philosophy and religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter nebula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But here’s the question, there are millions of people elsewhere who have spiritual experiences that convince them of opposite truths who are also willing to change their lives. If we are going to argue that we ought to trust our spiritual experiences, our conversation ends because I have had spiritual confirmation that Mormonism does not reflect reality and my life has been more blessed and more at peace with more happiness since I’ve given up being a Mormon. By what tool are we going to get to the bottom of this disagreement? You may insist that it doesn’t really matter at the end of the day because the light of Christ could be guiding me-- but would the light of Christ lead me out of what you believe to be the fullness of the Gospel and inform me that Mormonism has a completely incorrect understanding of God?
And, I’ve got the fruits to prove it too.

Not only do we have people having incredible spiritual experiences coming to differing conclusions, but hte same people at different points in their lives coming to contradictory conclusions about the really real, and more than that, what do you do with those who leave your system of thought? You provide no means of discerning the truth given these situations.

If your response is, well, that’s okay, I can only know about my experiences, and you can only know about yours-- then what are Mormons doing going around proclaiming that they have the fullness of the gospel and trying to convert everyone on the face of the planet? There’s a real disconnect here. Mormonism is not a system that respects everyone’s point of view equally, if that were so, missionaries would not press their advantage every chance they get to get people to change their minds and come to “The Truth”. Okay, so we’ve traversed a circle. YOu know it’s the truth because of your personal experiences (and the ‘fruit’, an equally ambiguous idea). The fact that others have differing-- contradictory experiences does not matter you say, it’s all personality differences. But, that doesn’t negate the fact that Mormonism claims exclusive truths and to make sure we all know that, proselytizes the world, all of the world proclaiming to have hte ultimate truth. Mormons know they have the ultimate truth because of thei rpersonal experiences, the fact that others have differing even contradictory experiences is okay because…

See the problem?
 
nebula said:
But here’s the question, there are millions of people elsewhere who have spiritual experiences that convince them of opposite truths who are also willing to change their lives. If we are going to argue that we ought to trust our spiritual experiences, our conversation ends because I have had spiritual confirmation that Mormonism does not reflect reality and my life has been more blessed and more at peace with more happiness since I’ve given up being a Mormon. By what tool are we going to get to the bottom of this disagreement? You may insist that it doesn’t really matter at the end of the day because the light of Christ could be guiding me-- but would the light of Christ lead me out of what you believe to be the fullness of the Gospel and inform me that Mormonism has a completely incorrect understanding of God?
And, I’ve got the fruits to prove it too.

Not only do we have people having incredible spiritual experiences coming to differing conclusions, but hte same people at different points in their lives coming to contradictory conclusions about the really real, and more than that, what do you do with those who leave your system of thought? You provide no means of discerning the truth given these situations.

If your response is, well, that’s okay, I can only know about my experiences, and you can only know about yours-- then what are Mormons doing going around proclaiming that they have the fullness of the gospel and trying to convert everyone on the face of the planet? There’s a real disconnect here. Mormonism is not a system that respects everyone’s point of view equally, if that were so, missionaries would not press their advantage every chance they get to get people to change their minds and come to “The Truth”. Okay, so we’ve traversed a circle. YOu know it’s the truth because of your personal experiences (and the ‘fruit’, an equally ambiguous idea). The fact that others have differing-- contradictory experiences does not matter you say, it’s all personality differences. But, that doesn’t negate the fact that Mormonism claims exclusive truths and to make sure we all know that, proselytizes the world, all of the world proclaiming to have hte ultimate truth. Mormons know they have the ultimate truth because of thei rpersonal experiences, the fact that others have differing even contradictory experiences is okay because…

See the problem?
Click to expand...
The fact that others have differing or contradictory experiences is why not everyone in the world is Mormon.

That is abundantly clear. The math is inexcapable!

If we all were mormon and no one had contradictory experiences, Mormonism would be “false” because it postulates that we come to this world to live by faith, not KNOWLEDGE

I understand what you are saying, but I really don’t think you have a “solution” to the problem either.

It boils down to faith. Hate to say it, but it’s true. If you take what I consider to be a “radical empiricist” pov, there is no escaping it. If you take a Thomist pov, which to me is just plain silly, there is no escaping it. It uses a logical background which was disproven at least as far back as Hobbes. Look at him on causation.

It is the same old thing again; you cannot “prove” your “truth” corresponds to anything “out there” because all you can experience is experience.

So you go with “truth” which you cannot prove, and I go with “experience” which I CAN prove in a sense, a very limited sense, that we have been discussing.

William James concludes the Varieties of Religious Experience with this:

“I think, in fact, that a final philosophy of religion will have to consider the pluralistic hypothesis more seriously than it has hitherto been willing to consider it. For practical life at any rate, the chance of salvation is enough. No fact in human nature is more characteristic than its willingness to live on a chance. The existence of the chance makes the difference, as Edmund Gurney says, between a life of which the keynote is resignation and a life of which the keynote is hope. But all these statements are unsatisfactory from their brevity, and I can only say that I hope to return to the same questions in another book.”

Of course, there never was “another book”. When he mentions the “pluralistic hypothesis” he is actually looking at the possibility of polytheism, which he dismisses as being unsatisfactory. Yet we are accused of polytheism by those who don’t quite get it.

(continued)
 
(continued)
It seems that your objection to the missionaries is that they are “selling” something they can’t prove as true in your definition. Well, guess what-- no one can prove any religious proposition true either. So what do you do as a human being? Share what you have found that has changed your life, or sit on your hands passively meditating? “You guys have nothing, I have it all, but I am not going to share” is not a very “Christian” position.

So I don’t think there is an answer to the quesition you posed, I think the question implies a category mistake that is looking for abstract absolute “truth” where none can be found.

You can pursue an answer, but in my opinion, it is a contradiction.

My answer about your conversion away from Mormonism is what we have already discussed. It is entirely possible that you are being led away by the spirit for some reason. Not that you asked or care, but I have no problem with that philosophically.

“Mormonism is not a system that respects everyone’s point of view equally”

This is very true, I think because most people do not have a point of view. They are wandering around in darkness, clueless. When we have a member who has found another path, you write your letter to your bishop, and that is that. Bishops love to get inactives off the roles.

Do we believe we are the truest church on the planet? Yes, for reasons we have already discussed. I think it is abundantly clear that we have the total weltanschauung which works the best and makes the most difference in people’s lives. Mormons live their faith where I think it is clear that most do not. There are exceptions to be sure. But when it comes to actively living our faith, I think no one holds a candle to the way we live.

Do we believe that priesthood authority has been restored? We do. Again I think the difference that our priesthood makes in lives is clear. To me this is the definition of “true”.

As William James says in another place, speaking of his conception of “salvation” says:

“The appearance is that in this phenomenon something ideal, which iin one sense is part of ourselves and in another sense not ourselves, actually exerts in influence, raises our centre of personal energy, and produces regenrative effects unattainable in other ways”.

This seems to parallel:

D&C 84:
33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.
35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord

I am sorry that you have not seen these fruits, and if you want to talk about it privately, you could send me a private message if that is appropriate.

But is seems that you are less than objective in these matters and have seemingly had a radically different experience of the church than I have had.
 
mfbukowski said:
(continued)
It seems that your objection to the missionaries is that they are “selling” something they can’t prove as true in your definition. Well, guess what-- no one can prove any religious proposition true either. So what do you do as a human being? Share what you have found that has changed your life, or sit on your hands passively meditating? “You guys have nothing, I have it all, but I am not going to share” is not a very “Christian” position.

So I don’t think there is an answer to the quesition you posed, I think the question implies a category mistake that is looking for abstract absolute “truth” where none can be found.

You can pursue an answer, but in my opinion, it is a contradiction.

My answer about your conversion away from Mormonism is what we have already discussed. It is entirely possible that you are being led away by the spirit for some reason. Not that you asked or care, but I have no problem with that philosophically.

“Mormonism is not a system that respects everyone’s point of view equally”

This is very true, I think because most people do not have a point of view. They are wandering around in darkness, clueless. When we have a member who has found another path, you write your letter to your bishop, and that is that. Bishops love to get inactives off the roles.

Do we believe we are the truest church on the planet? Yes, for reasons we have already discussed. I think it is abundantly clear that we have the total weltanschauung which works the best and makes the most difference in people’s lives. Mormons live their faith where I think it is clear that most do not. There are exceptions to be sure. But when it comes to actively living our faith, I think no one holds a candle to the way we live.

Do we believe that priesthood authority has been restored? We do. Again I think the difference that our priesthood makes in lives is clear. To me this is the definition of “true”.

As William James says in another place, speaking of his conception of “salvation” says:

“The appearance is that in this phenomenon something ideal, which iin one sense is part of ourselves and in another sense not ourselves, actually exerts in influence, raises our centre of personal energy, and produces regenrative effects unattainable in other ways”.

This seems to parallel:

D&C 84:
33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.
35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord

I am sorry that you have not seen these fruits, and if you want to talk about it privately, you could send me a private message if that is appropriate.

But is seems that you are less than objective in these matters and have seemingly had a radically different experience of the church than I have had.
Click to expand...
You’re pursuing a very Mormon line of thought and one which is fatally flawed. It’s the false construction of an either or dilemma when there isn’t one-- it’s not “can’t prove it conclusively with no room for doubt? Then everything is in doubt! All that you can do is try to discern whether or not that warm feeling you have is the start of a fever or the Spirit speaking to you.”

First of all, I’m not a Thomist. The world is not divided up into Thomists and radical empiricists. There are plenty of inbetween positions and I think I’ve done a fine job of at least demonstrating that I am inbetween. Secondly, just because you cannot prove a proposition with the definiteness as a mathematical proof doesn’t mean that weighing of evidence should never come into the picture. That’s plain silliness. Thirdly, faith is not all about believing despite contradictory evidence- it’s about trusting God who has shown Himself throughout history to be trustworthy because the evidence cannot clinch the case. But, we are constantly asked to look at and reflect on the evidence that has been given to us.

The next line of reasoning you use is, well, look at the fruits! Surely that means something. Yet, somehow, I’m more blessed now than I was as a faithful Mormon, how is that? If fruits are the only evidence presented, this is a serious problem.

If you want to finish the argument with a ‘well I just believe’ then so be it, that’s your prerogative but that hardly answers the objections.

If the Mormon church is the one true church on the face of hte planet, if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then we ought to be able to look at something more. After all, God is the God of history-- where is the signs in Mormonism that it is truly the one true church of God? THe people aren’t any happier than anywhere else in my experience, they aren’t any more financially blessed, they don’t have any closer family relations, from my observations. There appears to be zero evidence that the Book fo Mormon is what it says it is. There appears to be zero evidence that the Book of Abraham is what it claims to be. What is there? WHy would God give us intellects and reason if we are not supposed to use them at all?

God wants us to follow Him with the whole of our being-- mind, spirit and heart, all three. You’ve not satisfied one of those. How can my will be completely committed to a church that refuses my honest questions of the intellect? How can my spirit be satisfied with a conception of God which is less than infinite?

Yes it’s true, I claim there is an absolute truth. But, so do you, the difference is you don’t want to deal with the consequences of such a claim. William James never did really commit.
 
nebula said:
You’re pursuing a very Mormon line of thought and one which is fatally flawed. It’s the false construction of an either or dilemma when there isn’t one-- it’s not “can’t prove it conclusively with no room for doubt? Then everything is in doubt! All that you can do is try to discern whether or not that warm feeling you have is the start of a fever or the Spirit speaking to you.”

First of all, I’m not a Thomist. The world is not divided up into Thomists and radical empiricists. There are plenty of inbetween positions and I think I’ve done a fine job of at least demonstrating that I am inbetween. Secondly, just because you cannot prove a proposition with the definiteness as a mathematical proof doesn’t mean that weighing of evidence should never come into the picture. That’s plain silliness. Thirdly, faith is not all about believing despite contradictory evidence- it’s about trusting God who has shown Himself throughout history to be trustworthy because the evidence cannot clinch the case. But, we are constantly asked to look at and reflect on the evidence that has been given to us.

The next line of reasoning you use is, well, look at the fruits! Surely that means something. Yet, somehow, I’m more blessed now than I was as a faithful Mormon, how is that? If fruits are the only evidence presented, this is a serious problem.

If you want to finish the argument with a ‘well I just believe’ then so be it, that’s your prerogative but that hardly answers the objections.

If the Mormon church is the one true church on the face of hte planet, if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then we ought to be able to look at something more. After all, God is the God of history-- where is the signs in Mormonism that it is truly the one true church of God? THe people aren’t any happier than anywhere else in my experience, they aren’t any more financially blessed, they don’t have any closer family relations, from my observations. There appears to be zero evidence that the Book fo Mormon is what it says it is. There appears to be zero evidence that the Book of Abraham is what it claims to be. What is there? WHy would God give us intellects and reason if we are not supposed to use them at all?

God wants us to follow Him with the whole of our being-- mind, spirit and heart, all three. You’ve not satisfied one of those. How can my will be completely committed to a church that refuses my honest questions of the intellect? How can my spirit be satisfied with a conception of God which is less than infinite?

Yes it’s true, I claim there is an absolute truth. But, so do you, the difference is you don’t want to deal with the consequences of such a claim. William James never did really commit.
Click to expand...
For some reason, I have missed what your postion IS.

I am not sure what your conception of truth is, if it is not Thomist. It obviously relies on the existence of absolute truth in some sense, and I guess I simply plugged in “Thomism” as a prejudice since you are considering catholicism as an option.

If you want to discuss the infinite, we can. I believe God is infinite. For some reason, we continue to talk at cross purposes. I think that there is no conflict between the BOM’s “one God” with that understood as being comprised of 3 persons. And according to PaulDupre, that is what catholics believe too, but what Catholics believe is confusing to me in this area.

Herclitus speaks of a reality which had no beginning and no end, and is yet ever changing. It is the river analogy. Every aspect of the river is changing second to second, moment to moment in a way that is never repeated. And yet the river itself is (let us say) infinite and unchanging. On this model, one could construct a theology with a view of God as eternal and infinite and yet constantly changing. And I do most definitely believe in eternal progression.

The epistemological question is different from the metaphysical question, and yes I am aware that the world is not divided into Thomists and radical empiricists, but, and I think that once you accept dualism, you have a real epistemological problem which is ulitmately unsolvable if we want to admit any kind of real empiricism.

Anyway, it might be good for you to take a post or two to show your positions on these issues. What do you think the answer is?

YOU:
"it’s not "can’t prove it conclusively with no room for doubt? Then everything is in doubt!

Not at all! Pragmatists are about nothing if they are not about shades of grey. “Warranted assertibility” is their standard of truth.

What kind of evidence would you find proves that any kind of church is true? You seem to like the word prove, and true, so I am wondering
 
I have been thinking about this point, and I think I forgot to emphasize something that is central.

I think the singular life-changing conversion experience is essential to being “born again”

I think that is what is meant ultimately by the statement “I know the church is true”. The “truth value” of such a statement would be in a pragmatic definition of truth, but the experience itself is essential.

So I guess that is where we disagree. You find such experiences something to be analyzed, and I find them unanalyzable, if that is a word.

The experience just is, and you have no choice but to go with it.

It is like any life changing experience.

So ultimately, my position is right back to classic Mormon.

Surprise surprise!
 
mfbukowski said:
I have been thinking about this point, and I think I forgot to emphasize something that is central.

I think the singular life-changing conversion experience is essential to being “born again”

I think that is what is meant ultimately by the statement “I know the church is true”. The “truth value” of such a statement would be in a pragmatic definition of truth, but the experience itself is essential.

So I guess that is where we disagree. You find such experiences something to be analyzed, and I find them unanalyzable, if that is a word.

The experience just is, and you have no choice but to go with it.

It is like any life changing experience.

So ultimately, my position is right back to classic Mormon.

Surprise surprise!
Click to expand...
Why shouldn’t it be analyzed? I’ve given plenty of reasons that it should. Obviously it isn’t ‘pure experience’ or it could not convince you of the truth of anything, let alone a complex theological system since pure experience by definition excludes any kind of concepts.

I argue that Mormonism as a religion opens itself up to these critiques by on the one hand insisting that it represents the fullest truth of any religious system and that one must become a Mormon to be inline with the wishes of God and yet on the other hand insists on protecting itself against critiques which naturally follow such a strong claim by insisting that the whole thing is based on subjective experiences that you get or you don’t get.

Given this state of affairs, what point is there in any Mormon attempting to argue his or her case at all, anywhere, ever?
 
By the way, take your time. We’ve been going at it rapid fire and if you want to take a couple days I’ll still look for your response.
 
nebula said:
Why shouldn’t it be analyzed? I’ve given plenty of reasons that it should. Obviously it isn’t ‘pure experience’ or it could not convince you of the truth of anything, let alone a complex theological system since pure experience by definition excludes any kind of concepts.

I argue that Mormonism as a religion opens itself up to these critiques by on the one hand insisting that it represents the fullest truth of any religious system and that one must become a Mormon to be inline with the wishes of God and yet on the other hand insists on protecting itself against critiques which naturally follow such a strong claim by insisting that the whole thing is based on subjective experiences that you get or you don’t get.

Given this state of affairs, what point is there in any Mormon attempting to argue his or her case at all, anywhere, ever?
Click to expand...
What I was saying in the “lost post” was that any experience cannot be analyzed as to whether or not it is “validly corresponding” to anything metaphysical, that is “out there”. I see my red ghia and I know that I see a red ghia. There is no point in trying to discover if it is a “real” red ghia experience or not.

What defines a halucination is that others can’t see it. It can be discussed, but never verified by others. Same with dreams.

But when you get a report from thousands or millions of people who describe similar experiences under similar conditions, you have something else going on.

I will tell you a bit about my conversion experience. At the age of 12 I was considering going into the catholic seminary. I visited the seminary for a weekend. It was about 200 miles from where I lived at the time. I was on a bus with other boys who were on the same quest.

At the end of the weekend, I prayed to know whether or not I should become a priest. I got a strong impression that God wanted me to be a priest. I also got a strong impression that God wanted me to get married. The answer was almost like words in my head “A married priest”

Not possible in catholicism.

I studied philosophy and became a communist. Was a student of Angela Davis at UCLA. Learned my Hegel and Marx. Became athiest. Became interested in pragmatism. Went to NY to learn about William James in grad school. Decided that philosophy was bankrupt after reading Wittgenstein. It was all linguistic confusion. It was all a game to get tenure. I could live my life deconstructing language, or do something meaningful. I could not live that way.

Flash forward to age 30

Somebody talked to me about Mormonism. Man this is weird stuff I thought. I read about eternal progression. Then I found Moroni 10:4. Impossible! How could God talk to you and tell you it was true!

Sunday afternoon, went for a drive by myself thinking about this stuff. Total right brain experience in itself.

I found myself at the seminary where I had prayed when I was 12.

I had driven to an exact location over a hundred miles away from where I lived at the time, over a complex maze of city streets. I had only been to this location once before, at the age of 12 when I was not aware of how to get places, I could not drive, and in fact I was asleep on a bus for much of the journey. 20 years later, without even understanding what I was doing, thinking of something else, I replicated the exact journey.

I went into that catholic chapel and prayed about the book of mormon. I cannot describe the experience – there are no words for what I felt. Ecstasy, light, peace,boundless love, illumination, ephiphany exhillaration all fit, but at once. It was close to an “out of body experience”. It wasn’t the “warm fuzzies”. I knew this was from God, and as Joseph said, I knew that God knew that I knew. After perhaps a half hour of this, it went away gradually.

I left the chapel and felt directed again. I drove out of the parking lot receiving impressions and drove two or three blocks “turn right here” “turn left here”, and the street ended. In front of me was an LDS chapel full of people coming out of sacrament meeting.

I had only been in this city once before, as I said, at age 12.

There is absolutely no question in my mind Absolutely none-- that I was not being directed.

I don’t know why it worked that way for me and why it might work differently for someone else, but I know what I know

(continued)
 
And the more I study Mormonism the more I find rationally. I find temple symbolism and iconography in the old testament. I find it in the new testament. I study world religions, and see it everywhere. Zoroastrianism is a wonderful example. The Persian magi were zoroastrians, and had prophecies about the Christ.

The parsis of India have rituals much like the temple rituals. They put on themselves a sacred sash to protect them from evil and remind them of their covenants. Greek orthodox believe in theosis and are crowed and annointed when they are married. Masonry is an apostate form of temple worship derived from Solomon’s temple. I see it everywhere. I am not going to post this where I am going to have to reveal temple ritual, or even encourage others to research it, because they will not see it. But the similarities are endless. There is no way Joseph Smith could have made this stuff up. But ultimately, it is not up to me to prove this to anyone but myself. But with my sceptical nature, it takes a lot to prove anything to me.

To me, the strongest evidence historically and culturally that Mormonism is true is the temple experience and its iconography. But it is an “inconvenient truth” that it cannot be discussed.

So to me, Mormonism is perfectly rational just as the catholics think their faith is perfectly rational. I have evidences and proofs galore. It coheres with what I understand of the philosophy I have always been drawn toward. Even Marx after all was talking about the law of consecration, but with the force of satan behind it.

Let’s assume that somehow Joseph really did make it all up.

How then is he different from Swedenborg or Wesley or Luther or anyone ese?

All of these are man made doctrines unapologetically

To me, it is crystal clear that catholic doctrine has been altered so much from early christianity that it is also man made. You can’t study the ECF’s without seeing the apostasy taking place. Catholics are just in denial.

So to me Mormonism is not based on what you call “a subjective experience” I have all the evidence that other religions have AND the glorious understanding of revealed doctrine to go with it. The revelation is at once the beginning and the icing on the cake.

So I guess again we come full circle. But the iconography of a circle is not a bad place to begin, or end!
 
mfbukowski said:
And the more I study Mormonism the more I find rationally. I find temple symbolism and iconography in the old testament. I find it in the new testament. I study world religions, and see it everywhere. Zoroastrianism is a wonderful example. The Persian magi were zoroastrians, and had prophecies about the Christ.

The parsis of India have rituals much like the temple rituals. They put on themselves a sacred sash to protect them from evil and remind them of their covenants. Greek orthodox believe in theosis and are crowed and annointed when they are married. Masonry is an apostate form of temple worship derived from Solomon’s temple. I see it everywhere. I am not going to post this where I am going to have to reveal temple ritual, or even encourage others to research it, because they will not see it. But the similarities are endless. There is no way Joseph Smith could have made this stuff up. But ultimately, it is not up to me to prove this to anyone but myself. But with my sceptical nature, it takes a lot to prove anything to me.

To me, the strongest evidence historically and culturally that Mormonism is true is the temple experience and its iconography. But it is an “inconvenient truth” that it cannot be discussed.

So to me, Mormonism is perfectly rational just as the catholics think their faith is perfectly rational. I have evidences and proofs galore. It coheres with what I understand of the philosophy I have always been drawn toward. Even Marx after all was talking about the law of consecration, but with the force of satan behind it.

Let’s assume that somehow Joseph really did make it all up.

How then is he different from Swedenborg or Wesley or Luther or anyone ese?

All of these are man made doctrines unapologetically

To me, it is crystal clear that catholic doctrine has been altered so much from early christianity that it is also man made. You can’t study the ECF’s without seeing the apostasy taking place. Catholics are just in denial.

So to me Mormonism is not based on what you call “a subjective experience” I have all the evidence that other religions have AND the glorious understanding of revealed doctrine to go with it. The revelation is at once the beginning and the icing on the cake.

So I guess again we come full circle. But the iconography of a circle is not a bad place to begin, or end!
Click to expand...
Hi mf

Thanks for sharing. So I guess it’s clear that evidence plays a role in faith for both of us. It seems like your evidence, how shall I put it, is more broadly aimed than the way I’ve constructed my case, or is it that we start from different starting points? I’ve begun by thinking about God and His nature, you seem to have your evidence surrounding the revelations of Joseph Smith more generally, including but not focused on the nature of God. Is that a fair characterization?

But given that, I’m not sure why you see the need to take the post modernist escape route. Why not start by bringing up the best evidence that you can drum up to support the notion that Joseph is a prophet and therefore his revelations about God’s nature are, at the least, from a prophetic viewpoint? I suppose I don’t see what purpose there is in denying the existence of Reality to try to protect your religious experiences from critique if you could always switch the focus in public debate to debate over the evidence. There is every point is asking if there really is a Red Ghia. If there wasn’t a Ghia that really existed whether or not we think about it, look at it, independent of us, then we are deeply delusional and cannot be trusted to make any truth claims. On the other hand, our observations of the world suggest that there is an independent reality that is there to be observed. It hink of science, and how counter intuitive, anti… commonsensical scientific theories can be. That shouldn’t be the case if there were no independent reality to discover, if there was no reality, we should see something that mirrors our personal experiences much more closely, but we don’t. What our scientific theories tell us as they attempt to model reality is actually very difficult to even conceptualize.

I think we both are aware that people have had deep, ecstatic spiritual experiences for millenia and have come to conclusions that are deeply at odds with Mormonism (unless you want to relativize them to comparative non existence, but that is self destructive). So while that may be the driving force of your faith, as it may be for mine as well, when we enter into public debate it doesn’t help our cases much by trying fall back on our personal experiences that the others have no access to.
 
nebula said:
Hi mf

Thanks for sharing. So I guess it’s clear that evidence plays a role in faith for both of us. It seems like your evidence, how shall I put it, is more broadly aimed than the way I’ve constructed my case, or is it that we start from different starting points? I’ve begun by thinking about God and His nature, you seem to have your evidence surrounding the revelations of Joseph Smith more generally, including but not focused on the nature of God. Is that a fair characterization?

But given that, I’m not sure why you see the need to take the post modernist escape route. Why not start by bringing up the best evidence that you can drum up to support the notion that Joseph is a prophet and therefore his revelations about God’s nature are, at the least, from a prophetic viewpoint? I suppose I don’t see what purpose there is in denying the existence of Reality to try to protect your religious experiences from critique if you could always switch the focus in public debate to debate over the evidence. There is every point is asking if there really is a Red Ghia. If there wasn’t a Ghia that really existed whether or not we think about it, look at it, independent of us, then we are deeply delusional and cannot be trusted to make any truth claims. On the other hand, our observations of the world suggest that there is an independent reality that is there to be observed. It hink of science, and how counter intuitive, anti… commonsensical scientific theories can be. That shouldn’t be the case if there were no independent reality to discover, if there was no reality, we should see something that mirrors our personal experiences much more closely, but we don’t. What our scientific theories tell us as they attempt to model reality is actually very difficult to even conceptualize.

I think we both are aware that people have had deep, ecstatic spiritual experiences for millenia and have come to conclusions that are deeply at odds with Mormonism (unless you want to relativize them to comparative non existence, but that is self destructive). So while that may be the driving force of your faith, as it may be for mine as well, when we enter into public debate it doesn’t help our cases much by trying fall back on our personal experiences that the others have no access to.
Click to expand...
I guess my motivation is to always seek the truth, and I don’t frankly care much about debate. I really only post to see if there are arguments out there that I have not thought about, and also to help define my positions.

The main evidences to me that Joseph was a prophet would require me to break my covenants and discuss the temple, and I am not about to do that. And I think that is why the temple rituals are given to us. It forces us to be non-lingusitic if we don’t talk about them. They may be all over the internet, but defining those experiences in language would mis characterize them to the point of making them false. And it denies the possibility that many can give the rituals their own interpretation which comprises what they need to learn in life. As a pragmatist and a teacher, I cannot think of any better way than teaching students to work it out for themselves without help. That is really the only way we learn anyway.

I really think that what many people see as temple worship is just the sliver of the tip of the iceberg. I remember my mom describing how she tried to explain atomic theory to her grandma who was born in Poland in 1860. She said “Grandma- did you know that this chair is made up of little tiny particles buzzing around in circles, and it seems like it is hard, but it really is mostly just space between those particles?” Let’s just say that Grandma thought she had really lost it. But who was right? for Grandma’s purposes, there was no need for such a theory.

It really is a language unto itself and the signs and tokens are just letters – the alphabet of the language. And there are keys to the alphabet in places like the Book of Abraham, but they cannot be discerned except by the spirit. How this came to be is in itself miraculous.

My goal is not to convince others of the truth of Mormonism. That would be nice I guess, but I really believe that it is a hopeless pursuit. Only the spirit can do that, and online there is too much argumentation and not enough discussion to do that. I really believe that the truth of any religion can only be gotten from an experience.

I take a post-modern approach because I believe that it is true.

I think that all we can talk about is what we can talk about.

Maybe there is something “out there” - the essence of red ghia-ness, but we can’t really discuss it, because all we have is language. Talking about metaphysics is what gets us into trouble because we are using linguistic reality to talk about non-lingusitic reality. It’s like trying write shakespeare using only mathmatical equations. The language is insufficient for what we are conveying.

As far as the nature of God, all I can base my view of that on is my experience. I know there is someone out there who knows me and my needs, knows my thoughts dreams and what is important to me, and loves me and has directed my life. That’s a lot of experience. And I believe that that person is Jesus from early experiences of praying to Him, and subsequent testimonies that Jesus is the Christ.

But if He is one or three persons, I do not have direct experience of. But I have had many “the church is true” experiences, so I go with the model I have been given that is the closest to what I know to be true. The approach is scientific really. It is the best model which fits with classic christianity.

And the whole notion that we are gods in embryo just gives purpose to the universe to me. It answers your old question of “why does anything exist?” Because an infinitely perfect Father wants to give us all that he has. That is why it all exists.
I am a father and I want to give my kids more than I will ever have to give them.

It just makes sense.
 
mfbukowski said:
This is what I mean.

Check out the annointing here:

copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/2_confirmation.html

I suppose Joseph had access to these ideas right?

Yet it is clear that if this is their tradition, it probably was taught in the early church
Click to expand...
I agree that language is all that we have, and that it is insufficient to fully access Reality, but that doesn’t deny the existence of a Reality. The very fact that language attempts to reference something outside of itself is telling and frankly I think post modern philosophers got way too goofy on that fact and could’ve used a long deep look into what science has revealed- merely because through a more well defined language (mathematics) we are able to do so much… the predictions, the things we construct from it. It’s not all relative, even if the connection between the sign and the reference is not as straightforward as we’d like it to be-- the reference does exist.

Alright, now that is off my chest… Everything you’ve mentioned about Joseph could be alternatively explained by his ability to take a cue from everything he encountered. Much of his theology was a creative interpretation of the regular ole Bible (which is also why a lot of the elements in Mormonis can be found in other traditions as well, Joseph wasn’t the first one to see things in the BIble that others since then have passed over). The temple ceremony is so closely related to the Masonic ceremony that that hardly needs commentary. None of that proves that Joseph therefore wasn’t inspired by God, but it is enough to suggest that that conclusion isn’t a necessary one.

I suppose the question really comes right down to how much evidence would make Mormonism a reasonable proposition for the average person? I argue that it falls short. I’d like to see the BoA be based on actual papryii that have something to do with the contents of the book, or how about the JST point to some of the latest manuscript evidence we’ve uncovered for the Bible, or how about something from the physical claims of the BoM (okay, there’s an inscription in Yemen, but it isn’t exactly conclusive…). My problem is that there are so many physical claims made by JOseph that ought to correspond to at least a handful of impressive empirical evidence, but the complete lack raises my natural suspicions. Is that so wrong?

When I mention this disconnect, the immediate response I have been getting is “Oh, so you’re anti experience! Well you can’t even prove God exists… etc” and I think by now I’ve made ti clear that isn’t my position. But when dealing with someone who claims to be a prophet of the stature that Joseph claimed to be, and with all the claims that he made over the space of his young life-- I figure, there ought to be something!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top