The Boundaries of Experience

[_Simon Belmont]

By Simon's own logic, criticism of the Church is justifiable on the grounds of subjectivity. It's okay to accuse the LDS Church of fraudulence, since, through an apostate's eyes, that's the real, subjective truth.

Scratch:

I am actively participating in this thread. There is no need to refer to me in the third person as though I am somewhere else.

By your logic, apologetics is completely justifiable on the grounds of subjectivity. It's okay to accuse the critics of fraudulence, since, through an apologist's eyes, that's the real, subjective truth.

[_Darth J]

You see, the emotional rush called the burning bosom has been felt by nearly everyone on this board.

You do not know that. You know that people have told you that, but I would imagine that it was a vastly personal experience. For example, if you were able to actually experience someone else's "burning," it would be totally foreign to you.

Then in what way is Moroni's Promise a reliable way to test objective truth, since the experience is subjective for everyone?

[_Doctor Scratch]

By Simon's own logic, criticism of the Church is justifiable on the grounds of subjectivity. It's okay to accuse the LDS Church of fraudulence, since, through an apostate's eyes, that's the real, subjective truth.

Scratch:

I am actively participating in this thread. There is no need to refer to me in the third person as though I am somewhere else.

I can refer to you however I like. Perhaps if you want me to refer to you in a particular light, you should change your approach.

By your logic,

Whose logic? I'm not the one advancing some Mopologetic theory about pure subjective truth.

[_Simon Belmont]

I can refer to you however I like. Perhaps if you want me to refer to you in a particular light, you should change your approach.

Approach to what? The OP of this thread compels you to refer to me in the third person?

Whose logic? I'm not the one advancing some Mopologetic theory about pure subjective truth.

Neither am I. Perhaps you'd like to actually read the OP.

[_Simon Belmont]

Then in what way is Moroni's Promise a reliable way to test objective truth, since the experience is subjective for everyone?

There are certain ideas that we accept as objective truth because of a common understanding, like the chair. You would be hard pressed to find any citizen of earth who does not understand the purpose and function of a chair. Yet, the question of whether the chair exists outside of our experience and interpretation of it can also be applied to any experience: the experience of playing basketball, the experience of the color red, and spiritual experiences.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I can refer to you however I like. Perhaps if you want me to refer to you in a particular light, you should change your approach.

Approach to what? The OP of this thread compels you to refer to me in the third person?

Who said anything about "compelling"?

Whose logic? I'm not the one advancing some Mopologetic theory about pure subjective truth.

Neither am I.

Sure you are:

I see hope for this thread in that we might be able to discuss the merits of spiritual experience

Your "hope" is that you can get everyone to agree to your ill-conceived argument about how all "experience" is subjective (as opposed to, say, inter-subjective). That way, critics will at last have to concede that your testimony is immune to criticism.

[_Darth J]

Then in what way is Moroni's Promise a reliable way to test objective truth, since the experience is subjective for everyone?

There are certain ideas that we accept as objective truth because of a common understanding, like the chair. You would be hard pressed to find any citizen of earth who does not understand the purpose and function of a chair. Yet, the question of whether the chair exists outside of our experience and interpretation of it can also be applied to any experience: the experience of playing basketball, the experience of the color red, and spiritual experiences.

You would be hard pressed to find any citizen of Earth who prayed to know if chairs are real.

If I pick up a chair and hit someone over the head with it, when I'm charged with assault, I'm not going to be acquitted by saying that my subjective experience of the chair was unique for me and everyone has their own personal "interpretation" of a chair.

"The Book of Mormon is true/the LDS Church is true/Joseph Smith was a prophet" are not ideas accepted as objective truth because of a common understanding.

How is the subjective experience of Moroni's Promise, which you said is different for everyone, a reliable indicator of objective reality?

"The Book of Mormon is true" is equivalent to saying that a 1,000-year civilization of Hebrews who practiced Christianity existed in the Western Hemisphere until about 421 A.D. Is the existence of that civilization objective or subjective?

[_Simon Belmont]

Who said anything about "compelling"?

My OP ... encourages you to refer to me in the third person?

Sure you are:

Your "hope" is that you can get everyone to agree to your ill-conceived argument about how all "experience" is subjective (as opposed to, say, inter-subjective). That way, critics will at last have to concede that your testimony is immune to criticism.

The hope I have for this thread is to discuss, with those who are interested, the relationship between what we consider reality (a physical chair, for example) and what only some consider reality (a paranormal encounter, for example). If you are not interested in such a discussion, I invite you to post elsewhere.

[_Simon Belmont]

You would be hard pressed to find any citizen of Earth who prayed to know if chairs are real.

I believe that is merely because we accept chairs without question. The objects are so familiar to us, and humans have used these tools since ancient times, that a chair is accepted as a chair.

If I pick up a chair and hit someone over the head with it, when I'm charged with assault, I'm not going to be acquitted by saying that my subjective experience of the chair was unique for me and everyone has their own personal "interpretation" of a chair.

Of course. The judge would laugh at you. Chairs are accepted by everyone as chairs. They are familiar objects which serve a definite, defined purpose -- sitting.

"The Book of Mormon is true/the LDS Church is true/Joseph Smith was a prophet" are not ideas accepted as objective truth because of a common understanding.

I agree.

How is the subjective experience of Moroni's Promise, which you said is different for everyone, a reliable indicator of objective reality?

Well, first of all, I do not know that it is different for everyone, I just assumed it was. There is no way for me to know, aside from actually becoming that person, what another person feels or how they interpret their own experiences. But truth is truth, whether objective and commonly accepted, or subjective and very personal.

[_Darth J]

The hope I have for this thread is to discuss, with those who are interested, the relationship between what we consider reality (a physical chair, for example) and what only some consider reality (a paranormal encounter, for example). If you are not interested in such a discussion, I invite you to post elsewhere.

Your hope for this thread is a concession by someone that we cannot say with absolute certainty that the LDS Church is not true. However, "how can we be sure it isn't false?" is not a valid basis for a reasonable person to adopt a belief system.