Conflicting Truth Claims

[JAHS]

We certainly cannot deny that those of other faiths have spiritual witnesses to the truths that they believe in, especially if what they believe brings forth good fruits in their lives. President Hinckley seemed to recognize this when he said:

“Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service” (meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 17 Feb. 1998).

[GingerRed]

19 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I tend to agree. I've talked with many people outside the church and the Spirit testifying of their faith being true is a foreign concept, especially outside of Christianity where there is no teaching that the Holy Spirit exists.

Heck, we have at least one evangelical who is here regularly telling us that trusting the Spirit is wrong

I have a friend who is a good Christian gal, who , when we were talking about our religions, said she did read the Book of Mormon once a long time ago. And I asked..".So how did you feel after you read it?" And she looked at me like I had two heads...."What do mean, how did I 'feel'?? "....that concept of feeling the Spirit as a confirmation to anything, was totally clueless to her.

I personally have never met yet a non member who claimed the 'spirit' witnessed to them about the Bible or their beliefs. And I have a ton of non member friends. 

Red

Edited December 13, 2015 by GingerRed

[JLHPROF]

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7: 21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

D&C 132:22 “For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it.”

D&C 130:20-21 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

There is only one path to God.  There may be many paths in life to get you to that path.  But only one that leads to God.  But that is just my religion.  And I believe it to be true.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but our church claims to have the fullness of the gospel

Yeh, but when I have a whole cherry pie in the fridge, it may not be wise to try to eat it all in one sitting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPjZOXNEXo .

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, consiglieri said:

We are confronted in today's world with many different truth claims.

One person says her religion is true, and that she has a spiritual witness to confirm it.

Another person says his religion is true, and that he has a spiritual witness to confirm it.

And so on, and so on, until the examples are legion.

And many, if not all, of these spiritually confirmed truth claims conflict with one another.

This has led many to throw out the idea of spiritual witnesses confirming any truth claim, since they are obviously unreliable, as the same Spirit is testifying to the truth of conflicting claims.

It has led others to privilege their own witness as the only one that is correct, leading them to view such claims from others as either fraudulent or inspired by sources other than God.

I view it differently.

I accept the testimony from others that the Spirit has witnessed to them the truth of their own faith, even when that faith conflicts with my own.

What makes my witness more important to me is simply that--it is my spiritual witness.

While others may receive witnesses that lead them in their own spiritual journey, I believe that my witnesses are meant to lead me in my spiritual journey.

Those journeys do not have to be the same, and frequently are quite divergent.

But that is okay.

Because God is working with everybody, to the extent they are willing to be worked with.

And God is leading them in the way that is best for them.

One of those ways is Mormonism.  Many of those ways are not Mormonism.

One of those ways may lead a person into Mormonism.

Another of those ways may lead a person out of Mormonism.

And into and out of any religious faith or belief system.

But it is the same Spirit that worketh all in all.

I am interested in the thoughts that others may have on this subject.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I treat other people's spiritual experiences as neutral.

I know what i have experienced, but i don't know what others have.  I know what they tell me, but that is much different than actually knowing what transpired.  I leave them to their experiences and neither agree nor disagree with them.  I don't feel like i have enough information to do either.

It wouldn't make sense to put them on the same level as my own because i have actually experienced my own.  I expect others to treat my experiences, compared to theirs, the same way.   No one should substitute something they have personally experienced for something they have only heard of or read about.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

As noted on your other thread....

 

i personally cannot recncile the fact that many, many, many persons from numerous walks of life and religious traditions will claim some sort of spiritual experience or metaphysical experience that speaks to them that their path is THE true path of God.

Such conflicting experiences demonstrate that this is not a reliable method for finding truth,

i wonder for those who think it is would you want to fly in a plane that sonone designed on some feeling that God was telling them this plane wpuld fly better than all others.

I would have to have God verify before I got into the plane. I would also want to be pilot because flying planes is fun.

[Rain]

Two disagreeing truth claims cannot be true no matter what the experience is of the people claiming them. Either Christ is the only way to eternal life or he is not. Either baptism is required or it is not. Either we are reincarnated or we are not. Both sides can't hold true.

How you find something to be true is another story. Assuming mormonism is true (and I am) Mark found the path to that truth through atheism. I found it through being raised in the church. A friend found it through anti-mormon classes at her church. So we all have different paths, but if those paths are not leading to truth then you won't have a truth claim, just a belief claim. 

Like, I think, bluebell said, I take others spiritual experiences as neutral.

[TOmNossor]

23 hours ago, Teancum said:

As noted on your other thread....

 

i personally cannot recncile the fact that many, many, many persons from numerous walks of life and religious traditions will claim some sort of spiritual experience or metaphysical experience that speaks to them that their path is THE true path of God.

Such conflicting experiences demonstrate that this is not a reliable method for finding truth,

i wonder for those who think it is would you want to fly in a plane that sonone designed on some feeling that God was telling them this plane wpuld fly better than all others.

Teancum,

I consider my spiritual conviction that the CoJCoLDS is God's church to be among the weaker ones that exists within the CoJCoLDS.  I have sought God's will with respect to the truth of the CoJCoLDS and I have received confirmation of such, but again I think it is more modest than some.

I have frequently seen critics claim to be dragged from their previously powerful spiritual witness by the cold hard reality of the obvious falsity of the CoJCoLDS.  Are you among those who knew, who served a mission having spiritual feast for two years, who ..., or were you more like me.

"Such conflicting experiences demonstrate that this is not a reliable method for finding truth."

REALLY!!!!

In coming to grips with a multitude of glorious faiths (as possessed by individuals), I have encountered as I have follow Stendahl's rule, I was compelled to embrace something very similar to Consiglieri.  But even with my WEAK spiritual witness of the truth it was quite clear to me that to be TRUE to what I experienced I could not throw everything out.  Paraphrasing Joseph Smith, "I knew it and God knew that I knew it." 

So, if you have never claimed to have possessed the spiritual certainty (concerning the CoJCoLDS) I have only dreamt of, I can totally see how you could say the above.  But if you once knew in the way most members claim to have known (and many critics claim to have known before XYZ), how can you put God in a box so small?  You are saying, "It is so obviously flawed/unreasonable/irrational/... to believe God does ANYTHING like what Consiglieri claims God does, that I can throw out this powerful spiritual confirmation because, 'Such conflicting experiences demonstrate that this is not a reliable method for finding truth.'"

Again, I am reading into your statement some that MIGHT not be there AND I have no idea if you ever had a testimony, but I am struck by what I make of what you said.  The scriptures tell me that God's ways are higher than my ways.  Time and time again when I have tried to set up stakes and declare that God works within the bounds of these stakes, I have felt foolish as I saw a more expansive and awesome God.

Charity, TOm

Edited December 13, 2015 by TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is much wisdom here, but there is also far too much relativism.  People often believe what they want to believe, creating god in their own image, or else merely finding a way to feel good (II Tim 4:3).  The same spirit does not necessarily worketh in all.  Indeed, some find demonic spirits to be their inspiration (Matt 8:28-32).

Robert and Consiglieri,

Long ago I posted something that I think is quite similar to Consig's post.  I however did include that fact that within the LDS paradigm there is a potential for the righting of all these divergent paths post-mortally.  I also included a fact I considered obvious which is that some folks who think their church is God's true church are further from the truth than me who thinks my church is God's true church (assuming I am correct about the LDS paradigm); but in terms of following God's will for their lives and ... they are far superior to me.

Also, I remember a FARMS article by a LDS who left the CoJCoLDS to become some type of protestant minister.  In the FARMS article he claimed that God called him on this path (both out and back in).

I lean strongly towards the idea there there is a single reality (radical relativism, "It's all in the eye of the beholder" is false).  And I lean towards the view that this single reality appears very LDS when it is fully fleshed out rather than very Protestant or Buddhist or ???  That being said it is much more important that I am playing on God's team when the buzzer sounds than it is that I possess all true propositions within my world view today or on my deathbed. 

Charity, TOm

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by TOmNossor

[Guest]

To address the OP:

Even when (or with Paul's) Spiritual conversion or witness the Apostles feared him. Those who witnessed a part of his experience did not believe or even experience the same aspects of his conversion. Often people hear or experience something that resonates so strongly with them, they believe it to be Spiritual. But conflicting ideas do not always disprove or confirm the other. What is true for some, is not always true for all. God deals with us collectively and individually, reveling some or all to different persons. I used to know someone who believed every word muttered by Joseph Smith or any of the Prophets as Gospel Doctrine. He did this even with journal entries of people who knew Joseph, and claimed that he had a spiritual confirmation of them all. Then their or men like Peter who was chief Apostle and believed all Christ Said but stumbled and bumbled way trough his Ministry. But the day of Pentacost (his true Spiritual Conversion) turned him from an Apostle treading water, into and Apostle of mighty faith. Point being; most are confusing spiritual witness with strongly held beliefs, while on their way to becoming those who truly live by the Spirit...no less useful or important while on the journey that those who have reached the destination. 

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, GingerRed said:

I have a friend who is a good Christian gal, who , when we were talking about our religions, said she did read the Book of Mormon once a long time ago. And I asked..".So how did you feel after you read it?" And she looked at me like I had two heads...."What do mean, how did I 'feel'?? "....that concept of feeling the Spirit as a confirmation to anything, was totally clueless to her.

I personally have never met yet a non member who claimed the 'spirit' witnessed to them about the Bible or their beliefs. And I have a ton of non member friends. 

Red

 

Like I said seeking the Spirit to know the truth is a concept foreign to people outsider church. Which is why I have a problem taking the claim that other religions have conflicting spiritual witness seriously. I've yet to meet another religion that teaches it. Especially religions like Islam or Buddhism where there is no Holy Spirit to obtain a witness from.

[Sanpitch]

19 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

 

Like I said seeking the Spirit to know the truth is a concept foreign to people outsider church. Which is why I have a problem taking the claim that other religions have conflicting spiritual witness seriously. I've yet to meet another religion that teaches it. Especially religions like Islam or Buddhism where there is no Holy Spirit to obtain a witness from.

You seem to be assuming that a "spiritual witness" is the only thing to rely on.  Others feel different.  JWs lean more toward facts they glean from the bible in conjunction with the "holy spirit" who inspired the bible and also helps them to discern truths from the bible.  Ed to add:   So who can claim one method over another or prove their method the one and only reliable to depend on.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

Teancum,

I consider my spiritual conviction that the CoJCoLDS is God's church to be among the weaker ones that exists within the CoJCoLDS.  I have sought God's will with respect to the truth of the CoJCoLDS and I have received confirmation of such, but again I think it is more modest than some.

I have frequently seen critics claim to be dragged from their previously powerful spiritual witness by the cold hard reality of the obvious falsity of the CoJCoLDS.  Are you among those who knew, who served a mission having spiritual feast for two years, who ..., or were you more like me.

"Such conflicting experiences demonstrate that this is not a reliable method for finding truth.

REALLY!!!!

In coming to grips with a multitude of glorious faiths (as possessed by individuals), I have encountered as I have follow Stendahl's rule, I was compelled to embrace something very similar to Consiglieri.  But even with my WEAK spiritual witness of the truth it was quite clear to me that to be TRUE to what I experienced I could not throw everything out.  Paraphrasing Joseph Smith, "I knew it and God knew that I knew it." 

LSo, if you have never claimed to have possessed the spiritual certainty (concerning the CoJCoLDS) I have only dreamt of, I can totally see how you could say the above.  But if you once knew in the way most members claim to have known (and many critics claim to have known before XYZ), how can you put God in a box so small?  You are saying, "It is so obviously flawed/unreasonable/irrational/... to believe God does ANYTHING like what Consiglieri claims God does, that I can throw out this powerful spiritual confirmation because, 'Such conflicting experiences demonstrate that this is not a reliable method for finding truth.'"

Again, I am reading into your statement some that MIGHT not be there AND I have no idea if you ever had a testimony, but I am struck by what I make of what you said.  The scriptures tell me that God's ways are higher than my ways.  Time and time again when I have tried to set up stakes and declare that God works within the bounds of these stakes, I have felt foolish as I saw a more expansive and awesome God.

Charity, TOm

Hi Tom

You have a lot of comments and I am not sure where to begin or what you are looking for from me.  If you have read many of my posts here you likely would not be asking me some of what you ask above.   But to respond:

yes I served a two year mission.

yes I have lived my entire adult life as an active participating LDS person and served in numerous callings.

yes I bore strong testimony to the LDS truth claims and have had spiritual experiences that in the past convinced me of those claims.

yes I still participate in the LDS church.

yes I interpret the experiences I have had in a different light based on evidence, study of what can generate such experiences and a realization that such experiences are not at all unique to LDS people.

today I call myself a truth seeker and a skeptic.

are the specifics you would like to discuss?

Edited December 13, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

 

Like I said seeking the Spirit to know the truth is a concept foreign to people outsider church. Which is why I have a problem taking the claim that other religions have conflicting spiritual witness seriously. I've yet to meet another religion that teaches it. Especially religions like Islam or Buddhism where there is no Holy Spirit to obtain a witness from.

This is simply not correct and I suggest you do some leg work.  Them words and terms adherents of various faith traditions may be different but the message is similar.  And the experience is similar as well.  At least when the person describing it speaks it. 

Edited December 14, 2015 by Teancum

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Quote

 

  7 hours ago, GingerRed said:

.........................................................that concept of feeling the Spirit as a confirmation to anything, was totally clueless to her.

I personally have never met yet a non member who claimed the 'spirit' witnessed to them about the Bible or their beliefs. And I have a ton of non member friends. 

Red

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

 

Like I said seeking the Spirit to know the truth is a concept foreign to people outsider church. Which is why I have a problem taking the claim that other religions have conflicting spiritual witness seriously. I've yet to meet another religion that teaches it. Especially religions like Islam or Buddhism where there is no Holy Spirit to obtain a witness from.

Plenty of evangelical ministers speak of the Holy Spirit as the giver and interpreter of Scripture, and as the source of conversion (their own and that of others).

It is true that mainstream Protestants generally are very concerned with the emphasis on "feeling" which the Pentecostals bring to Christianity.  When they speak with Mormons, they are even more guarded and concerned.  The fear is visceral on both counts.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is much wisdom here, but there is also far too much relativism.  People often believe what they want to believe, creating god in their own image, or else merely finding a way to feel good (II Tim 4:3).  The same spirit does not necessarily worketh in all.  Indeed, some find demonic spirits to be their inspiration (Matt 8:28-32).

But then we have the same old epistemological problem we have always had.  How do you know which is the good spirit and which the evil one?

Don't get me wrong- I agree with you.  But the difference must be a spiritual one beyond verbal description and beyond verbal debate.  Philosophically, because the "correct" feeling is indescribable one cannot verbally describe the difference.  For philosophical purposes, looking at it objectively one has to postulate that one cannot know the difference in a describable way.

That means the difference becomes "unspeakable" and that there is literally nothing more to be said about the issue.  So I think philosophically, it is a dead end.  Philosophically we have to postulate that since the difference cannot be verbalized it cannot be discussed.

If the difference between "A" and "Not A" cannot be described there is nothing more to say about the alleged "difference".  That's just logic, nothing to do with the spirit.

So when I speak about it, I am speaking philosophically not spiritually.

I am absolutely positive that we have the best path, and within my little pragmatic system I think I can prove it.  It produces the "best fruit" by all definitions.  But no one else has a philosophical reason to accept my position if they disagree.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But then we have the same old epistemological problem we have always had.  How do you know which is the good spirit and which the evil one?

Don't get me wrong- I agree with you.  But the difference must be a spiritual one beyond verbal description and beyond verbal debate.  Philosophically, because the "correct" feeling is indescribable one cannot verbally describe the difference.  For philosophical purposes, looking at it objectively one has to postulate that one cannot know the difference in a describable way.

That means the difference becomes "unspeakable" and that there is literally nothing more to be said about the issue.  So I think philosophically, it is a dead end.  Philosophically we have to postulate that since the difference cannot be verbalized it cannot be discussed.

If the difference between "A" and "Not A" cannot be described there is nothing more to say about the alleged "difference".  That's just logic, nothing to do with the spirit.

So when I speak about it, I am speaking philosophically not spiritually.

I am absolutely positive that we have the best path, and within my little pragmatic system I think I can prove it.  It produces the "best fruit" by all definitions.  But no one else has a philosophical reason to accept my position if they disagree.

Yes, and this is the weak point  in consiglieri's position:  A spiritual testimony is entirely personal, and only the individual who has it can have a sense of its value.  As soon as we begin comparing testimonies and describing them in effable terms, we are second-guessing their ineffable value.  It is doubtful that such a rational exercise can be brought to bear on an irrational endeavor.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

Robert and Consiglieri,

Long ago I posted something that I think is quite similar to Consig's post.  I however did include that fact that within the LDS paradigm there is a potential for the righting of all these divergent paths post-mortally.  I also included a fact I considered obvious which is that some folks who think their church is God's true church are further from the truth than me who thinks my church is God's true church (assuming I am correct about the LDS paradigm); but in terms of following God's will for their lives and ... they are far superior to me.

Also, I remember a FARMS article by a LDS who left the CoJCoLDS to become some type of protestant minister.  In the FARMS article he claimed that God called him on this path (both out and back in).

I lean strongly towards the idea there there is a single reality (radical relativism, "It's all in the eye of the beholder" is false).  And I lean towards the view that this single reality appears very LDS when it is fully fleshed out rather than very Protestant or Buddhist or ???  That being said it is much more important that I am playing on God's team when the buzzer sounds than it is that I possess all true propositions within my world view today or on my deathbed. 

Charity, TOm

 

Good to see you

Really glad you would brought this up.  I remember you posting this on the catholic board before I moved here- so that would be pre-2008.  It made an impression on me obviously.   As I recall the story from then, he joined the Presbyterian church after receiving a strong "Moroni 10:4-5" that he should, leaving the LDS church.  He became a minister and later was able to participate in some interfaith dialogue which led to some kind of softened feelings between Presbyterians and Mormons.  After participating in that, he felt drawn to the LDS faith again and prayed and again received an answer that he should return.

Robert was involved in FARMS and may be able to recall the story.  He is an absolute wizard at finding such pieces.

[mfbukowski]

Regarding relativism

I would like to see a justification for religious statements which justifies any objective "truth" for such a position.

I have never seen one that works.  No one wants to be a "relativist" because relativism = BAD.

The only one I can imagine is a variation that makes relativism absolute- the classic Heraclitus solution.  Reality is a river that is ever changing and the very constancy in the change becomes the absolute.

That can become a sort of evolutionary theory- "all roads lead to Rome" or some way that through relativism all conflicting positions eventually become one.

But that accounts for the eventual outcome- that "every knee shall bow and tongue confess, etc" while allowing relativism to be the case in the "short run"

There is no epistemology I can imagine which would justify a way of knowing who is following the "correct" spirit other than "I know it when I feel it- I am right and you are wrong"

That could actually be a "correct" position but then there is nothing to discuss- there is no way to debate or discuss the difference.

Is that what you who hold this position are saying??  Or please if you have a position we can discuss I am all ears!

[TOmNossor]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

yes I interpret the experiences I have had in a different light based on evidence, study of what can generate such experiences and a realization that such experiences are not at all unique to LDS people.

today I call myself a truth seeker and a skeptic.

are the specifics you would like to discuss?

Teancum,

Thank you for responding.  Let me try to mind read some more.

I read what you said and assigned a degree of completeness to your statement that was probably not present in your mind.  If there were no other reasons to question your testimony of the CoJCoLDS you would have concluded that what you received was unreliable merely because other folks receive conflicting things in a way that they describe similarly.  This was not really what you meant.  INSTEAD, numerous difficulties with the CoJCoLDS created conflict with your spiritual testimony and one of the “chinks” in the strength of your testimony was the fact that others receive different answers.  In addition to this, you have studied some of the brain science associated with experiences like (or identical to) testimonies and this also puts “chinks” in the strength of your testimony.  The evidentiary problems totally external to the chinked up testimony experience were a BIG part of your skepticism.

I think that explains much or all of what I had originally queried about (other than the fact that I do not follow the board as well as I once did and so I couldn’t remember your history well).

I hope my questioning of you was not offensive, but I would like to suggest that it was a particularly (hopefully?) mild version of the “horrible offensiveness of the apologist.”  I didn’t read you quite as charitably as I should have, and I am sorry.  I saw a much more simple picture than was likely to be present so I commented on how I thought one who had a powerful testimony surely should be able to revision a previous certain way of looking at testimony as Consiglieri had done without declaring that testimony experiences were unreliable.

The truth is that when I weigh the evidence outside of my “WEAK testimony” I find the truth of the church looking pretty solid.  So I regularly struggle to see how folks with strong testimonies weigh the evidence so differently than I do.  I am quite certain that it is inappropriate when apostates/skeptics suggest that apologist/believers are mentally deficient, intentionally lying about their weighing of the evidence, or lean so radically upon their spiritual testimony that they cannot hope to weigh evidence.  I am also quite certain that when apostates/skeptics claim to be the unbiased weighers of evidence they are seldom acknowledging how much bias is always present when we arrive a conclusion.  I can recognize when I, an apologist, attempt to understand what the heck happens for the apostate/skeptic I make negative leaps. These leaps usually do not escape the dark recesses of my mind; but they did in my last post.  I am sorry (and I am sorry for the future ones that do and don’t escape my head because I still cannot figure this puzzle out).

Charity, TOm

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, GingerRed said:

I personally have never met yet a non member who claimed the 'spirit' witnessed to them about the Bible or their beliefs. And I have a ton of non member friends.

Yeah, I've never had this experience either.

As a missionary in a relatively Godless corner of America, my companion and I once met a rare evangelical Christian couple, who invited us back, though we didn't know it at the time, to attempt to destroy our faith in the Book of Mormon. As they started talking to us that evening, I thought I would elicit the origin of their faith in the Bible and then try to draw parallels to my personal experiences with the Book of Mormon. I was stunned when nothing they shared was even remotely 'spiritual', including no reference whatsoever, even when I probed, to the influence of the Bible in their day-to-day lives. It was all about Biblical archaeology, internal consistency, etc.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I treat other people's spiritual experiences as neutral.

I know what i have experienced, but i don't know what others have.  I know what they tell me, but that is much different than actually knowing what transpired.  I leave them to their experiences and neither agree nor disagree with them.  I don't feel like i have enough information to do either.

It wouldn't make sense to put them on the same level as my own because i have actually experienced my own.  I expect others to treat my experiences, compared to theirs, the same way.   No one should substitute something they have personally experienced for something they have only heard of or read about.

I could have written these exact words.

I don't care if the other person is an LDS apostle or a friend from another faith; a report of his/her experiences is at best an invitation for me to seek out a similar experience for myself. Until that happens, I don't really 'know' anything.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But then we have the same old epistemological problem we have always had.  How do you know which is the good spirit and which the evil one?

Don't get me wrong- I agree with you.  But the difference must be a spiritual one beyond verbal description and beyond verbal debate.  Philosophically, because the "correct" feeling is indescribable one cannot verbally describe the difference.  For philosophical purposes, looking at it objectively one has to postulate that one cannot know the difference in a describable way.

That means the difference becomes "unspeakable" and that there is literally nothing more to be said about the issue.  So I think philosophically, it is a dead end.  Philosophically we have to postulate that since the difference cannot be verbalized it cannot be discussed.

If the difference between "A" and "Not A" cannot be described there is nothing more to say about the alleged "difference".  That's just logic, nothing to do with the spirit.

So when I speak about it, I am speaking philosophically not spiritually.

I am absolutely positive that we have the best path, and within my little pragmatic system I think I can prove it.  It produces the "best fruit" by all definitions.  But no one else has a philosophical reason to accept my position if they disagree.

This is interesting and intriguing to me.   But if what you say is true is this not an unbridgeable gap?  Anyone can be positive they have the best path and the correct spirit but actually have the wrong one.  Also I find it interesting you call it only the best path.  I know you don't like to say The Truth.

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

Teancum,

 

Thank you for responding.  Let me try to mind read some more.

 

I read what you said and assigned a degree of completeness to your statement that was probably not present in your mind.  If there were no other reasons to question your testimony of the CoJCoLDS you would have concluded that what you received was unreliable merely because other folks receive conflicting things in a way that they describe similarly.  This was not really what you meant.  INSTEAD, numerous difficulties with the CoJCoLDS created conflict with your spiritual testimony and one of the “chinks” in the strength of your testimony was the fact that others receive different answers.  In addition to this, you have studied some of the brain science associated with experiences like (or identical to) testimonies and this also puts “chinks” in the strength of your testimony.  The evidentiary problems totally external to the chinked up testimony experience were a BIG part of your skepticism.

 

I think that explains much or all of what I had originally queried about (other than the fact that I do not follow the board as well as I once did and so I couldn’t remember your history well).

 

I hope my questioning of you was not offensive, but I would like to suggest that it was a particularly (hopefully?) mild version of the “horrible offensiveness of the apologist.”  I didn’t read you quite as charitably as I should have, and I am sorry.  I saw a much more simple picture than was likely to be present so I commented on how I thought one who had a powerful testimony surely should be able to revision a previous certain way of looking at testimony as Consiglieri had done without declaring that testimony experiences were unreliable.

 

The truth is that when I weigh the evidence outside of my “WEAK testimony” I find the truth of the church looking pretty solid.  So I regularly struggle to see how folks with strong testimonies weigh the evidence so differently than I do.  I am quite certain that it is inappropriate when apostates/skeptics suggest that apologist/believers are mentally deficient, intentionally lying about their weighing of the evidence, or lean so radically upon their spiritual testimony that they cannot hope to weigh evidence.  I am also quite certain that when apostates/skeptics claim to be the unbiased weighers of evidence they are seldom acknowledging how much bias is always present when we arrive a conclusion.  I can recognize when I, an apologist, attempt to understand what the heck happens for the apostate/skeptic I make negative leaps. These leaps usually do not escape the dark recesses of my mind; but they did in my last post.  I am sorry (and I am sorry for the future ones that do and don’t escape my head because I still cannot figure this puzzle out).

 

Charity, TOm

 

Yes Tom you ar correct.  My testimony of LDS truth claims has been weakened by many things and this issue of using spiritual experiences is just one of many issues that have tilted me away from what was once a very firm testimony of LDS thngs.  

And your initial post was not offensive at all.  I do not think beleivers or apologists are flawed and I think there are many bright people (many smarter than me) that see all the same evidence I see and still maintain an LDS testimony.  They have biases as you note and so do skeptics and believers in other faiths.

It is a conundrum at least for me.  I think I am a seeker of truth or what Mark calls the best way.  And maybe the LDS church does have the best way.  I don't know for sure at the moment.  

 

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and this is the weak point  in consiglieri's position:  A spiritual testimony is entirely personal, and only the individual who has it can have a sense of its value.  As soon as we begin comparing testimonies and describing them in effable terms, we are second-guessing their ineffable value.  It is doubtful that such a rational exercise can be brought to bear on an irrational endeavor.

To try and make it verbal though probably unsuccessfully, it is like trying to say that "My testimony is more important to me than your testimony is to you, so mine wins".

We are talking here about which "fruits" of the spirit are "sweeter" and which have more "light and goodness", using Alma's epistemology. 

Alma 32

 

Quote

 

  33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

  34 And now, behold, is your ^aknowledge ^bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your ^cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your ^dmind doth begin to expand.

  35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is ^alight; and whatsoever is light, is ^bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

  36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

  37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

 

Adam Miller identifies the word "experiment" with "experience".  It is through experience that we learn what is "real", and therefore also what is "light" and "good".  That is subjective and cannot be quantified. 

 

But notice that Alma does not come to saying there IS "perfect knowledge" except as one lets the principles - the "tree" you have planted- grow for a lifetime.

The only possible measure of comparison between two testimonies is its measure over a lifetime- and even then it is subjective.

 

President Kimball gave a talk about "Absolute Truth",  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng  but if you read it carefully really all he establishes philosophically is that you CAN have "absolute truth" - but within a specific "sphere" as judged by the results of the beliefs in your life.  He acknowledges that scientific truth is different than religious truth and twice quotes D&C 93

Quote

 30 All truth is independent in that ^asphere in which God has placed it, to ^bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

That is exactly what we are saying.  Truth is contextual, and is independently considered true or false depending on its "sphere".

Things as they "really are" are according to Alma, above, what we have experienced, including their "light" and "good"  President Kimball cites "things as they are" without defining them further than Alma has.  And he says that this is the kind of truth to which the spirit testifies.
He says this:

Quote

God, our Heavenly Father—Elohim—lives. That is an absolute truth. All four billion of the children of men on the earth might be ignorant of him and his attributes and his powers, but he still lives. All the people on the earth might deny him and disbelieve, but he lives in spite of them. They may have their own opinions, but he still lives, and his form, powers, and attributes do not change according to men’s opinions. In short, opinion alone has no power in the matter of an absolute truth. He still lives. And Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Almighty, the Creator, the Master of the only true way of life—the gospel of Jesus Christ. The intellectual may rationalize him out of existence and the unbeliever may scoff, but Christ still lives and guides the destinies of his people. That is an absolute truth; there is no gainsaying

 

I agree, no problem.  But the only way to know that is by the method Alma gives us.

He says this:

Quote

The Gods organized and gave life to man and placed him on the earth. This is absolute. It cannot be disproved. A million brilliant minds might conjecture otherwise, but it is still true.

But President how do you KNOW that??

 

Quote

 

Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field. Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation. The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” (D&C 93:30.) A geologist who has discovered truths about the structure of the earth may be oblivious to the truths God has given us about the eternal nature of the family.

If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. To become a plumber, one must study the laws which govern plumbing.....

Why, oh, why do people think they can fathom the most complex spiritual depths without the necessary experimental and laboratory work accompanied by compliance with the laws that govern it? Absurd it is, but you will frequently find popular personalities, who seem never to have lived a single law of God, discoursing in interviews on religion. How ridiculous for such persons to attempt to outline for the world a way of life!....

One cannot know God nor understand his works or plans unless he follows the laws which govern. The spiritual realm, which is just as absolute as is the physical, cannot be understood by the laws of the physical. You do not learn to make electric generators in a seminary. Neither do you learn certain truths about spiritual things in a physics laboratory. You must go to the spiritual laboratory, use the facilities available there, and comply with the governing rules. Then you may know of these truths just as surely, or more surely, than the scientist knows the metals, or the acids, or other elements. It matters little whether one is a plumber, or a banker, or a farmer, for these occupations are secondary; what is most important is what one knows and believes concerning his past and his future and what he does about it......

Now, it is a good question which has been asked by millions since Joseph Smith phrased it: How am I to know which of all, if any, of the organizations is authentic, divine, and recognized by the Lord?

He has given the key. You may know. You need not be in doubt. Follow the prescribed procedures, and you may have an absolute knowledge that these things are absolute truths. The necessary procedure is: study, think, pray, and do. Revelation is the key. God will make it known to you once you have capitulated and have become humble and receptive. Having dropped all pride of your mental stature, having acknowledged before God your confusion, having subjected your egotism, and having surrendered yourself to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, you are ready to begin to learn. With preconceived religious notions stubbornly held, one is not teachable. The Lord has promised repeatedly that he will give you a knowledge of spiritual things when you have placed yourself in a proper frame of mind. He has counseled us to seek, ask, and search diligently. These innumerable promises are epitomized by Moroni in the following: “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” (Moro. 10:5.) What a promise! How extravagant! How wonderful!

 

So yes there are "absolute truths" within their "sphere".  These truths are known through revelation- in the "religious sphere" after a lifetime of experience and savoring their fruits.

So let's get this straight for once and for all.  Yes Mormons believe there are "absolute truths" where one can have absolute certainty.

What kind of truths are these?  Religious truths.  How does one obtain such certainty?  Through a lifetime of reaping the benefits of the fruit they bring into their lives.

No metaphysics.

No correspondence theory.

Pure pragmatism.

I rest my case.