DiscussMormonism.com

So the LDS position is this (it seems): Pray and see if God will "show" you truth.

It seems apparent to me many don't find that an adequate way to determine truth. Indeed most of the criticisms deal with scientific concepts or established rules of historic research. But how are the tools (scientific method and such) developed to figure out that which we can see, or detect going to translate to determine the existence of something we can't see or detect, like God?

The problem here is that God seems to give contradictory answers between individuals.

Who is the guy who is proposing that he got personal revelation that the Book of Mormon took place in North America?

Scottie wrote:The problem here is that God seems to give contradictory answers between individuals.

Who is the guy who is proposing that he got personal revelation that the Book of Mormon took place in North America?

Why is that such a problem? Any two folks can view historic material and arrive at different answers. People debate on these matters for that very reason. There's no reason to assume each and every way to learn truths is foolproof. Indeed we should expect some variation, when it comes down to it.

stemelbow wrote:

Scottie wrote:The problem here is that God seems to give contradictory answers between individuals.

Who is the guy who is proposing that he got personal revelation that the Book of Mormon took place in North America?

Why is that such a problem? Any two folks can view historic material and arrive at different answers. People debate on these matters for that very reason. There's no reason to assume each and every way to learn truths is foolproof. Indeed we should expect some variation, when it comes down to it.

Wait... you are asking why it's a problem that asking God for the truth is unreliable??

Please note, we aren't asking "two folks" for answers. We are asking GOD for answers.

Scottie wrote:Wait... you are asking why it's a problem that asking God for the truth is unreliable??

Please note, we aren't asking "two folks" for answers. We are asking GOD for answers.

I don't say its unreliable. I say it isn't fool proof. Of course people can be mistaken. They can be mistaken in their scientific research too. There are just far less people in that field than in the field of relying on God for religious truth. There are far less historians than faith-livers. Science and history have rules they follow and levels of expertise they must reach, so the means seems far more reliable, I guess. But asking God, relying on the spiritual is a process that needs to be worked on, understood, practiced and all that too. That there are differences of opinion is to be expected.

stemelbow wrote:So the LDS position is this (it seems): Pray and see if God will "show" you truth.

It seems apparent to me many don't find that an adequate way to determine truth. Indeed most of the criticisms deal with scientific concepts or established rules of historic research. But how are the tools (scientific method and such) developed to figure out that which we can see, or detect going to translate to determine the existence of something we can't see or detect, like God?

As was already mentioned, answers gained in this way are often contradictory.

Also, there's no mechanism to show whether or not the answer you're getting is from God or from your own head. What if the test was this - think about your parents, now imagining them dying. If you feel sad now, that means the church is true. You could tell yourself that it was really God who implanted that sadness reaction in your head to answer your inquiry, but there's no evidence of that. It's more likely you felt sad because it was an appropriate reaction.

Likewise the more reasonable explanation of LDS warm fuzzies is that people find the Book of Mormon a heartwarming book with a good message (at least, the parts the missionaries assign for them).

Some people, even lifelong members, NEVER get an answer. Why? Probably because their emotional response doesn't work the same as people who get these answers.

Buffalo wrote:As was already mentioned, answers gained in this way are often contradictory.

Also, there's no mechanism to show whether or not the answer you're getting is from God or from your own head. What if the test was this - think about your parents, now imagining them dying. If you feel sad now, that means the church is true. You could tell yourself that it was really God who implanted that sadness reaction in your head to answer your inquiry, but there's no evidence of that. It's more likely you felt sad because it was an appropriate reaction.

So who suggests feeling sad that ones loved ones died means the church is true?

But you do raise an interesting note to this--the idea of interpretation.

Likewise the more reasonable explanation of LDS warm fuzzies is that people find the Book of Mormon a heartwarming book with a good message (at least, the parts the missionaries assign for them).

but, as it is, for me, my belief is not based on some warm fuzzy experience concerning the Book of Mormon. Its far more extensive than that. So it makes it seem like you have drawn a caricature of what belief is to be based on to suggest relying on that caricature can lead to different conclusions. Well, yep. The spiritual method can lead to wrong conslusions. it must be so, otherwise there wouldn't be differences among believers, right? But, in a sense varying ocnclusions is to be expected in nearly every avenue we have developed for learning.

Some people, even lifelong members, NEVER get an answer. Why? Probably because their emotional response doesn't work the same as people who get these answers.

Indeed, there is variety. I get that.

stemelbow wrote:So the LDS position is this (it seems): Pray and see if God will "show" you truth.

It seems apparent to me many don't find that an adequate way to determine truth. Indeed most of the criticisms deal with scientific concepts or established rules of historic research. But how are the tools (scientific method and such) developed to figure out that which we can see, or detect going to translate to determine the existence of something we can't see or detect, like God?

For me, it just came down to the spiritual experiences I had confirmed the truth of things that are not true or that my conscience simply won't allow me to support. I finally had to go with my conscience because it was doing damage to my soul trying to ignore it.

Runtu wrote:For me, it just came down to the spiritual experiences I had confirmed the truth of things that are not true or that my conscience simply won't allow me to support. I finally had to go with my conscience because it was doing damage to my soul trying to ignore it.

Yep...there are different conclusions drawn in the realm of religion. What I can't figure out is how can we, or anyone, test the existence of God other than by praying to Him?

stemelbow wrote:

Buffalo wrote:As was already mentioned, answers gained in this way are often contradictory.

Also, there's no mechanism to show whether or not the answer you're getting is from God or from your own head. What if the test was this - think about your parents, now imagining them dying. If you feel sad now, that means the church is true. You could tell yourself that it was really God who implanted that sadness reaction in your head to answer your inquiry, but there's no evidence of that. It's more likely you felt sad because it was an appropriate reaction.

So who suggests feeling sad that ones loved ones died means the church is true?

But you do raise an interesting note to this--the idea of interpretation.

Likewise the more reasonable explanation of LDS warm fuzzies is that people find the Book of Mormon a heartwarming book with a good message (at least, the parts the missionaries assign for them).

but, as it is, for me, my belief is not based on some warm fuzzy experience concerning the Book of Mormon. Its far more extensive than that. So it makes it seem like you have drawn a caricature of what belief is to be based on to suggest relying on that caricature can lead to different conclusions. Well, yep. The spiritual method can lead to wrong conslusions. it must be so, otherwise there wouldn't be differences among believers, right? But, in a sense varying ocnclusions is to be expected in nearly every avenue we have developed for learning.

Some people, even lifelong members, NEVER get an answer. Why? Probably because their emotional response doesn't work the same as people who get these answers.

Indeed, there is variety. I get that.

The "spiritual manifestation" is obviously not the same for everyone. For some it's warm fuzzies, other's burning of the bosom, others goosebumps/chills, etc.

Lots of people have many of these types of reactions when watching certain types of movies or listening to certain music, etc. Certain people are even biologically predisposed to feel goosebumps when listening to music.

Whatever it is that you experienced, there is no way for you to really verify that it came from god. So it's not much of a method of getting at the truth if you can't verify the authenticity of the message.

If you kept getting letters from someone (unsigned),and a third party kept claiming that they were from Queen Elizabeth, but there was no stamped envelope, no return address, and no other evidence that it was really the Queen writing you, how much credence would you put in those messages? Sure, you got a message, but from who?