Questions for Mormons

[Autodidact]

Thanks all, interesting discussion.
I absolutely agree. Christianity is the same way, probably worse. Mormonism is just an interesting example to study, because it's newer and a little more limited in scope. But my question relates to all non-evidence based belief systems, including all revealed religions. If you don't check your beliefs against reality, how do you know they're true?

"personal revelation?" But, obviously, everyone gets the personal revelation they're raised to expect. p.f.Ms get revelations that they're the One Mighty and Strong, or that they're supposed to marry Susie, and non p.f.Ms get different revelations. How does either of them check to see whether their revelation is correct? Psychologically, subjectively, they're having the exact same experience as you, your Bishop, or Gordon B. Hinckley. How does any of you know you're right and they're wrong?

I don't think it works just to say it's an individually valid thing. I find that many religionists, when pushed to account for their beliefs, retreat into an odd post-modern constructivist nihilism, in which knowledge is not possible. It's no more valid for a Mormon than a post-modern history professor. In short, it's bunk. Some things are true, some are not, and some we don't know. It's up to each of us to do our best to figure out which is which, not believe whatever we like because it suits us or because our mother said so.

 

[nutshell]

I don't think it works just to say it's an individually valid thing. I find that many religionists, when pushed to account for their beliefs, retreat into an odd post-modern constructivist nihilism, in which knowledge is not possible. It's no more valid for a Mormon than a post-modern history professor. In short, it's bunk. Some things are true, some are not, and some we don't know. It's up to each of us to do our best to figure out which is which, not believe whatever we like because it suits us or because our mother said so.

Just because you don't subscribe to post-modernism does not make it bunk.

As to the part in bold: I agree with you. However, truth is relative and/or available in a variety of sources. A truth that speaks to one person may not speak to another and vice versa.

 

[Orontes]

"personal revelation?" But, obviously, everyone gets the personal revelation they're raised to expect. p.f.Ms get revelations that they're the One Mighty and Strong, or that they're supposed to marry Susie, and non p.f.Ms get different revelations. How does either of them check to see whether their revelation is correct? Psychologically, subjectively, they're having the exact same experience as you, your Bishop, or Gordon B. Hinckley. How does any of you know you're right and they're wrong?

I don't know what a p.f.m. is.

If revelation were simply the final end product of some predisposition then it would have little or no value. Given the life altering and new knowledge based on revealed knowledge claims, the idea such is simply what a subject expected is not sustainable. As to checking a revelation is correct: the very idea suggests a failure to understand the meaning of what a revelation would need to be. Revelation entails the subject moving from a not knowing state to a knowing state regarding some X. Therefore, the onus is on the revealing source to make sure the subject understands. A revelation that did not succeed in dispensing knowledge is not a revelation. If someone claimed to have revelation Y and another claimed revelation -Y then obviously one or both are wrong. From a Mormon perspective, any revelatory claim can and should be confirmed with the source of the revelation i.e. Deity. Therefore a given person's claims about a thing are not as pertinent as the fact one can seek knowledge directly from the Divine. Revelation at its core is intuitive that is why responsibility for what is revealed can be applied.

 

[Starfish]

I'm reading Shattered Dreams, by Irene Spencer. Here's some of what she says about the theology she was taught in her Mormon fundamentalist splinter group upbringing:

"...this planet was given to Adam as a reward for his own obedience to the Celestial Law on some other world. Adam, known prior to his earthly incarnation as Michael the Archangel, was granted the status of a god be cause of his righteous life. Earth was to be his domain, and the wives and children he acquired on that other world were to help him populate this one, which he would then rule over as God the Father, spoken of in the Christian scriptures. Adam came to Earth with one of his celestial wives to begin mortal life for their spirit children. Their primary mission was to procreate and populate their world, providing bodies to all their spirit children...
Adam chose Jesus, the firstborn of his innumerable offspring in the Preexistence, to be the second member of the Trinity. While here on Earth, before he was sacrificed for the sins of humanity, Jesus himself had at least two wives...When Jesus returns to resurrect the dead, he will exalt to the highest level of celestial glory all male children of the covenant who have succeeded well in living the Principle. They will become gods of their own worlds...
The wives and children sealed to a deserving man while on Earth will assist him in populating the world he is given to rule over in the next link of this godhood chain...
Women cannot become gods in their own right. A woman's hope lay solely in being a wife and mother--one of many wives to her husband, mother of many, many children. She thereby contributes to her husband's future kingdom and will ultimately share in his glory as a goddess, an immortal being who will rune under him and alongside her sister wives for eternity. A woman is dependent on her husband to "pull her through the veil" of daeth into heaven and divinity."

My question: how much of this, if any, is part of the theology you were taught in the mainstream LDS church?

As another LDS here, I've never heard this before. This is not what we're taught.

 

[Epiphany]

What makes you so confident that you're right, and they're wrong? Are you smarter than them? Closer to the holy spirit?

It's not about being right or wrong, it's about believing things that God has revealed, or not believing them. And the confidence we have in those things is itself a divine gift.

 

[Starfish]

I think it also has to do with the fruits of a religion. What religion seems to be really working for it's members? What religion is really fitting with the scriptures? What religion just seems to have more answers to life's questions?

 

[Katzpur]

My question relates to all non-evidence based belief systems, including all revealed religions. If you don't check your beliefs against reality, how do you know they're true?

What reality, Auto? We're talking spiritual experiences. They can't possibly be proven or disproven.

How does any of you know you're right and they're wrong?

Pretty much the same way you do. You don't believe in God because the existence of a Higher Power simply does not make sense to you. It doesn't fit in with what you believe to be logical and reasonable, but no matter how obvious it is to you that such a being does not exist, you simply cannot prove that to someone else -- even to a very intelligent, highly educated, well-read person.

 

[Autodidact]

Just because you don't subscribe to post-modernism does not make it bunk.

Do you subscribe to it?

As to the part in bold: I agree with you. However, truth is relative and/or available in a variety of sources. A truth that speaks to one person may not speak to another and vice versa.

I don't even know what this means. If truth is relative, can your statement that truth is relative be true for you while false for me?

hypos: You're charged with a serious crime. The jury convicts based not on the evidence but their personal revelation. You beg them to examine the evidence, claiming that it is not true that you're guilty. "Hey, truth is relative and available in a variety of sources."

Heaven forbid you're stricken with a serious illness. Your doctor prescribes a treatment based on personal revelation. You question whether reading the results of research published in medical journals might not be a better way to determine treatment alternatives. "Well, a truth that speaks to one person may not speak to another."

Can a thing be both true and false? Can A equal not A? Do you live in a world where there is no such thing as a thing either being true or false? Is this how far we have to go to accept Mormon doctrine, to retreat to a place where it isn't objectively true, the evidence doesn't seem to support it, but since truth is relative and available from a variety of sources, including the Ouija Board, and truth that speaks to one person doesn't necessarily speak to another, it's still true? Isn't that going a bit far, bending your personal philosophy beyond the bounds of practicality, just to preserve your religious faith? In fact, doesn't that pretty much admit that it's not really true, to get it to be true, you have to redefine truth itself?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know what a p.f.m. is.

explained in thread: polygamist fundamentalist Mormon.

If revelation were simply the final end product of some predisposition then it would have little or no value.

Yes, that's my point. Such so-called revelations have no value.

Given the life altering and new knowledge based on revealed knowledge claims, the idea such is simply what a subject expected is not sustainable.

You're assuming what you set out to show: that what is revealed is knowledge. That's my question: how do you know it's knowledge, and not mere brainwashing or self-delusion? How can you tell the difference? What is different about your method compared to these p.f. M's that you believe are wrong? How can we tell who is right?

As to checking a revelation is correct: the very idea suggests a failure to understand the meaning of what a revelation would need to be. Revelation entails the subject moving from a not knowing state to a knowing state regarding some X. Therefore, the onus is on the revealing source to make sure the subject understands.

The revealing source? God? Uh, how would you know it was God doing the revealing? What about all those revelations that people get from the Virgin Mary, Brahma, and Allah? Those Gods don't exist, right? How do you know yours does? How is your "revelation" any different from theirs? My point is that their experience is exactly like yours. How do you tell which one is a true revelation?

A revelation that did not succeed in dispensing knowledge is not a revelation.

Exactly.

If someone claimed to have revelation Y and another claimed revelation -Y then obviously one or both are wrong.

Yes, that's the premise. One of you is wrong. How do we know which?

From a Mormon perspective, any revelatory claim can and should be confirmed with the source of the revelation i.e. Deity. Therefore a given person's claims about a thing are not as pertinent as the fact one can seek knowledge directly from the Divine. Revelation at its core is intuitive that is why responsibility for what is revealed can be applied.

O.K., so let's say Gordon Hinckley and Ervil LeBaron are both getting knowledge from their divine revelations. Both tell you that God has revealed things to them, and both say they got knowledge from what God has revealed, and their supposed revelations contradict each other, as well as the revelation you just got. How do we know whose is right?

 

[Autodidact]

As another LDS here, I've never heard this before. This is not what we're taught.

You might want to zip through the thread; we're now discussing the implications of that fact.

What is the mainstream Mormon position on blood atonement?

btw, on the polygamy thing, since this was a doctrine that was supposed to last forever, how does the mainstream church reconcile that with throwing it out the window? Is any Mormon doctrine subject to later modification?

 

[Autodidact]

It's not about being right or wrong, it's about believing things that God has revealed, or not believing them. And the confidence we have in those things is itself a divine gift.

Well, if you believe something that's false, aren't you then wrong? If someone says that God has revealed something, and that something turns out to be false, then weren't they wrong? Is the confidence that the p.m.M's have in all the above doctrine that you disagree with also a divine gift?

 

[Autodidact]

I think it also has to do with the fruits of a religion. What religion seems to be really working for it's members? What religion is really fitting with the scriptures? What religion just seems to have more answers to life's questions?

I think this touches on what I think is really going on. When it comes to religious belief in particular, I don't think many people step back, objectively examine the evidence, research various world religions, compare them to the data, or anything like that. I don't think many people come to religion by asking themselves the question of whether God exists, answering in the affirmative, and then trying to determine Her nature. (That is how I came to atheism.)

I think what happens is that most people are raised in a religion from a young age. (and a few convert.) They find that it works for them. It makes them happy. It seems to make sense. They belong to a community of like-minded believers, and that community is important to them. The whole system is valuable to them, and they want to keep it and to belong to it.

Further, there are negative repercussions, real, threatened and post-mortem, for ceasing their belief. They will actually lose friends, family, position, community, and they have been told that they'll lose their salvation. Most successful religions have a built-in "doubt-avoidance" mechanism, such as blaming doubt on Satan, or being told that what is important is to remain strong in faith in the face of doubt, that kind of thing.

So I think most religious belief isn't like empirical belief, based on evidence. Evidence is almost irrelevant. It's all about the "fruits."

Also, as Starfish points out, people want answers. They don't like "we don't know," as an answer. They don't like uncertainty. They want to know where we came from, what we're here for, and where we're going. Existentialism is not very popular. So people like to get and cling to answers to these questions, even if they have no evidence to support them.

 

[Autodidact]

What reality, Auto? We're talking spiritual experiences. They can't possibly be proven or disproven.

There's not much in life that can be proven or disproven; I'm interested in evidence, rarely proof.
Well, but they're meant to have import and effect in the real world, otherwise what's the point? People don't just have revelations about spiritual things, but about this actual world, that African-American men may receive the priesthood, to send Missionaries to Eastern Europe and establish the church there. These are real people, real places. When a man claims a revelation that a woman is meant to be his wife, as Joseph Smith claimed, if she believes him, she marries him, which is real and determines her life.

Are you claiming that spiritual things aren't real? I'd have to agree with you there.

Pretty much the same way you do. You don't believe in God because the existence of a Higher Power simply does not make sense to you. It doesn't fit in with what you believe to be logical and reasonable, but no matter how obvious it is to you that such a being does not exist, you simply cannot prove that to someone else -- even to a very intelligent, highly educated, well-read person.

Are you claiming that no one ever changes their mind? I did. It's not at all obvious. In fact, I think it's pretty hard to figure out, and there is certainly a possibility I could be wrong.

I'm not talking about God in general in this thread so much as a specific God. How do you know your God is the right one, not the one you would believe in had you been born in Peshawar?

 

[Starfish]

I think this touches on what I think is really going on. When it comes to religious belief in particular, I don't think many people step back, objectively examine the evidence, research various world religions, compare them to the data, or anything like that. I don't think many people come to religion by asking themselves the question of whether God exists, answering in the affirmative, and then trying to determine Her nature. (That is how I came to atheism.)

I think what happens is that most people are raised in a religion from a young age. (and a few convert.) They find that it works for them. It makes them happy. It seems to make sense. They belong to a community of like-minded believers, and that community is important to them. The whole system is valuable to them, and they want to keep it and to belong to it.

Further, there are negative repercussions, real, threatened and post-mortem, for ceasing their belief. They will actually lose friends, family, position, community, and they have been told that they'll lose their salvation. Most successful religions have a built-in "doubt-avoidance" mechanism, such as blaming doubt on Satan, or being told that what is important is to remain strong in faith in the face of doubt, that kind of thing.

So I think most religious belief isn't like empirical belief, based on evidence. Evidence is almost irrelevant. It's all about the "fruits."

Also, as Starfish points out, people want answers. They don't like "we don't know," as an answer. They don't like uncertainty. They want to know where we came from, what we're here for, and where we're going. Existentialism is not very popular. So people like to get and cling to answers to these questions, even if they have no evidence to support them.

I agree here for the most part.
The non-believers always clamor for evidence and there just isn't going to be any that suits them. Nothing scientifically measurable. God has told us we are to have faith and faith is all about believing without the evidence. Once we have the faith, then the evidence starts to happen; however it is rarely detectable to those who did not develop that faith. I have evidences all around me, but they are not measurable to anyone else. Plus there are many times mentioned in the scriptures, when solid evidence has been put before the faithless, and the resulting conviction is very short-lived at best.

I was born LDS and most of my family and friends are LDS, so I do have tremendous support and motivation to stay with it. However, some of my evidence is when I compare my life and the lives of my LDS associates on average, with the lives of my non-LDS friends and family, and the difference is obvious. These are the fruits.

But even that's not the reason I stay with this religion. I have felt God's spirit many times and know without doubt that this is where he wants me.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree here for the most part.
The non-believers always clamor for evidence and there just isn't going to be any that suits them. Nothing scientifically measurable. God has told us we are to have faith and faith is all about believing without the evidence. Once we have the faith, then the evidence starts to happen; however it is rarely detectable to those who did not develop that faith. I have evidences all around me, but they are not measurable to anyone else. Plus there are many times mentioned in the scriptures, when solid evidence has been put before the faithless, and the resulting conviction is very short-lived at best.

I was born LDS and most of my family and friends are LDS, so I do have tremendous support and motivation to stay with it. However, some of my evidence is when I compare my life and the lives of my LDS associates on average, with the lives of my non-LDS friends and family, and the difference is obvious. These are the fruits.

But even that's not the reason I stay with this religion. I have felt God's spirit many times and know without doubt that this is where he wants me.

O.K., I believe everything you're saying. I think that's a common experience:
I was born here, raised here, family and friends are here, I was taught to have faith without evidence and I do, and once I do, everything makes sense and works. O.K. Some thoughts:

How do you know you're right and the Muslims are wrong? How can we check or make sure? Because you can't possibly both be right, right?
Let's say you're born in Peshawar.
I was born Muslim and most of my family and friends are Muslim, so I do have tremendous support and motivation to stay with it. However, some of my evidence is when I compare my life and the lives of my Muslim associates on average, with the lives of my non-Muslim friends and family, and the difference is obvious. These are the fruits.

I guess you'd have to say that the religion whose adherents are, on average, the most happy, successful and have the best lives is the correct one? What if it turns out that religion is not LDS--do you convert?

I mean, aren't you interested in being right?

 

[Starfish]

O.K., I believe everything you're saying. I think that's a common experience:
I was born here, raised here, family and friends are here, I was taught to have faith without evidence and I do, and once I do, everything makes sense and works. O.K. Some thoughts:

How do you know you're right and the Muslims are wrong? How can we check or make sure? Because you can't possibly both be right, right?
Let's say you're born in Peshawar.
I was born Muslim and most of my family and friends are Muslim, so I do have tremendous support and motivation to stay with it. However, some of my evidence is when I compare my life and the lives of my Muslim associates on average, with the lives of my non-Muslim friends and family, and the difference is obvious. These are the fruits.

I guess you'd have to say that the religion whose adherents are, on average, the most happy, successful and have the best lives is the correct one? What if it turns out that religion is not LDS--do you convert?

I mean, aren't you interested in being right?

What you say is very logical. But it doesn't address my last statement in my previous post.
I know very little about other religions, especially anything outside of Christianity and Judaism. But I'm so thoroughly happy with what I have, that I feel no need to look into any of them. This may seem narrow-minded, but, like I said, my communication from God tells me to stay put.

 

[Autodidact]

What you say is very logical. But it doesn't address my last statement in my previous post.
I know very little about other religions, especially anything outside of Christianity and Judaism. But I'm so thoroughly happy with what I have, that I feel no need to look into any of them. This may seem narrow-minded, but, like I said, my communication from God tells me to stay put.

Wow. I guess I'd just have to say that I'm very, very, interested in the truth. This may be because of my inherently curious nature. I find it difficult to imagine believing, saying, and living something without having any idea of whether it's true or not.

 

[Starfish]

Wow. I guess I'd just have to say that I'm very, very, interested in the truth. This may be because of my inherently curious nature. I find it difficult to imagine believing, saying, and living something without having any idea of whether it's true or not.

Is that what I said, or are you referring to someone else? Not sure.
I totally agree with what you say here.

 

[Orontes]

explained in thread: polygamist fundamentalist Mormon.[/size][/font]

I see.

Yes, that's my point. Such so-called revelations have no value.

Such would not be a revelation as nothing is revealed.

You're assuming what you set out to show: that what is revealed is knowledge. That's my question: how do you know it's knowledge, and not mere brainwashing or self-delusion? How can you tell the difference? What is different about your method compared to these p.f. M's that you believe are wrong? How can we tell who is right?

The point being discussed was revelation as simply the follow through of some predisposition. This notion does not fit with revelatory claims. For example, Saul on the road to Damascus: he goes from one position to its opposite based on revealed knowledge. Now, one may reject Saul's claims, but the shift in his stance and that it was based on a revelatory claim is clear. The same can be seen with a young Joseph Smith in his First Vision experience and with others. Therefore the revelation as predisposition line of thinking doesn't speak to the experience as described.

The revealing source? God? Uh, how would you know it was God doing the revealing? What about all those revelations that people get from the Virgin Mary, Brahma, and Allah? Those Gods don't exist, right? How do you know yours does? How is your "revelation" any different from theirs? My point is that their experience is exactly like yours. How do you tell which one is a true revelation?

To the degree one is unsure about the source of a thing, to that same degree there is no responsibility to follow or adhere to that source. As noted, the onus is on the revealer that what is to be conveyed is understood and recognized for what it is. The base notion of God entails a being that has sufficient power to make Her will revealed. Therefore, recognizing the source and content of a revelation is part and parcel of the experience. As explained, the epistemic core of revelation is intuitive.

O.K., so let's say Gordon Hinckley and Ervil LeBaron are both getting knowledge from their divine revelations. Both tell you that God has revealed things to them, and both say they got knowledge from what God has revealed, and their supposed revelations contradict each other, as well as the revelation you just got. How do we know whose is right?

From a Mormon perspective, for any revelation claim that impacts the subject, that subject is entitled to his own witness/knowledge. Therefore, if a Hinckley, a LeBaron or a Moses asserted they had a revelation that impacted some other, that other is not bound by the claim simply from the assertion alone. They may know for themselves. The Book of Mormon illustrates this basic point. There is a prophet in the text who told his family he had a vision. One of the person's sons wanted to know for himself and asked Deity to reveal the same things. This is the base model. Recall, Mormonism, like with Christianity in general, is a belief system that involves judgment. Judgment cannot be applied justly if there is no responsibility. Responsibility is not possible without knowledge. Therefore, there must be a vehicle by and through which the subject can gain knowledge. Revelation is one such vehicle.

 

[Autodidact]

But I think we've established that you have no way whatsoever to determine whether you or Hamid is right about God, right? Hamid's experience is the same as yours, and he has the same reasons to believe in Allah as you do for your God, right?