Exaltation Implications

[Claire]

I'm not quite following you here Claire.  How does the John quote support Trinitarian theology?  It seems quite the opposite to me, since God is united through "one substance" is a key part of Trinitarian thought, but we'll never part of God's substance.

 

Disclaimer: I totally don't understand the concept of the Trinity, but not for lack of trying.

 

Basically what anatess said. To try keep it simple, the idea is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God. Each individually is God, all taken together are God, and there is one God. It's not a simple concept.

 

For the point I'm trying to make with the interpretation of the verse, we need Christ as an intermediary precisely because he is fully God and fully man. God as God is completely "other" to us, he is too big to begin to comprehend. We simply cannot relate. Christ, however, is also fully man, and we can certainly understand other men. We can know and love and understand other men. Because we can know and comprehend and love Christ, we can know and love and understand God, because Christ is both God and man.

 

Basically we need Christ as that intermediary to God's divinity, and that's the relationship that seems to be established in the verses in question in John's Gospel (and throughout the rest of it, for that matter).

 

You could argue that it would have been better to say that the verse deals with the traditional understanding of the incarnation vice the Trinity, but the two concepts are fairly intimately related (for obvious reasons).

[Guest]

This is interesting to me, because it seems a contradiction that Christ could be "fully" human and "fully" divine unless of course we acknowledge the two are potentially one and the same... sort of like a caterpillar to a butterfly.

 

It's only a contradiction if you put limits to what God can do.  They are not one and the same.  But God, as the creator of all things, can make himself Man whereas we, as merely man, cannot make ourselves God.

[Guest]

Basically what anatess said. To try keep it simple, the idea is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God. Each individually is God, all taken together are God, and there is one God. It's not a simple concept.

 

For the point I'm trying to make with the interpretation of the verse, we need Christ as an intermediary precisely because he is fully God and fully man. God as God is completely "other" to us, he is too big to begin to comprehend. We simply cannot relate. Christ, however, is also fully man, and we can certainly understand other men. We can know and love and understand other men. Because we can know and comprehend and love Christ, we can know and love and understand God, because Christ is both God and man.

 

Basically we need Christ as that intermediary to God's divinity, and that's the relationship that seems to be established in the verses in question in John's Gospel (and throughout the rest of it, for that matter).

 

You could argue that it would have been better to say that the verse deals with the traditional understanding of the incarnation vice the Trinity, but the two concepts are fairly intimately related (for obvious reasons).

 

I'm really interested to see if you can see the implication of the LDS perspective on the nature of God to the gospel of John.

[SpiritDragon]

It's only a contradiction if you put limits to what God can do.  They are not one and the same.  But God, as the creator of all things, can make himself Man whereas we, as merely man, cannot make ourselves God.

 

While it is not up to me to put limits on what God can do I do believe He plays by a certain set of rules, yet as I said it "seems" (like JAG I believe in wiggle words) a contradiction which is possibly worthy of discussion. I am not saying that it is impossible for Christ to be fully divine and fully human, just that in the usual use of the term "fully," the reference is absolute. Thus you can't have a barrel that is fully filled with gasoline and fully filled with water, but you can have the same barrel fully filled with gasoline or water AND be fully filled with liquid for example. This also doesn't mean that all liquid is gasoline or water.

 

More importantly is the notion of them (Divine and Human) not being the same. I agree that they are not the same (in the identical fashion), but they may be potentially the same. Just because a man can't make himself a god, doesn't negate the possibility that God can make a man a God, unless of course you impose limitations on what God can do :)

[Guest]

While it is not up to me to put limits on what God can do I do believe He plays by a certain set of rules, yet as I said it "seems" (like JAG I believe in wiggle words) a contradiction which is possibly worthy of discussion. I am not saying that it is impossible for Christ to be fully divine and fully human, just that in the usual use of the term "fully," the reference is absolute. Thus you can't have a barrel that is fully filled with gasoline and fully filled with water, but you can have the same barrel fully filled with gasoline or water AND be fully filled with liquid for example. This also doesn't mean that all liquid is gasoline or water.

 

But that's exactly what Jesus Christ is - fully God and fully Man as taught in the scriptures, so much so that both teach it in Catholic and LDS churches.

 

You can only conclude that one can't be both fully God and fully Man in the same way that you can't have a cup of fully water and fully gasoline if you know EXACTLY what the God substance is and that it cannot reside in a cup of fully human.  Of course the LDS bypass this question because what makes God a God is not his substance.

 

 

 

 

More importantly is the notion of them (Divine and Human) not being the same. I agree that they are not the same (in the identical fashion), but they may be potentially the same. Just because a man can't make himself a god, doesn't negate the possibility that God can make a man a God, unless of course you impose limitations on what God can do  :)

 

Except that there is only One God.  Only One.  The scriptures are very clear on that.  Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that God's Plan of Salvation is for there to be more than One God... and that would be God creating another God.

Edited January 17, 2015 by anatess

[SpiritDragon]

But that's exactly what Jesus Christ is - fully God and fully Man as taught in the scriptures, so much so that both teach it in Catholic and LDS churches.

 

You can only conclude that one can't be both fully God and fully Man in the same way that you can't have a cup of fully water and fully gasoline if you know EXACTLY what the God substance is and that it cannot reside in a cup of fully human.  Of course the LDS bypass this question because what makes God a God is not his substance.

 

LDS don't need to bypass it because we recognize the divine potential of humanity as gods in development. God is our literal parent, we have inherited god DNA so to speak. Back to the caterpillar and butterfly, caterpillars come from butterflies, they aren't yet butterflies, but they have the potential to become butterflies. 

 

We do know what the God substance is... a body of flesh and bones united with spirit eternally, which is different than a body of flesh and blood united with a spirit mortally which will ultimately be separated and reunited as an immortal union after the Resurrection. (The resurrection being analogous to us coming forth from our human (caterpillar) state of flesh and blood to an immortal (butterfly) state of flesh and blood with a whole new world of possibilities)

 

I don't have a problem with saying that Jesus is fully *human and fully Divine. I have a pile of beautiful young women in my ward who are fully human and recognize their divine nature as they recite values each Sunday. Of course they are not fully divine (yet), but they have that potential. 

 

*contingent upon the condition of being a perfected human, and not human in the sense of human weakness and failings.

 

 

Except that there is only One God.  Only One.  The scriptures are very clear on that.  Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that God's Plan of Salvation is for there to be more than One God... and that would be God creating another God.

 

I don't follow what you are getting at here. LDS teaching is quite clear that we do have the potential to be gods. If LDS teaching is true (which most that come around will likely tell you it is, and I think you'd agree yourself) than He'll make good on the promise to make the faithful into Gods and Goddesses. The unknown is whether or not as such we will all become one with God in the sense that as multiples we are all one, or if we become the One God to all of our creations who will need not concern themselves with other exalted people from this earth or any other that came before or after.

 

The scriptures are not nearly as tidy and clear on the Only One God as you may think. In Abraham there is reference to the gods, the name Elohim signifies plurality, and even in the godhead and/or the trinity we are looking at a three in one. We know that we only need to concern ourselves with One God, and that in the context of our existence there is only one.

[Anddenex]

So, me and the boyfriend have gone back and forth on the "pray about it thing" a few times, so maybe you guys can explain it better than he can. To me, it sounds like confirmation bias at work. If you pray about the LDS church being correct, you'll get one of two answers: it's correct, or it's not. If you got the "it's true" response, then that was God. If you didn't, then that was either you or Satan at work, and you should try again. Repeat until you get the "it's true" response.

 

Obviously I'm being a bit snarky with my explanation there, but that is basically what it sounds like to me. Again, maybe it just hasn't been explained well, or maybe I'm just too hard headed :)

 

Regardless, I've always felt that God gave us our intellect so that we could use it, particularly in trying to get to know Him. Admittedly, we can be wrong, either due to bias or due to incomplete information. That being said, I do believe its possible through self-reflection and study to overcome those defects, at least to the point where we can get to the right Church (which can then subsequently fill in the rest of the blanks).

 

-Claire

 

In order to be frank, I have always been amazed by the sheer irony of inviting a Christian to read and pray, and the hesitation this invitation excites and the excuses provided (i.e. The Holy Bible never says to pray about spiritual truths or confirmatory bias) as reasons to reject the invitation.  

 

Confirmation bias is especially promulgated by Atheist’s (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/nothing-fails-like-prayer/) with regards to prayer in general as they specify, “Across the world, billions of believers are praying millions of prayers each day; it is hardly surprising that some of them come true just by chance.” Thus, when a Christian (one who professes to believe in prayer) uses the same logic — I esteem it to be ironic.  If a prayer leads to confirmatory bias then the prayer wasn’t sincere indeed.

 

The object of prayer (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/prayer?lang=eng&letter=p) is thus provided, “Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them.” If one is seeking to confirm what they already believe to be true, then they aren’t approaching our Father in heaven with sincerity and to align their will with Gods.  They go before God like the hypocrites with itching ears as provided in our New Testament (2 Timothy 4:3; https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/4.3?lang=eng#2), “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;” (emphasis added).

 

On the other hand, an individual who has studied, researched, and has felt something to be true and then kneels before their Lord in prayer and humbly petitions (not hoping to be confirmed but to either be confirmed or rejected), “Through my studies, through my personal research, I believe this to be true, is this true?” is different than what I heard on my mission, “Lord, I already know the Book of Mormon is not true, but I have been asked to pray about it; so…I am praying to know if it is true.”  Not surprising this individual returned with a “Yep, it isn’t true and I prayed about it”; although, they never read the Book of Mormon with any real intent and sincerity as we asked, “Did you read the Book of Mormon?” — “No.”

 

My father, when initially introduced to the missionaries (as a young men in his twenties) visited with them for a few weeks.  He woke up one day and decided that when the missionaries come over today I will not invite them in and specify that the Church wasn’t for him.  One of the missionaries provided a promise and that the promise would be fulfilled come Sunday (one week).  My father considered there would be no harm in accepting the invitation and promise believing, come Sunday, the promise would be left unfulfilled and he would be rid of the missionaries. Sunday approached, Sunday came, Sunday went and a few weeks later my father was baptized.  I don’t see any confirmatory bias with the experience of my father’s conversion and prayer. 

 

However, I believe Joseph Smith’s explanation (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.10,13?lang=eng#9) of the first vision is the best example of how to approach God regarding the invitation to pray when he explained, “In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions [which obviously occurs today still], I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?” Joseph Smith continues, “At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God.”

 

Let’s actually provide an example in this thread alone regarding different interpretations of the same scripture as I quote you in response to SpiritDragon, “Also, The First Corinthians quote there is taken a bit out of context….” Is this a personal bias to confirm your current theological belief, or is the interpretation provided by LDS prophets and members correct?  Who better to confirm truth then God, or will I come to the truth by listening to the arm of flesh argue their interpretation and why their interpretation is correct?  As for me, the answer is simple, I will study it out myself and then ask God who has promised to answer prayers and whom will not deceive me.

 

As pertaining to the Atheist dogma mentioned regarding prayer in general as a confirmatory bias, I often view this promulgated through this avenue: A family prays their daughter will be healed when sick.  The daughter is healed and feels better.  The family praises God.  The Atheist however profanes, “The doctors did all the work and look at these simple minded folk giving praise to God instead of giving praise to real people who saved their daughter — there was no miracle.” If you have had a prayer answered then you already know you can pray with a sincere heart and with real intent to align your will with God’s will and he will answer.  When a son/daughter of God seeks to align their will with God’s will confirmatory bias is removed because the son/daughter is less concerned with being right and more concerned with honoring their God.

[cdowis]

Claire,

 

"That's my interpretation of those verses. If there's some other accepted LDS one, feel free to share them with me"

Happy to oblige.

 

I use the KJV, and there are significant differences between your text and the KJV.  

 

1. [20] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

 

Christ is talking not only to his apostles, but "them also which shall believe on me".

 

2. [22], " And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"  

 

That phrase is missing from your text.  In the context of Romans 8:17, it is clear what what Christ is teaching here -- we are promised to be "JOINT HEIRS" with Christ

 

Also see also point #4.

 

3.  [21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:

 

I assume that you think that we will be  "one substance" with the Father and Son, if you are consistent with your beliefs.  Again look at verse 22, "that they are one, EVEN AS we are one."  

 

But I'm sure there are many who can come up with an alternative interpretation.

 

 

4. Now, Rev. 3 [21] To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

Again, the meaning here is quite clearto my way of thinking.  Especially in the context of the other scriptures.

Edited January 18, 2015 by cdowis

[Claire]

Let’s actually provide an example in this thread alone regarding different interpretations of the same scripture as I quote you in response to SpiritDragon, “Also, The First Corinthians quote there is taken a bit out of context….” Is this a personal bias to confirm your current theological belief, or is the interpretation provided by LDS prophets and members correct?  Who better to confirm truth then God, or will I come to the truth by listening to the arm of flesh argue their interpretation and why their interpretation is correct?  As for me, the answer is simple, I will study it out myself and then ask God who has promised to answer prayers and whom will not deceive me.

 

As pertaining to the Atheist dogma mentioned regarding prayer in general as a confirmatory bias, I often view this promulgated through this avenue: A family prays their daughter will be healed when sick.  The daughter is healed and feels better.  The family praises God.  The Atheist however profanes, “The doctors did all the work and look at these simple minded folk giving praise to God instead of giving praise to real people who saved their daughter — there was no miracle.” If you have had a prayer answered then you already know you can pray with a sincere heart and with real intent to align your will with God’s will and he will answer.  When a son/daughter of God seeks to align their will with God’s will confirmatory bias is removed because the son/daughter is less concerned with being right and more concerned with honoring their God.

 

I appreciate the move you're trying to make here, but I do feel its a bit of a strawman argument.

 

My position was not that one should not pray, or even that God does not answer prayers. My point was that, in my experience, LDS tend to tell you to "read the Book of Mormon and pray about it." If, after much study and prayer you come to the conclusion that it is not true, then the typical response I have seen is to say that either that Satan or your own biases influenced the results. Whether Atheists also use the argument or not, that is the definition of confirmation bias.

 

That being said, some of the other LDS (anatess, Just_A_Guy and so forth) presented a more nuanced perspective on the doctrine that made a bit more sense. I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it, but that's something to work out through prayer and study

 

I do think your doctor analogy actually is a good representation of how prayers and study should work with one another. All good things have God as their origin, so whenever a doctors heals or truth is discovered through study, it is God's doing. Prayer helps ensure that we are allowing God to work through us no matter what our endeavor. Most of the time, the way God normally operates, it's not overtly obvious that he intervened at all. I like to think it's because He does so with such frequency that we just don't notice anymore :)

 

 

 

LDS don't need to bypass it because we recognize the divine potential of humanity as gods in development. God is our literal parent, we have inherited god DNA so to speak. Back to the caterpillar and butterfly, caterpillars come from butterflies, they aren't yet butterflies, but they have the potential to become butterflies. 

 

We do know what the God substance is... a body of flesh and bones united with spirit eternally, which is different than a body of flesh and blood united with a spirit mortally which will ultimately be separated and reunited as an immortal union after the Resurrection. (The resurrection being analogous to us coming forth from our human (caterpillar) state of flesh and blood to an immortal (butterfly) state of flesh and blood with a whole new world of possibilities)

 

I don't have a problem with saying that Jesus is fully *human and fully Divine. I have a pile of beautiful young women in my ward who are fully human and recognize their divine nature as they recite values each Sunday. Of course they are not fully divine (yet), but they have that potential. 

 

*contingent upon the condition of being a perfected human, and not human in the sense of human weakness and failings.

 

 

 

I don't follow what you are getting at here. LDS teaching is quite clear that we do have the potential to be gods. If LDS teaching is true (which most that come around will likely tell you it is, and I think you'd agree yourself) than He'll make good on the promise to make the faithful into Gods and Goddesses. The unknown is whether or not as such we will all become one with God in the sense that as multiples we are all one, or if we become the One God to all of our creations who will need not concern themselves with other exalted people from this earth or any other that came before or after.

 

The scriptures are not nearly as tidy and clear on the Only One God as you may think. In Abraham there is reference to the gods, the name Elohim signifies plurality, and even in the godhead and/or the trinity we are looking at a three in one. We know that we only need to concern ourselves with One God, and that in the context of our existence there is only one.

 

I think the problem here is we aren't quite using the term "substance" the same way. When a Catholic uses the term, it's almost always in reference to Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics.

 

A substance in Aristotelian metaphysics is made up of two things: prime matter and substantial form. Prime matter is basically the physical matter that the thing is made out of (its really a bit more nuanced than that) while substantial form is its ordering principle, it makes the matter what it is. For example, the same hunk of matter can be either a dog or a chair, depending on the substantial form it has. Incidentally, the substantial form of a living thing has a special name: the soul.

 

A soul isn't merely united with the body, it's what makes the body a body in the first place. The relationship between the body and soul, both before and after the resurrection, would then have to remain fundamentally the same. Now that relationship will be perfected, as many of our afflictions (sickness, injury, and death) are consequences of a corrupted relationship caused by sin. That being said, radical new powers such as the capacity to function as gods are impossible.

 

My point here is not to say that the Catholic view is necessarily right, just to explain why we make the moves that we make. Obviously I am of the opinion that the early Church was more likely to be functioning off the sorty of metaphysical framework that I'm presenting here (based on when/where it was positiond historically), but that remains my opinion.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Claire

[estradling75]

 

My position was not that one should not pray, or even that God does not answer prayers. My point was that, in my experience, LDS tend to tell you to "read the Book of Mormon and pray about it." If, after much study and prayer you come to the conclusion that it is not true, then the typical response I have seen is to say that either that Satan or your own biases influenced the results. Whether Atheists also use the argument or not, that is the definition of confirmation bias.

 

I would like to point out this is not a LDS thing... So much that it is a people thing which LDS are a part.  When people strongly believe something (doesn't matter what that something is) they want/expect others to believe it to.  So when someone else comes long and says I've looked into/studied/prayed/whatever and I disagree with you, the first response generally speaking is not "Oh well"  its "Well you must have done something wrong."   Because we like to think that we are reasonable, rational people.  And other reasonable, rational people should reach the same answer.

 

For example if I were to consider converting to Catholicism and I study and go through the whole process, but at the end I decide not to.  Chances are you would want to know why I made that choice.  And chances are if I were to share my reasons (doesn't matter what they are) you would challenge my reasons, and tell me why my reason were flat out wrong.  This is a people thing.

[The Folk Prophet]

My position was not that one should not pray, or even that God does not answer prayers. My point was that, in my experience, LDS tend to tell you to "read the Book of Mormon and pray about it." If, after much study and prayer you come to the conclusion that it is not true, then the typical response I have seen is to say that either that Satan or your own biases influenced the results. Whether Atheists also use the argument or not, that is the definition of confirmation bias.

 

Arguing "confirmation bias" implies that we should or should not be convinced because of the views and experiences of others. But this is irrelevant. It is a misdirect. It does not matter if everyone else in the entire world claims something because of their experience. It doesn't matter how many people say they prayed but weren't given an answer or that they received a negative answer. And it doesn't matter how many people claim they received a positive answer. It doesn't matter what the one's explanation for the other's is either. The positive-answer side claims the negative-answer side didn't do it right or something. The negative-answer side claims the positive-answer side is delusional or something.

 

All this is meaningless to one's personal struggle to find the truth.

 

The fact of the matter is that God has promised that if we come to him seeking truth that He will give it to us. And that is a personal experience between a person and God. Other's experiences may be useful in our journey, but they are not the ultimate answer to truth. Not in the slightest degree. Every mortal is biased. Every single one.

 

But God is not. If you don't believe that, or if you do believe it, it doesn't matter. God still is what He is. He is still perfect, all loving, and keeps His promises. If you go to Him in humility and faith, honestly seeking to know, He will reveal the truth unto you. Yes, we have to do this by His word, and His will, and in His way. So of course we teach that if someone does not do it the way that God specifies that they may well skewer the results. If one shuts themselves off to the Holy Spirit and then claims the Holy Spirit didn't speak to them, what else would we say? But it's still between an individual and God, an no one is going to take away that right. You have the right to worship and believe according to your own desires. If you go to God in prayer and honestly feel He tells you to go another direction, then do it. It's between you and God.

 

But we who have experienced the Holy Spirit's witness that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored His true gospel...we know what we know and we will stand for that. We know it's true because it has been communicated to us by God. So we will stand, confidently, and state unapologetically that someone who "receives" a different answer is mistaken somehow. Doing so is not an attempt, per se, to convince that person that they are wrong. Debate and the philosophies of the so-called wise will never bring us to God, and simply do not stand against the witness of the Spirit. What we will do is testify of that spiritual witness.

 

I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Therefore, I know that anyone who does not believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God is mistaken. I support their right to that. I appreciate the truths and righteousness they do have. But I know that until they find the same truth, as given from the Holy Spirit, that their understanding is incomplete in the matter.

 

Confirmation bias has nothing to do with it.

[Claire]

I would like to point out this is not a LDS thing... So much that it is a people thing which LDS are a part.  When people strongly believe something (doesn't matter what that something is) they want/expect others to believe it to.  So when someone else comes long and says I've looked into/studied/prayed/whatever and I disagree with you, the first response generally speaking is not "Oh well"  its "Well you must have done something wrong."   Because we like to think that we are reasonable, rational people.  And other reasonable, rational people should reach the same answer.

 

For example if I were to consider converting to Catholicism and I study and go through the whole process, but at the end I decide not to.  Chances are you would want to know why I made that choice.  And chances are if I were to share my reasons (doesn't matter what they are) you would challenge my reasons, and tell me why my reason were flat out wrong.  This is a people thing.

 

 

I would agree that confirmation bias is a people thing in general, and with your point at large. I was just sharing my experience with it in the context of talking with certain LDS people and looking for an explanation on what other LDS folks believed on the topic. I got a satisfactory explanation on that one :)

 

Arguing "confirmation bias" implies that we should or should not be convinced because of the views and experiences of others. But this is irrelevant. It is a misdirect. It does not matter if everyone else in the entire world claims something because of their experience. It doesn't matter how many people say they prayed but weren't given an answer or that they received a negative answer. And it doesn't matter how many people claim they received a positive answer. It doesn't matter what the one's explanation for the other's is either. The positive-answer side claims the negative-answer side didn't do it right or something. The negative-answer side claims the positive-answer side is delusional or something.

 

 

I would actually disagree with your definition of confirmation bias here. To my understanding, it is when you only pay attention to evidence that supports your position while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. That is obviously a detrimental strategy to discerning what truth is (as you went on to explain when using functionally that definition). An "ad populi" logical fallacy is the one where you rely on the opinion of the masses, which seems to be what you initially ascribe to being confirmation bias. I would agree that an ad populi fallacy is just that, a fallacy.

[cdowis]

I think the problem here is we aren't quite using the term "substance" the same way. When a Catholic uses the term, it's almost always in reference to Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics.

 

A substance in Aristotelian metaphysics is made up of two things: prime matter and substantial form. Prime matter is basically the physical matter that the thing is made out of (its really a bit more nuanced than that) while substantial form is its ordering principle, it makes the matter what it is. For example, the same hunk of matter can be either a dog or a chair, depending on the substantial form it has. Incidentally, the substantial form of a living thing has a special name: the soul.

 

You have demonstrated that the historic Christian church was no longer lead by prophets, but theologians and philosophers.  They were not chosen by God, but selected based on their impressive credentials and rhetorical skills.

Edited January 19, 2015 by cdowis

[The Folk Prophet]

I would actually disagree with your definition of confirmation bias here. To my understanding, it is when you only pay attention to evidence that supports your position while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. That is obviously a detrimental strategy to discerning what truth is (as you went on to explain when using functionally that definition). An "ad populi" logical fallacy is the one where you rely on the opinion of the masses, which seems to be what you initially ascribe to being confirmation bias. I would agree that an ad populi fallacy is just that, a fallacy.

 

I didn't define confirmation bias, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with in that regard. But I said (I thought clearly) to NOT ignore spiritual evidence even if it contradicts one's position. My point is to trust in God -- He who knows all, rather than trusting in mortal biases.

 

The only reason I'm talking about it in terms of "ad populi" is because you are bringing it up in terms of -- some people have this experience and others have this experience. In other words, I'm claiming that whether you mean to or not, you're argument is based in that fallacy somewhat. But perhaps I'm reading things into what you're saying.

 

My response to confirmation bias is straight up -- we are not arguing that anyone follow other than the dictates of their own consciences. My believing someone else is mistake because of the evidence I have been given is not confirmation bias. If they claim to have evidence to the contrary, what do I have but their word on the matter? And my claim to them -- what do they have but my word on the matter? Other than the evidence we see (as given by the spirit in spiritual matters) there is no validity to claims of others. And we accept that. You are accusing the method of confirmation bias. But I reject that flatly. If you have valid evidence given you from God then you should follow it. Where the idea of confirmation bias as an accusation against our method fails is in someone receiving no answer. Lack of evidence is no evidence. A suggestion that a failure to receive said evidence requires further testing is not confirmation bias -- particularly when the suggestion is accompanied by recommended alterations in the test.

 

Moreover, if millions of scientists have run a certain test and confirmed it as valid, and then a few running the same test determine it invalid, is it not reasonable to suggest that the few who found it invalid may have messed it up somehow? Unless the few have some new methodology that is somehow more reliable, it is a perfectly reasonable response to say, "well, what did you do wrong then?" It doesn't prove the matter to the scientists who have failed experiments. Until they run a valid test and see valid results, they won't know for themselves. But it does give them cause to consider the validity of what they have done if they are getting different results than millions of others. If we are making any argument by numbers, it would be that.

 

That being said, it's not a science experiment (in that God works by faith as much as by fact in His interactions with us). But that, perhaps, is a different discussion.

 

Hopefully that clears up what I'm trying to say. I read that you are using other's arguments based on their experiences as evidence to draw conclusions (ad populi), rather than going to God yourself with the matter, and I do not believe that we are using confirmation bias to support our position for a variety of reasons.

 

But, to be fair, I'll go back to the faith issue -- even if the confirmation bias accusation is valid, then doing so comes down to faith and choice. We exercise faith without perfect knowledge. God wants it to be that way or He would have given us perfect knowledge and not commanded us to live by faith. So even if we're steeped fully into confirmation bias, it is by faith that we do so. We choose to believe based on the evidence given, in spite of the fact that there is an outside possibility that we're all deluded.

[Claire]

You have demonstrated that the historic Christian church was no longer lead by prophets, but theologians and philosophers.  They were not chosen by God, but selected based on their impressive credentials and rhetorical skills.

 

I actually argued that the Church adopted philosophy and theology from ancient philosophers and theologians. That being said, the mechanism by which they did so was the bishops, whom the Catholic Church regards as the successors to the apostles and who were guided by the Holy Spirit. Impressive credentials and rhetorical skills don't make necessarily make somebody right, but if they are right it would certainly be silly not to make use of them.

 

 

I didn't define confirmation bias, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with in that regard. But I said (I thought clearly) to NOT ignore spiritual evidence even if it contradicts one's position. My point is to trust in God -- He who knows all, rather than trusting in mortal biases.

 

The only reason I'm talking about it in terms of "ad populi" is because you are bringing it up in terms of -- some people have this experience and others have this experience. In other words, I'm claiming that whether you mean to or not, you're argument is based in that fallacy somewhat. But perhaps I'm reading things into what you're saying.

 

My response to confirmation bias is straight up -- we are not arguing that anyone follow other than the dictates of their own consciences. My believing someone else is mistake because of the evidence I have been given is not confirmation bias. If they claim to have evidence to the contrary, what do I have but their word on the matter? And my claim to them -- what do they have but my word on the matter? Other than the evidence we see (as given by the spirit in spiritual matters) there is no validity to claims of others. And we accept that. You are accusing the method of confirmation bias. But I reject that flatly. If you have valid evidence given you from God then you should follow it. Where the idea of confirmation bias as an accusation against our method fails is in someone receiving no answer. Lack of evidence is no evidence. A suggestion that a failure to receive said evidence requires further testing is not confirmation bias -- particularly when the suggestion is accompanied by recommended alterations in the test.

 

Moreover, if millions of scientists have run a certain test and confirmed it as valid, and then a few running the same test determine it invalid, is it not reasonable to suggest that the few who found it invalid may have messed it up somehow? Unless the few have some new methodology that is somehow more reliable, it is a perfectly reasonable response to say, "well, what did you do wrong then?" It doesn't prove the matter to the scientists who have failed experiments. Until they run a valid test and see valid results, they won't know for themselves. But it does give them cause to consider the validity of what they have done if they are getting different results than millions of others. If we are making any argument by numbers, it would be that.

 

That being said, it's not a science experiment (in that God works by faith as much as by fact in His interactions with us). But that, perhaps, is a different discussion.

 

Hopefully that clears up what I'm trying to say. I read that you are using other's arguments based on their experiences as evidence to draw conclusions (ad populi), rather than going to God yourself with the matter, and I do not believe that we are using confirmation bias to support our position for a variety of reasons.

 

But, to be fair, I'll go back to the faith issue -- even if the confirmation bias accusation is valid, then doing so comes down to faith and choice. We exercise faith without perfect knowledge. God wants it to be that way or He would have given us perfect knowledge and not commanded us to live by faith. So even if we're steeped fully into confirmation bias, it is by faith that we do so. We choose to believe based on the evidence given, in spite of the fact that there is an outside possibility that we're all deluded.

 

 

Thanks for the reply, I don't think there's a certain amount of misunderstanding on both sides here. What I meant was that, in my personal experience, when I have tested LDS doctrine by study and prayers, I'm generally left feeling that the Catholic faith is still the correct one. When I have presented this to LDS in my life (principally my boyfriend), he has given the "personal bias or Satan argument." I am not saying that other LDS obviously do not get different results, but non-LDS or former LDS seem equally often to get results similar to mine.

 

The reason I avoid relying on "spiritual evidence" (which I am basically understanding to mean personal revelation through prayer) is that it is an entirely subjective experience. I do not have any way of verifying or refuting the confirmation you received in favor of the LDS Church any more than you could verify or refute any confirmation I received against it. Logical arguments and empirical evidence, meanwhile, are a bit more objective. I'm not saying that we can prove either God or His Church without his intervention (Faith is an infused virtue), but the more information we gather the more we give him to work with. Also, I think having an intellectual basis for faith helps when we reach those faith dry spells. Sometimes our proverbial bosoms aren't burning proverbially, and when that happens I find it much easier to keep on the right track if my intellect is there to tell me all the logical reasons why I should.

 

-Claire

[The Folk Prophet]

The reason I avoid relying on "spiritual evidence" (which I am basically understanding to mean personal revelation through prayer) is that it is an entirely subjective experience. 

 

All experience is subjective.

[Claire]

All experience is subjective.

 

To an extent, yes, but leaving it at that will just lead us to solipsism(the belief that you can't be sure that anything you perceive really exists). I believe that other people really exist, and when I talk to them they seem to share certain observations of reality and a similar capacity to think. It then makes sense for me to use those shared capacities for observation and thought as a starting point in any discussion we have.

 

Basically, I can discuss Aristotelian metaphysics with you, and you can point to any flaws you see in them, and we can talk about those and try to reach some mutually acceptable conclusion. If we just leave it at "what you perceive and what I perceive are different," then we're unlikely to ever reach any meaningful consensus.

[Vort]

To an extent, yes, but leaving it at that will just lead us to solipsism(the belief that you can't be sure that anything you perceive really exists).

 

I see quite the opposite, in the sense that it looks like those who say "Oh, well, it's just a subjective experience" are denying the reality of said experience. As TFP points out, all experience is subjective. So if you don't want to succumb to solipsism, don't discount "subjective" experience on that basis.

[Claire]

I see quite the opposite, in the sense that it looks like those who say "Oh, well, it's just a subjective experience" are denying the reality of said experience. As TFP points out, all experience is subjective. So if you don't want to succumb to solipsism, don't discount "subjective" experience on that basis.

 

I'm not saying that you didn't have the experience. What I am saying is that there are experiences which we've both had, and experiences which only one of us have had, and that in my experience the ones that we share are a better starting off point for discussion than the ones which we don't.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that If a Mormon has received confirmation of the LDS faith, and a non-Mormon has received confirmation to the contrary, neither has the capacity to experience what the other has experienced and comment on it. They can, however, each develop a theory as to how they reached they got their confirmation, and then present that to the other for testing. If it works, great, if not, then back to the drawing board.

 

My original question (well, on this topic anyway), was asking about the LDS process for receiving confirmation, since I've yet to experience that and am trying to discern the means through which others have. Along the way, I've also presented the means I have taken to reach my conclusions, which others are of course free to critique or otherwise employ.

[Just_A_Guy]

My original question (well, on this topic anyway), was asking about the LDS process for receiving confirmation, since I've yet to experience that and am trying to discern the means through which others have. Along the way, I've also presented the means I have taken to reach my conclusions, which others are of course free to critique or otherwise employ.

 

I get the vibe you're actually asking more about how LDS recognize such confirmation once (their theology teaches) it comes; since in LDS teaching the process of getting revelation sounds a lot like what you've described--study and prayer.  :)

 

Yours and Vort's discussion about shared experiences is apropos here.  So let's imagine our "gut feeling" or that "little voice in our head" that we should have listened to, but didn't (or that we did listen to, and things turned out well).  I think these sorts of manifestations are universal to the human experience; and if it's not too presumptuous of me to say--I would venture to guess that you may have felt something very like that yourself at some point.

 

Now, what Mormonism teaches is that these sorts of instincts or feelings or (at times) nagging forebodings, are actually revelations from God Himself given by means of the Holy Ghost.  Mormonism would argue that this line of communication needs to be cultivated; and that if one doesn't learn to screen out imitations and passions from the real thing, one can be easily deceived.  Mormonism further teaches that, while anyone (regardless of religious proclivities) can participate in and benefit from this process; nevertheless certain liturgical rites offered only by the Church can make one more sensitive to such "promptings" and help an individual to accurately distinguish between valid revelations versus spurious ones.

 

How does one recognize this process, when it's happening?  Personally, I find it very difficult to articulate.  In discussing it with my wife and close family members, I lean towards the idea that it might not affect any two people in precisely the same way.  But here are some guideposts or "common denominators" that I think are helpful.

 

--First, from Joseph Smith's King Follett Sermon, in which Smith publicly taught for the first time some new and controversial ideas:

 

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know that it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more.

 

--Here's early LDS leader Parley P. Pratt:

 

The gift of the Holy Spirit . . . . quickens all the intellectual faculties, increases, enlarges, expands and purifies all the natural passions and affections; and adapts them, by the gift of wisdom, to their lawful use. It inspires, develops, cultivates and matures all the fine-toned sympathies, joys, tastes, kindred feelings and affections of our nature. It inspires virtue, kindness, goodness, tenderness, gentleness and charity. It develops beauty of person, form and features. It tends to health, vigor, animation and social feeling. It develops and invigorates all the faculties of the physical and intellectual man. It strengthens, invigorates, and gives tone to the nerves. In short, it is, as it were, marrow to the bone, joy to the heart, light to the eyes, music to the ears, and life to the whole being.

 

Here are a couple of extracts from the Bible and other Mormon scripture that can flesh out the ways that God reveals Himself in our lives; and I would submit that these all describe ways that the Holy Ghost works upon us:

 

Galatians 5:22-23

 

2 Timothy 1:7

 

John 14:16-26

 

Alma 32:28-43

 

Doctrine and Covenants 8:2

 

Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-9

 

Doctrine and Covenants 50:17-24

 

I think you'll find that last cite particularly interesting--the whole section, really (D&C 50)--because it comes in the wake of a meeting of early Church members where all sorts of supposedly spiritual manifestations were occurring, and it turned out that lots of it was malarkey.

 

So, how do we rule out confirmation bias?  Well, in some cases you get answers or confirmations that you don't actually want.  (For example, Just_A_Girl and I recently got a confirmation that, even though we already have five kids and are feeling maxed out physically, emotionally, and financially--that there's one more little one we're supposed to have.  When you get an answer to your prayer, and your immediate response is "Oh, crap . . ."--I think confirmation bias can be safely excluded as a factor in that particular answer.)  More generally, though:  The best answer I can give you is "trial and error".  At some point--and I know this sounds pathetically weak, but it's all I can tell you--at some point, you just know. 

Edited January 19, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

A profound response, JAG. I admire your ability to distill an issue to its essence and then express that essence succinctly and precisely.

[Claire]

Thanks for the thorough response, Just_A_Guy :)

 

I would agree that the instincts/naggings/forbodings are a universal experience among human beings. I suppose it goes without saying that, as of right now, I have yet to have any such feelings prompting me towards the LDS faith. Obviously you guys have had different experiences with this, and I appreciate your sharing them with me.

 

I think the problem at the moment is that the scripture excerpts you mentioned (D&C 50 in particular) mostly seem to presume that those experiencing "false positives" such as it were had some prior experience of "actual positives" with which to contrast the experience. In other words, they're directly mostly at those who have already discerned the LDS Church to be true and are checking subsequent teachings for authenticity. At this point, if I'm going to leave open the possibility of the LDS faith being true, I have to conclude that the sensation being spoken of is one that I simply have not experienced as of yet, since my past "gut instincts" have typically gone the other way.

 

I would agree that, if that is the case, then the best course of action is likely continued study and prayer. I'll get on that

[Guest]

Thanks for the thorough response, Just_A_Guy :)

 

I would agree that the instincts/naggings/forbodings are a universal experience among human beings. I suppose it goes without saying that, as of right now, I have yet to have any such feelings prompting me towards the LDS faith. Obviously you guys have had different experiences with this, and I appreciate your sharing them with me.

 

I think the problem at the moment is that the scripture excerpts you mentioned (D&C 50 in particular) mostly seem to presume that those experiencing "false positives" such as it were had some prior experience of "actual positives" with which to contrast the experience. In other words, they're directly mostly at those who have already discerned the LDS Church to be true and are checking subsequent teachings for authenticity. At this point, if I'm going to leave open the possibility of the LDS faith being true, I have to conclude that the sensation being spoken of is one that I simply have not experienced as of yet, since my past "gut instincts" have typically gone the other way.

 

I would agree that, if that is the case, then the best course of action is likely continued study and prayer. I'll get on that

 

Just a blurb from my experience...

 

I have recognized the voice of the Spirit when I was still very young - a Catholic.  It is what has kept me devout in the Catholic Church even while giving the nuns and priests grief over my outspokenness.  The same way I recognized the truth of Catholic teaching is the same way I recognized the truth of LDS teaching.  So much so that, the pattern of learning I went through is not a denial of what I learned as truth throughout my Catholic life as impressed on me by what I recognized as the voice of the Spirit but a "broadening" of my learning.

[Just_A_Guy]

Vort, flattery will get you anywhere!

 

I think the problem at the moment is that the scripture excerpts you mentioned (D&C 50 in particular) mostly seem to presume that those experiencing "false positives" such as it were had some prior experience of "actual positives" with which to contrast the experience. In other words, they're directly mostly at those who have already discerned the LDS Church to be true and are checking subsequent teachings for authenticity. At this point, if I'm going to leave open the possibility of the LDS faith being true, I have to conclude that the sensation being spoken of is one that I simply have not experienced as of yet, since my past "gut instincts" have typically gone the other way.

 

To reinforce what Anatess says--it's not just about recognizing what church is right; it's about recognizing truth wherever that truth is to be found. 

 

If someone gets a spiritual confirmation of Mormonism--that most decidedly should not be the first spiritual confirmation they've ever received (though it may well be the first time they've ever recognized it for what it is). In Mormon thought, the Holy Ghost is the factor that ties together the moment you knew you should marry your husband, with the birth of your first child, with the moment you got a feeling that you shouldn't go home with that creepy kid at the Junior Prom, with the moment that you saw that house with the "for sale" sign on it and everything about it just felt right, with the time you turned down that job offer and couldn't quite put your finger on why you did it.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Jane_Doe]

I am a very intellectual person.  I love philosophy, thinking things through, and pondering on the mysteries of God.  It's like eating candy: just wonderful things in my belly.  

 

LDS faith and culture does prize the simple faith of a child ("it's true because it's true").  And a points this kind of drives me bonkers, because I'm not so simple.  My testimony of God sounds more like mathematical formulas than a little kid.  It's just how I am.  

 

At one point in my life, I was having major emotional dysfunction and hence grew very distrustful of anything I felt.  Any decision I made had to undergo 20 rounds of logic before being agree upon.  That was great for deciding what groceries to buy, or what to have for dinner.  But... I didn't feel anything.  I didn't feel God.  And as much as logic, I needed God to guide me through my emotional dysfunction.  

 

I had to learn how to listen to God, and differentiate those thoughts from mine.  That' s a lot of work, but it can be done and yields wonderful results.

 

Some Mormons describe "feeling the spirit" as a "burning in the bosom", but that sounds like heartburn to me.  To me, God speaking feels very similar to that voice which tells me "you need to turn left here" when I'm lost.  I've learned that feeling God is different for every person, so no one can tell you for sure how it feels for you.  To cultivate those spiritual ears, whenever you you do feel God (like in prayer), stop and say "I feel God- what does this feel like?".  It'll help you learn to recognize the feeling.