Dealing With Doubts While Finding An Informed Faith

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed:

I like Mormon Scholars Testify

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

I do too. Some entries more than others.

[Brade]

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

I think there's a growing number of intellectual Mormons adopting a pragmatic view of truth. I do wonder whether that sort of theory is consistent with the what's taught and implied about truth, belief, and knowledge by the Church's authorities.

[Uncertain]

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:

Likewise!

Part I

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

Fair enough, perhaps I overreached on this. Frankly it is not a major issue and does not affect my point in any fashion.

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.

I used my example simply to show the underlying logic behind why reproducibility is so important to any method that claims to reliably provide universal truth. The logic behind reproducibility applies just as well to communication as it does to a test in a lab. I will reformulate my analogy in terms of communication to show why this is so. Take your example of children talking to a father. Suppose a father has 10 children each of which talk to him personally concerning a certain topic X each of them leave with what they believe is a correct understanding of that topic. However what they understand concerning the topic directly contradicts one with another. Each child's view of what was taught directly contradicts every other child. It must be the case most of the children are wrong in their beliefs it cannot be any other way. Hence it must be the case on this particular topic most of the children who depending on communication from their father to learn universal truth did not receive universal truth. Now there may be many reasons why this particular example of communication failed so spectacularly but there is not doubt whatsoever it did fail spectacularly. If what the children learn contradict one another it must be the case most of them are wrong and did not gain universal truth in conversation with their father. The logic behind reproducibility is iron clad whether it is regarding work in a lab or conversation in the street.

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.

It absolutely does disprove the ability of SEs to ascertain truth. If 10 people get 10 different and contradictory SEs this means most of them got an incorrect answer when they were depending on SEs for universal truth. Suppose I was to follow your advice and get my own SE so now there would be 11 different people with 11 different and contradictory "truths" me included only one of us can be right 10 of us must be wrong. Therefore it must be the case people who receive what they believe is universal truth on the basis of SEs must be wrong much more than they are right. It cannot be any other way the logic behind reproducibility is iron clad. Why should I believe I am somehow different than the other 10 people who also believed they received and correctly interpreted communication from God but yet were wrong why would I be the magical exception? Your point seems to be communication can be flawed this is why SEs sometimes contradict and we should only trust communication we personally receive and interpret as coming from God. My point is this methodology is fatally flawed because it does not address the underlying logic as to why reproducibility is so important to any method that claims it can provide universal truth. If 10 different people get 10 different and contradictory SEs each of them could follow your method that is they trust in what they interpret God has directly told them. And yet it must be the case most of them are wrong therefore following your approach more people must be wrong than right therefore your approach is not a reliable means to learn universal truth.

Let me tell you a experience that happened to me personally one of my major concerns regarding LDS teachings is its claim to be the one true church the only church authorized to provide saving ordinances that all must accept to attain certain heavenly rewards. One night while I was struggling with this issue in pray and pondering the thought came to me perhaps the LDSs claim is false perhaps God does not care whatsoever what church a person joins neither does he require adherence to certain religious rituals i.e.(ordinances) to obtain heavenly rewards. Immediately after this thought I felt an overpowering sense of the divine a feeling of peace and love that seemed to be affirming that my thought was true. Certainly it was an experience indistinguishable from other SEs I have had in the context of Mormonism. Tell me should I then believe the LDS claim that ordinances are required to gain heavenly rewards is false? After all I received what at the time I interpreted as communication directly from God telling me the LDS claim is false. I followed your advice and went to God directly. Now who is right me or the LDS church? Both could claim what they believe on the basis of SEs. Now given my above argument I am inclined not to use my SEs as good evidence regarding universal truth claims since it is apparently so difficult to obtain universal truth by SEs and I don't see why I would be the magical exception.

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.

Communication is different from a lab experiment. Communication however is not immune to the logic behind why reproducibility is so important when you want to claim SEs are a reliable means to gain universal truth.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 3, 2011 by Uncertain

[CV75]

I think there's a growing number of intellectual Mormons adopting a pragmatic view of truth. I do wonder whether that sort of theory is consistent with the what's taught and implied about truth, belief, and knowledge by the Church's authorities.

Hi Brade--did you miss my reply to your last post?

[Brade]

Hi Brade--did you miss my reply to your last post?

Maybe, let me see.

[Brade]

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

Yes, I think we agree about that.

We may also agree that positive feelings alone are not divinely transmitted spiritual experiences

I think positive feelings alone could very well be divinely transmitted. My claim is that in the sort of case I've described, even if they are divinely transmitted, there doesn't seem to be anything about the experience that would justify the belief that they are divinely transmitted.

I would not describe my experiences as having much of an emotional component at all.

I'm happy to confess that I too wouldn't describe my experiences as being merely emotional. At the time, the experiences I had in Mormon contexts were quite unique. Nonetheless, there wasn't anything about their uniqueness that necessarily implied that they were divinely transmitted and certainly not anything to suggest they were divinely transmitted by an anthropomorphic deity name Elohim. In fact, the only thing around telling me they were divinely transmitted were other people. Had I not had a Mormon upbringing and not had Mormon people around me I suspect I would have been puzzled by the uniqueness of the experience, and might have even considered whether it could have been divinely transmitted, but I don't see any reason why I would have thought it was divinely transmitted.

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.

I agree.

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.

I don't think Moroni's Promise is saying that either.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Brade

[Uncertain]

Part II

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.

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.

First it does not matter if only a few religions look at truth propositions spiritually in the same way LDS do what matters if when different religions do use the same LDS approach they get consistent or contradictory answers. For example most if not all LDS splinter groups use the very same pattern of truth getting as LDS do and yet they get directly contradictory answers. For example here is a testimony from a TLC member:

"A wonderful thing happened once we arrived in Manti. I felt all of my misgivings, anxiety, mistrust just melt away as immediately as we arrived here. A calm peacefulness filled me (incidentally, filling the void I'd been trying to fill for five months) and gave me rest from the trials I had suffered through. My great mistrust of my husband (that is, of his knowledge) was replaced with trust and I allowed him to teach me, finally. I forgot all about trying to prove TLC wrong. From that point on, I discovered so much truth! I was like a sponge, soaking it all in. Choosing what to believe was not an issue, the truth just seemed to speak to my soul and I knew it was true. I didn't have an ounce of doubt in my whole body. Every fiber of my being knew and recognized the truth and I only wanted to know more. I believed it with all of my heart. I knew the Holy Ghost was bearing witness of truth and I knew the same would happen concerning the Lord's Servant, James D. Harmston.

And it did. The Holy Ghost bore witness to me that He is indeed the Lord's Servant on earth at this time, He has been divinely appointed to lead and direct the Father's elect at this time. Every time I am in the same room when Jim is teaching, I receive the witness of heaven that he is indeed who he says he is and that what he is teaching is most certainly true. I testify to you that I never had the witness of heaven telling me Gordon B. Hinckley was a true prophet. I have been full of emotion at times and at times, I have been filled with the Spirit of God and I tell you, they are two different things. That is something I didn't know before I came here.

I can and do testify that Jesus is the Christ, that He lives! I have felt the indescribable joy and love that emanates from Him. I know that any man who has been in the presence of the Savior, would declare repentance and baptism to all that would hear him, for the sole purpose of bringing those who are willing into the Savior's presence. I know that Jim is a true prophet, by the witness of heaven burned into my soul and because his works prove it. He spends his life seeking to bring others into the presence of the Savior. Anyone who has truly felt the Savior's love would seek to share it with all who will be worthy to receive it. Jim speaks, teaches, exhorts, and lives his life as one having authority. This truth has been burned into my soul over and over again. I testify to you that Gordon B. Hinckley is leading the LDS church with all of its members in a false hope of Christ. Those LDS members cannot come into the presence of the Savior in this lifetime while they continue to follow a false prophet. GBH does not teach how to come into the presence of the Savior, which requires obedience to ALL the ordinances of the House of the Lord. I know that the fullness of the gospel as restored through Joseph Smith is true with every fiber of my being. I know that the fullness of the gospel is not taught in the LDS church. I know that the ordinances offered in LDS temples have been changed despite Joseph Smith's warning to keep them the same as they ever have been. I know that Joseph Smith taught his people to receive their calling and election ordinances and that these ordinances were to be ratified by the Savior. That can no longer be accomplished in the LDS Church. I know that those who diligently study LDS Church history will find the essentials of the gospel that have been lost. And a diligent study will bring you here, if you desire truth. The truth is here and the Spirit of God will back it up."

Notice this person received multiple witnesses from the HG on many different occasions affirming James Harmston is a prophet. In other words her witness was repeatable she went back to the source over and over again as you claim is so important and got the same witness every time.

There are how many dozens of LDS splinter groups?

Second I do agree with you that many religions don't use SEs to support truth claims like the LDS do but this is simply because they have not been taught to do so. For example as a missionary we were taught to help investigators "feel and recognize the spirit". When an investigator would come to us describing a SE they had while reading the BOM we would immediately ask them such questions as "Why did you feel that way do you think it is the Holy Ghost?", "What do you believe the HG was trying to tell you?" and so on. In other words we would link the SE that happened while reading the BOM with the truth claims of the church. I imagine you also as a missionary were taught to help investigators "fell and recognize the spirit". The reason say a Muslim does not link SEs with truth claims the same way LDS do is because they are not taught to do so. When a Muslim has a SE while reading the Qur'an they don't have a cultural history that provides meaning to their SE such that they interpret it as testifying the Qur'an is true in the same sense LDS do. Now the key point is Muslims do have SEs while participating in their religion just like LDS do it just so happens a LDS might have been praying at some point in the past to know if the LDS church is true hence they interpret their SEs as good evidence the LDS truth claims are in fact truth. While a Muslim will not have the same cultural background informing any SEs they may have. Now all that being said there certainly are those who believe they have had SEs confirming Muslim truth claims. For example Tony Blair's sister famously converted to Islam due to a spiritual experience she apparently interpreted as affirming the truth of Islam.

http://muslimvillage...ual-experience/

Third while I agree many religions don't use SEs to support truth claims in the same foundational fashion as LDS do. When participants in those religions do have SEs that claim to teach unique universal truth they almost invariably teach the unique universal truth claims of the given religion which contradict in many cases the unique universal truth claims of the LDS church. For example Catholicism has a long history of visionary mystics. Here is a SE from a Catholic priest:

"One evening, while he was in prayer, a friar who had recently passed away, Pellegrino of Osimo, appeared to Nicholas. It was all too obvious from the expression on his face that Pellegrino was in agony. He mournfully shared with Nicholas that he was in the pits of Purgatory, suffering the most excruciating pain. He knew of Nicholas' devotion to the Poor Souls in Purgatory, and so he pleaded with his old friend to offer Mass, not only for himself, but for the many other souls who had asked him to implore the aid of Nicholas. Nicholas immediately consented. Then he remembered that he was under obedience to offer the conventual Mass of the Order for the next week.

Pellegrino brought Nicholas into the pits of Purgatory, so that he could see first-hand, the suffering of all those who had asked for his intercession. Before him were a multitude of souls of all ages and conditions, experiencing terrible torment. Pellegrino turned to Nicholas and said,

"Behold the state of those who sent me to you. Since you are agreeable in the sight of God, we have confidence that He will refuse nothing to the oblation of the Sacrifice offered by you, and that His Divine Mercy will deliver us."

Nicholas could not hold back the tears. He went into prayer, after which he went to his superior and asked permission to pray the Mass for the Dead. When he shared his vision, and the agonizing condition of the souls who had asked for his help, the superior, too, broke down into tears. He gave Nicholas a special dispensation from praying the conventual Mass for that next week, and granted him permission to dedicate his Masses as well as all his prayers, toward the deliverance of the Poor Souls from Purgatory. Nicholas celebrated those Masses passionately as (and with) the Victim Priest before him, the One Who came that no one would have to suffer the pains of eternal damnation.

At the end of a week, Pellegrino of Osimo appeared to Nicholas again, only this time he was not in agonizing pain. He had been released from Purgatory, and was on his way to Heaven. The other souls were in the same way, clad in white garments and enveloped with a bright, heavenly light. They called him their liberator, and as they rose up to Heaven, they chanted the prayer,

"Thou has saved us from them that afflict us, and thou has put them to shame that hate us.""

(emphasis in the original)

http://www.discover-...-purgatory.html

This version of the afterlife directly contradicts the LDS version which has no such place as purgatory and certainly does not believe the Mass for the Dead would release souls from a place of punishment. I could multiply this sort of example many times. When Catholics or Muslims or Hindus have SEs they almost universally teach unique Catholic, Muslim or Hindu doctrine surprise, surprise.

The point is your claim contradictory SEs are rare is on shaky ice. In fact it appears commonly if not mostly the case that SEs tend to teach the unique universal truth claims of the participants religion and not some "meta universal truth ala Mormonism".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cheers.

The bottom line is most people who depend on what they perceive as communication from God teaching universal truth are wrong we know for sure they are wrong because they contradict. Why should you or I be the magical exception those lucky few who really "get it"? Instead of the great mass of those who believe God is teaching them, believe they have communicated with God directly and learned universal truth but in fact are mistaken. Yes I understand and appreciate the LDS focus on SEs as a good means to gain truth is not shared across all religions although it clearly is shared across some religions. This is entirely a red herring when you examine the SEs of other religions in which universal truth is claim to be taught almost invariably what is taught is religious doctrine that is ubiquitous and common to all religions i.e.(God loves you, God has a plan for your etc. ) or directly contradicts other religions unique universal truth claims i.e.(Purgatory exists, Reincarnation is real etc. ) but affirms the religious claims of the participant involved so Catholic SEs teach Catholic doctrine, LDS SEs teach LDS doctrine, Hindu SEs teach Hindu doctrine etc.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 3, 2011 by Uncertain

[zerinus]

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?

That is not the carnal bit; the carnal bit is what you said here:

On the other hand, I do think there are rules for which I'm under no moral obligation. The rule that I shouldn't drink any alcohol is one. I don't think there's anything immoral about moderate alcohol consumption. I also don't think there's anything immoral about not going to a Mormon church on Sunday, or buying things on Sunday, watching R-rated moves, not giving a portion of my income to the Church, not believing that Jesus is the son of God, unvitriolicly criticising Church leaders including the Church President, masturbating, responsible sex outside of marriage between consenting adults (including homosexual intimacy), etc.

Remember what King Benjamin said in the Book of Mormon:

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

The carnal man and the natural man are the same thing. It is the man who wants to do his own thing rather than what God wants him to do, as Martin Harris did for a time:

D&C 3:

4 For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.

I don't claim to have an insight into other people's mental state. I go by what they tell me. You have given me a fat list of all the sins that you think it is okay to commit; and I am telling you that is what is meant by doing the will of the "natural man" rather than the will of God.

[CV75]

I think positive feelings alone could very well be divinely transmitted. My claim is that in the sort of case I've described, even if they are divinely transmitted, there doesn't seem to be anything about the experience that would justify the belief that they are divinely transmitted.

Looks like we agree on quite a bit. I would add that just because positive feelings could be divinely transmitted (such as comfort or relief in distress), they do not always constitute the confirming witness or testimony of the truthfulness of a principle, the Church, or the Book of Mormon.

I think when it comes to spiritually confirming the truthfulness of something, experiencing the power of God is the basis for the spiritual experience. It will usually solicit certain emotional responses (joy) or mental states (certitude), but these are not the “witness experience” or the power of God themselves. The only rare exceptions might be if someone is asking for a sign and God grants it in the form of an emotional connection, or if someone feels an outpouring of divine affection upon them in a “God, do You love me?” type of quest.

I'm happy to confess that I too wouldn't describe my experiences as being merely emotional. At the time, the experiences I had in Mormon contexts were quite unique. Nonetheless, there wasn't anything about their uniqueness that necessarily implied that they were divinely transmitted and certainly not anything to suggest they were divinely transmitted by an anthropomorphic deity name Elohim. In fact, the only thing around telling me they were divinely transmitted were other people. Had I not had a Mormon upbringing and not had Mormon people around me I suspect I would have been puzzled by the uniqueness of the experience, and might have even considered whether it could have been divinely transmitted, but I don't see any reason why I would have thought it was divinely transmitted.

Spring-boarding off this comment, here is why I believe the way I do: At the time of my witness, I had no contact with the LDS Church, its members, culture, etc. I only had the Joseph Smith pamphlet and a few words of advice from an older brother who was away at college investigating and planning to join this odd religion (I had originally thought it was a form of Islam due to the dietary restrictions—plus “Mohammed” / “Mormon” sounded similar). When I received my witness, it was nothing like I had ever remotely experienced or heard of before. No human being told me it was of God, yet I knew it was and had a crystal clear understanding of what I had to do, and I’ve followed through accordingly for over 40 years. If anything other than the nature of the experience and its results influenced my initial impression and subsequent conclusion that it was of God, it was the idea that God might answer my prayer, which isn’t anything out of the ordinary.

It seems to me that your interpretation was largely influenced and perhaps even defined by your LDS upbringing and those around you, while mine was not, as I was alone in this experience, and brought up in an open-minded but areligious household. So our difference may be strictly personal and a correlation between impressionability (by that I mean reliance upon external supports as reasons to believe) and independence and responsibility in owning experience. Like the Meyers-Briggs neither is better than the other, both could be considered to be childlike attributes, and the principle of the Lord’s grace would not allow either characteristic to handicap a person’s maximally benefiting from the plan of salvation.

In dissecting my experience further to illustrate what justifies a belief that an experience is divine and that it witnesses that something being considered is true, the only thing I can come up with, considering my circumstances of spiritual isolation/eroding innocence/lack of orientation/frame of reference, is the power of God and the whole new reality it instilled in me. Seems kind of an anti-climactic conclusion, but that is all I can say—thank you for the conversation (unless you have more to add)!

Edited November 3, 2011 by CV75

[Brade]

I think we need a recap here. I asked 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?

You responded by saying this:

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.

Now, the first part of that appears to be an answer to my question. But, the last bit appears to address something I didn't ask. Specifically, I didn't ask whether having a determination to follow my own carnal will is admirable. I asked whether it's admirable to believe things based on the best available evidence one has at their disposal.

Finally, just to be clear, saying that I don't think, for example, that buying things on Sunday is immoral is not the same as saying that I think people ought to buy things on Sunday or that I buy things on Sunday or I endorse buying things I Sunday, or something like that. Rather, it's just to say that I don't think there is a moral obligation not to buy things on Sunday.

So, suppose I think, as I do, that there is no moral obligation not to buy things on Sunday. And further suppose that I choose not to buy things on Sunday. Say, I just prefer staying home with my family. So, here's a case where my behavior is consistent with your behavior (presumably), but my belief about the morality of buying things on Sunday is not consistent with your belief. I'm curious to know, in such a case would it still be the case that I'm carnally minded in that respect?

Edited November 3, 2011 by Brade

[KevinG]

There is time to preach repentance and a time to teach understanding. I'd prefer if this thread concentrated on the latter.

Let's not condemn people for not keeping covenants that they have not made.

[Brade]

Looks like we agree on quite a bit. I would add that just because positive feelings could be divinely transmitted (such as comfort or relief in distress), they do not always constitute the confirming witness or testimony of the truthfulness of a principle, the Church, or the Book of Mormon.

I think when it comes to spiritually confirming the truthfulness of something, experiencing the power of God is the basis for the spiritual experience. It will usually solicit certain emotional responses (joy) or mental states (certitude), but these are not the “witness experience” or the power of God themselves. The only rare exceptions might be if someone is asking for a sign and God grants it in the form of an emotional connection, or if someone feels an outpouring of divine affection upon them in a “God, do You love me?” type of quest.

Spring-boarding off this comment, here is why I believe the way I do: At the time of my witness, I had no contact with the LDS Church, its members, culture, etc. I only had the Joseph Smith pamphlet and a few words of advice from an older brother who was away at college investigating and planning to join this odd religion (I had originally thought it was a form of Islam due to the dietary restrictions—plus “Mohammed” / “Mormon” sounded similar). When I received my witness, it was nothing like I had ever remotely experienced or heard of before. No human being told me it was of God, yet I knew it was and had a crystal clear understanding of what I had to do, and I’ve followed through accordingly for over 40 years. If anything other than the nature of the experience and its results influenced my initial impression and subsequent conclusion that it was of God, it was the idea that God might answer my prayer, which isn’t anything out of the ordinary.

It seems to me that your interpretation was largely influenced and perhaps even defined by your LDS upbringing and those around you, while mine was not, as I was alone in this experience, and brought up in an open-minded but areligious household. So our difference may be strictly personal and a correlation between impressionability (by that I mean reliance upon external supports as reasons to believe) and independence and responsibility in owning experience. Like the Meyers-Briggs neither is better than the other, both could be considered to be childlike attributes, and the principle of the Lord’s grace would not allow either characteristic to handicap a person’s maximally benefiting from the plan of salvation.

In dissecting my experience further to illustrate what justifies a belief that an experience is divine and that it witnesses that something being considered is true, the only thing I can come up with, considering my circumstances of spiritual isolation/eroding innocence/lack of orientation/frame of reference, is the power of God and the whole new reality it instilled in me. Seems kind of an anti-climactic conclusion, but that is all I can say—thank you for the conversation (unless you have more to add)!

Not much else to say, I think.

[KevinG]

Not much else to say, I think.

Really Brade- get with the program and say it in a video.

[zerinus]

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.

Well, your OP was a little bit loaded. It was not clear whether it was your own faith and testimony that was under strain or other people's.

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...

I was referring to the testimony of the Restoration. I like what Ezra Taft Benson said about the Book of Mormon (emphasis mine):

"Yes, my beloved brothers and sisters, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior." Source.

Others have said more or less the same thing: that those whose testimonies of the Restoration are firmly rooted in the Book of Mormon (and to that I add the rest of the standard works), are not so easily shaken as those who are not.

Edited November 3, 2011 by zerinus

[KevinG]

Well, your OP was a little bit loaded. It was not clear whether it was your own faith and testimony that was under strain or other people's.

I was expressing empathy towards another poster, an offshoot of another thread. Still I'm not sure the best missionary approach to someone evaluating his faith is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsyzRUKwgng

[J Green]

Uncertain,

I appreciate your sensitivity and ability to articulate your arguments well. I think there is some common ground between us, but there remain a few differences as well. These differences focus mostly on the extent of the problem and what it means.

Regarding scope, you consistently argue for a babel-type scenario. Out of ten children all ten get different answers. Confusion reigns. Evidence for the contradictory nature of SEs is culled from several experiences, your own being by far the most powerful and touching.

I feel that this characterization overstates the argument. SEs, like any act of communication are prone to misinterpretation, exaggeration, and even lying. Yet somehow we muddle through and can quite often ascertain truth propositions from one another at work, home, school, etc. I was recently involved in a military investigation into allegations that one of our soldiers had an affair with another man's wife. During the course of several weeks I talked to about a dozen people and heard probably three consistently different stories. Note that even though this issue makes for the deepest of divisions (like religious conflicts), I've still not approached the ten-people-ten-stories scenario. But after looking carefully at what they said and trying to understand the conflict from each point of view I now had more specific questions and went back to the people involved. After clarifying assumptions it became clear that most of the confusion was the result of one individual who had misrepresented the situation in different ways to different individuals. What initially looked chaotic turned out to be solvable through personal investigation through human communication. There was a conflict and in the end I was able to understand its real scope and make sense of it by persisting through communicating and asking clarifying questions.

The Lauren Booth article was fascinating but doesn't portray what you think it does, in my opinion. Rather, it validates my point that people often feel a strong spiritual attraction to a certain faith. I have no reason to question it. I believe God moves his children to wherever they can best progress given their circumstances and his plan for them. The others are a lot closer to your intent. And the fact that most of them will cluster around LDS groups rather proves my point that most of the other faiths don't think in terms of truth propositions the same way we do. Nevertheless, I've seen these things before and both of us could assimilate over a thousand of them here but that would still represent such a small minority of SEs in the aggregate. I'm definitely not on shaky ground to consider these types of conflicts rare when you consider the totality of experiences. By no means is this ten-children-ten-stories. By far most interesting is your own experience. And I'm curious as to why you discount this episode and thereby all SEs to discover truth if it was as powerful as you describe and it conformed to others that you had.

The other disagreement centers around the impact of this problem. You advocate that the method is unreliable because the communication event is so different for everyone. Of course, the scope of the problem is important here because if for every ten people there were ten SEs that all drastically differed, you would probably have a better case. But I just don't believe the babel-scenario to be accurate. The vast majority of SEs are repeated and reproduced without much conflict or contradiction. And if I'm right, then the method is reliable and can be used to test the cases where conflict does arise. Just as I did in the recent investigation.

In other words, this discussion really hinges on the extent of contradictory SEs. And like the investigation I went through, all I can work with is what I test individually and in groups. I've investigated a good deal of religious culture and belief and just haven't come across the scenario you describe. I have seen a few contradictions but they are far outweighed by SEs that are and can be reproduced even across faith groups. Just as in the human dynamic of communication, I know that when communication breaks down or appears contradictory, the answer isn't to distrust communication itself but to investigate the issues myself and look for the reasons there appear to be conflict.

Having said that, it's obvious to me that you believe or have experienced something different and have some reason to advocate that contradiction in SEs for truth propositions are much more extensive than I think they are. I doubt I'll be able to convince you what the evidence you have seen tells you. I can accept that. But you're likely not going to convince me of the babel scenario after I've experienced something completely different over several decades in my family, church, and with peoples of other faiths in different countries.

But as always, thanks for sharing your thoughts. And I wish you the best.

[CV75]

So, suppose I think, as I do, that there is no moral obligation not to buy things on Sunday. And further suppose that I choose not to buy things on Sunday. Say, I just prefer staying home with my family. So, here's a case where my behavior is consistent with your behavior (presumably), but my belief about the morality of buying things on Sunday is not consistent with your belief. I'm curious to know, in such a case would it still be the case that I'm carnally minded in that respect?

Let me suggest a couple of ideas:

Not all principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong are considered by everyone to be spiritual in nature. Some are developed and accepted by society in general, some by a religious community, and some by any rational person.

“Carnal mindedness” is a religious concept. Since morality can be based in either rational or religious/spiritual orientations of thought and behavior, I would say that adopting a moral principle by reason of the rational mind and without the influence of religion or spirituality is carnally-minded. Adopting it as the result of spiritual processes is spiritually-minded.

So whether one’s mind is carnal or spiritual is not determined by the application of the moral principle but by the processes through which the principle was developed and adopted, and more importantly, the meaning it has for the one applying the principle.

Not shopping on Sunday may mean obedience to and a blessing from God to the spiritually-minded person and a less-attractive option to family time to a carnally-minded person. Spending time with the family on Sunday may mean an appreciation of eternal bonds as well as Sabbath observance for a spiritually-minded person, and meeting the need for mutual love and affection for a carnally-minded person.

From the LDS perspective, all things are spiritual so any moral principle, regardless of its perceived origin, is beneficial and will lead to greater spirituality for both spiritually or carnally minded people. This is because LDS believe that any moral principle has its basis in the conscience and Light of Christ, which governs anyone’s sense of right and wrong on both rational and spiritual bases. So a carnally-mined person can enjoy edifying familial relationships, and LDS would recognize this as a spiritually relevant experience. A carnally-minded person may shop or not on Sunday, but this would not prevent the Lord from leading him to greater truth and spirituality according to his need.

[Uncertain]

Uncertain,

I appreciate your sensitivity and ability to articulate your arguments well. I think there is some common ground between us, but there remain a few differences as well. These differences focus mostly on the extent of the problem and what it means.

Hi J Green,

Thanks, I think you have defended SEs about as well as they can be defended. It is always a please to hammer out issues with an intelligent and well spoken individual.

Regarding scope, you consistently argue for a babel-type scenario. Out of ten children all ten get different answers. Confusion reigns. Evidence for the contradictory nature of SEs is culled from several experiences, your own being by far the most powerful and touching.

I feel that this characterization overstates the argument. SEs, like any act of communication are prone to misinterpretation, exaggeration, and even lying. Yet somehow we muddle through and can quite often ascertain truth propositions from one another at work, home, school, etc. I was recently involved in a military investigation into allegations that one of our soldiers had an affair with another man's wife. During the course of several weeks I talked to about a dozen people and heard probably three consistently different stories. Note that even though this issue makes for the deepest of divisions (like religious conflicts), I've still not approached the ten-people-ten-stories scenario. But after looking carefully at what they said and trying to understand the conflict from each point of view I now had more specific questions and went back to the people involved. After clarifying assumptions it became clear that most of the confusion was the result of one individual who had misrepresented the situation in different ways to different individuals. What initially looked chaotic turned out to be solvable through personal investigation through human communication. There was a conflict and in the end I was able to understand its real scope and make sense of it by persisting through communicating and asking clarifying questions.

Hi J Green,

I think you have hit on the core of our disagreement. Your communication story is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. You get three different stories so you know somewhere along the line incorrect information is being received. You were eventually able to figure out the problem is someone apparently telling different things to different people hence the reason why stories conflicted. The point is because of the contradiction you knew without a doubt something was wrong. This is a perfect illustration of the problem behind SEs.

The Lauren Booth article was fascinating but doesn't portray what you think it does, in my opinion. Rather, it validates my point that people often feel a strong spiritual attraction to a certain faith. I have no reason to question it. I believe God moves his children to wherever they can best progress given their circumstances and his plan for them.

I agree with you to some extent regarding the Lauren Booth story. But there is an important point that I think should be made regarding this story. Whatever we may think of how she described her SE she herself apparently interpreted it as evidence Islam was true as was evidenced by the fact she became a Muslim. I would say based on my experiences in the LDS church her type of experience is by far the most common. That is a latter day saint will have a SE while reading the BOM, attending the temple or church and then interpret that experience as evidence the truth claims of the LDS church are in fact true this is because of certain cultural expectations in the LDS church. If you are going to argue Lauren Booth should not interpret her SE as good evidence universal Islamic truth claims are in fact true. You need to apply this standard equally across to the myriad of LDS believers who report something very similar and claim this is good evidence LDS truth claims accurately reflect how the universe really is.

The others are a lot closer to your intent. And the fact that most of them will cluster around LDS groups rather proves my point that most of the other faiths don't think in terms of truth propositions the same way we do. Nevertheless, I've seen these things before and both of us could assimilate over a thousand of them here but that would still represent such a small minority of SEs in the aggregate.

The point is that multiple different churches do use the same technique to get universal truth and yet get contradictory answers is strong evidence the given means to gain truth is not reliable. It does not matter all churches don't use this technique what matters is those churches that do use this technique get contradictory answers.

Now with regards to the larger point you appear to be arguing I actually do agree with you that by far most SEs don't contradict. The reason I don't view this as problematic to my position is that most SEs don't claim to be information containing. Or at least information containing beyond universal religious claims. Most SEs are similar to what Lauren Booth describes a sense of peace of love, connection with the divine, perhaps a sense of certainty you are on the right path i.e.(in the right church). This is one of the reasons as mentioned I am prepared to consider the possibility very broad religious concepts can reliably be obtained from SEs. Things like God exists, he loves you etc. The problem is when you look at SEs from different religions and groups those SEs that specifically claim to be teaching universal truths that are not universal religious concepts do not show consistency but contradiction. The fact not all religions depend on SEs the same way LDS and its offshoots do is completely unimportant. What is important is that when SEs are reported from religions in which specific religious claims are made in the SEs i.e. (what the afterlife consists of, what church is true). Directly contradictory truth claims are the norm in these SEs. I have provided a number of examples showing this I can provide many more. Can you provide examples showing I am wrong? Can you show that for example Catholic visionary SEs consistently confirm LDS truth claims concerning the afterlife but contradict Catholic truth claims concerning the afterlife? Given my own study of Catholic visionary experiences I would be very surprised if you could. For that matter if you can show this for any religion I would be impressed Islam, Hindu, and Buddhism etc. So yes I agree you are right most SEs don't contradict because most SEs if they make any truth claims at all make very broad universal truth claims things like God exists and he loves you. I am open to the idea in cases such as this SEs are reliable. But when SEs consistently contradicts things like which church is the one true church or what the afterlife consists of. I don't see how they can be reliably used as evidence for anything.

Now I think you could easily demonstrate what I am talking about. If you talked with some of your friends from other religions and asked them if they had SEs I would bet most of them would say yes. If you asked them what information was contained in their SEs. I would bet they would describe either broad universal religious claims things like God loves them. Or they would claim their SEs confirmed specific truth claims of their particular religion. How many of them do you suppose will say their SEs contained information that supported unique LDS truth claims? I would wager a half dollar if they claim their SEs contained any information at all it will be either in support of broad universal claims, personal truth claims i.e.(I am in the right religion for me), or religious claims specific to their religion. I would highly doubt they would report their SEs contained information supporting unique universal LDS truth claims. In other words I strongly think the empirical evidience is on my side. When I read SEs from other religions in which specific truth claims are made concerning things like the afterlife or the requirements to get into heaven they are not consistent but contradictory. You are welcome to show I am wrong I already provided a number of examples illustrating my point.

I'm definitely not on shaky ground to consider these types of conflicts rare when you consider the totality of experiences. By no means is this ten-children-ten-stories. By far most interesting is your own experience. And I'm curious as to why you discount this episode and thereby all SEs to discover truth if it was as powerful as you describe and it conformed to others that you had.

It was powerful and it certainly made an impression. But so did the SE reported by the TLC member so did the SE reported by the RLDS member so did the SE reported by the catholic priest. We can't all be right I would like to think I am the one who really did contact the divine and correctly interpreted what he/she wanted to tell me. I just see no good reason to suppose I am better at extracting universal truth from SEs than all those others who tried and failed.

The other disagreement centers around the impact of this problem. You advocate that the method is unreliable because the communication event is so different for everyone. Of course, the scope of the problem is important here because if for every ten people there were ten SEs that all drastically differed, you would probably have a better case. But I just don't believe the babel-scenario to be accurate. The vast majority of SEs are repeated and reproduced without much conflict or contradiction. And if I'm right, then the method is reliable and can be used to test the cases where conflict does arise. Just as I did in the recent investigation.

I agree as I argue above most SEs do not contradict. I do not see this as damaging to my argument for the reasons already stated. However there is at least one clear cut universal religious claim of the LDS church that is consistently contradicted by SEs. The claim that religious ordinances supplied by a church are needed to obtain certain heavenly rewards. The frequency of near death experiences (NDEs) is still somewhat unknown but estimates based on random polling are around 3-4% of the population (I can provide a reference if you wish it is in German). A common truth claim of those who experience a NDE is that God simply does not care what religion a person joins heavenly rewards are not based in part on performing certain religious ceremonies but entirely on correct action. See:

http://www.near-deat...research06.html

This directly contradicts the LDS claim that certain heavenly rewards are in fact based on performing and accepting certain religious ceremonies. If we take the lowest estimate for near dear experiences 3% this means ~9 million Americans have had a NDE I don't know how many of them get the message above that religious beliefs or ordinances do not matter in terms of heavenly rewards but even a small percentage would be a large number, now extend this worldwide. Clearly with regards to this particular truth claim the evidence obtain from SEs is not in the LDS favor. It more closely resembles the "tower of babel" example or worse consistently opposite the LDS truth claim.

In other words, this discussion really hinges on the extent of contradictory SEs. And like the investigation I went through, all I can work with is what I test individually and in groups. I've investigated a good deal of religious culture and belief and just haven't come across the scenario you describe. I have seen a few contradictions but they are far outweighed by SEs that are and can be reproduced even across faith groups. Just as in the human dynamic of communication, I know that when communication breaks down or appears contradictory, the answer isn't to distrust communication itself but to investigate the issues myself and look for the reasons there appear to be conflict.

(bold added by me)

If on a certain point communication consistently and clearly contradicted then on that particular point it is not a reliable means to obtain universal truth it cannot be any other way. Yes communication may be reliable for lots of other questions. It does not change the fact that if it contradicts on a certain point it is not reliable for that point. I would also add many of these examles I gave the person consistently got the same answer for many communication events i.e(SEs) like the TLC example I gave above.

I agree with you that most SEs do not contradict because the information returned is mostly universal religious claims. But when you look at SEs across different religions when very specific truth claims are made the consistency is lost and they frequently and obviously contradict. But as I mentioned you can easily show I am wrong. I have already provided many examples of contradictory SEs when specific claims concerning say the afterlife are made. If you could show me a consistent trend in say Islamic visionary SEs in which the view of the afterlife contradicts the Islamic version but affirms the LDS version I would accept your point is made.

Having said that, it's obvious to me that you believe or have experienced something different and has some reason to advocate that contradiction in SEs for truth propositions are much more extensive than I think they are. I doubt I'll be able to convince you what the evidence you have seen tells you. I can accept that. But you're likely not going to convince me of the babel scenario after I've experienced something completely different over several decades in my family, church, and with peoples of other faiths in different countries.

But as always, thanks for sharing your thoughts. And I wish you the best.

I am not sure we are as far apart as you think. I also believe SEs are mostly consistent in so much as they all teach universal religious claims. In fact I have a tendency to believe those claims are universal because SEs are so consistent on these matters. It is in details that SEs contradicts and it is these very details the LDS church claims SEs are a great way to separate fact from fiction.

Best,

Uncertain

[J Green]

Uncertain,

Just read through your response. Good as always. I'm off to a military event soon, but I just wanted to make one observation and ask a few clarifying questions before I respond to all your thoughts.

First, Lauren Booth. I agree with your argument that I would need to treat LDS SEs in the same way. And I actually do. I've spoken on this board before about my own habit of attaching assumption to revelation. I believe we all do it, just as we commonly add assumptions to human communication events in a way that may or may not have us sleeping on the couch at the end of the day. So yes, it's very easy even for LDS to feel the Spirit during an event and assume the Spirit may be doing more than it really is. This is why I talk about clarifying questions. Just as in human discourse it's necessary to clarify things you feel from conversation, I believe the same holds true for SEs. I frequently find myself on my knees asking "so does that mean . . .?" As I said before I think this is the main reason we have the D&C--Joseph is in many cases asking for clarification about other revelations he received previously. Of course, in the LDS environment we are also taught to ask specifically about certain truth propositions that would reflect directly on the issue you raise.

But before I proceed, I wanted to clarify a few things:

1. You agree with me that most SEs are likely accurate and don't deal with propositions about the truth claims of a specific Church. But you characterize these SEs as mostly communicating God's love and other very general feelings. But many of the SEs in my own life, my family's life, in my church groups and even among friends in other faiths that I have conversed with on this subject, the SEs actually deal with specific issues we are facing. Should I have this operation? Who should be in this calling? What should we do to help our son through problem X? And in many of these cases the answers are given to more than one person, sometimes with answers that don't seem like the logical choice. From a pool of 350 people, one name is prompted through an SE to two separate individuals who haven't discussed it previously . Etc. Does your approval of most SEs extend to these type of answsers? Can we gain any truth from these SEs other than God's love?

2. Regarding the experience you describe, let me pose a hypothetical. Let us suppose that after thinking about your SE for awhile you went back with clarifying questions and asked specifically why the answer to your inquieries about universal religious authority was different than others that you know of and why it was different than what you have felt in the past. Let us say that over the course of several SEs, you are spiritually given a confirmation of your first question and then subsequently shown or given to understand in some way why your concern over the apparent contradictions is really not as big a concern as you thought it was before. (This is a hypothetical, so I don't know and can't list all the possible reasons why this may be.) Let us then suppose that you talk to your spouse or father or brother (someone you trust) and list the concern without filling in the details and ask them to make the same inquiry. Let us suppose that afterward they sit down with you a describe an experience very similar to yours including feelings, thoughts, and emotions. You then ask if it's possible that you try this together. When you do, you not only both feel additional confirmation but also additional insights and feelings are given at the same time that help you make sense of the situation even more. Afterwards you discuss what happened and realize that you both experienced these additional feelings and insights. I know this is merely a hypothetical, but would you react any differently to this?

Regards

[Uncertain]

Uncertain,

Just read through your response. Good as always. I'm off to a military event soon, but I just wanted to make one observation and ask a few clarifying questions before I respond to all your thoughts.

First, Lauren Booth. I agree with your argument that I would need to treat LDS SEs in the same way. And I actually do. I've spoken on this board before about my own habit of attaching assumption to revelation. I believe we all do it, just as we commonly add assumptions to human communication events in a way that may or may not have us sleeping on the couch at the end of the day. So yes, it's very easy even for LDS to feel the Spirit during an event and assume the Spirit may be doing more than it really is. This is why I talk about clarifying questions. Just as in human discourse it's necessary to clarify things you feel from conversation, I believe the same holds true for SEs. I frequently find myself on my knees asking "so does that mean . . .?" As I said before I think this is the main reason we have the D&C--Joseph is in many cases asking for clarification about other revelations he received previously. Of course, in the LDS environment we are also taught to ask specifically about certain truth propositions that would reflect directly on the issue you raise.

But before I proceed, I wanted to clarify a few things:

1. You agree with me that most SEs are likely accurate and don't deal with propositions about the truth claims of a specific Church. But you characterize these SEs as mostly communicating God's love and other very general feelings. But many of the SEs in my own life, my family's life, in my church groups and even among friends in other faiths that I have conversed with on this subject, the SEs actually deal with specific issues we are facing. Should I have this operation? Who should be in this calling? What should we do to help our son through problem X? And in many of these cases the answers are given to more than one person, sometimes with answers that don't seem like the logical choice. From a pool of 350 people, one name is prompted through an SE to two separate individuals who haven't discussed it previously . Etc. Does your approval of most SEs extend to these type of answsers? Can we gain any truth from these SEs other than God's love?

Hi J Green,

I appreciate your patience dealing with the intransigent heathen apostate. Sometimes in these sorts of discussions I think there can be a sense of frustration that the other person just can't see what is so clear to us. It is easy to lose patience as a result but you have been the soul of courtesy in our interactions.

To answer your question I would view such cases as mostly examples of personal truth provided by SEs. As such my argument regarding reproducibility does not apply. Do I personally regard personal truth given by SEs as reliable? I would like to I don't know if it is by training, genetics or upbringing I have a very skeptical mindset. If I was peer reviewing an article that attempted to show SEs are a good way to make personal decisions. I would expect something more than anecdotal experiences supporting SEs. The problem is what mostly gets reported are those times SEs work. What mostly does not get reported are those times SEs don't work. Occasionally you hear about someone who acted on a SE and nothing happened or something bad happened and they would dismiss this as God having a greater plan or God wanting them to learn from a trial. Such experiences with SE will likely not get shared in testimony meeting as often as positive experiences associate with SEs. Just the other day I was talking to an LDS friend of mine. She was worried about the housing market her house was far underwater. She mentioned however that she was convinced God told her in an SE to buy the house hence whatever happened was for the best and it would all work out. Do you see the issue? My other concern is that the reliability of using SEs in personal decisions gets inflated because whatever happens good or bad the results can be interpreted such that SEs are "working". You quit your job because God told you to and hence lost your house? No worries, God no doubt has something better for you down the road or the resulting trial makes you a better person. You quit your job because God told you to and you then found a much better job? No worries, clearly God knew this was the best decision for you and look at the positive outcome! If I looking at this from a cold, hard purely scientific perspective. I would say in order to trust personal SEs we need something besides anecdotal evidence. We need data measuring not only how often they work but how often they don't work where "work" is defined as objectively positive or negative outcomes. We would need data regarding how often positive or negative outcomes occur based purely on using your best judgement so we could then compare the two. Luckily not everything is reducible to data my own personal view regarding SEs is take them under consideration but don't let them override your better judgement. If all the evidence indicates you should not quit your job then don't quit your job. In other words SEs should not trump your judgement.

I did want to clear up something. My concern with SEs are largely in those case they appear to consistently contradict each other. Which mostly appears to be when SEs are used to support a particular unique religious doctrinal claim. If SEs are consistent on things like Gods love or that he exists than clearly my argument based on reproducibility does not apply in this case. It could very well be when SEs universally support the idea of God this really is because God exists. However I don't view SEs even in this context as a trump card definitive evidence concerning Gods existence. Do SEs provide evidence for the proposition "God exists" yes indeed they do. This is evidence that must be combined with all other pieces of evidence both positive and negative. Now personally I do believe in God I just don't believe SEs are a trump card proving Gods existence.

2. Regarding the experience you describe, let me pose a hypothetical. Let us suppose that after thinking about your SE for awhile you went back with clarifying questions and asked specifically why the answer to your inquieries about universal religious authority was different than others that you know of and why it was different than what you have felt in the past. Let us say that over the course of several SEs, you are spiritually given a confirmation of your first question and then subsequently shown or given to understand in some way why your concern over the apparent contradictions is really not as big a concern as you thought it was before. (This is a hypothetical, so I don't know and can't list all the possible reasons why this may be.) Let us then suppose that you talk to your spouse or father or brother (someone you trust) and list the concern without filling in the details and ask them to make the same inquiry. Let us suppose that afterward they sit down with you a describe an experience very similar to yours including feelings, thoughts, and emotions. You then ask if it's possible that you try this together. When you do, you not only both feel additional confirmation but also additional insights and feelings are given at the same time that help you make sense of the situation even more. Afterwards you discuss what happened and realize that you both experienced these additional feelings and insights. I know this is merely a hypothetical, but would you react any differently to this?

Regards

It would certainly be helpful and I would view my SE differently. Would it change my mind concerning the overall reliability of SEs in determining which particular unique and idiosyncratic religious truth claims are true and which ones are false? Probably not, for two reasons. First it is just so difficult to reconcile the various SEs. Many of the SEs very specific doctrine is taught by heavenly messengers in plain English and I just can't see how to reconcile them without doing damage to the clear meanings of the SE or worse disregarding how the participants themselves interpreted the SE. And second SEs of the type I have a problem with do appear to be repeatable within groups just not between groups. For example if I were to go into a LDS congregation and ask how many have received SEs confirming that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet I would bet multiple hands would be raised. If I were to go into a FLDS congregation and ask how many have received SEs confirming Warren Jeffs is a prophet how many hands would I see raised? The issue is SEs are reproducible within groups but not it seems between groups. This immediately makes me suspicious a large cultural component is at work. Reproducibility needs to hold not only within groups but between groups. So just because my closest associates and friends got similar SEs does not mean the interpretation of our SEs really does represent universal truth. If there is some other group(s) somewhere else who also are consistently getting SEs that contradict ours.

Now suppose my SE was regarding a personal truth and it was reproducible across people close to me without my prompting. I would be very much inclined to view this as reliable information.

In any case thank you for your time. I think we understand each others positions very well. I don't expect I convinced you but I hope you see my point of view is not entirely unreasonable. Now that we have debated loan-shifting in the BOM and LDS epistemology next I will have to debate you regarding my number two most serious issue with Mormonism the philosophical problems regarding a "one true church" .

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 4, 2011 by Uncertain

[J Green]

Uncertain,

In any case thank you for your time. I think we understand each others positions very well. I don't expect I convinced you but I hope you see my point of view is not entirely unreasonable.

Not unreasonable at all. Appreciate the time you took to share what you did.

Now that we have debated loan-shifting in the BOM and LDS epistemology next I will have to debate you regarding my number two most serious issue with Mormonism the philosophical problems regarding a "one true church" .

What about loan-shifting during SEs? On second thought, that conversation might start well but, uh, tapir off, so to speak.

Cheers