Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_Ray A]

At the same time, I recognize I can be quite blunt.

DCP can also be very blunt in posts (I've felt it at times). And it is that bluntness that can cause others to become more defensive. I'm not at all saying that bluntness is bad, wrong, or should be done away; in fact I welcome it (not sarcasm or ridicule). The rebuke of a friend is better than the kisses of an enemy. What I'm saying is that maybe we need to look past this bluntness (which is often a sign of strong personal conviction), and understand where the person is coming from, but I think you already understand that. (And it would be very nice to see some more of your bluntness on MAD, but I realise that the consequences of that are beyond your control.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you deny that you were taught to believe in the Mormon interpretation of "the Holy Ghost" as a child, or is my characterization more or less accurate

I don't remember either of my parents ever saying a word about the subject.

[_JohnStuartMill]

That's an answer to a question I did not ask. You said that you "seldomly" attended church. This implies that you attended church at least a few times, no? Can you rule out the not-unreasonable supposition that you would have received instruction about the Holy Ghost when you attended church as a child?

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's an answer to a question I did not ask. You said that you "seldomly" attended church. This implies that you attended church at least a few times, no? Can you rule out the not-unreasonable supposition that you would have received instruction about the Holy Ghost when you attended church as a child?

I'm sure it was mentioned.

Look. I was an agnostic by my early teens.

It's predictably reductive on your part to attempt to dismiss my current beliefs as a result of childhood conditioning.

But the sword cuts both ways. Drop it.

This is the classic ad hominem.

[_JohnStuartMill]

That's an answer to a question I did not ask. You said that you "seldomly" attended church. This implies that you attended church at least a few times, no? Can you rule out the not-unreasonable supposition that you would have received instruction about the Holy Ghost when you attended church as a child?

I'm sure it was mentioned.

Look. I was an agnostic by my early teens.

It's predictably reductive on your part to attempt to dismiss my current beliefs as a result of childhood conditioning.

That's not quite what I'm doing. I'm just noting that people all around the world have "spiritual experiences", and only a small minority of them attribute it to Mormon theology. This small minority seems to mainly composed of people whose parents taught them about Mormon beliefs. I'm not dismissing your experiences, only your interpretation of them. I can't see why that wouldn't be fair game.

But the sword cuts both ways. Drop it.

It doesn't really cut both ways, because I don't claim to receive truths through a sense that is impossible to calibrate or check against itself.

This is the classic ad hominem.

No, it's not.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm just noting that people all around the world have "spiritual experiences", and only a small minority of them attribute it to Mormon theology. This small minority seems to mainly composed of people whose parents taught them about Mormon beliefs. I'm not dismissing your experiences, only your interpretation of them. I can't see why that wouldn't be fair game.

It's a legitimate issue. Just don't try to make it a personal one. You don't know me, and you don't really know my story.

Do children of Buddhists typically grow up to be Buddhists, etc.? Obviously. This is scarcely a novel observation. I've read medieval Islamic discussions of it, for instance.

But the sword cuts both ways. Drop it.

It doesn't really cut both ways, because I don't claim to receive truths through a sense that is impossible to calibrate or check against itself.

I meant the sword of "you think that way because of your childhood conditioning," of course.

I don't presume to know your personal psychology or conditioning. Don't presume to know mine.

This is the classic ad hominem.

No, it's not.

Oh, it is. Very much. Stop it.

[Guest]

I'm just noting that people all around the world have "spiritual experiences", and only a small minority of them attribute it to Mormon theology. This small minority seems to mainly composed of people whose parents taught them about Mormon beliefs. I'm not dismissing your experiences, only your interpretation of them. I can't see why that wouldn't be fair game.

It's a legitimate issue. Just don't try to make it a personal one. You don't know me, and you don't really know my story.

Do children of Buddhists typically grow up to be Buddhists, etc.? Obviously. This is scarcely a novel observation. I've read medieval Islamic discussions of it, for instance.

Not that I think I'm staking a claim to virgin territory here, but again, this is not quite what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you're a Mormon just because that's how you were raised; I'm saying you interpret very common "spiritual" experiences in a way that is not surprising given some features of your upbringing. If this is a personal issue, then I'm sorry, but this site is for discussing reasons for being Mormon, and if your warrant for belief in Mormonism features a private epistemology then that's the natural place for the discussion to lead. If you don't like talking about your inner feelings, then either drop that rationale for being Mormon, or don't post here.

It doesn't really cut both ways, because I don't claim to receive truths through a sense that is impossible to calibrate or check against itself.

I meant the sword of "you think that way because of your childhood conditioning," of course.

Sure. I think we can both agree that childhood environments play a very large role in the religious beliefs people have as adults. But as Mighty Curelom has pointed out to you before, this is perfectly in line with what a secularist might expect, while it doesn't fit very well with the section of Mormon theology that deals with spiritual epistemology.

I don't presume to know your personal psychology or conditioning. Don't presume to know mine.

I don't. All I did was note that you were instructed in Mormonism as a child, and infer that this could explain your interpretation of your experiences as well as anything else.

You know, an experiment could be done that would give us a pretty good idea of whether Mormon revelatory epistemology is reliable or not. If you took a bunch of kids who were being raised in a Jewish household and invited them to ask God whether Judaism is the most true religion, and compared their results to a control group of kids raised by Mormons, then you'd have a pretty good idea of how much of the kids' "promptings" are just noise induced by their environments.

No, it's not.

Oh, it is. Very much. Stop it.

How is it an ad hominem? I can't see it, but you're a perceptive and well-spoken guy, so if there really is one then I'm sure you'll be able to show me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you don't like talking about your inner feelings, then either drop that rationale for being Mormon

I don't mention that "rationale for being Mormon" here.

I'm not sure, though, that I see why what I talk about here on this board should govern what I'm permitted to talk about elsewhere (e.g., in church, and to my children).

, or don't post here.

Always a tempting option.

Sure. I think we can both agree that childhood environments play a very large role in the religious beliefs people have as adults.

Including the non-religious ones. Or do you exempt yourself?

But as Mighty Curelom has pointed out to you before, this is perfectly in line with what a secularist might expect, while it doesn't fit very well with the section of Mormon theology that deals with spiritual epistemology.

Did I concede the truth of M. LeCurelom's assertion? If so, I must have been on some debilitating drug at the time.

Do you really think that Latter-day Saints have never thought about, say, those who are "blinded by the traditions of men," who have "inherited a lie" from those who went before, etc.? The scriptures are replete with such sentiments.

You know, an experiment could be done that would give us a pretty good idea of whether Mormon revelatory epistemology is reliable or not. If you took a bunch of kids who were being raised in a Jewish household and invited them to ask God whether Judaism is the most true religion, and compared their results to a control group of kids raised by Mormons, then you'd have a pretty good idea of how much of the kids' "promptings" are just noise induced by their environments.

No, you'd have evidence that spiritual experiences are interpreted through filters of culture, psychology, etc. -- something entirely obvious that no reflective Latter-day Saint of whom I'm aware has ever thought to deny.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Sure. I think we can both agree that childhood environments play a very large role in the religious beliefs people have as adults.

Including the non-religious ones. Or do you exempt yourself?

No.

But as Mighty Curelom has pointed out to you before, this is perfectly in line with what a secularist might expect, while it doesn't fit very well with the section of Mormon theology that deals with spiritual epistemology.

Did I concede the truth of M. LeCurelom's assertion? If so, I must have been on some debilitating drug at the time.

Do you really think that Latter-day Saints have never thought about, say, those who are "blinded by the traditions of men," who have "inherited a lie" from those who went before, etc.? The scriptures are replete with such sentiments.

Sure, but do those deal with the promptings of the Holy Ghost? I think we're uncovering a tension in Mormon thought here: Mormons would like to say that their own interpretations of spiritual experiences are unassailable, but that other people's are suspect, but they can't do so without engaging in gross special pleading. Many of the more educated Mormons that I've spoken to have acknowledged that their public warrants for belief (e.g., in Book of Mormon evidences, actions of the modern Church, etc.) are lacking, so they instead rely on private warrants (i.e., personal revelation). My point here is that these private warrants have many of the same problems.

You know, an experiment could be done that would give us a pretty good idea of whether Mormon revelatory epistemology is reliable or not. If you took a bunch of kids who were being raised in a Jewish household and invited them to ask God whether Judaism is the most true religion, and compared their results to a control group of kids raised by Mormons, then you'd have a pretty good idea of how much of the kids' "promptings" are just noise induced by their environments.

No, you'd have evidence that spiritual experiences are interpreted through filters of culture, psychology, etc. -- something entirely obvious that no reflective Latter-day Saint of whom I'm aware has ever thought to deny.

Then you all are obliged to treat your interpretation of your spiritual experiences with requisite skepticism, which is the exact opposite of what Mormons are instructed to do in fast and testimony meeting.

[_beastie]

Then you all are obliged to treat your interpretation of your spiritual experiences with requisite skepticism, which is the exact opposite of what Mormons are instructed to do in fast and testimony meeting.

I’ve had variations of this discussion more time than I can remember. I recently brought up something similar in the Fanny Alger thread, when Nevo brought up the testimonies Joseph Smith’s wives obtained of the principle. In return, I talked about the testimonies of individuals like a fundamentalist modern Mormon, and Wayne Bent’s followers. I can’t imagine any faithful LDS would accept that these people’s testimonies really mean that God is sanctioning the behavior or belief in question. Normally, in past conversations, the most common responses are that these people have been misled because the “real” testimony – the ones LDS get – is so much more powerful and real. Some people concede God may want these people to do whatever they’re doing, so maybe God did give them a good feeling about it, but it just means PARTS of what they believe is true. Of course, these are inadequate rebuttals because they could just as effectively be used against the LDS testimony. Maybe other people’s testimonies are far more powerful than what the LDS have experienced, or maybe God just wants the person to be LDS for some reason, but is just verifying that PARTS of the LDS teachings are true, but the overall system isn’t “true”. (in fact, that is what I believed about my own experience when I first left the church but remained a theist for a while)

It’s one of those dead-end conversations. I imagine that’s why DCP won’t even reply. He’s been around long enough to know that there are topics that no LDS can effectively argue, and it’s best to just avoid them.