Testing Stuff

[_Morley]

I'm assuming that, from your point of view, you get the truth and I get, um, less than the truth.

Not necessarily, Morley.

Please elaborate.

[_stemelbow]

Please elaborate.

I wasn't referreing to truth, per se, but spiritual experience, and in my mind was focusing on the existence of God as being verifiable by spiritual experience. Not truth in general though.

[_Morley]

Please elaborate.

I wasn't referreing to truth, per se, but spiritual experience, and in my mind was focusing on the existence of God as being verifiable by spiritual experience. Not truth in general though.

The truth of the existence of God, right?

[_just me]

I don't think anyone questions that you have had personal, subjective experiences that you label spiritual.

What is in question is if those experiences can give you knowledge of truth or fact.

The church has a lot of truth claims. Most of them hinge on historical events. This means that we have more than just prayer to rely on.

What is disturbing is when the historical record yields an opposite or different result than the prayer method.

If a warm feeling after praying leads me to conclude that Adam & Eve really existed and were born about 6000 years ago in Missouri, but all the scientific evidence leads to a different conclusion what is a person supposed to draw from that?

The church claims to be the one and only true and living church of Christ upon the earth today with all the keys and ordinances necessary to return to live with God again. That is why it actually DOES matter. You can't have a claim like that and then just say "oh well, everyone is different and will get different results." No. That is not what the church claims.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

The church claims to be the one and only true and living church of Christ upon the earth today with all the keys and ordinances necessary to return to live with God again. That is why it actually DOES matter. You can't have a claim like that and then just say "oh well, everyone is different and will get different results." No. That is not what the church claims.

Exactly, it's a promise, as a matter of fact. If ye so pray ... it will be revealed (paraphrase). But, and it's a big but, there's a loophole there where I put ellipses, i.e., with a sincere heart. So, if you don't get an answer, or the wrong answer, you are not praying sincerely.

It's not enough for some Mormons to say you weren't praying sincerely, and they will suggest that you simply aren't part of the elect and will never find your way back.

Those who lean toward power of suggestion and emotional response might feel that some don't get the answer because they aren't so much feeling a particular need that Mormonism can supply, such as being special, having a truth that others don't, being with loved ones again in the next life, etc.

[_stemelbow]

I don't think anyone questions that you have had personal, subjective experiences that you label spiritual.

What is in question is if those experiences can give you knowledge of truth or fact.

Yep. that's the question I've addressed. To me, they can.

The church has a lot of truth claims. Most of them hinge on historical events. This means that we have more than just prayer to rely on.

What is disturbing is when the historical record yields an opposite or different result than the prayer method.

No doubt, as I've said, there are problems or issues involving my faith, but there is, at times, nothing concrete about historically derived ideas and concepts. While history would not conclude that Book of Mormon was written by ancient peoples in americas, that history can't conclude such may reflect somewhat on the lack of conclusiveness concerning historical researching methods, if the Book of Mormon truly is a record from ancient peoples in americas.

If a warm feeling after praying leads me to conclude that Adam & Eve really existed and were born about 6000 years ago in Missouri, but all the scientific evidence leads to a different conclusion what is a person supposed to draw from that?

But what scientific evidence says Adam and Eve did not exist about 600 years ago in Missouri (not that I believe that)? Science draws the conclusion that the species of man wasn't created then, but that says nothing about the existence of Adam and Eve.

The church claims to be the one and only true and living church of Christ upon the earth today with all the keys and ordinances necessary to return to live with God again. That is why it actually DOES matter. You can't have a claim like that and then just say "oh well, everyone is different and will get different results." No. That is not what the church claims.

the Church claims everyone will believe? No. Its implied that there will be varying results. Just as if we all conducted historical research on the origins of man, and we all used different tools, we'd most likely see a very large variation in conclusions reached.

[_just me]

I don't think anyone questions that you have had personal, subjective experiences that you label spiritual.

What is in question is if those experiences can give you knowledge of truth or fact.

Yep. that's the question I've addressed. To me, they can.

Then your claims can be tested. A fact is not subjective. If the HG told you certain things were facts then we can use all methods available to us to ascertain if those are actual facts or not.

The church has a lot of truth claims. Most of them hinge on historical events. This means that we have more than just prayer to rely on.

What is disturbing is when the historical record yields an opposite or different result than the prayer method.

No doubt, as I've said, there are problems or issues involving my faith, but there is, at times, nothing concrete about historically derived ideas and concepts. While history would not conclude that Book of Mormon was written by ancient peoples in americas, that history can't conclude such may reflect somewhat on the lack of conclusiveness concerning historical researching methods, if the Book of Mormon truly is a record from ancient peoples in americas.

I'm sorry. The second sentence here makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could rephrase whatever you are trying to say.

We are not just talking about historically derived ideas. We are talking about historical events. Events either occured or did not occur. There are plenty of events in the scriptures that should have left some kind of mark. When you add up enough tallies on the "no evidence" column what is one supposed to conclude?

If a warm feeling after praying leads me to conclude that Adam & Eve really existed and were born about 6000 years ago in Missouri, but all the scientific evidence leads to a different conclusion what is a person supposed to draw from that?

But what scientific evidence says Adam and Eve did not exist about 600 years ago in Missouri (not that I believe that)? Science draws the conclusion that the species of man wasn't created then, but that says nothing about the existence of Adam and Eve.

I'm not sure if you typed what you meant here. Our species has been around longer than 6000 years. There is evidence than death has been around for millions and millions and millions of years. The Book of Mormon claims that there was NO death before the fall of Adam. This is impossible.

Why do the scriptures say things that are not true? Why can someone pray about them and receive a spiritual witness that they are "true" when they contain errors, lies and falsehoods?

The church claims to be the one and only true and living church of Christ upon the earth today with all the keys and ordinances necessary to return to live with God again. That is why it actually DOES matter. You can't have a claim like that and then just say "oh well, everyone is different and will get different results." No. That is not what the church claims.

the Church claims everyone will believe? No. Its implied that there will be varying results. Just as if we all conducted historical research on the origins of man, and we all used different tools, we'd most likely see a very large variation in conclusions reached.

Please show me where the church has come out and said that not everyone who reads the Book of Mormon and prays about it will receive a witness from God that it is true? Where has it been said that some people will get a different answer about it.
I have never, ever heard that in my life.

I did not say that the church teaches that "everyone will believe." The church teaches that anyone who follows the method outlined in the Book of Mormon will receive the answer that it (Book of Mormon) is true. This answer is taught to mean that if the Book of Mormon is true then so is the church and Joseph Smith was a "true prophet" of God.

If someone does not get the "correct" answer it is their fault. If by different tools you mean some people have a pure intent and others (who get the "wrong" answer) do not then I guess I agree that the church does imply that.

[_LDSToronto]

the Church claims everyone will believe? No. Its implied that there will be varying results. Just as if we all conducted historical research on the origins of man, and we all used different tools, we'd most likely see a very large variation in conclusions reached.

In any field of research (historical, scientific, literary, etc), different methods of inquiry can lead to results that differ. In the field of LDS spiritual inquiry, the tools are not varied; in fact there is but one - revelation via prayer. If all pray to a Supreme Being for revelation on the matter of universal, or objective truth, does it not stand to reason that all should receive the same answer?

H.

[_stemelbow]

Then your claims can be tested. A fact is not subjective. If the HG told you certain things were facts then we can use all methods available to us to ascertain if those are actual facts or not.

I'll just quickly sum up what I've said on this (and hopefully it'll make sense). I can test the spiritual experiences myself. I can't show my experience or my own verification of it. I don't htink it was meant to work that way. that's not to say I have tested each manifestation, though

No doubt, as I've said, there are problems or issues involving my faith, but there is, at times, nothing concrete about historically derived ideas and concepts. While history would not conclude that Book of Mormon was written by ancient peoples in americas, that history can't conclude such may reflect somewhat on the lack of conclusiveness concerning historical researching methods, if the Book of Mormon truly is a record from ancient peoples in americas.

I'm sorry. The second sentence here makes no sense to me. Perhaps you could rephrase whatever you are trying to say.

That was a terribly constructed sentence let me retry. While history would not conclude that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient peoples in the Americas, we can safely assume he Book of Mormon was not written by ancient peoples in Americas based on that alone. If it were true that the Book of Mormon was written by some ancients who inhabited the americas (at least somewhere on these two continents), then the safe conclusion would be that our tools for researching history are insufficient--which on many questions most historians would conclude is true (thus, the lack of many conclusive claims).

We are not just talking about historically derived ideas. We are talking about historical events. Events either occured or did not occur. There are plenty of events in the scriptures that should have left some kind of mark. When you add up enough tallies on the "no evidence" column what is one supposed to conclude?

What's interesting about all of this is sometimesspeculations and conclusions are made by experts including archaeologists and anthropologists regarding history that later proves to be untrue. So while right now we may conclude some certain events never happened in a place and time, later we might learn we were wrong.

I'm not sure if you typed what you meant here. Our species has been around longer than 6000 years.

Which says nothing about Adam and Eve, of course.

There is evidence than death has been around for millions and millions and millions of years. The Book of Mormon claims that there was NO death before the fall of Adam. This is impossible.

Agreed. But then again, what does that say about Adam and Eve existing 6000 years ago? That's merely a line of reasoning to question the teachings of th Book of Mormon.

Why do the scriptures say things that are not true? Why can someone pray about them and receive a spiritual witness that they are "true" when they contain errors, lies and falsehoods?

Well nothing is perfect. That's just how it is. we should expect to have to deal with some errors. In time hopefully those errors, while running through the refinement process, get identified and corrections are made.

Please show me where the church has come out and said that not everyone who reads the Book of Mormon and prays about it will receive a witness from God that it is true? Where has it been said that some people will get a different answer about it.
I have never, ever heard that in my life.

You've never heard that some people will not receive an answer due to their lack of faith or whatever factor (sincere heart, trusting in God)? I need to be clear here so I understand what you're looking for.

I did not say that the church teaches that "everyone will believe." The church teaches that anyone who follows the method outlined in the Book of Mormon will receive the answer that it (Book of Mormon) is true. This answer is taught to mean that if the Book of Mormon is true then so is the church and Joseph Smith was a "true prophet" of God.

Wehre does the Church say everyone who prays about the Book of Mormon will receive an answer that it is true?

If someone does not get the "correct" answer it is their fault. If by different tools you mean some people have a pure intent and others (who get the "wrong" answer) do not then I guess I agree that the church does imply that.

What answer does the church say will come that will in effect be an "incorrect" answer?

[_stemelbow]

In any field of research (historical, scientific, literary, etc), different methods of inquiry can lead to results that differ. In the field of LDS spiritual inquiry, the tools are not varied; in fact there is but one - revelation via prayer. If all pray to a Supreme Being for revelation on the matter of universal, or objective truth, does it not stand to reason that all should receive the same answer?

H.

If "pray" was the only requirement, yes. But there are a lot of factors involved. They have to do with sincerity of heart and all that. Also, conclusions are reached based on answers. Conclusions themselves are the product of individual humans. If it was as simple as you say, then there would be no problems and no contradictions, but its not that simple, sadly. And that is quite like historical research in a sense. different conclusions can easily be reached by experts.