Dealing With Doubts While Finding An Informed Faith

[Brade]

I thought of another way of looking at this. If I were to say that I no longer have a good reason to believe that my particular experience with praying about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon was authentically spiritual, or that it means that the Book of Mormon is true, I would be lying. If I were to actually adopt that belief, I would be denying or betraying what I once held as true, now considering it a deception or a lie. There is nothing inherently wrong with this in principle, as people do this all the time when they repent or change their mind on an issue. The wrongness is found in the fruits and attitudes brought forth as a result and how they play out in my life and others’ lives.

Whoa! Hold on a second. Why would it necessarily be the case that you're lying? Is it not possible that you could have been mistaken?

This is the formula found in how Korihor’s became anti-Christ, but without all the drama and extremity. We all do it or have done it to some degree or another. But instead of “an angel” we may just be faced with people smarter than we are. Instead of willfully betraying our former truth, we may just be overwhelmed with other concerns and vulnerabilities and buckle under pressure. We may even vacillate until we finally decide on developing one or the other of our carnal or childlike natures, or cultivating and living for the childlike or carnal rewards.

Being overwhelmed with other concerns and vulnerabilities and buckling under pressure isn't lying. It's being being overwhelmed with other concerns and vulnerabilities and buckling under pressure.

So I would say that a good reason to accept the authenticity of an experience resulting from praying about the Book of Mormon as an answer that the Book of Mormon is true might be that the experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone.

Hold on again. Suppose somebody says "Hey, why should I accept the authenticity of an experience resulting from praying about the Book of Mormon as an answer that the Book of Mormon is true?". And let's say your response is "Oh, because that experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone." Now, it looks like you've offered this principle:

P: If an experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone, then one should accept the authenticity of that experience resulting from praying about the Book of Mormon as an answer that the Book of Mormon is true.

Here's what I want to know. Why should I accept that principle and not this one:

P': If an experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Koran as a guide or keystone, then one should accept the authenticity of that experience resulting from praying about the Koran as an answer that the Koran is true.

Or this one:

P'': P': If an experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using The Greatest Show on Earth as a guide or keystone, then one should accept the authenticity of that experience resulting from praying about The Greatest Show on Earth as an answer that The Greatest Show on Earth is true.

As somebody who doesn't believe, and who has had powerful experiences like those experienced doing Mormonish things, like reading the Book of Mormon, while reading works by atheists, anarchists, marxists, capitalists, etc; why should I give preference to P at not to any variation of P where a different book is put is in place of the Book of Mormon?

A powerful reason to reject it would be that childlike attributes are not retained in high enough esteem by oneself or others (“the finger of scorn”).

And what if the evidence against it is compelling and the childlike attributes are retained in high enough esteem by oneself or others?

[CV75]

Whoa! Hold on a second. Why would it necessarily be the case that you're lying? Is it not possible that you could have been mistaken?

No; if I were to say to you this moment that I no longer have a good reason to believe, I would be lying, because I do have a good reason to believe.

Being overwhelmed with other concerns and vulnerabilities and buckling under pressure isn't lying. It's being being overwhelmed with other concerns and vulnerabilities and buckling under pressure.

Correct—it is not lying, but it is betraying a formerly held truth, for the mundane reason of being overwhelmed with other concerns and vulnerabilities and buckling under pressure. It isn’t uncommon, nor is it uncommon to repent. I personally think the betrayal step is preceded by lying.

Hold on again. Suppose somebody says "Hey, why should I accept the authenticity of an experience resulting from praying about the Book of Mormon as an answer that the Book of Mormon is true?". And let's say your response is "Oh, because that experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone."

I cannot tell someone else what they experienced or what it means. I can only share my own. It is up to him to conclude that it sounds like his experience. The fruits of what we do with that experience will demonstrate how much we are on the same page in our perspectives of our respective experiences, and over time.

If somebody says "Hey, why should I accept the authenticity of an experience resulting from praying about the Book of Mormon as an answer that the Book of Mormon is true?" I would say that is up to them to decide, but I that I have my reasons and would share them.

Now, it looks like you've offered this principle:

P: If an experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone, then one should accept the authenticity of that experience resulting from praying about the Book of Mormon as an answer that the Book of Mormon is true.

P works for me, except I would remove the “one should” and replace it with “I would.” I think this is what Moroni is laying out when he promises what God will manifest, and what we may receive, based on his own experience. He is inviting and promising certain things, not prescribing or dictating what shall be known or concluded or how one will treat it later.

Here's what I want to know. Why should I accept that principle and not this one:

P': If an experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Koran as a guide or keystone, then one should accept the authenticity of that experience resulting from praying about the Koran as an answer that the Koran is true.

Or this one:

P'': P': If an experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using The Greatest Show on Earth as a guide or keystone, then one should accept the authenticity of that experience resulting from praying about The Greatest Show on Earth as an answer that The Greatest Show on Earth is true.

P’ and P” don’t work for me--if someone said that “one should” conclude such-and-such, I’d be wary. If they rephrased it with the “I would,” I wouldn’t feel imposed upon at all.

As somebody who doesn't believe, and who has had powerful experiences like those experienced doing Mormonish things, like reading the Book of Mormon, while reading works by atheists, anarchists, marxists, capitalists, etc; why should I give preference to P at not to any variation of P where a different book is put is in place of the Book of Mormon?

I believe you when you say you have the same experience reading other works as you do reading the Book of Mormon. I cannot say that I have shared that experience; that my experience with Moroni's Promise is unlike any other I have encountered with any other book.

And what if the evidence against it is compelling and the childlike attributes are retained in high enough esteem by oneself or others?

I think this goes back to my prior post (#94--sorry for posting #100 before you responded to #94). I believe this a decision one has to make for himself. One defines for himself that which is compelling and at what point childlike attributes are esteemed enough. The examples I provided were to illustrate two ends of a spectrum.

I haven't figured out how to mult-iquote from a single post... comments in bold above.

[altersteve]

I haven't figured out how to mult-iquote from a single post... comments in bold above.

You can simply break the quote apart, like this:

I haven't figured out

how to mult-iquote from a single post...

comments in bold above.

Write "quote" and "/quote" (both in brackets) around whatever phrase you want to quote. Hope that makes sense.

[Brade]

Let me tweak P a little bit:

P: If an experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone, then that experience is an answer that the Book of Mormon is true.

Do you agree with that or not?

[CV75]

Let me tweak P a little bit:

P: If an experience involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone, then that experience is an answer that the Book of Mormon is true.

Do you agree with that or not?

I could not agree with that, unless it is rephrased in the first person or otherwise acknowledges that the experience is an individual’s subjective experience and assessment. For example:

If an my experience with the Book or Mormon involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone, then that I accept my experience is an answer as evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.

In an attempt to modify it as if I were exhorting someone what to do and to expect, it might look like this:

(After reading Moroni’s Promise) If an your experience with the Book or Mormon involves an awakening of the childlike attributes that bring about fairly immediate internal and subsequently external changes for the better in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone, then that I would consider your experience is an answer as evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, but whether you consider your experience genuine, or the Book of Mormon to be true as a result, is entirely up to you.

If I were to modify it further, it would become more like Moroni’s Promise:

If I pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon with all the childlike attributes I can muster (“pure intent”), and I am met with a power and new knowledge accompanied by more submissiveness, meekness, humility, patience, love, etc., then that is my answer that the Book of Mormon is true. As these attributes (and others) are further awakened, developed and rewarded in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone, that becomes further evidence of its truthfulness.

OR

If you pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon with all the childlike attributes you can muster (“pure intent”), and you are met with a power and new knowledge accompanied by more submissiveness, meekness, humility, patience, love, etc., then I would say that is your answer that the Book of Mormon is true. As these attributes (and others) are further awakened, developed and rewarded in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone, that, to me, would serve as further evidence to you of its truthfulness. But whether you accept your experience as an answer or evidence is entirely up to you.

EDIT:

P.S. I think the trouble with expressing an invitation as an axiom is that the result of the invitation depends on the invitee, not the inviter, and the results of the invitation are not self-evident.

Edited November 2, 2011 by CV75

[Uncertain]

Uncertain,

Obviously this conversation could entail several articles, which you would then have to peer review, so I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible.

I believe spiritual experiences (SEs) are reproducible. Shared SEs with my wife, parents, family members, church presidencies and bishoprics, and members of other faith traditions have confirmed this for me over the span of several decades. But to fully respond to your argument I first need to explore several assumptions I have that may be different than yours.

Hi J Green,

Care must be taken in distinguishing between reproducibility and repeatability. Repeatability is the ability of the same group to get the same results think of it like a lab repeating the same experiment over and over again and measuring how similar their results are. Reproducibility is the ability of very different groups independently getting the same result. I would call you getting the same results as you wife closer to repeatability than reproducibility. In any case I would like to clarify a point I do not claim every religious claim is bedeviled by contradictory SEs. For example most SEs if not all convey the sense of Gods love. In such cases perhaps SEs are correctly conveying universal truth. Now the fact sometimes SEs don't contradict does not mean we can ignore those times they do contradict.

I also strongly disagree with you that SEs are reproducible and I do believe this is trivially easy to show. Simply because groups of people get the same answer using method X does not make a method reproducible. For example suppose a set of 5 labs tests a substance with method X each of the five labs reports it is lead. Now further suppose a different group of 5 labs uses the same method and reports it as graphite extend this example to 10 different groups of labs each using method X and getting a different answer. Clearly and unmistakable the method is not reproducible. Which group of labs is correct? All of them can't be right most of them must be wrong. This is exactly what is happening with spiritual experiences perhaps a concrete example would help.

Here is a spiritual experience from a RLDS member concerning the RLDS church.

http://home.earthlin...lds/jwnanny.htm

"During the prophetic leadership of Joseph Smith III, J.W. Nanny became concerned about which church was God's true one. After prayer he received a vision which answered his question:

I sought the Lord in prayer and continued to read [materials sent him by various factions] and compare it with the Scriptures, knowing that God alone could give me light -- till one day in the latter part of February I was chopping wood out of dead trees in a cotton field; being alone I was in silent prayer. I had felled a tree and sat down beside it to rest, leaning back against the log as it lay across the cotton rows. As I sat there in silent meditation I was impressed to look up, and to the northwest I saw a personage approaching me clothed in a white flowing robe. He stopped directly in front of me, and about ten feet away, and beckoning me said, "Come hither."

I immediately left my body and started with my guide, and we seemed to go many miles till we came to an exceeding high mountain which was very beautiful. For the first time since we started, my guide spoke and said, "What desirest thou?"

I answered, "Oh, my Lord, if I have found favor in thy sight, shew unto thy servant where is thine authority and upon whom it rests, and where is the true Church of Jesus Christ."

He said, "As thou hast been faithful before the Lord, and sought him in humble prayer, these things shall be made known unto thee; therefore, I say unto thee, look."

I looked, and he said, "What seest thou?"

I replied, "Oh, my Lord, my reins are consumed within me, for I see an old man with full, long white beard and gray hair crowned with a radiant light and hedged about with a structure mighty and strong, which all the powers of earth and hell cannot overthrow."

He then said to me, "Knowest thou the meaning of these things?"

I said, "Be merciful unto me, oh, Lord, and declare them unto thy servant, for I know not their meaning."

He said, "That old man that thou seest is the servant and prophet of the most high God, Joseph Smith [iII], the son of Joseph Smith that was slain for his testimony, and the light that crowns his head is the Spirit of revelation by which the Saints of all ages are led; and the structure thou seest is the truth, the rock on which the Church is built, and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ is the body, the bride, the Lamb's wife, with whom the authority rests." "

(Emphasis in the original)

This directly and obviously contradicts the LDS claim of being the only true church with Gods authority. It is also very difficult to dismiss this as simply a misunderstanding due to culture etc. an angel directly addressed this persons question using clear English. Such examples can be multiplied many times. Also notice the pattern of read, ponder and pray used by J.W. Nanny exactly identical to the LDS pattern.

First, not all revealed truth is universal. Don’t get me wrong, I believe there are many universal truths: Christ is our Savior, God is our father, the only way for eternal spiritual redemption is through the atonement of Christ, etc. But I also believe that much of the framework in which we operate here often has just as much to do with appropriateness of time and place. Eating nutritious food is appropriate, except when fasting. Sexual intimacy has its own appropriate time. Taking life is wrong, except when the men under my command are under fire on a hill in eastern Paktika and need to defend their lives. Etc. As each of us navigate our way to the Tree of Life across fields and through mists, we will be presented with SEs that will include both universal truths that apply to everyone as well as customized invitations that are appropriate to our time and place on the path but not to others.

I agree with this I am not concerned with personalized truths perhaps SEs can be reliable means to learn personalized truth. I am only addressing the ability of SEs to accurately convey universal truth at which task they do not seem to perform all that well.

Secondly, I believe that there is supposed to be contradiction. It’s what I call the Lehi principle. Building up to 600 BCE, Lehi is told to leave Jerusalem for another continent. Ezekiel is guided into exile in Babylon. Jeremiah winds up in Egypt with Zedekiah’s daughter. Several stay in Jerusalem and go down with the ship. Given a similar set of circumstances, each was told to respond differently. I have some friends who have felt prompted to leave the military while others have been told to stay. Same question, almost opposite answers. In his autobiography, James E. Faust says he believes spiritually that God wants good LDS men and women involved in both major US political parties in order to influence them for good. I believe him, and in doing so believe that aside from traditional family leanings, some will actually be prompted spiritually to become Republicans or Democrats while others will be prompted to leave these institutions for something else. In many cases, individuals are led by God to different faith congregations for various reasons. Perhaps the restored church is not available, or perhaps they are needed in a certain place to prepare their immediate family, neighbors, or descendants for a change. If someone believed MLK Jr was inspired to push for social change could they assume anything about his being a member of another faith? Did belonging to that faith group impact his work? If so, was he inspired to be there even when the restored church was available? When it comes to God placing branches in other parts of the vineyard, I try not to assume I know the end from the beginning.

Contradiction in personal truths is fine I also have no problem with that. The problem is contradiction in claimed universal truth. Give me some credit here . It is obviously the case that contradictions in personal truths are not problematic with regards to the reliability of SEs. I never claimed as much it is contradictions in universal truth that is so problematic.

Compounding these two ideas is the fact that assumptions about SEs can be attached to the events themselves. In this respect, SEs are no different than any other type of communication where we are specifically told certain things but assume others. Sometimes the latter can be aggregated to or confused with the former.

I fail to see how this supports your case that SEs is a reliable means to learn universal truth. So the message behind SEs can be easily confused this is a point in its favor why?

So with all of that in mind, let’s take a look at the two distinct views of the afterlife that you posited. Are there various stages in the afterlife? Are any of them personalized? What were the questions asked that revealed the knowledge portrayed? Is metaphor involved? Has there been any cultural accretion to the revelation? What assumptions were made in addition to the revelation?

One example of a possible solution: The restored gospel posits an eternal frame of existence with a short mortal existence. We enter by birth and exit through death. Within that period, baptism symbolizes a death and rebirth. So far we have a birth/death/birth/death. There is a symbolic new name in there as well: what does that mean? Can we assume also then, that the birth that brought us into existence was preceded by a type of death? (d/b/d/b/d) Is our mortal death followed by a type of rebirth? (d/b/d/b/d/b) What brought us from the stage of intelligence into spirit? Is there another death/birth involved? Is death and birth simply a way of passing from one stage into another? And is this series of deaths and births in new existences and planes that far from the concept of reincarnation? Are those who feel spiritually drawn to this idea being taught about similar concepts in an eternal plan or have they been praying to God with a specific question about whether or not they will return to Earth as a grasshopper, regardless of their Kung Fu skills?

You are attempting to reconcile the LDS version of the afterlife with certain eastern religious versions. This can just as easily be applied in the other direction in which case the universal truth is not the LDS version but the eastern religious version and hence you will lose all individually when you die not get resurrected and you certainly do not become a God in the LDS sense. I understand there are some points in common between the two views of the afterlife but there are also direct contradictions that both cannot be true. In so much that two different people get two SEs one supporting the LDS version and one supporting the eastern religious version they both in certain particulars cannot be true they contradict.

But lest you think I am picking and choosing, I ask these same kinds of questions about my own belief systems as well. What do I really know through revelation and what is assumption I’ve made because of the revelation? Are there cultural accretions? Am I only being shown part of the picture? And as I have these SEs, the Spirit usually lends context in a way that doesn’t make me feel that I’m contradicting the SEs of others but that it’s all part of one plan. I trust that and believe it.

None of this is particular comforting with regards to using SEs as a reliable means to learn universal truth. So the interpretation of SEs is heavily dependent on culture and upbringing. This is a good reason to trust SEs because? Look you appear to be saying that SEs if viewed in a certain way never contradict. Try to see this from a perspective of a nonbeliever, they read a LDS SE and then read a RLDS SE like the one I posted above. The clear meaning of the SEs contradict importantly how the participants interpret the SEs contradict. Trying to claim they don't really contradict is just not believable especially when such examples are many.

For the sake of argument suppose you are right suppose if properly understood SEs don't really contradict. All those examples like the one I gave above the person just didn't hear the heavenly messenger correctly or perhaps didn't pick up the extremely well hidden nuance the heavenly messenger was trying to convey. What matters in the end is how the person interprets the experience if SEs are so flaming difficult to interpret properly that 10 different people draw 10 different and contradictory conclusions than clearly the method is not a good way to learn universal truth. A method is only useful to the extent its results can be accurately interpreted. If a method for acquiring truth results in people interpreting the results in every which way this strongly suggests that method is not useful for those questions. I can just picture all the LDS, RLDS, fundamentalist Mormons, evangelicals, Hindus, Catholics, Muslims etc. reading this thread sagely nodding their heads and thinking to themselves it's a good thing I am not like those other poor suckers who have incorrectly interpreted SEs. My SEs of course mean my church is the one whose doctrines accurately reflect universal truths while all those other guys are just confused and misunderstood what God was trying to tell them. Good thing that's all cleared up now time to go to mass, sacrament meeting, call to prayer etc. The very claim being made about SEs is that it can identify which contradictory universal religious claims are in fact true. If SEs are so hard to interpret that every member of every religion interprets them as support for their particular universal religious claims then SEs are clearly almost useless in finding out which universal religious claim is in fact the ultimate truth.

And what I do have I believe is reproducible. I see it independently verified by family members and others with whom I serve. And while I don’t think it’s the only method of discovering truth, I think that when I combine it with reason and all of its methods of testing, it becomes a powerful and fulfilling combination.

Cheers.

I strongly disagree that SEs are reproducible as my example and many more I could provide show. Simply because groups of people get the same answer does not make a method reproducible as I show above. Groups of people in other religions also get the same answers that directly contradict LDS universal truth claims. The only way to claim they are not contradictory is to interpret the description of those SEs in a grossly strained fashion and to ignore how the participants themselves interpret their own experience. Are you convinced when a non-believer tells you that you really have not interpreted your SEs correctly that they don't mean what you think they mean? Well this is exactly what you seem to be doing to the large number of individuals who have SEs that directly contradict one or more LDS universal truth claims.

Edited to add ( The very fact SEs are mostly consistent within groups i.e.(you, your family and fellow church members) but inconsistent between groups i.e.(the family and fellow church members of say a fundamentalist mormon congregation) is additional strong evidence they are not reliable means to learn universal truths. This observation appears to indicate that the information obtained from SEs is strongly dependent on culture and pre-existing beliefs. )

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 2, 2011 by Uncertain

[Brade]

If you pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon with all the childlike attributes you can muster (“pure intent”), and you are met with a power and new knowledge accompanied by more submissiveness, meekness, humility, patience, love, etc., then I would say that is your answer that the Book of Mormon is true. As these attributes (and others) are further awakened, developed and rewarded in connection with using the Book of Mormon as a guide or keystone, that, to me, would serve as further evidence to you of its truthfulness. But whether you accept your experience as an answer or evidence is entirely up to you.

That's fine. This is obviously a point of probably irreconcilable disagreement between the two of us. My claim is that no matter how positive the feeling of meekness and humility and all that, all that stuff happening whilst doing something religious is either (1) not an answer that some such religious proposition (e.g. "The Book of Mormon is true"; if that is a proposition) is true, or (2) not good enough evidence to believe that one is being communicated to by a divine intelligence and that some such religious proposition is true.

[CV75]

That's fine. This is obviously a point of probably irreconcilable disagreement between the two of us. My claim is that no matter how positive the feeling of meekness and humility and all that, all that stuff happening whilst doing something religious is either (1) not an answer that some such religious proposition (e.g. "The Book of Mormon is true"; if that is a proposition) is true, or (2) not good enough evidence to believe that one is being communicated to by a divine intelligence and that some such religious proposition is true.

At least we agree that whether we accept our respective experiences as an answer or evidence is entirely up to us (right?).

We may also agree that positive feelings alone are not divinely transmitted spiritual experiences, indicators that the experience is from God, or evidence of the truth associated with the experience. I think that they may accompany an experience. I would not describe my experiences as having much of an emotional component at all.

Perhaps I need to clarify that I consider attributes such as submissiveness, meekness, humility, patience, love, etc., to be more than feelings or emotions but actual states of being and behavior. In my experience, such a state can enhance positive emotions and harnesses negative ones.

Come to think of it, Joseph Smith described his First Vision experience not in emotional terms but as “power to the heart”, “the desires of my heart”, “astonishing influence”, “marvelous power”, “I saw”, “get possession of myself”, “My object in going to inquire”, “I asked”, “I came to myself”, “I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it.” The closest thing that he describes as an emotion is “alarm,” which is more an awareness of danger and the precursor of other emotions such as fear or panic.

At the same time, it is easy to picture him as a 14-year old having the childlike attributes requisite to receiving the experiences he describes (“so unacquainted with men and things”; “if any person needed wisdom from God, I did”, plus the retrospective application of scriptures about being like a child).

Perhaps we disagree that Moroni’s Promise is not promising certain emotions as evidence that the Book of Mormon is true (?). I do not think he is saying that.

[HeatherAnn]

Daddy, lol

I've always been one to want to understand the "whys" of everything.

When I considered serving a mission, I visited as many religious services as I could - to understand other perspectives & to know if our church was really THE ONLY "true" church. I had beautiful experiences at some of these other religious services.

Although, I went through a few times of inactivity, I kept holding on to the essence of the gospel - got married in the temple & still attend church regularly & volunteer in callings, despite the fact that I don't even believe in Jesus as many traditional Christians do. It boils down to the purpose of life is to have joy... & to love & be loved. The church provides a good sense of this, as long as I don't let the preached pride, fear & shame get me down.

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.

I felt the spirit about my ex boyfriend. Does that mean he's "true"? Does that mean I should leave my husband & kids for him? Of course not. The spirit I felt was LOVE. When you feel inspired about something, you feel the spirit... it doesn't mean you should drop everything & do whatever you interpret it to mean. We must use our noggens (intellect) along with spiritual feelings.

Do we want the truth... even if it's not what we want to hear, even if it hurts our pride? Or do we want what we want?

Lately, I've felt very discouraged at how many people seem to be so quick to follow herd mentality... whether it's religious condemnation, gay marriage, children being raised by day-care-orphanages. Too scared to stand up for what's right & speak up with an unpopular oppinion. So, in doing nothing, it adds to the momentum of sometimes harmful lies.

Even if we did have access to ALL truth, I don't think we "could handle the truth!"

Most of us prefer a good fantasy - even if we call it "truth."

I really like the idea of line upon line... because I think that's about all I can handle.

Yet, often it's the denial of uncomfortable feelings that is the soure of pain we cause ourselves & others.

Good idea to ask, "Is this the best path for me, spiritually?" A Muslim friend explained how everyone is born Muslim, but they forget... & how Islam is the only way to truth. I explained, it may be the best path for him, but there are many ways to experience God, not just Islam & not just Mormonism.

[KevinG]

Anyone who proves a point with fosters is awesome, anyone who does it without directly referencing their foster video is awesomer, anyone who does all of that twice should be translated!

I was having fun yesterday and collected a whole bunch of video quotes. If the mods don't shut me down for bandwidth abuse you will probably see more!

[KevinG]

Heather Ann,

I agree with your main points. That is why; while I believe the LDS Church is God's authorized church, I am loathe to discount other peoples claims of spiritual promptings or experience that defines their truths.

While we can agree/disagree about observable behaviors getting into evaluating other peoples beliefs is dangerous and usually presumptuous.

[J Green]

Hi, Uncertain. Always a pleasure to discuss things with you. Sorry for the delay--I actually started this reply many hours ago but had to leave soon after and then come back to it after dinner. Our posts are growing longer, so I’m going to break this up into distinct parts:

Part I

Care must be taken in distinguishing between reproducibility and repeatability. Repeatability is the ability of the same group to get the same results think of it like a lab repeating the same experiment over and over again and measuring how similar their results are. Reproducibility is the ability of very different groups independently getting the same result.

I understand the difference but feel you have tweaked the definitions to exclude individuals in similar groups from the concept of reproducibility.

I would call you getting the same results as you wife closer to repeatability than reproducibility.

I would disagreee. Especially when the SEs are given independantly without prior consultation and prompt the opposite of what the two indivduals logically thought was best. This also happens within other dynamics, such as bishoprics, presendencies, etc.

In any case I would like to clarify a point I do not claim every religious claim is bedeviled by contradictory SEs. For example most SEs if not all convey the sense of Gods love. In such cases perhaps SEs are correctly conveying universal truth. Now the fact sometimes SEs don't contradict does not mean we can ignore those times they do contradict.

Or it means we simply don't have enough data or haven't tested the event for ourselves.

I also strongly disagree with you that SEs are reproducible and I do believe this is trivially easy to show. Simply because groups of people get the same answer using method X does not make a method reproducible. For example suppose a set of 5 labs tests a substance with method X each of the five labs reports it is lead. Now further suppose a different group of 5 labs uses the same method and reports it as graphite extend this example to 10 different groups of labs each using method X and getting a different answer. Clearly and unmistakable the method is not reproducible. Which group of labs is correct?

Part of the problem is that you're using an analogy from an entirely different discipline. Unfortunately, we're not testing compounds in a lab, we are discussing communication events, which are a different animal. By using your lab standards, you could prove that we're not really having this conversation, but we are. It would also mean that my own mother likely doesn't exist, based on some recent events concerning my own siblings. Communication is messy, where people routinely walk away from a message with different feelings about what happened. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to test and measure these events, it just means that we should probably look to socio-linguistics or another discipline for the right testing procedures and taxonomy of language. Don't use an analogy from animal science to prove something in physics.

Here is a spiritual experience from a RLDS member concerning the RLDS church.

This is an interesting account. And yest, there are certainly a few lines in there that would conflict with LDS understanding. But you could multiply these examples and it doesn't dissprove the ability of SEs to ascertain truth, it merely brings up the possibilities any communication conflict would bring up and gives you the opportunity to resolve them if it really disturbs you. Get more data. Test it for yourself. Talk to the source of the message and ask them about it. Contradictions in communication don't invalidate communication itself, they merely provide you the motive to test or investigate it in the first place.

I agree with this I am not concerned with personalized truths perhaps SEs can be reliable means to learn personalized truth. I am only addressing the ability of SEs to accurately convey universal truth at which task they do not seem to perform all that well.

You stated earlier that you believe that God's love is universally communicated, right? That is somewhere we can start. I'll use this later.

I fail to see how this supports your case that SEs is a reliable means to learn universal truth. So the message behind SEs can be easily confused this is a point in its favor why?

It's certainly not a selling point. It just tells us that it's different than a lab experiment. After seeking spiritual guidance on issues I sometimes need to go back and restate what I've felt prompted to do to make sure I know. Which is normal for communication events. The D&C is largely a record of Joseph receiving revelation to translate the BoM and then praying to ask, "So does this mean that . . .?" Without this type of clarification, we all attach assumptions to revelation and the revelation changes to reflect that. We need to keep that in mind when we are confronted with purported revelation that seems different to us.

Edited November 3, 2011 by J Green

[J Green]

Part II

You are attempting to reconcile the LDS version of the afterlife with certain eastern religious versions.

Sure, and I said as much. It was merely an exercise in possibilities. There are others.

This can just as easily be applied in the other direction in which case the universal truth is not the LDS version but the eastern religious version and hence you will lose all individually when you die not get resurrected and you certainly do not become a God in the LDS sense. I understand there are some points in common between the two views of the afterlife but there are also direct contradictions that both cannot be true. In so much that two different people get two SEs one supporting the LDS version and one supporting the eastern religious version they both in certain particulars cannot be true they contradict.

I understand this argument but feel you overstate it. LDS leaders have repeatedly told us they feel that most of the relgious leaders of the past did indeed receive instruction from God for their communities. I have lived in dozens of countries in my life and have good friends in many faiths. I've worshipped with them and had SEs with them. The RLDS SE you reference is actually fairly rare out there. My Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic friends commune with God. I've done it with them and felt the communication of love and approval. They are spiritually attracted to their faiths and moved to express it in certain ways, but they don't look at truth propositions spiritually in the same way that the LDS do. It's very rare for a Muslim to pray specifically to know if the Qur'an is true in the sense we do with the BoM. But they feel spiriutally attracted to it. I don't doubt it.

So the interpretation of SEs is heavily dependent on culture and upbringing.

And faith, but it's true that culture and upbringing can influence faith. I served a mission in the Dominican Republic, where the culture influenced the people's faith that dreams were a major delivery method for SEs. Consequently, many of the people I associated with experienced SEs in this method. In a handful of instances, these individuals had dreams of me personally even before we met. One family saw me and the Korean Elder Yi giving them fruit before we arrived. Another saw me personally baptizing him in a river before I knocked on his door. Etc. Not all of them joined the Church, but they really felt that they had received divine communication about me. So yes, just like any communication event, culture and other considerations come into play. It's just not very much like a lab.

Look you appear to be saying that SEs if viewed in a certain way never contradict.

I'm not saying that. But when it comes to communication, I think it is often useful to get enough data to ascertain if there really is a contradiction first and then understand that contradiction if possible.

Try to see this from a perspective of a nonbeliever, they read a LDS SE and then read a RLDS SE like the one I posted above. The clear meaning of the SEs contradict importantly how the participants interpret the SEs contradict.

I agree that they contradict. And for a non-believer this would be confusing. But if God exists and can tell you that he loves you he can also tell you the truth of issues as it relates to you in a way that you can repeat and can be reproduced with others. Contradictions are expected in any communication event, especially when we are repeating the revelations of others, which can result in changes like in the game of telephone. So to waive the mere existence of contradictions as evidence that real communication is impossible is premature. Test the contradiction yourself and see what you experience for yourself.

So if non-believers care about the contradiction, they should test it. If they're not moved by the Spirit to test it, they'll likely move on. If they're sincere and seeking for direction, they'll find the place they need to be.

Trying to claim they don't really contradict is just not believable especially when such examples are many.

As I've said before, I don't believe the examples are as many as you say. I think you've multiplied the mere existence of differences in spiritual things generally into direct contradictions in revelation. There are real contradictions, but these can all be verified by going to the source yourself and asking the question. Avoiding that test or not relying on it simply because of the existence or appearance of contradictions to others is illogical if you feel that the source of the message exists and loves you. Imagine that your siblings tell you that your father told them X and Y, respectively. They appear to contradict each other. Since you know you father loves all of you, do you go to him directly and ask him to explain the difference? Or do you not trust communication with him simply because your siblings say that they contradict each other? You can call your Dad or you can contract ten different labs to test the substance of your siblings' purported communication events.

For the sake of argument suppose you are right suppose if properly understood SEs don't really contradict. All those examples like the one I gave above the person just didn't hear the heavenly messenger correctly or perhaps didn't pick up the extremely well hidden nuance the heavenly messenger was trying to convey. What matters in the end is how the person interprets the experience if SEs are so flaming difficult to interpret properly that 10 different people draw 10 different and contradictory conclusions than clearly the method is not a good way to learn universal truth. A method is only useful to the extent its results can be accurately interpreted. If a method for acquiring truth results in people interpreting the results in every which way this strongly suggests that method is not useful for those questions. I can just picture all the LDS, RLDS, fundamentalist Mormons, evangelicals, Hindus, Catholics, Muslims etc. reading this thread sagely nodding their heads and thinking to themselves it's a good thing I am not like those other poor suckers who have incorrectly interpreted SEs. My SEs of course mean my church is the one whose doctrines accurately reflect universal truths while all those other guys are just confused and misunderstood what God was trying to tell them. Good thing that's all cleared up now time to go to mass, sacrament meeting, call to prayer etc. The very claim being made about SEs is that it can identify which contradictory universal religious claims are in fact true. If SEs are so hard to interpret that every member of every religion interprets them as support for their particular universal religious claims then SEs are clearly almost useless in finding out which universal religious claim is in fact the ultimate truth.

There truly are religious differences and contradictions out there. But I think you have extrapolated the differences in religions and spiritual feelings generally and turned this into an argument that everyone out there is asking God directly a truth proposition that is worded exactly the same and is universal and not personalized. This hasn't been my experience and I generally just don't believe it.

I strongly disagree that SEs are reproducible as my example and many more I could provide show. Simply because groups of people get the same answer does not make a method reproducible as I show above. Groups of people in other religions also get the same answers that directly contradict LDS universal truth claims.

I've experienced some of these groups and other religions. I just don't believe that they do commonly ask and receive answers that are direct contradictions in the sense that you imply. They feel spiritually attracted and invigorated by their faith. It prompts them to live a better life. They look for guidance for their life and issues. And I believe their experiences. Some of them are prompted to investigate the restored gospel and really ask that kind of question, but most of them experience SEs in a very different context than what you have portrayed. What you are saying is that the mere existence of these other faiths means that SEs must directly contradict. I disagree with that argument.

The only way to claim they are not contradictory is to interpret the description of those SEs in a grossly strained fashion and to ignore how the participants themselves interpret their own experience. Are you convinced when a non-believer tells you that you really have not interpreted your SEs correctly that they don't mean what you think they mean? Well this is exactly what you seem to be doing to the large number of individuals who have SEs that directly contradict one or more LDS universal truth claims.

I don't believe I do what you describe here. Look, I believe I have interacted with individuals from other faiths more than most people on this board have. I simply haven't experienced the type of thing you are arguing for. I don't say it doesn't exist, I'm simply saying it's very rare. I have had spiritual experiences with Muslims breaking the Ramadan fast accross the Middle East from Cairo, Egypt to Doha, Qatar. I've had SEs praying with Evangelical pastors. Etc. You can get similar answers across faith groups. I believe it because I've experienced it and in the end if this is a method that works for me and my family and good friends in other faith groups and it happens repeatedly over decades, I start to trust its accuracy.

There are certainly religious differences, but their existence doesn't usually constitute propositional testing contradictions. Real contradictions do come up, but they are rare. And when they do arise they are opportunities for better communication and pointed, specific questions in your testing, just like in any communication endeavor among well-meaning participants when there are contradictions. And instead of abandoning the test because of the few exceptions, I would advocate embracing it while measuring it against what you know rationally and logically. Reason and faith should be complimentary.

Cheers.

Edited November 3, 2011 by J Green

[KevinG]

In my experience, Asking which of all religions is true is of much less utility than asking God if "these things are true" after researching and pondering a particular revelation and how it is applied to one's self.

[zerinus]

I never had much of a struggle with the history surrounding the LDS Church. When I was investigating I asked many questions about polygamy, race and other tidbits thrown my way.

In the intervening years I've spent much (too much?) time on the interwebz finding out more than I ever expected to find out, and in turn weighing each bit of information against the knowledge I have. I am a fan of the Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling) approach to laying it all out there and letting the reader draw their conclusions. After having read that book I was amazed at how much anti and pro Mormon information out there just wasn't so. I was also somewhat surprised at the information that was flattering and unflattering that was true. I guess I'm glad the Holy Spirit got to me and told me the LDS Church was where I should be - the intellectual stuff I can take my time and sort out without denying that foundation. But not everyone gets that epiphany kind of revelation. For some it is to believe on the words of those who have received a witness by the Holy Spirit. How do they weigh the evidence and exercise faith to believe, genuinely believe, not fake it until they make it.

It probably helps that my testimony of the truthfullness of the church is not based on any idea that the Saints are inerrant or our doctrines complete in this lifetime. I do understand how my sceptical friends can see what information is out there and have it be a stumbling block... anyway I'm rambling.

For the faithful, especially those of a very analytical mind set, how do you deal with troubling issues that surface while retaining your basic faith in the authority of the LDS Church and its leaders, past and present?

Please avoid bashing here- this is an inquiry into building faith in an imperfect world- not meant to be a rehash of all things curious about Mormonism.

I think that if your testimony is firmly rooted in the Book of Mormon (and in the other revelations the Church has received), it will never falter, no matter what "intellectual" challenges you may encounter. However, I am a bit confused by your post. Are you concerned about your own faith and testimony, or those of others? If it is your own, then you need to be clear about it so that you can get to-the-point answers. But if you are worried about others', then you needn't be. That is their problem, not yours. You only need to worry about the oil in your own lamp, not other people's lamps. If you have oil in your lamp, then you can light a candle that will be a shining light to others. But they will have to worry about putting oil in their own lamps.

[zerinus]

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.

You gain a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost, not by means of a "spiritual experience". When you have received such a witness, you will know that you have, unless you wilfully deny it, or "harden your heart" against it. But your attempt at distortion by retranslating the Holy Ghost into a "spiritual experience" almost guarantees that you will not receive such a witness.

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?

More specifically, my question is about people who have been raised in Mormonism or involved in Mormonism for a long time, don't have spiritual evidence that they should obey those rules, have reason to believe that some of those rules are not morally obligatory, and behave consistent with those rules not being morally obligatory. What are your thoughts about those people?

Are you referring to people who are still in the Church, or who have left the Church? If they are already in the Church, and feel in all honesty they cannot abide by its rules, then they should do the honorable thing and leave it. If you join any club you have to abide by its rules, no matter how silly they may appear to you to be. If you feel that you cannot abide by its rules, then you shouldn’t join the club.

If you are referring to people who have already left the Church (as you appear to have done), and are breaking those rules, that still makes them sinners, even though they are not members of the Church. What I think of them is the same as what I think of all sinners. We are told to love the sinner, and hate the sin. We also urge all sinners to repent of their sins.

But these latter questions have a bearing on your first question. If you are not abiding by the laws of the Church (which are the laws of God), and don’t even believe you should, then it is a bit presumptions of you to expect to gain a testimony of the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost will not “dwell in unholy temples”. The Lord withholds a testimony from such people for their own good, because they would come under even greater condemnation if they had a witness of the Holy Ghost that the Church was true, and wilfully continued to break its rules (see Alma 32:19).

[Brade]

You gain a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost, not by means of a "spiritual experience". When you have received such a witness, you will know that you have, unless you wilfully deny it, or "harden your heart" against it. But your attempt at distortion by retranslating the Holy Ghost into a "spiritual experience" almost guarantees that you will not receive such a witness.

Are you referring to people who are still in the Church, or who have left the Church? If they are already in the Church, and feel in all honesty they cannot abide by its rules, then they should do the honorable thing and leave it. If you join any club you have to abide by its rules, no matter how silly they may appear to you to be. If you feel that you cannot abide by its rules, then you shouldn’t join the club.

If you are referring to people who have already left the Church (as you appear to have done), and are breaking those rules, that still makes them sinners, even though they are not members of the Church. What I think of them is the same as what I think of all sinners. We are told to love the sinner, and hate the sin. We also urge all sinners to repent of their sins.

But these latter questions have a bearing on your first question. If you are not abiding by the laws of the Church (which are the laws of God), and don’t even believe you should, then it is a bit presumptions of you to expect to gain a testimony of the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost will not “dwell in unholy temples”. The Lord withholds a testimony from such people for their own good, because they would come under even greater condemnation if they had a witness of the Holy Ghost that the Church was true, and wilfully continued to break its rules (see Alma 32:19).

Ok.

[zerinus]

Yeah, this sort of speaks to the question I was getting at earlier. The more general question I wanted to get to what this: Do you believe it's admirable when a former believer moves away from the Church by following the best available evidence at their disposal? Can there not be humility in that move, or (from the believers' perspective) is there no such thing as humbly moving from belief to disbelief?

Having an assured testimony that the Church is true, the answer to your question is no; I don't see anything admirable about someone harming themselves by cutting their ties with God's only true and living Church. I don't see it doing them any good, so I can't see anything admirable in that. Having a determination to follow your own carnal will is not an "admirable" attribute. But I think that it is a good thing that people have the choice. It is not a good idea to force people to go where they don't want go. There are other kingdoms of glory for those who are not able to abide the Celestial one.

[Brade]

Having an assured testimony that the Church is true, the answer to your question is no; I don't see anything admirable about someone harming themselves by cutting their ties with God's only true and living Church. I don't see it doing them any good, so I can't see anything admirable in that. Having a determination to follow your own carnal will is not an "admirable" attribute. But I think that it is a good thing that people have the choice. It is not a good idea to force people to go where they don't want go. There are other kingdoms of glory for those who are not able to abide the Celestial one.

What's carnal about the fact that I don't think the evidence available to me is good enough to justify belief that the Church is true? From the privileged position of having an assured testimony that the Church is true do you have access to my mental states?

Edited November 3, 2011 by Brade

[HeatherAnn]

In my experience, Asking which of all religions is true is of much less utility than asking God if "these things are true" after researching and pondering a particular revelation and how it is applied to one's self.

I agree.

I know there are a million different ways to define truth... so based on that "knowledge" lol - Let's say, "truth is in perspective" - whatever works for you - to make you & others around you happier/closer to God (GoOD).

I can just imagine someone (like my mom lol) responding to that... "Well, if we only do what makes us happy, we'll be "carnally minded" - eating, drinking & being merry! Where's the discipline?"

And I'd respond: "Are we children or adults?"

As adults, hopefully, we've learned to consider consequences... & if not, the consequences teach us well - that wickedness (harmful thoughts & associated feelings & behavior) is never happiness. I read (in a book by LDS authors) that misunderstandings of Judaism/Christianity are the root cause of the majority of mental illnesses. As it is, UT leads the nation in anti depressant use. UT is predominantly LDS - so some of the beliefs in many lds are harmful. This is why it is essential to question harmful (wicked) beliefs... to explore our own "psychology" ("study of the soul").

Edited November 3, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[KevinG]

I think that if your testimony is firmly rooted in the Book of Mormon (and in the other revelations the Church has received), it will never falter, no matter what "intellectual" challenges you may encounter. However, I am a bit confused by your post. Are you concerned about your own faith and testimony, or those of others? If it is your own, then you need to be clear about it so that you can get to-the-point answers. But if you are worried about others', then you needn't be. That is their problem, not yours. You only need to worry about the oil in your own lamp, not other people's lamps. If you have oil in your lamp, then you can light a candle that will be a shining light to others. But they will have to worry about putting oil in their own lamps.

I am concerned about the salvation of my brothers and sisters. If someone is stumbling but has a desire to stand I listen and share my best understanding of what I know with them.

While I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon as true* my testimony is not rooted in the Book of Mormon. It is firmly rooted in Jesus Christ.

*Authoratative, scriptural, containing the Gospel of Jesus Christ...

[KevinG]

What's carnal about the fact that I don't think the evidence available to me is good enough to justify belief that the Church is true? From the privileged position of having an assured testimony that the Church is true do you have access to my mental states?

Nothing. To some it is given to have knowledge and others wisdom. Calling someone who seeks to have knowledge carnal...

[KevinG]

I agree.

I know there are a million different ways to define truth... so based on that "knowledge" lol - Let's say, "truth is in perspective" - whatever works for you - to make you & others around you happier/closer to God (GoOD).

I can just imagine someone (like my mom lol) responding to that... "Well, if we only do what makes us happy, we'll be "carnally minded" - eating, drinking & being merry! Where's the discipline?"

And I'd respond: "Are we children or adults?"

As adults, hopefully, we've learned to consider consequences... & if not, the consequences teach us well - that wickedness (harmful thoughts & associated feelings & behavior) is never happiness. I read (in a book by LDS authors) that misunderstandings of Judaism/Christianity are the root cause of the majority of mental illnesses. As it is, UT leads the nation in anti depressant use. UT is predominantly LDS - so some of the beliefs in many lds are harmful. This is why it is essential to question harmful (wicked) beliefs... to explore our own "psychology" ("study of the soul").

The whole anti-depressant issue is complex. Utah is lower than surrounding states in the West. I also think Mormons are much more likely to go to the doctor and get a prescription than they are to self medicate with alcohol or other recreational drugs in order to deal with stress.

The drive to be perfect contributes for certain.

As to the carnal minded person... there is a distinction between joy (a lasting peace from living righteously) and happiness (a fleeting emotion). Accusing someone of being carnal because they seek joy by doing the right thing is just silly.

It is up to you and Brade and anyone else to decide what is right and live according to that knowledge. I happen to think the LDS Church has it right (individual Saints weaknesses and foibles notwithstanding) when it comes to eventually achieving eternal joy. That doesn't mean that every person who has not found what I have is somehow a sinner or rejected truth. I didn't reject truth the first 21 years of my life. I just hadn't learned what I know now and try to live by.

[Mike Reed]

William James' Varieties of Religious Experience might be useful to intellectual Mormons wanting to retain religious belief, while conviction is eroded by science.

[thesometimesaint]

Mike Reed:

I like Mormon Scholars Testify

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/