David Bokovoy and a Kuhnian Approach to Mormonism

[_guy sajer]

That sounds reasonably correct to me.

On the other hand, someone's who's paradigm tells her that certain types of experiences are spiritual experiences, even when they're not, will interpret them as spiritual experiences

that's what Mormonism does. We did it as missionaries. We'd, for example show people the sappy and emotionally manipulative "I'll Build You A Rainbow" filmstrip and then tell people at the end that was the spirit they were feeling when they got all choked up. It's not always that blatant, but that's pretty much the MO for how Mormonism, from the time we are children, drills into our heads to associate emotions with "spiritual experience."

That's the Mormon paradigm in a nutshell, "Emotions = Spirit Witness" (provided, of course, that the emtions confirm Mormonism's truth claims).

That is a grossly oversimplified version (some may rightly call it stereotyping) of my Mormon paradigm--though, I can accept that it may have been your paradigm when you were a member, which may explain why I am still a member and you are not.

While it is true that emotions have at times been confused for spiritual experiences, confusion alone may not be sufficient cause to negate the existence of spiritual experiences, otherwise, were the same test applied to the physical world, one would have to reject belief in a physical reality because it has been confused with realistic dreams, or one would have to reject real pain and sickness because of instances of psychosomatic episodes.

But, just as one develops the ability to distinguish physical stimuli from mental or emotional sensation/illusions of the same, one can develop the ability to distinguish spiritual stimuli from mental or emotional sensations/illusions of the same--that is, if one's paradigm is open to and grants a spiritual reality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your right, Wade, in that this is a simplification of the Mormon paradigm for knowing truth, but it is, in my opinion, a largely accurate one. From early childhood, the Mormon Church teaches and reinforces the paradigm that associates emotions with spiritual experience.

So tell me and everyone else here your secret for distinguishing between emotions/sensations and spiritual experience? I'm sure the whole world would be interested in how to replicate your great knowledge.

Tell me, Wade, do you think that the rank and file believer in, say rural Mexico has learned as you the deep, mysterious secrets for distinguishing between the two?

I'm describing the experience of the rank and file, not trying to explain the metaphysical ruminations and deep insight (not achieved by 99% of the rest of God's creatures) of a self-styled apologist, and like many apologists, one who thinks that he really undersrtands things that much better than the rank and file.

No Wade, physical phenomena are objectively verifiable; that is why we can distinguish between physical reality and dreams. That is why we can understand the physical world and it accounts in part for our tremendous advances in science. If our attitude to the physical world was as slippery as you claim, and indeed no clearer than the "spiritual world" (in other words, if the world adopted your paradigm), we'd still be living in caves and worshiping rocks.

[_guy sajer]

I'll accept it, with the proviso that you provide me with some kind of objectively verifiable evidence that what you experienced was a true spiritual experience; otherwise, all I have is your word (and in your case, knowledge of the very flawed paradigm in which you are laboring) and, frankly my dear, that's not good enough.

Or, as an alternative, demonstrate to me in some kind of objectively verifiable manner why your spiritual experience, which tesitifies of Mormonism' truth claims, is more valid than, say, a Baptist's spiritual experience that tells her something entirely different and contradictory.

Also, I'd like you to articulate to me what the a priori decision rule is to decide whether an experience is a "spiritual" one or something else.

Can you do it?

Guy, I am really not arguing in favor of the existence of a Holy Spirit, which touched my spirit and gave me evidence of the Book of Mormon, etc. All I am doing is challenging charity's position that we cannot possibly understand her experience as one who has felt the Spirit. We are, as she says, blind men who are denying the existence of the experience of seeing color in a sunset.

I, however, do not see this as applying to me because I had powerful personal experiences that I identified as the Spirit at one time in my life, so it is not as though I am unfamiliar with what that is like.

Sorry Tevor, I was responding to Charity, not to you.

Carry on.

[_Zoidberg]

If you ever felt the spirit really strongly, but then leave the church, then your spiritual witness was just euphoria or emotions. If you didn't leave the church, then it was really the Holy Ghost. Does that make sense to you?

I suppose that judgements can only be made after a person's death, then. Since charity is still alive and the possibility exists that she will leave the Church, I think it would be wise on her part to avoid asserting her experiences as a spiritual witness as opposed to euphoria or emotions.

[_Roger Morrison]

I think we see that cascade effect of leaving the Church and
losing trust in God, in many who have come to the conclusion
that the foundational story of the Church is not what it was
reputed to be. That is why I think David Bokovoy's idea of shifting
your acceptance of what constitutes truth is a good one. It allows
those who have discovered something else to not feel like
they have been hoodwinked for all those years, but instead realize
that truth is what you make of it and that there is still much good
to be found in the Church.

Mok, i like your liberal interpretation of DB's posit, if i read you correctly? Then, if so i must be reading him incorrectly?

From his OP, i gathered that if/when doubts may appear to some about LDSism, they do so simply because they either NEVER had a REAL WITNESS of the HG, or at best a very weak one of Mormonism's premier position in the rank of Christianism?? Is that what he is saying?

What you seem to be saying is: "don't throw out the baby with the bath-water!" If so, i can agree with that as well. BUT that premise recognizes 'bad bath-water' that is best discarded. Does it not? Give the "baby" time to mature and overcome its 'bad-water' and move on. Which seems to me to be part of the natural process of evolving. Line upon line.... et al. Truth expanding...

IF i understand the objections to DB's reasoning is its punitive element. Against which is more cogent argument--such as Guy Sajers--than for it by a minority of others.

I might be wrong in my understanding of DB, and company. Is he, and they saying Mormonism was, is and will ever be THE one and only narrow path for one to take to spend life-after-mortality in Heaven with "God" and family? Assuming that to be possible for anyone.

The see-saw debate about paradigmatics has tended to distract from the original question re an individual's unbridled freedom to conclude and choose to their best interest without encountering malice and subjugation under primitive paternalistc, yet juvenile sarcasm of not having "THE Team Spirit".

Please correct me, DB if i have You wrong. Warm regards, Roger

[_Trevor]

Sorry Tevor, I was responding to Charity, not to you.

Carry on.

Oops. My bad.

[_guy sajer]

Sorry Tevor, I was responding to Charity, not to you.

Carry on.

Oops. My bad.

You not bad, you good.

[_Dr. Shades]

We know that the experience of emotion is a mental processing event. So why, when we experience grief or love, do we experience the event as centered in the heart?

We don't experience the event as centered in the heart. "Heart" is simply a figure of speech dating back to Roman times. If you lived in Morocco, you'd experience grief or love as centered in the liver.

Gosh, I wonder why it has been noted that the more educated an LDS person is, the stronger their committment to their beliefs, while just the opposite is true of other religions. Care to explain that in your put down of reason among LDS faithful?

Yes. The greater the required mental gymnastics, the greater the investment into the system, and thus the greater the dogged determination to justify continued belief.

Only thing that ruins your little rant is that the Church, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, anything else you care to name is being confirmed day by day by science.

Can you give us an example?

Problem is, many often try to shift their paradigm to fit what they want to be true, not what actually is true. All exmos I've ever met seem to fall into this category.

And all Mormons you've ever met don't?

Finally, I have another question for you, Enuma Elish:

When you learned that Paul H. Dunn's stories were fabrications, how did your paradigm shift to account for the falseness of the spiritual witnesses you received of his stories?

[_Enuma Elish]

Greetings Friends,

I appreciate all of the thoughts, questions, arguments that have been presented on this thread. I simply don’t have time to respond to everything and would just as soon get back to the Divine Council thread.

Suffice it to say that I do believe very strongly that facts do matter. I do not accept the old adage, however, that “the facts speak for themselves.” A fact is simply something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened. A paradigm refers to the set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing or interpreting the fact.

My belief is that because human beings do not possess ultimate knowledge that if a person has received a deep spiritual confirmation from God (whom I do believe posssess ultimate knowledge) that Mormonism is true that rather than rejecting those promptings that the individual should be constantly willing to alter the paradigm he or she uses to interpret the facts.

In other words, it is a fact, for example, that should not be ignored that the Joseph Smith papyri do not contain the Book of Abraham. While this is a fact that no one should ignore or attempt to alter for any reason, an entire series of assumptions could be professed in accordance with this fact.

For example, the fact that the Joseph Smith papyri do not contain the Book of Abraham could mean that there exists a missing roll.

The fact that the Joseph Smith papyri do not contain the Book of Abraham could mean that Joseph used the scrolls as a catalyst for receiving divine revelation in the form of the Book of Abraham.

Or the fact that the Joseph Smith papyri do not contain the Book of Abraham could mean that Joseph Smith was a fraud and that Mormonism is untrue.

Since the fact does not speak for itself, any one of these assumptions (or perhaps a few others) could be valid. Evidence could be produced to support any of these assumptions as the most correct assumption or in other words interpretation of the implications of the fact.

All I’m suggesting is that in the end, if a person has received a deep spiritual manifestation regarding the truthfulness of Mormonism that he or she should be constantly willing to alter his or her paradigm in a manner that supports his or her revelatory assessment.

Since both apologists and critics can produce strong evidence to support their paradigm (and I’m going to even admit here that I believe that the apologetic paradigms for the most part are always the strongest assumptions), why when faced with a crisis of faith due to the paradigm a Latter-day Saint maintains to interpret facts shouldn’t the individual simply adopt a new paradigm that supports the spiritual manifestations the person has received concerning the truthfulness of Mormonism?

Since none of us possess all knowledge, this seems like a superior course of action than rejecting one’s spiritual manifestations.

Roger:

I might be wrong in my understanding of DB, and company. Is he, and they saying Mormonism was, is and will ever be THE one and only narrow path for one to take to spend life-after-mortality in Heaven with "God" and family? Assuming that to be possible for anyone.

This thread has gotten a bit long, but here is what I posted to Chris a few pages back:

I simply know what I feel when I apply the doctrines and principles of the Restored Church into my life. Joseph's theology tastes right to me. It’s possible that my views are self-deception, but given the intensity of this spiritual harmony, I have a hard time accepting this position as likely.

Though I’m not preachy about my position, in truth, however, I’m actually a pretty staunch universalist, with a belief that all human beings will eventually progress to the exaltation envisioned within Mormonism.

Which means that my view actually allows for people of other faiths to receive revelatory experiences leading them along a different course, dependent entirely upon how much truth and light they are currently prepared to receive.

Shades,

Finally, I have another question for you, Enuma Elish:

When you learned that Paul H. Dunn's stories were fabrications, how did your paradigm shift to account for the falseness of the spiritual witnesses you received of his stories?

I’m afraid that I’m a bit too young to remember hearing Paul H. Dunn’s stories told in person. I’d heard a talk tape or two, but I never remember receiving a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of any of his stories about baseball, war, etc. They just seemed like interesting stories that taught some principles that when I have applied have increased my happiness and spiritual harmony.

[_Runtu]

Which means that my view actually allows for people of other faiths to receive revelatory experiences leading them along a different course, dependent entirely upon how much truth and light they are currently prepared to receive.

I guess that's my biggest problem with your position. By your own acknowledgement, you aren't prepared to receive any truth and light that conflicts with your testimony. So, the paradigm can only shift so far, as it is anchored to one, overarching, undeniable truth. I prefer to follow truth wherever it leads me.

[_harmony]

Which means that my view actually allows for people of other faiths to receive revelatory experiences leading them along a different course, dependent entirely upon how much truth and light they are currently prepared to receive.

I guess that's my biggest problem with your position. By your own acknowledgement, you aren't prepared to receive any truth and light that conflicts with your testimony. So, the paradigm can only shift so far, as it is anchored to one, overarching, undeniable truth. I prefer to follow truth wherever it leads me.

The problem with never allowing anything to interfere with one's perception of truth is that it creates a wall. If all of our converts never allowed anything to interfere with their previous perception of truth, none of them would ever join the church. Sauce/goose... sauce/gander. If we expect people to change their perception of truth to join the church, we have to allow them to change their perception truth and leave the church.