"My confidence in that testimony and its fundamental epistemological nature and source are not in question in my mind, and therefore the question would not now devolve into either a throwing up of the hands in a spirit of nihilism and saying "never mind, we can never know the truth one way or another, so let's forget the whole thing,", or a degeneration into positivism and reductionism that would try to boil down both our perceptions into brain biochemistry or sociological phenomena. The discussion would now be centered on an exploration of just what our respective experiences entailed, and what patterns were manifested therein such that a better understanding of just what the origins of each might really be".
I understand that Coggins, though I can think of one potential problem with that. If someone - say, you for example - were convinced that they were receiving revelations from a heavenly being, but in fact, you were not...doesn't the fact that you are certain you are, indicate that your own psychological state is such, that it would be difficult to the point of nearly impossible, for you to ever realize you were wrong? Do you see what I'm driving at? If I am convinced I was abducted and raped by aliens, but was not, doesn't the fact I'm convinced I was, mean either that initially my mind was such that it was not capable of distinguishing reality from (unwitting) self-deception, or else that one original thinking error may have had something of a domino effect, to the point where on the particular extraordinary topic at hand, I have now essentially lost the ability to be critical? Is this especially not possible where my false beliefs form the basis of my identity, my marriage, my hopes, my sense of heritage, my membership in my group, etc.?
To put it another way: to be certain that a heavenly being is sending us messages is on its face, far more likely to be the result of the working of the human psyche, than of genuine communication, as even you in effect concede when you claim that the "messages from God" that their religion is the only true one, supposedly received by many hundreds of millions of NON-Mormons, didn't come from God at all. So in short, the claim that OUR messages from God are real, but are those of neighbours are not, on its face seems irrational. If so, it indicates a breakdown at some level of rational faculties. And if there has been a breakdown of rational faculties, but that very breakdown prohibits the subject from recognizing that breakdown...what hope does he really ever have of recognizing it, of coming to see that he's mistaken?
Here is a question for you raised by this potential problem:
If, by some chance, Joseph Smith did not tell the truth about his experiences, and his religion was not what it claimed, how do you think you could know that?
You wrote:
None of this obviates the need for a testimony, nor does anything I might say "prove" the gospel and church true. But in any battle between "testimonies", I think it likely that the whole argument will cycle back once again to conventional critical discourse in which point and counter-point are exchanged. In other words, two people really cannot battle it out in the arena of ideas testimony against testimony. That's something a little like saying I see a patch or red, and the other saying he sees a patch of blue, and then trying to argue each other into believing it.
I suppose I am a bit surprised by this, in that you allow for a criteria of discerning reality which entails reason and evidence. Is that what you are saying? If so, could you elaborate on what you think that criteria would consist of specifically?
You wrote:
...We really can't argue over testimonies. We can talk about theology, archeology, history, philosophy, textual criticism etc and I can put forward my arguments for the church based on these, but at the end of the day I'm going to tell our hypothetical evangelical that I know the church is true because God himself as made it known to me. If he then retorts that he also has a testimony--that what I have said is false, then we are at an impasse.
Coggins, do you see anything potentially troublesome about individual devotion to ultimately untestable cosmological "knowledge" in terms of, say, the welfare of mankind?
You wrote:
This point is handled by Moroni's promise of confirmation to the sincere seeker of knowledge. What I can know, anyone can know.
So would you say that anyone who tried what you've tried, but still doesn't know what you know, didn't really sincerely want the truth?
The question is not what the chances are of God speaking directly and clearly about the core, central questions of existence to a small and rather obscure people. The only really live question here is simply, did he?
One comment if I may - you're pretty good, Coggins. You are managing to talk about things which to most people would sound utterly nonsensical, while still not sounding nuts. This is far more than I can say for anyone I am aware of at FARMS, and certainly more than I can say about Wade, who (as a fellow non-post-modernist), I feel certain you could feel little more than scorn or pity for...
Not to digress too much, but how do you feel about FARMS, which operates with the more-than-tacit approval of the church you hold so dear, while promoting the sort of idiotic po-mo trash they sometimes do (which as you've implicitly pointed out, is entirely irreconcilable with Mormon epistemology)?
Anyway, yes, the question may be, did he?; but stepping back, wouldn't you say the odds are fairly low? I mean, when you think about it, we're talking about a very long chain of really spectacular assumptions, starting with there being an interventionist God, and the assumption that every member of the entire human race is born doomed to suffer eternal torment unless humans murder God (or the son of God), etc., etc., culminating with God having a "one true church" on earth, and it being the very one Joseph Smith started? Like, after stepping back, to believe that, after one unevidenced, implausible assumption after another after another after another (and I'm even leaving out the "I know because I feel I know" problem), couldn't you really believe anything? Zeus, Juno, Allah, aliens...?
You wrote:
I think that some are attributable to the human psych, some to cultural conditioning, some to legitimate spiritual intimations or inspiration, and some to direct revelation and communion with God.
Do you think it's possible that what you think are messages from God to you, might not be?
You wrote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is his church. While he is a member of a greater and, shall we say, ultimate church (which the scriptures call the Church of The Firstborn), the particular manifestation of it in our age is for us and our needs, just as the Church of Jesus Christ of former day saints was a unique institution, founded upon the same principles, but capacitated to the needs and challenges of that age. Ditto the Mosaic gospel. Hence, While I wouldn't say Jesus was a Mormon, or a member of the Mormon church, the church is an instance, or specific manifestation of a church and gospel that is cosmic in scope and of which he is a member. I see no logical necessity of Jesus haring to be a member of an earthy and temporary, even if divine, organization he forms, in any direct way. We in the church believe that he, as the God of the Old Testament, organized and revealed the Mosaic law and gospel, but this does not imply necessarily that he was an observer of the Law of Moses. In a sense, of course, he is, in that anything that is a part of the gospel in its totality is true, and hence something he approves of and supports. But as Jesus Christ has no need himself of animal sacrifice, he need not practice it or be a member of an earthly organization that features such observances as necessary for mortals of a certain kind to participate in, even as he is the author and creator of that organization.
Loran...your answer here might strike some as a way of escaping the discomfort induced by claiming that Jesus is a member of the Mormon church. The thing is...the whole point of Mormonism, the whole original claim of Joseph Smith's, was that the "one, true church of Jesus Christ", which he came to earth to establish, had been lost; and that Jesus was now "restoring" his "one true church" to the earth in preparation for his second coming. Over and over and over Mormon prophets and apostles have made clear that "the gospel is eternal", that the priesthood authority is the same...who was it that supposedly came to Joseph Smith to give him the Aaronic priesthood, Loran? John the Baptist. Who was it that came supposedly to give him the Melchizedek priesthood? Peter, James, and John. Moses, Elijah, "Elias"...they all supposedly came to Joseph Smith. The whole point of Mormon theology is that it is the only "one true way" - how then could God and Jesus Christ not be entirely a part of it? How could they not be considered members of the only true church? In Mormon theology, it was the same man who baptized Jesus Christ who gave authority to Joseph and Oliver to baptize...
And the "plan of salvation"...the whole thing's supposed to be all about Mormonism, from Mormonism's perpsective. You mention the Law of Moses - but that was just a "schoolmaster", wasn't it, until Jesus could establish his "one true church" on earth?
Let me ask you this. You believe that the Law of Moses was a "forerunner" to a superior, truer gospel, which at present finds expression in the LDS church; yet many Jews rejected Jesus's claims and remained Jews, including almost the entire Jewish priesthood. So, do you think it is possible that Jesus could issue forth yet another advancement in religious truth, through some new religion which breaks away from the LDS church, or arises independently of it?
If you do, how good of a Mormon are you really?
And if you don't, have you not just committed yourself in fact to the claim that the Mormon church DOES embody the "one true everything", which Jesus Christ MUST then be considered a member of (as its founder and leader)?