epistemology of the first vision

[cryophil]

Our beliefs in the LDS ideology that the universe is created and governed by a higher power that governs through ethical principles, seem to suffer from a fatal epistemological flaw. Appealing to scripture or prophets does not seem to solve it, at least for me.

If one assumes the veracity of the prophets' claims to heavenly (supernatural) visitations such non-evidenced visitations do not answer the question about the source of the supernatural communication, the nature of the supernatural visitor, or the nature of the universe.

Take the first vision as given to us in the official version found in the PoGP. Joseph Smith had an experience which he interpreted as being divine. He felt an oppressive force, then saw a pillar of light and then two personages. What assurance can we have that the personages were telling the truth? How do we know they are divine and not someone playing a prank, an alien, or some other unexplained, but non-divine source?

Not to be flippant or irreverent...but to make a point it may appear I am (please be patient)...

Instead of a divine source, it could have been a guy named Frank. Because we have no external epistemic mechanism for determining the veracity of Frank's statements to JS, we cannot take Frank at his word when he describes truth about churches, the nature of the universe, including his statements that he and his father are the only gods. Maybe he's evil, maybe he's an alien, maybe there are many different gods passing around the microphone in a cosmic prank. Joseph simply couldn't tell, and neither could we, because none of us have an external epistemic means to verify the claims of supernatural messages. This also applies to the testimony through the Holy Ghost via a burning in the bosom or other phenomenal experience.

Lets take a look at the account. Starting with verse 15 of JS history in the PoGP:

"I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction."

Joseph Smith assumes that this is the adversary (as he is quoted saying later). However, the Bible and Book of Mormon are full of examples of God acting in wrath and causing darkness, muting persons, etc.

Numerous instances can be seen in the Old Testament where God’s wrath is demonstrated. In Numbers 16, God’s wrath is poured out on Korah, Dathan, Abiram and some 250 others who rebelled against Moses as God’s appointed leader (verses 1-3). In 3 Nephi 8-10, Jesus causes the destruction of more than 13 cities and brings 3 days of darkness. Korihor in Alma is stricken mute by the power of God.

Someone outside of Mormonism could interpret Joseph's experience in light of these other scriptures, and as easily conclude that God was wrathful with Smith for whatever reason.

We have no context for Satan striking persons mute or causing darkness, that I know of. In fact the Bible and D&C talk about Satan appearing as an angel of light. Lucifer, a fitting name, predicts this. To that, the next verses:

"16... I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

" 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! "

There are an infinite number of possible explanations for the supernatural visitations to prophets through the millenia, and the content of the supernatural messages does not solve the question of which possibility is more likely. Without Frank giving Joseph a methodology for discerning the veracity of Frank's identity and character for truthfulness, nothing else contained in "divine revelation" is easily taken as such. It all comes down to trust.

I am unaware of an appropriate epistemic mechanism the supernatural beings could have provided (that just might be my own lack of imagination). It certainly would have been much more helpful if Frank had said encoded a message in our DNA coding that says "I am Frank, Joseph was right." Still even this might crumble under similar epistemic scrutiny, however.

The testimony through the Holy Ghost is provided by several scriptures (Moroni 10, D&C 9, etc) and yet, we have no way to verify that it is not just a natural occurrence of our biology, rather than a conduit for revealing truthfulness.

I say this because there are a lot of examples in other religions which have experiences that are barely distinct (and in many cases much stronger) than the enlightenment, peace of mind and burning of the bosom the LDS doctrines describe as fruits and witness of truth & testimony.

With this in mind, I will ask:

- Where do we get the information or idea that the way to learn truth is by the Holy Ghost?

From LDS scripture. Which itself asks us to use its test to verify its truthfulness. But this is not an external mechanism that we can validate independently of its claims.

- Why do we trust that this method is the right one?

I don't know. I used to, but I am not so sure (see below)

- What is the method for learning truth by the Holy Ghost?

The scriptures describe a few experiences including a raising of ones consciousness, peace, burning on the heart/chest, pure intelligence flowing into the mind, etc.

- How do you know that these experiences (feelings) are not from inside of you?

They most definitely are. the question is, how can I know the trigger is from an external (essential) source?

- Does the Holy Ghost testify and point as truthful doctrines which contradict Mormonism? For example, polytheism & paganism?

Yes.

The Hindus practice Chakra meditation, one of which is centered in the heart. I've seen descriptions of that where a Hindu describes the experience as, "A feeling of peace seemed to flow into me with a sense of togetherness...I felt very peaceful from inside and also felt heat.”

(see Siddhaloka - Abode of Siddhas )

And this description among many many that show the "burning of the bosom" is actually more intense among some Hindu practioners.

" Often there is heat focused in this area when the chakra is awakening. This may feel like a warm, glowing sensation or a feeling of incandescence, with the chest blazing hot as a furnace."

"for example I feel my heart chakra (on average) a foot extending out from my chest (front and back) and about the size of a basketball. "

"I have had a warming sensation in the middle of my chest for the past two days. "

(See Warm Sensation, Heart Chakra? - ChakraTribe - tribe.net )

From there, get into a dialogue about other cultures and religious systems which have these same experiences and signs and miracles. Just like the Momrons, the Hindus have the Chakras, some of which have manifestations of elation, lifting and pure knowledge while meditating. For example, during mediation/mantra recitation (prayer), a flame is felt inside of the heart (part of the heart chakra), from which the mantra rings out; and this cooperates with the brow and crown (mind) chakras for realizing the "Clear Light".

Islam has the "hajj experience" and islamic transformation that are essentially just as strong or more than the mormon burning, as exampled by those who feel so emboldened as to commit suicide for their testimony.

Other Christian churches have spiritual manifestations in feelings, tongues and miracles.

As Mormons, who make up perhaps around 0.5% of the world's population, we are certain that our witness of the spirit is truthful but disregard the same witness in other religions when it testifies of polytheism, pagan practices, and others which are clearly forbidden or classified as evil in LDS scripture. Is this the truth meter pointing in all directions?

[NeuroTypical]

Ah cryophil. You remind me so much of me back in 1995, it hurts. I was looking so hard for the truth, I came within a few credit hours of getting a minor in philosophy.

Short answer: The difference you are looking for, seems to be that the spirit (as known and understood by LDS folk) testifies of truth. It doesn't just show up and have you feel it, it comes in response to something.

Long answer: Here's how I resolved the issues you are dealing with. I hope it helps - best of luck to you.

Alma 32:27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

Moroni 10:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The first scripture promises a slowly evolving process from faith to knowledge, through the assumption that if it looks good, and acts good, and produces good fruit, then it is good. Not really enough to base a testimony on, in my opinion. But Moroni promised something else - "he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.". That sounded a little more like it. So, when I looked at the verse, it laid out my side of the bargain:

1- "And when ye shall receive these things" - Before it would work, I had to read the Book of Mormon. But more than read it, to "receive" it. I had to internalize it - deeply reading for meaning, more than just a cursory glance. Not a critical reading, looking for faults. I had to read it, with the notion that it very well might be exactly what it claimes to be - scripture. True. The word of God. A literal history of people who literally lived.

2- "I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true"

So, I had to pray. Not just pray, but pray in the name of Christ. That means, I had to be worthy of his name. The guy who owns The Simsons brand, will let any amount of stupid garbage bear the name - Bart Simpson toothpaste, cheap flimsy Homer travel mugs, stupid T-shirts make out of inferior materials, whatever. But Jesus is more choosy. If you are going to bear his name, you need to be following his teachings.

This is possible to do, without actually believing in him. After all, I follow some of Sun-Tzu's "art of war" notions, but I don't believe he is a god, and I also don't share his faith. The best advice for a happy marriage, the notion that I've used as a foundation for mine, came from a drunk Tongan I met in an alleyway one night. I follow that advice daily, yet I'm not a big fan of the guy who gave it to me.

So, to take upon myself the name of Christ, I had to do and be a couple of main things:

* Not sinning

* Loving my neighbor

* Desiring to know a God I could love

I did not have to be perfect, I figured it was a matter of heart. It wasn't how close to my destination I was, it mattered only that my compass was pointed in the right direction, and I was following it. Yes, there was some doubt about what the compass was pointing to - was it true north, or just wishful thinking. But that didn't matter - I was just trying to satisfy this part of the scripture - and be able to pray in the name of Christ.

So, I prayed. I prayed nightly, starting about halfway through the book. I prayed fervently. My prayers were short and simple: "Dear Heavenly Father, if thou exist, thou knowest my heart. Thou knowest I am sincere. I desire to know of the truthfulness of this work. Please show it to me. In the name of thy son, Jesus Christ, amen". Simple, plain, sincere, over and over again.

3- "and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ,"

Ok - 3 requirements - and I had to have all 3 of them. In years past, I had read the BoM and prayed in the name of Christ, and got nothing. I was missing real intent - I figured I wouldn't get an answer, and praying was a way of proving my guess true.

It's about where my heart is. It needs to be sincere, not with an ulterior motive, burdened by unrepented of sin, or trying to get something else out of the experience. My intent had to be true. No faith, no promise.

I can't impress enough on everyone, the importance of these 3 items. They're related, but if you are missing one, don't be expecting anything. If you are having a hard time figuring out where you are on these 3, you're probably not there.

Throughout the process, I was comfortable with my part of the bargain. It was like showing up for a test being very, very well prepared - there's a confidence based on the fact that you know what you're doing. I wasn't lying to myself, or bending any rules, or figuring out the least I could do to satisfy the bare minimum - I was there, and there solidly.

I did not believe in God - but I didn't have to. I just had to want to. I was not setting aside doubts - they held the center stage.

4- "He will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."

So, what can I say - it happened.

It happened at work, where I was a candy maker, with an arm covered with chocolate. (If you've ever been to a fancy hotel, or taken a fancy cruise, and there's a chocolate mint on your pillow - that's what I used to make by hand.)

The details? Here is where I need to be a bit vague, in order to avoid embarassing stuff about someone who is not me. I was working away quietly, thinking about reality, wondering if I'd ever know what it was, and thinking about an unresolved situation in my life. I was at a crossroads, only tangentially related to my quest to discover the truth about the Book of Mormon. As I thought about this crossroads, trying to discern what to make out of the facts before me, I thought something along the lines of "Well, this pattern indicates that things are moving in the right direction... "

And it happened.

Words can't really explain it - they can only approximate it.

It was unmistakable, not a warm fuzzy, not an emotional reaction.

I had my answer. It was "yes".

It was a strong, internal sensation. Not a feeling - I wasn't happy or sad. The best word is "confirmation" . And what was it confirming? Many things. It was confirming that yes, I had just said something true - the pattern I was looking at was indeed moving in the right direction. It confirmed that there WAS a right direction. It confirmed that this notion of reality that I had looked at - this bizarre tale of prophets and plates and revelations and restorations, had the added benefit of being true.

A few side details:

* The first thing that dawned on me was, "My gosh, this is the Holy Ghost speaking with me!" The second thought that came a few minutes later was "My gosh, I've felt this before!" In one or two of the most stressful times of my life, I had felt that sensation before. I had written off the experience at the time, but realization flooded me - the Lord had stood by me, even while I was inactive.

* Other people tell me their conversion stories, and they are often different. My Bishop, as a young man, was watching a sunset, and said a brief prayer "thank you, God", and heard the words as clear as day "You'll be all right - I'll always take care of you". My experience was different. Another guy from my ward had been desiring to feel the Love of Christ - and felt it unexpectedly when he stood up to shake hands with a brother from another ward. They stood there with clasped hands, with tears flowing down both their faces. My experience was different - there was not a lot of emotion (although I pretty soon felt exhilleration, as it sank in what was happening). My wife's grandfather was on a bar stool 40 years ago, having left the church, and was almost knocked to the floor by the words "Wayne, why hast thou forsaken me?" I heard no words. The energy and the impact was internal to me, not external like it was to him.

* I have since felt this impression, this confirmation, quite often. As I returned to church in full force, keeping my baptismal covenant, the Holy Ghost has been, at points in my life, my constant companion.

* I have since been able to test this "answer", this influence of the spirit, this burning in the bosom, fairly scientifically. I've been able, once, to "switch" it on and off several times, by asking the Lord in prayer "should I do this?.... should I not do this?... should I do this?"

--

My experience, for what it's worth: After I had spent a year or so praying for an answer, and after receiving one, I was able to test this "answer", this influence of the spirit, this burning in the bosom, fairly scientifically.

I had an issue that I needed guidance on, and took it to the Lord. What I needed to do in the situation was fairly evident, but I desired that confirmation. To my surprise, the confirmation was to NOT do what I figured was correct. The expirement took about 30 seconds, and went like this:

"Lord, should I do this?" (speaking the words internally)

(nothing for 5 seconds)

"Lord, should I not do this?"

(confirmation - burning in the bosom for 5 seconds)

"Should I do this?"

(confirmation off - like someone had thrown a switch)

"Should I not do this?"

(confirmation on - again like an internal switch was thrown)

I did this a few more times. Throughout the rest of the day and week, I was able to "feel the spirit" every time I thought about what had happened.

So, I acted on what the confirmation directed - and I did NOT do what I thought was the correct thing. Within two days, an event occured that set things to right, that would not have occurred if I had acted as I thought I should. My initial estimation of what to do, turned out to be less desirable than what actually happened.

I've never heard of anyone who claimed to be able to turn an emotional reaction on and off several times in a minute. I'm familiar with how our brains and psyche's work, and I'm aware of various ways we humans convince ourselves of what we want to be convinced of, true or false. I'm aware of the phenomenons of self- and group-hypnosis. I understand 'groupthink', "brainwashing", and manipulation of reality by people in authority. This wasn't like any of those.

So the point is, this very convincing scientific test (it was to me, anyway), did not occur until AFTER I had exercised my faith, and spent a year on my knees asking to know if God existed or not. I figure if you demand something similar up front, you'll probably go away empty handed.

[Guest]

Well now. Isn't that amazing how you just answered your other thread... Why is Faith the 1st Principle? Here ya go.

<runs off to google the word epistemology...>

[Timpman]

I suggest that you repent and PRAY. It makes sense only through the Spirit. The Spirit is a form of communication higher than sound and sight.

[NeuroTypical]

Well now. Isn't that amazing how you just answered your other thread... Why is Faith the 1st Principle?

Well yeah, but his question goes a step further. He's wanting to know why your answer applies to just us Mormons, and not those other faiths that promise or offer a spiritual experience of some sort.

In other words, why don't we all open our heart chakras and become Hindu?

[Guest]

Well yeah, but his question goes a step further. He's wanting to know why your answer applies to just us Mormons, and not those other faiths that promise or offer a spiritual experience of some sort.

In other words, why don't we all open our heart chakras and become Hindu?

But see... it does not just apply to us Mormons...

We can all open our heart chakras if we are so inspired. Become Hindu even. Great religion, that... if that's where our diligent and honest search for truth leads us.

I don't subscribe to the thought that the Holy Spirit that led me to become a devout Catholic was not the same Holy Spirit that is now guiding me as an LDS.

So, if in your diligent and honest search for truth you can't reconcile that Joseph Smith saw God and not Frank... then you shouldn't be LDS. But, if you can put your faith on that vision, then everything else gets to fall under that prism. Faith first.

Edited May 11, 2012 by anatess

[pam]

Well yeah, but his question goes a step further. He's wanting to know why your answer applies to just us Mormons, and not those other faiths that promise or offer a spiritual experience of some sort.

In other words, why don't we all open our heart chakras and become Hindu?

Isn't Cryophil a female? At least that's what the profile says. :)

[volgadon]

What external, epistemic means are there which are 100% undeniably true?

If you want to play this game, you can doubt anything and everything, anywhere, anytime.

Every proposed epistemology requires an element of faith.

[rameumptom]

you are trying to study the stars, but refuse to accept the data that comes via telescopes.

That people from other faiths also have spiritual experiences is accepted in LDS belief (again, see Alma 29:8).

That you are only looking at one event in Joseph Smith's life, and not all of his spiritual events, you can conveniently mark it down as a bit of undigested potato.

Fact is, there were many witnesses to the Book of Mormon. There were at least one other witness to many of Joseph's revelations and angelic visitations. During the Kirtland Temple dedication, dozens of people had a variety of spiritual experiences, all related to the event. That Joseph Smith prayed for such an experience for the Saints and then they had it is impressive. That there were people outside the temple,who had nothing to do with the dedication, but were in their homes, and they saw angels walking on the roof of the temple, tells us that it probably was not a mass hysteria/hypnotic event.

You have to decide whether you will have faith and believe, or allow your scientific mind to cause you to disbelieve. For me, the experiences I've had fill me with hope and joy, something I did not have prior to joining the Church. Why would I want to go back to the misery the world offered, when I have happiness, peace, and hope here?

[cryophil]

Long answer: Here's how I resolved the issues you are dealing with. I hope it helps - best of luck to you.

LM_M, I appreciate the time you took to give me the long explanation. What I read, and please correct me if I am wrong, are steps building the initial small faith and progressing through actions like prayer and study and more. That with these, and the promise given in the scriptures, we can receive a confirmation that is very striking and apparent.

You mentioned how it can be different for each person, giving a few examples of not only yours but others' experience. You felt your experience confirmed the specific knowledge about LDS doctrinal & historical claims.

I appreciate this. At one time I had what I would call a conversion experience. I had been praying and studying, and after many days I had an experience in which I felt lifted, physically, mentally and what I might think is spiritually, to what felt like a higher state and a clearer reasoning. And because I was studying and thinking about LDS doctrinal & historical claims I did take it as a confirmation.

Years later I have repeated this experience and found that I can acquire a similar confirmation about beliefs, doctrines, theories and many teachings that directly contradict LDS teaching. For example, the Hindu heart chakra felt as I studied the stories of Vishnu, a pagan god. Or the theories of human evolution from a common primate ancestor with the Chimpanzee over 2 Million years ago. And more.

All religions have their steps to gaining a deeper experience of inner peace and abundant spiritual manifestation. That is why I posted about the Heart Chakra and examples of its claimed effects. This is only a small data point I use to illustrate that the world over has myriads of claims in like manner that come from devotion to steps that bring one there.

These experiences, the experiences of others the world over, have allowed me to see that this confirmation is something a person creates from within and takes meaning for oneself. It is found the world over and its meaning is applied in myriads of ways.

Furthermore there is increasing evidence that it can be induced through consistent means with application of drugs, neuro-stimuli and so forth in controlled laboratory conditions. In one case, J. Haidt calls it moral elevation and has seen ties to increase of oxytocin levels in the blood, which originate from glands in the chest area.

Not to say that it is purely biological. But to place a specific spiritual meaning on an experience that all religions claim is perhaps either short-sighted at least, and arrogant at worst.

I suggest that you repent and PRAY. It makes sense only through the Spirit. The Spirit is a form of communication higher than sound and sight.

Thank you for your judgement. And with that kind of judgement, I am betting that you would also tell me that the spiritual experiences that pagans, wiccans, polytheists, islamists and many other have which communicates to them that Mormonism is utterly false and their beliefs are completely truth, that you would tell me they too need to repent and pray in your prescribed form. Because none of their experiences are as valid as yours, I'm sure you believe.

But see... it does not just apply to us Mormons...

We can all open our heart chakras if we are so inspired. Become Hindu even. Great religion, that... if that's where our diligent and honest search for truth leads us.

I don't subscribe to the thought that the Holy Spirit that led me to become a devout Catholic was not the same Holy Spirit that is now guiding me as an LDS.

So, if in your diligent and honest search for truth you can't reconcile that Joseph Smith saw God and not Frank... then you shouldn't be LDS. But, if you can put your faith on that vision, then everything else gets to fall under that prism. Faith first.

Which faith one starts with seems to matter because the confirming experience we associate as spiritual is seen as a confirmation of whatever faith we are pursuing. However, that makes it wholly unreliably as a specific truth pointing experience and guide.

Isn't Cryophil a female? At least that's what the profile says. :)

Pam, thank you. I have seen that there is an assumption that rational discussion is mostly or entirely a male participation. I hope this view can change, especially in the LDS church.

What external, epistemic means are there which are 100% undeniably true?

If you want to play this game, you can doubt anything and everything, anywhere, anytime.

Every proposed epistemology requires an element of faith.

Very good point. We can. The question is can you consistently and clearly move from the faith (trust) point to a clear, universally verifiable, independently validated knowledge of fact about the claim. The answer is, yes, there is a certain kind of consistency that everyone in the world has together. Science. The technologies we use everywhere in the world is based on sciences that do not have cultural typifications. There is no Muslim Quantum Mechanics. There is no Hindu Thermodynamics. There is no Mormon biology. There is just universal science with its attendant branches that are nondenominational. The evidence is so abundant, we manufacture diverse technologies in the billions & perhaps trillions each year, each a little testimony of the power of scientific methodology.

Therefore, I posit, the epistemic value of science is had by all in the world. It has a universal bias in its favor.

you are trying to study the stars, but refuse to accept the data that comes via telescopes.That people from other faiths also have spiritual experiences is accepted in LDS belief (again, see Alma 29:8).

Alma 29:8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.

Does this mean that paganism and polytheism and islamic intolerance (which most certainly are confirmed to their respective believers by spiritual experience of the same levels I've had and read in the many accounts of Mormonism) are true and just?

I don't see how this verse explains that whatever wisdom they have in other nations and tongues are to be confirmed by the Holy Ghost. Just that they would have something different. The last part says that if it comes from God, it will be just and true. But it does mean that they wouldn't have falsehoods.

The point of matter is that you cannot verify the truth, from an epistemic place, of spiritual claims because they have no external mechanism of validation. The validation is a spiritual one. However, every religion and believers of these will claim the same powers. They cannot all be true because they all disagree on major points. To believe otherwise would absolutely dilute the message of Mormonism to nearly nothing.

That you are only looking at one event in Joseph Smith's life, and not all of his spiritual events, you can conveniently mark it down as a bit of undigested potato.

Fact is, there were many witnesses to the Book of Mormon. ...

Why would I want to go back to the misery the world offered, when I have happiness, peace, and hope here?

If you believe that the LDS chronicles have a monopoly on witnesses of miracles and of scripture, then you haven't studied Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, and much more. They all claim miracles. They all claim witness of angels. The catholics have tens of thousands of witness of Mary, who is central to their claim of authority in Christianity. If we count witnesses, the LDS church is woefully outnumbered. If we count claimed miracles, the billion of Hindus will win out.

That's not enough. To trust the words of others offers no enduring epistemic value either.

Edited May 13, 2012 by cryophil

[pam]

Pam, thank you. I have seen that there is an assumption that rational discussion is mostly or entirely a male participation. I hope this view can change, especially in the LDS church.

I think some of the confusion comes from having the "phil" part in your username. :)

[bytor2112]

The point of matter is that you cannot verify the truth, from an epistemic place, of spiritual claims because they have no external mechanism of validation. The validation is a spiritual one. However, every religion and believers of these will claim the same powers. They cannot all be true because they all disagree on major points. To believe otherwise would absolutely dilute the message of Mormonism to nearly nothing.

They cannot all be true....but many contain...truth. The CJCLDS is the Kingdom of God on earth in preparation for the return of the Savior. When HE returns and separates the wheat from the tares and cleanses the world with fire, their will be only the righteous left and they will not all be Latter Day Saints. All truth is from the same source, but only one Church is ordained and established by God to prepare for his return and administer ordinances necessary for Exaltation.

Meanwhile, the Adversary, creates counterfeits. Counterfeits that can be appealing and provide experiences that on the surface might suggest a connection with the Divine or Infinite, but in reality may only serve to lead us away from the fullness of truth.

The things of God can only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit and while all are given the Light of Christ and all can be influenced by the Spirit, only those given the gift of the Holy Spirit are assured of the Spirit as a constant companion if they live their lives as befits such a gift bestowed by the Authority of God on earth...the Priesthood.

[volgadon]

Very good point. We can. The question is can you consistently and clearly move from the faith (trust) point to a clear, universally verifiable, independently validated knowledge of fact about the claim. The answer is, yes, there is a certain kind of consistency that everyone in the world has together. Science. The technologies we use everywhere in the world is based on sciences that do not have cultural typifications. There is no Muslim Quantum Mechanics. There is no Hindu Thermodynamics. There is no Mormon biology. There is just universal science with its attendant branches that are nondenominational. The evidence is so abundant, we manufacture diverse technologies in the billions & perhaps trillions each year, each a little testimony of the power of scientific methodology.

Therefore, I posit, the epistemic value of science is had by all in the world. It has a universal bias in its favor.

Of course Western science has valuable epistemology, but it is not 100%, undeniably true. Science is based upon the best current explanation for things, the explanation that allows for the best success rate in repeating the observed behaviour. You seem to demand a higher standard of the first vision than you do of science. Can you prove 100% that your best friend is who they say they are and not an agent planted by Albanian espionage services? Does not being able to prove that 100% keep you from trusting them or from being their friend?

[cryophil]

Of course Western science has valuable epistemology, but it is not 100%, undeniably true. Science is based upon the best current explanation for things, the explanation that allows for the best success rate in repeating the observed behaviour. You seem to demand a higher standard of the first vision than you do of science. Can you prove 100% that your best friend is who they say they are and not an agent planted by Albanian espionage services? Does not being able to prove that 100% keep you from trusting them or from being their friend?

Given the First Vision (if true) is a critical event--Hinckley stated that it was where it all rested upon--If I could get the same standard of evidence for the first vision that I have for any critical science theory (evolution, gravity, QM, DNA) then I would be ecstatic!

[volgadon]

Given the First Vision (if true) is a critical event--Hinckley stated that it was where it all rested upon--If I could get the same standard of evidence for the first vision that I have for any critical science theory (evolution, gravity, QM, DNA) then I would be ecstatic!

Why don't you specify what you are looking for.

[volgadon]

Also, wouldn't you have to make the case for it being "Frank" rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ who appeared to Joseph?

[cryophil]

Why don't you specify what you are looking for.

Also, wouldn't you have to make the case for it being "Frank" rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ who appeared to Joseph?

I think it only makes sense that if God is going to appear to Joseph Smith after a simple prayer to know the truth, he do the same for all of us.

Yes, to validate it is God, not Frank, we have more issues. That was the point of my OP. Even if all of us get the same vision (why isn't it called a visitation?) then we still cannot verify that it isn't a trick.

In the end, the epistemic dilemma regarding ethical monotheism is a huge burden.

[volgadon]

I think it only makes sense that if God is going to appear to Joseph Smith after a simple prayer to know the truth, he do the same for all of us.

If everyone were to pray for the same thing with the same level of faith and intent as Joseph, and if God had the same role for everyone, then yes, he probably would appear to everyone in the same way. There are plenty of variables. Not everyone prays with the same level of faith, intent, concentration, not everyone responds to the same stimuli the same way, etc. God is an individual rather than an idea or natural phenomenon. He loves us all, but our relationship with him, an I-Thou dialogue if you will, is individual.

Even then how does that prove that is God, not Frank?

Yes, to validate it is God, not Frank, we have more issues. That was the point of my OP. Even if all of us get the same vision (why isn't it called a visitation?) then we still cannot verify that it isn't a trick.

I'm pretty sure that you would first have to provide some evidence that there is a Frank possesed with sufficient power, let alone the mptive to play practical jokes like that. Casting doubt on anything and everything is pretty easy. Try this. Validate science. Prove 100% epistemologically that science is not a massive, demonic subterfuge led by Satan to fool people.

[cryophil]

If everyone were to pray for the same thing with the same level of faith and intent as Joseph, and if God had the same role for everyone, then yes, he probably would appear to everyone in the same way. There are plenty of variables. Not everyone prays with the same level of faith, intent, concentration, not everyone responds to the same stimuli the same way, etc. God is an individual rather than an idea or natural phenomenon. He loves us all, but our relationship with him, an I-Thou dialogue if you will, is individual.

Even then how does that prove that is God, not Frank?

I have a hard time believing that an all-loving God is so choosey and that Joseph Smith had more faith than the rest of us. Reading about his life in Rough Stone Rolling, I get the impression he had a lot of serious character flaws. But then, most of us have our bad areas.

The other issue is, you just made several claims about what God wants, how God operates, and so forth in order to answer a doubt about the nature of God. That's very circular. Your argument against my epistemic concern is to give me more claims that cannot be validated properly. Doesn't help in the least.

I'm pretty sure that you would first have to provide some evidence that there is a Frank possesed with sufficient power, let alone the mptive to play practical jokes like that. Casting doubt on anything and everything is pretty easy. Try this. Validate science. Prove 100% epistemologically that science is not a massive, demonic subterfuge led by Satan to fool people.

Science is validated because the scientific method is founded on the concept of validation, verification and confirmation by empirical means. Science never made claims about good or evil. It makes claims about observables, facts and organization of those into theories.

When I find religion making promises that its metaphysical claims can be empirically verified (as in Alma 32 or Moroni 10), then I have to apply a method that parallels the scientific method. That means objective analysis. My analysis tells me this experiment can be used to confirm most any belief. That's problematic for the claim that "the truth of all things" can be found by the Holy Ghost confirmation method. It just isn't born out by observation the world over.

The dilemma can be summarized as this: Metaphysical/spiritual claims (by definition) do not provide empirical means to validate them. Attempts to validate metaphysical claims by empirical means through spiritual experience in practice has resulted in all claims finding validation. That dilutes the claims because logically they cannot all be true. Furthermore, epistemic analysis of the spiritual confirmation shows that there are no external means to validate the ethical claims on the divinity and goodness of the source.

Edited May 14, 2012 by cryophil

[Guest]

Which faith one starts with seems to matter because the confirming experience we associate as spiritual is seen as a confirmation of whatever faith we are pursuing. However, that makes it wholly unreliably as a specific truth pointing experience and guide.

Not so. I started Catholic. I'm LDS now. Didn't mean one whit that I started Catholic. Lots of LDS folks like yourself who can't find truth.

Lots of people who are born atheist and die atheist regardless of spiritual experiences. Lots of Tasaday people worshipping the trees die without ever hearing of the name Jesus Christ.

Nobody is of lesser import than the other. The only requirement is that we seek truth diligently and honestly. We are all born with a conscience. In LDS parlance, it's called the Light of Christ.

In LDS belief, our judgement is based on our knowledge. Furthermore, to what circumstances we were born into is something we chose pre-mortal. Our diligent and honest search for truth will eventually get us to where we were supposed to go... that is, if when we gained a testimony of the truth, we don't turn around and do something contrary to what we have found.

LDS believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior. Just because a Catholic says Jesus Christ is our Savior doesn't make the statement untrue. Furthermore, just because one can't find evidence of ancient jews in the Americas doesn't make the statement untrue either. So, we search for truth in whatever form we find it. Service and love of our fellowman is moral and righteous. That is true. Even atheists attest to that. What is good and righteous and pleasing to God is not ONLY found in the LDS Church. It is found all around us. What the LDS Church claim to have that nobody else have - is the complete truth of the Plan of our Salvation.

[pam]

What the LDS Church claim to have that nobody else have - is the complete truth of the Plan of our Salvation.

What the LDS claim to have that no one else has is the authorized Priesthood authority here on earth.

[Guest]

What the LDS claim to have that no one else has is the authorized Priesthood authority here on earth.

Which is part of the complete truth of the Plan of our Salvation.

[JudoMinja]

The role of the Spirit is to testify of Truth- wherever it may be and however we may happen upon it. Because He works within us, it is impossible to measure the validity of His testimony through scientific means. And, because we all come from such different backgrounds and hold such a wide variety of environmental factors that influence our searching and thinking, the Truth's of which He testifies can seem very contradictory. I will use an example I've used many times before, as it seems very fitting to how the Spirit works:

Three blind men are presented with an object they are told to identify. The first reaches out and touches something long, thin, and corded. He believes the object is a rope. The second reaches out and touches something flat, sturdy, and rough. He believes the object is a wall. The third reaches out and touches something thick, round, and flexible, actively moving under his hand. He believes the object is a snake. They all disagree and argue with one another, certain that they are correct and the others are wrong based on the "facts" present in front of them. However, were the blind men able to see they would find that they were each equally correct and equally wrong, for the object in front of them was actually an elephant.

The Truth of all things is even more complex and difficult to study and understand than it would be for these three blind me to correctly identify an elephant. If you get stuck trying to understand and argue the seeming contradictions, you will be like those three blind men- equally correct and equally wrong. Yet if those three blind men had collaborated instead of arguing- shared their "facts" and information and worked together to examine even deeper, to feel out the entirity of the elephant together, they may have been able to reach an understanding of the Whole instead of the Parts. Right now, you are stuck trying to understand the Parts and determine which Parts are correct and which are wrong based on your reasoning, which is limited by your background and abilities. A better approach would be to collaborate and determine how those Parts can come together to create a Whole.

I am still young and don't consider myself an expert in anything- but I have engaged my life in the active study of the sciences, eastern religions, and other sects of Christianity. Like you, I have found many areas where the Parts seem contradictory, especially where the basic tenants of many beliefs are so contrary to what I personally believe. Yet, I have also found that as I dig deeper and engage in studies and discussions with those who believe differently than I do- that we have much in common. There is Truth in evolution, Truth in chakra, Truth in Catholicism, Truth in reincarnation, etc. But without bringing everything together to understand the Whole, all these Truth's are piecemeal and limited.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of the few religious organizations that supports seeking out the Truth in all things and bringing it together. It is a young organization compared to those of the rest of the world, which in part explains the small numbers, but it is wise in encouraging members to collaborate and bring everything from all their backgrounds together as a collective. Because of this, the beliefs of the members are extremely varied and diverse. On the topic of evolution, for example, some believe in a very strict creationism, some that God created us through the process of evolution, some that the story of the creation and the Garden of Eden was pure symbolism, etc. Our leaders do not take a stance on the matter, because it is not important to the core doctrine or their purpose to stand as witnesses of Christ. So, we as members are free to do our own research and believe as we wish.

Unlike evolution though, the question about the validity of the First Vision is central to the LDS belief. Like the validity of the workings of the Spirit, it is not something that can be measured or proven scientifically. Believing that Joseph Smith truly was visited by God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and that they carried with them the message Joseph claims is an important stepping stone in believing in the Truth and validity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So how can you determine for yourself whether or not this really happened? Since the validity of an eye-witness account cannot be proven through scientific means or supported with reason since there is plenty of information out there that could lead an individual to believe in its truth or that the entire thing was nothing more than a con or a hallucination, the only way to come to know of it's Truth is through the Spirit. So the only way you will come to know for yourself if the First Vision was real is if you can first trust the workings and whisperings of the Spirit within you.

This will require trust, hope, belief, and faith like that spoken of in your "Why is faith the 1st principle?" thread. However, believing in the First Vision requires many other steps be met first in building up your faith and belief. Since you are struggling with your belief in even the existence of a God or in the testifying power of the Spirit, if you truly want to have faith and belief in the Church you need to start from the bottom up. Start with the foundation and the bedrock of faith itself, or you will get nowhere.

[rameumptom]

I have a hard time believing that an all-loving God is so choosey and that Joseph Smith had more faith than the rest of us. Reading about his life in Rough Stone Rolling, I get the impression he had a lot of serious character flaws. But then, most of us have our bad areas.

The other issue is, you just made several claims about what God wants, how God operates, and so forth in order to answer a doubt about the nature of God. That's very circular. Your argument against my epistemic concern is to give me more claims that cannot be validated properly. Doesn't help in the least.

But your arguments are equally circular. You determine that it is an "all-loving God" and determine what "all-loving" means, then dismiss others' thoughts on it. If you want to deal with epistemology, then you have to first sacrifice your own sacred cows. You want to know what Mormons believe? Then you have to accept their epistemology, and not argue that it does not fit your view/knowledge of the topic.

For us, it isn't God that is choosy on who he reveals himself to. It is mankind that is picky. We tend to want things our own way. We insist that God is male/female/spirit. We insist that God look like us, or something else. Some insist that God can no longer reveal himself. Others insist that he only reveals himself in certain, non-doctrinal ways. Some insist that God only reveals himself through already revealed scripture, philosophy, or nature. Some think God reveals himself through Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, or via animistic tribal spiritualism.

So, how should God reveal himself to mankind? If God were to forcefully reveal himself upon us, would it perhaps destroy his reason for creating us? Most religions have faith as a predicate for knowing God. If suddenly the requirement of faith no longer exists, must we then do all things from knowledge? And what then? What if some reject the knowledge of God? Does the "all-loving" God just forgive them and save them, regardless of whether they hate Him, or choose another god/Satan to follow instead? Isn't it an "all-loving" God who does not force himself upon us all at once, but instead allows us to each develop faith at our own pace?

The thing about your "epistemic concerns" is you cannot ask the question and then demand the answer you seek. We can answer about God only inasmuch as we personally understand Him. However, that is not going to answer any knowledge questions you have, especially since you obviously want proof. Well, in this world there is no such thing as proof.

You cannot prove the world is rotating around the Sun. Evidence suggests it, but we could also show that it stands still and everything else floats around a stationary earth. It is all perception.

You cannot prove 1 + 1 = 2, unless you first establish basic principles upon which all agree.

Personally, I think you are a red herring. You are seeking reasons to disbelieve, and take others with you. We've already explained that God is not known through physical means, but He reveals himself in His own way. Since you seem to have rejected spiritual means as evidence, then there's no way for any of us to show evidence of any kind to you.

If you want to study the stars, you have to accept the concepts regarding how to use telescopes, etc. If you sit in front of a telescope that is aimed at Alpha Centauri, but refuse to look through the lens, then you can smugly retain your ignorance, while claiming it as some kind of superior knowledge.

Well, it isn't. You are suffering from acute spiritual ignorance, a form of ignorance that hits many people that refuse to use spiritual tools in the proper manner. Your pride keeps you from looking at any possible evidence with an inquiring mind. You've rejected it even before looking at it with an open mind.

You'll see how silly your insistence on using epistemology as your defining term. Epistemically, almost all of science is based upon theories that so far hold up and are useful. Yet they do not prove themselves for all cases. We still use Newton's laws of physics because they work for us, yet we know they are not exactly correct, because they do not work for microscopic particles.

Have you seen a graviton? How about cosmic strings? Neither has any scientist. Yet, we believe them to exist, because of circumstantial evidences that point to them. Still, they remain theories until we can actually prove them. And then, do we know if they are universally true? Perhaps there are no gravitons on the other side of the universe, or in black holes, etc. Perhaps they work differently there than now. Can you prove the universality of the things you claim to know?

Can you pinpoint an atom's location and direction it is traveling at the same time? If so, then you can do something no other has done before. How can a photon be in two places at once? And yet there are experiments that show they can be (or seem to be).

Scientists believe in evolution. However, almost all will tell you that there are some issues with Darwinism that have not yet been worked out. Evolution is a useful theory as it now is, but will continue being updated as we gain more information.

These arguments seem circular, don't they? Well, we have the same issue with spiritual things. We can find evidences, but nothing that can be found to be universally true in all cases, because we cannot test theories for all cases in space and time. So, epistemologically speaking, your discussion really goes nowhere without first having a set of agreed-upon principles.

[cryophil]

But your arguments are equally circular. You determine that it is an "all-loving God" and determine what "all-loving" means, then dismiss others' thoughts on it. If you want to deal with epistemology, then you have to first sacrifice your own sacred cows. You want to know what Mormons believe? Then you have to accept their epistemology, and not argue that it does not fit your view/knowledge of the topic.

True, I did argue with a narrow defition of my version of a loving god. That isn't helpful. The second paragraph gets at the heart of it, in which I stated that by dictating to me that my questions and doubts can be answered by defining God in a certain way is doing the same thing you called me on. I suppose we both did it. And neither of us helps the matter.

However, that is not going to answer any knowledge questions you have, especially since you obviously want proof. Well, in this world there is no such thing as proof.

(snip the examples of science not providing absolute proof, only evidence)

These arguments seem circular, don't they? Well, we have the same issue with spiritual things. We can find evidences, but nothing that can be found to be universally true in all cases, because we cannot test theories for all cases in space and time. So, epistemologically speaking, your discussion really goes nowhere without first having a set of agreed-upon principles.

I agree that we need a set of congruent principles. And you provided a strawman in saying that science cannot prove anything beyond doubt. It never claimed to. But it still has the power to yield evidence that is equally accessible to all.

The evidence claimed in the scriptures is subjective to the person. First of all, the spiritual confirmation is found to validate beliefs which are intolerant and contradictory to each other. Second, no matter how skilled at spirituality, not everyone has equal access according to LDS doctrine. Joseph Smith got a vision because it was needed. Everyone else must trust it. Only a select few might get something akin to it. God is a respector of persons, in this manner. Science doesn't discriminate like that. You get the knowledge, have the means, you get the answers like anyone else, and can use them to provide technology that benefits all that want it.

Personally, I think you are a red herring. You are seeking reasons to disbelieve, and take others with you. We've already explained that God is not known through physical means, but He reveals himself in His own way. Since you seem to have rejected spiritual means as evidence, then there's no way for any of us to show evidence of any kind to you.

Listen to your statements: God is not known through physical means, but is through the spirit, which is manifested in clearly physical (neurological) ways. If you insist that testimony is had empirically through conscious experience, then you cannot tell us that the method is non-physical.

The red herring is that.

All I am trying to do is clarify this so that I can really truly understand what is the means to know truth. What you don't like is that I dare question the assumption that the spirit is the truth meter. Unfortunately, that doesn't bear out with the evidence I've seen the world over and that I have experienced personally.

I wish it were. Truly I do. I wish there was a clear cut answer to this without the subjectivity that the method is plagued with. But there doesn't appear to be a clear answer and that troubles me. How can God leave us with such a faulty method to access him?

Previously I was told to repent. I decided that this was an anomalous disparage of me. Now I see it is probably generally felt. And with that accusation that my motives are suspect, I bid you all goodbye from this thread. I really don't need to be accused of being insincere. I haven't questioned the motive or determination of others here about their desire to have the truth. I've only questioned if the methods we've been taught will really take us there. But to get an implied ad-hominem attack on my sincerity just says it's pointless to try to have a reasonable discussion in this subject.

Thanks all.