anyone else shocked to learn about the various versions of the FV, the different stories of the translation, etc.? Did it affect your testimony?

[Uncertain]

Brade,

Always enjoy your posts. A few questions, if I may:

Have you taken spiritual methods of verifying truth claims off the table only for yourself or do you think it untenable for others? If the latter, why? I can understand this reticence in issues that are purely academic--e.g., a thesis on why so many Austen characters whose names start with a W are despicable--but in discussions that touch directly on things spiritual (e.g., angelic visitations, God revealing truths to prophets), shouldn't the related and very ancient belief that man can have these same types of experiences for himself have some kind of seat at the table?

Hi J Green,

(Warning this is going to be long)

I really don't have much time to discuss this issue since I have a review for a manuscript I told the editor I would try to get to him today. But heck the editor can wait peer reviewers work for free after all.

This is a topic near and dear to my heart so I cannot resist. I would describe my position as very similar to Brade's although I suspect my reasons for doubting spiritual experiences are different than his, probably because of my background in the sciences we are all shaped by our environment. In any case my position is spiritual experiences in general for anyone is not a reliable means to obtain universal truth. Suppose for the purpose of argument we entirely grant your point above that is suppose we grant that information obtained by spiritual expereinces should be viewed as identical to information obtained from your senses like eyesight or touch or hearing unless of course we have good reason to suspect otherwise. In other words the burden of proof is on the critics to come up with some reason as to why spiritual experiences should not be trusted. In my view there is in fact a very good reason to suspect spiritual experiences are not a good way to obtain universal truth the lack of reproducibility.

Henceforth spiritual experiences shall be abbreviated as SEs.

There are some really good compelling reasons why reproducibility is a core component in the practice of science. Take for example a scientist who has an unknown substance he wants to identify to do so he proposes using method X he uses method X and determines his substance is pure graphite. Now suppose he ships his substance to a different scientist who exactly duplicates method X but this time the results are different instead of graphite the results he gets are pure lead. The content of the unknown substance did not change indeed what the substance consists of is a universal truth it does not change depending on which scientist uses the method. The logic is clear and compelling if method X is a reliable means to identify the universal truth concerning the content of substance X than the method should agree regardless of which scientist uses the method assuming of course they used the method correctly. The content of the truth did not change my substance is the same hence the method used must be wrong at least once. Now lets extend this example suppose this substance was sent to 10 different scientists who also used exactly the same method 10 different times and got 10 different contradictory results. We can confidently claim the method in fact fails more times than it succeeds when it comes to identifying the universal truth of what my substance consists of. This argument applies to any method secular or religious that claims to reliably identify universal truths.

The content of what the afterlife consists of is a universal truth similar to my unknown substance example. And yet many different religions have different and directly contradictory descriptions of what exactly the afterlife consists of. Do we engage in an endless cycle of reincarnation until Nirvana is reached? Or do we die once get resurrected in a glorified immortal body and get assigned a kingdom of glory? Only one of these can be true which is it and how are we to know?

The argument used above in support of reproducibility in science directly applies to reproducibility in religious ways of knowing. If many different people using SEs arrive at directly contradictory conclusions about what the afterlife consists of than it must be the case SE fails more often than it gets it right at least with regards to the afterlife. And if you believe a given model of the afterlife on the basis of SEs you are far more likely to be wrong than you are to be right. How can it be otherwise? If 10 people use method X and arrive at 10 different and contradictory conclusions at least 9 of them must be wrong hence most who use method X are wrong in their conclusions.

Now a common approach to address this criticism is to simply state every person is justified to believe what they think God has directly revealed to them. So if a fundamentalist Mormon believes God has directly spoken to his soul by the Holy Spirit affirming the AUB is the only church with Gods authority. While a LDS member believes God has directly spoken to his soul by the Holy Spirit affirming the LDS church is the only church with his authority. The argument would be each person is fully justified in believing what they think God has told them. After all simply because someone else claims to have a spiritual experience does not mean your spiritual experience is false or conveys false information. The problem with this counter argument is it does not address the reason why lack of reproducibility is so damaging to any method that claims to reliably return universal truth.

Suppose you have 10 believers each of which have had a spiritual experience which they firmly believe comes from God. The counter argument would say each believer is fully justified in believing what they think God has revealed to them. But this does not change the underlying logic if 10 different people claim 10 different and contradictory things then it must be the case that at least 9 of them are wrong. Therefore at least 9 out of 10 of the believers who believed something because they had a SEs affirming that belief are in fact wrong therefore believing proposition x because you have had a SEs produces an incorrect belief far more often than it does a correct belief hence SEs are not reliable means to obtain universal truth. If SEs are not reproducible they are not reliable for exactly the same reasons why any method secular or religious that claims to reliably produce universal truth must be reproducible.

I doubt SEs are a good way to learn universal truth for the very good reason that most people who depend on them I know for sure are wrong because they contradict each other and only one of them at best can be right.

P.S. if you wish examples of contradictory SEs I can supply them there is an ample number of examples.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 1, 2011 by Uncertain

[thesometimesaint]

stevedallas:

I don't know what it looks like either. But seriously, there are many things in any religion that must be taken on faith. I was Agnostic before I joined the Church. So I see the argument from both sides. I choose to believe. The Restored Gospel has brought me more joy and peace of mind. I do not regret for a second my choice some 40 years ago

[SeattleGrunge]

I just want to point out that being totally rational (in our minds) is not always the best way to develop faith. There are lots of things that we cannot explain or prove, but we take it on faith anyway. A few things that come to mind are Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, and the resurrection. And has anybody ever wondered how God is able to hear and answer everybody’s prayers? Think of how busy that must keep Him. How is He able to do it?

Mormonism is certainly not unique in this matter among the religions of the world.

The alternative that I’m left with is not believing in the existence of God at all, but I can’t do that. What a hopeless way to go through life.

I have to rely on the more sure witnesses of the Lord’s prophets and apostles. D&C 46: 13-14 puts it this way:

To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

If we are to be intellectually honest, we have to have an even tension between faith and reason. Too much reason without faith will allow the negatives to pull over the spiritual manifestations in our life, and vice versa, too much faith without reason can lead people to do overzealously stupid things. In the Mormon Stories podcast with Tyrel Givens (sp?) recently he said something that I have come to believe strongly. For most people, God purposefully sets life up so that we can't really ever get much more than 50% evidence for the gospel. He does that so we have to go forward with faith.

[J Green]

Uncertain,

Thanks for your thoughts. This is a great discussion. I have to finalize a few reports and attend a few meetings. Look forward to responding to your ideas in a few hours or so.

Cheers.

[Senator]

I experienced a dark and dreary time after realizing the overly fundamental doctrines I learned via CES and culture were not what they were put forth as. I held on the the fact that the church made me into a better person than I otherwise would have become. That coupled with the fact that even though I didn't know if the church was true anymore, I also didn't know that it wasn't true. I decided I'd rather error on the side of caution and live as if it were until I could decide one way or another for sure. I've come to a point where I am comfortable with the church, its history and core doctrines. I am 50% sure it is really the Church of Jesus Christ, but I'm ok with that because I think that is how God intends it to be. He doesn't want us to be able to rationalize the truth of the gospel, we must live by faith. Also, people like Bushman and Givens give me hope! I loved the Mormon Stories podcast with Givens.

SG,

FWIW, what you describe here is very close to my own experience, and the place where I now reside.

I have come to the point where I'm less interested in truth "claims" (excepting on the claim that Jesus is the Christ). "The church is true, or this or that is true" has taken on a certain.... nebulous...blahh quality to my mind. What does inspire me and of which I can claim "spiritual experience with", are the higher virtues....unfeigned love, kindness, charity, long-suffering, loyalty, mercy, courage, patience, peace etc.. These things are literally experienced, physically, mentally and spirtually. "True" churches come and go, but THESE things I have conviction in and faith and hope that they are eternal.

To whatever degree the church exibits and cultivates THESE things, it is in them that I embrace it.

[Uncertain]

Uncertain,

Thanks for your thoughts. This is a great discussion. I have to finalize a few reports and attend a few meetings. Look forward to responding to your ideas in a few hours or so.

Cheers.

No worries, take your time as mentioned I have other things I should be doing.

Best,

Uncertain

[thesometimesaint]

stevedallas:

So you were a member but decided to leave?

The same problem exists with the conversion of Paul as presented in the Bible. Do we throw out Paul because of his differing accounts of the same event. Different versions of the Crucificion are in the Bible. Do we toss out those Apostles because of the differing accounts? My questions are not to diminish the Bible. I love the Bible. But the LDS do not claim it to be inerrant.

Same with JS and his First Vision. The Official Version is the only one we are bound to. As JS says himself says because of differing accounts were circulating ABOUT his experience, many not even his own. He decided to publish his own accounting of what he experienced.

With the translation process the only rational answer is the one that JS gave. He himself did not have the ability to translate, his English skills were very limited at the time of the translation

[Brade]

Am I correct in understanding you to say that, after careful thought, you do not trust that spiritually experiencing spiritual or physical evidence is a valid (as in trustworthy--or are you using another definition of "valid"?) means of getting truth, and that this renders divine aid in assessing the evidence inapplicable?

How would you describe spiritual experience as differing from a thought process--in other words, why could not the thought process you described qualify as a spiritual experience leading you to your conclusion?

Do you believe that divine aid is available and applicable to those who have not come to the same conclusion as you have?

From your experience, is there any such thing as something spiritual or divine?

There's a lot of stuff that I think needs to get unpacked here. I'll do my best in the limited time I have right now.

First off, and I don't mean this with any disrespect, I'm not sure I understand "spiritually experiencing spiritual or physical evidence", but fleshing the meaning of that expression may not be material to the discussion, so I'm going to stop there. If you'd like explain what you mean, go for it, but if you also believe it isn't material, then let's just let that go. Second, I use the expression "spiritual experience" out of convenience, but at issue for me is whether there are such things as spiritual experiences in the relevant sense, or, more specifically, whether, even if there are, we could identify them as such.

What's the relevant sense? Here's what it isn't - merely being impressed or moved or whatever by something awe inspiring. I think in ordinary discourse saying you've had a spiritual experience when you look out at a beautiful sunset is perfectly alright and captures the sense of what you're experiencing - which need not have anything whatever to do with God, or gods, or powerful intelligences. But that's not the sense of 'spiritual experience' I mean and question.

The sense I mean is the sense in which by some external intelligence I may somehow (more on that 'somehow' later) have reasonable grounds to believe propositions like 'The Book of Mormon tells the story of people who lived', or 'God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith when he was a teenager', or 'The same Peter, James, and John from the New Testament visited Joseph Smith and gave him authority to act in God's place in certain respects'. In my experience with Mormonism that sort of spiritual experience, or rather truth-getting by spiritual experience, is described in this way: (1) a person engages in some religious behavior where that behavior is associated with the types of propositions just mentioned, (2) while engaged or subsequent to such behavior the person has a powerful, positive experience, (3) because of (2) the person now knows or has good reason to believe that the associated propositions mentioned in (1) are true.

Specifically that sense of spiritual experience, or rather truth-getting by virtue of spiritual experience, is the sense I am skeptical about. This will answer another question of your, I think. I don't believe this methodology is reasonable grounds for believing the sorts of propositions at issue. So, it's not merely that I think it doesn't work for me, I think people who claim to know or believe by that type of experience don't have good grounds for thier beliefs (which isn't to say their beliefs are false, just that they don't believe them for good reason). However, and I want this not overlooked, I do believe that that sort of methodology can be reasonable grounds for pursuing behaviors, or even religious commitment (I think I'd want to place some restrictions on how far one can reasonably commit on such grounds, but that should probably be saved for a different discussion).

Something else I ought to be clear about. I don't believe there are no spiritual experiences of the kind where divine intelligences communicate with people. There might be, I don't have a strong belief about that one way or another. What I'm saying is that even in the case that some divine intelligence does communicate with people, if such an intelligence communicates in the way I've described, it wouldn't form the basis for belief in the sorts of propositions I've gestured at - though such experiences may form reasonable grounds for belief that other sorts of propositions are true (e.g. 'I had a powerful experience while reading the Book of Mormon', etc.). The reason is simply this - there are too many plausible overriding factors for this type of methodology to form a reasonable basis for belief that the relevant kinds of propositions are true.

On my mission, for example, I had impressive experiences. One such experience occurred while I was teaching somebody about the restoration. For I time I thought the experience might count as evidence in favor of the restoration (which I was questioning at the time). However, there were too many other variables involved that couldn't be ruled out as explanations for the experience I had. For example, I was in a well structured environment where people knew of my issues and wanted me to believe and actively did things to try to help me believe. I was, at the time, somewhat depressed. The discussion was with a woman who was trying to change her life for the better after hard times. Our discussion was in a members home and the members were being very generous and kind. The investigator admitted that our treatment of her (the missionaries and the members) made her feel happy during a difficult time in her life, and that confession of hers made me feel very happy. And so on. I have no way of ruling those things out as causes of the experience I had, and independently, things like I just described have no necessary connection to propositions about the restoration.

In short, there was nothing about the experience that rules out that I could have felt the way I felt merely because I was helping somebody else feel better and for no other reason. Or, that I could have felt the way I felt merely because I was in a group that was encouraging me to believe certain things and positive experience were being reinforced in that way. Or, that I could have felt what I felt because of a combination of the two. Or, that I could have felt the way I felt because God made me feel that way so I'd believe some specific Mormon claims.

Earlier I used 3 steps to describe the methodology at issue here, but I think it's better characterized this way:

(1) Engage in a good behavior which also carries religious elements and associated propositions

(2) Feel (very) good

(3) ...?

(4) Believe that some of the associated propositions from (1) are true.

My guess at what's going on in (3) is this. I think (3) is an assumption that if you feel good while engaged in a good behavior which also carries religious elements and associated propositions, then the associated propositions are true. And I don't see any reason why I should accept that proposition.

There's another variant of truth-by-spiritual-experience which I haven't addressed here, and as to that methodology (which is distinct from the one I've just described), I'm on the fence as to whether it justifies religious beliefs. I can get into that in another post if anyone is interested, but, even if that other method does justify religious beliefs there are two problems I see in the current context: (1) more generally, from my survey of Mormon literature (and I've tried to stick to more authoritative sources for this) the method that I think might provide reasonable grounds isn't taught, and (2) specifically to my case, I haven't had experiences of this second type.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Brade

[KevinG]

I think this is the most important scripture out there when it comes to this issue and is too oft ignored. It has given me peace and might I not so humbly say that I have lived an extremely worthy life, worked much, much harder than the average member and never received much of a witness. I believe I am a perfect case of D&C 46:13. Other's words help me greatly.

I'm glad to hear that. One of the topics that most disturbed me when I first started having on line discussions was how a righteous person could fail to receive the same type of spiritual witness that I (a convert with a past) was blessed with. I was never satisfied with the pat answer that they must have some secret sin, or lack of faith, or a personal flaw that kept them from the truth.

In my study I have come to the conclusion that Gods ways are not always our ways and His time is often on a whole different scale than ours. I have a great admiration for those who continue to obey God's commandments even though they have not yet received the spiritual "proof" they have desired. For them I imagine it will be as Christ said "^bblessed are they that have not seen, and yet have ^cbelieved."

[Brade]

In my study I have come to the conclusion that Gods ways are not always our ways and His time is often on a whole different scale than ours. I have a great admiration for those who continue to obey God's commandments even though they have not yet received the spiritual "proof" they have desired. For them I imagine it will be as Christ said "^bblessed are they that have not seen, and yet have ^cbelieved."

Our of curiosity, what do you think of people, such as myself, who are (I hope) decent people but no longer obey certain Mormon rules because they don't believe they have good grounds for belief that they ought to obey such rules?