Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

[_Kishkumen]

Kishkumen: I think we disagree very little. I would just define faith differently. It seems that you define it as believing in that which there is little evidence for or against. I would define it as hoping or believing in things which are not seen which are true, as manifested by the power of the Holy Ghost. That being said, I think faith to some degree in your sense of the word is a necessity. I am not so arrogant as to think that I must be right and 99.5% of the world must be wrong with any high degree of certainty, particularly given the immense complexities of revelation.

Sincerely, Lolitsme

The definition of faith you ascribe to me is not my position at all, but I am not offended that you said it.

[_Tobin]

I think it is fine to trust faith regarding the issue of spiritual salvation. I don't think it is fine to trust faith when it comes to dating purportedly ancient documents. The former is much more important than the latter, so I am left wondering why everyone invests so much angst in the latter. Particularly those who demand that all Mormons aver something about the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham that does not square with the evidence.

I think the exercise of faithfulness to the truth should be to demand that evidence before you'd place your faith in it. While I hold the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham could be representative interpretations of ancient materials under certain circumstances. I'd personally like to see those materials myself to be able to believe it.

[_Themis]

I think he does have something to say. He is saying that you should trust the spirit over reason; In other words, he's explaining that he has serious epistemological differences, and that he thinks you should listen to the spirit over reason. I tend to agree with him.

Ignoring facts over that special feeling is great when the facts don't support you. Of course though that special feeling didn't come with any interpretation. You had to give it that. How do you think a Catholic will interpret theirs? Reason should not be ignored when it comes to the facts available.

Some things cannot be known through logic. The divinity of Christ, the power of the atonement, these things are by their very nature un-provable, yet they are propositions that are either true or false.

It's hard to say. They are ill defined, and just assertions. Scientology makes many claims just like this. If I feel a special feeling in relation to that is it the Holy ghost telling me it's true? It seems people interpret their spiritual experiences with their world view in mind.

All of his "first level" beliefs fall into this category. The other levels are things that are verifiable, that can be looked at from a perspective of evidence, yet these are not core doctrines at all.

They are not core doctrines, nor is that the focus of religions. However they are essential tools in looking at whether the claims made by people like Joseph are really true or accurate. I knew the papyri was never the focus of the Book of Abraham, but I also knew it could tell me something about Joseph's prophetic claims. Funny how we can do this with all the other claims, but when it comes to our religions claims, we tend to give them a pass.

[_Themis]

I would define it as hoping or believing in things which are not seen which are true, as manifested by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The problem is if it's not true then you have to agree you cannot have faith in it by the definition you gave.

[_Lolitsme]

The definition of faith you ascribe to me is not my position at all, but I am not offended that you said it.

Kishkumen, I am glad I have not offended you and I am sorry if I misrepresented what you think. I made sure to say "It seems that" rather than it is, but if this did not come off clearly I am again sorry. An internet board is hard to put subtleties into clearly and I realize now that I failed at this. Thank you for your tolerance of me

Tobin: The witness of the Holy Ghost is not evidence?

Ignoring facts over that special feeling is great when the facts don't support you. Of course though that special feeling didn't come with any interpretation. You had to give it that. How do you think a Catholic will interpret theirs? Reason should not be ignored when it comes to the facts available.

I think both good Catholics and good Mormons will try to interpret them correctly. Mormons and Catholics that are not truth seekers will not care and will continue to believe what they desire to believe. I am a truth seeker and I'm sure many Catholics are as well. Spiritual experiences are so varied and happen in so many circumstances that it really isn't as simple as "I pray and get a spiritual experience; therefore, my religion is true." Neither sophisticated Catholics nor Mormons believe this. I was just reading an article about how they elect Popes from Time. Perhaps you should check it out.

The problem is if it's not true then you have to agree you cannot have faith in it by the definition you gave.

That is not true. I'd have faith in something else and I may not call what I feel the Holy Ghost.

Prophetic infallibility (doctrinal infallibility) has ALWAYS been the essence of Mormon Doctrine. It is only Mormon apologists that deny this.

Really? Because I can pull out several quotes from Joseph Smith, having just read his Journals about this. There are quotes (like in the Polygamy manifesto for instance) which preach that Prophets or the majority in the twelve, etc, are infallible. If they are infallible though, infallible prophets led me astray in believing they were fallible as I read their writings; therefore, they are fallible. Here's one such quote:

"If we are faithful in all things, for we are even entitled to greater blessings than they were, because the[y] had the person of Christ with them, to instruct them in the great plan of salvation, his personal presence we have not, therefore we need great faith on account of our peculiar circumstances and I am determined to do all that I can to uphold you, although I may do many things <invertaintly [inadvertently]> that are not right in the sight of God; you want to know many things that are before you, that you may know how how to prepare your selves for the great things that God is about to bring to pass" Joseph Smith's 1835-1836 Journal, Pg. 31-32, November 12, 1835

Sorry, the reply on prophetic fallibility may have come across a little strong. I am sincerely trying to be respectful and I do respect your views.

Now I will try to address everything else.

One common mistake that I find that New Atheists and other skeptics make is that the Holy Ghost is merely a feeling. Maybe that's what you thought it was, but then if that is the case then I really do understand why you don't believe. For me, and others I have talked to that I know very personally it has always been more than that. I have sensed the Holy Ghost, I have sensed his presence, I have heard his voice speaking for God, and so have many others. Sure you can just assign it as "emotion" or "hallucination" but I can substitute eyesight for sensing the Holy Ghost and you could make exactly the same arguments. It is a sense in the real term, something that scientifically minded people like you and I should be more than open to given that we know of something like 20 different human senses now. More from neuroscience are being found all the time.

Suppose you say, as you have that the fact that say Catholics and Mormons in large part got different answers (unsurprising given that they have committed their lives to different Church's.) Suppose you say this casts doubt on the epistemology of revelation. Well you're right, but the epistemology you chose isn't any better. No epistemology is good, except perhaps direct observation (sensing the existence of holy ghost or seeing a tree.) Let me substitute Science.

Science believed set x of things in the year 1850. Science believed set y of things in the year 1950. Science believes set z of things in the year 2015; therefore, Science is worthless and untrue. It is true that science changes but this does not mean that I personally just decide to discount science completely. I look at what is in conflict and what is not, and compare. Some things are obvious. Evolution for example, both micro and macro has been observed. Similarly things like the existence of spirits, the golden rule, an afterlife, and other aspects of religion are for the most part universally agreed upon by spiritual religions. These are immutable aspects, and they comprise many of our core doctrines.

This brings me to my distinction between spiritual and scientific experts. Religion and Science can be seen as a Venn diagram. Science makes claims that religion does not conflict with in which case we trust science. Religion likewise makes claims that science does not conflict with. Each of these claims are made by experts in their fields. Our Prophets and the Pope and Cardinals to some degree, and other spiritual experts compose the spiritual side. These spiritual experts agree and disagree on various things, but similarly have much in common. Then there are scientific experts, people who spend their life studying public data and reasoning and experimenting with it. They disagree on many things, but some things are clear to them. Both of these experts take valid, but different avenues to truth, have their share of things they are wrong about, and are fallible. When the two collide I almost always take the side of science. That being said though I don't necessarily believe that they are wrong. I just take science's side. As I said before Science can change and so can Religion. I honestly think it is impossible to know which things the two sides are right and wrong about, so I make a utility bargain. I find science much more useful to believe about, for example, the historicity of something or the creation because science allows for technology. Religion does not, but provides for salvation. Given that disbelief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is far from something that I could be banished to outer darkness or even the terrestrial kingdom for, I chose science. I would also point out that this reliance on spiritual experts leads to degrees of certainty. I am much more certain about non-religion specific claims. Then comes Christ, where I become less certain, after which comes Mormonism which I am even less certain of. As such I try my best to not be dogmatic about any of my views. Hopefully I have fulfilled this goal.

Sincerely, Lolitsme

[_Tobin]

Tobin: The witness of the Holy Ghost is not evidence?

Obviously not. You could be deluding yourself. And that isn't consistent with the Mormon story anyway. God appeared to Joseph Smith. Now, if God is willing to appear to Joseph Smith to tell him the truth, then why not us? If it is so important to God that we know the truth, then he certainly can do that. And if God can appear to us, then he can certainly show us the plates.

[_Lolitsme]

Tobin: You're eyesight could be deluding yourself similarly. It is a priori. I actually don't think it is that important to God that we know the truth. If it was there would be one religion, and one group of apostates. Mormonism is about progression. It is about learning and becoming better people, and not everyone learns best in a Mormon environment. If God told someone that it was his will to be a Catholic, I'd believe them. That's why we have sacred ordinances for the dead. It is why we do genealogy and it is why we have such a Universalist theology. It is something that has always made sense to me about Mormonism. Sure it might have been important that Joseph Smith know the truth so he could restore such ordinances eventually, and provide a place for whom Mormonism is where we learn and progress best, but I do not think we can say what was important for God to show Joseph Smith is important for us.

[_Tobin]

Tobin: You're eyesight could be deluding yourself similarly. It is a priori. I actually don't think it is that important to God that we know the truth. If it was there would be one religion, and one group of apostates. Mormonism is about progression. It is about learning and becoming better people, and not everyone learns best in a Mormon environment. If God told someone that it was his will to be a Catholic, I'd believe them. That's why we have sacred ordinances for the dead. It is why we do genealogy and it is why we have such a Universalist theology. It is something that has always made sense to me about Mormonism. Sure it might have been important that Joseph Smith know the truth so he could restore such ordinances eventually, and provide a place for whom Mormonism is where we learn and progress best, but I do not think we can say what was important for God to show Joseph Smith is important for us.

Well, I think if God shows up and lets you handle the plates, that is pretty good evidence at least for yourself to know that Mormonism isn't a bunch of baloney. Feelings just aren't sufficient and there are many competing religions that can make you feel good about them and their claims. I also think it is rather disingenuous for Mormons to claim that Joseph Smith saw God and in the next breath deny that God can (and should) appear to anyone else. If God wants me to believe the Book of Mormon has a basis in fact, he can show me the plates. I really see no reason any reasonable person should believe in Mormonism (and the Book of Mormon) otherwise. Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary proof if they are to be believed.

[_Themis]

I think both good Catholics and good Mormons will try to interpret them correctly.

Everyone interpreting will try and get the right interpretation.

Mormons and Catholics that are not truth seekers will not care and will continue to believe what they desire to believe.

Since everyone thinks they are truth seekers, how do you determine who is not really a truth seeker? How do you know you are not just believing what you desire to? You after all are the one who has to give meaning/interpretation to your spiritual experiences.

I am a truth seeker and I'm sure many Catholics are as well.

Doesn't everyone think that? How do you know you are a good one?

Spiritual experiences are so varied and happen in so many circumstances that it really isn't as simple as "I pray and get a spiritual experience; therefore, my religion is true." Neither sophisticated Catholics nor Mormons believe this.

How does this change the fact people interpret them with their world view in mind. The experience doesn't come with any meaning. You have to add it. What criteria do you use that would make your interpretation more likely to be accurate?

That is not true. I'd have faith in something else and I may not call what I feel the Holy Ghost.

Don't blame me, you are the one who defined faith as having to hope for something that is true.

[_Lolitsme]

Tobin: I don't deny that God can appear and show the plates to us. I also don't deny that he has appeared on many occasions since that appearance, which are recorded in journals, D&C revelations, and even in public statements by General Authorities. Have you ever wondered about Mckonkies last talk where he says that he would be no more certain if he died and saw God? I have a question too. Would you honestly believe if God showed you those things? Or would you consider yourself now a schizophrenic and go to a psychiatrist. I question your openness and I imagine (though I'm not so arrogant to say that I know) that God does as well. One first step in receiving revelation, true revelation, not just emotion, which you and many believing Mormons unfortunately get mixed up with is that you must believe it occurs. You don't need to believe that the Church is true or anything like that, but that others have had, non emotion spiritual experiences and that you can too. Otherwise, as I pointed to earlier, it may end up not affecting us at all. Your parents or grandparents, the historical record of Mormonism and other faiths are all viable ways to come to believe that real spiritual experiences do occur. One that particularly impressed me were the shared visions in early Mormonism such as in D&C 76 and while the endowment was being given in the Kirtland temple. This is one of the cultural issues I see with Mormonism today. We deny extraordinary witness as insanity and only accept less powerful witnesses and emotions as evidence. This is not really a true Mormon thing to do, and it prevents extraordinary witness. We need both a contrite spirit and belief that we can be answered. It also needs to be the will of God, which I don't think it usually is for the reasons mentioned in the previous post.

Just another reason that I see these experiences being rarer, Sincerely Lolitsme