The testimony is really the only argument that Mormons have left. They have no rational, historical, scientific, or theological arguments that stand up to any degree of scrutiny--so it's all on reliant on the knowledge that is the gift of the Holy Ghost. "It's true because my testimony tells me that it's true, nothing else really matters." When pressed on this, it's followed with "I've had experiences that showed me the truth. You need to understand that these are experiences are too sacred to discuss, so I can't talk about them."
In this regard, the Mormon testimony is the ultimate straightener of crooked lines. In the Mormon mind, no other religion, no devotee of any other faith, neither does nor even can have this experience regarding their own beliefs. An Evangelical or Muslim might believe, but their beliefs cannot hold a candle to the level of absolute belief that's the testimony that's given to Mormons. Note how MG retreats to what he sees as a this bedrock of belief--a knowledge that is only given to him and his fellow religionists. Other believers in a 'creator God' may have some hint of it, but nothing like the truths that are known by those who are LDS.
And much to my own astonishment, it is precisely this moral "shortcut" that Tolkien utterly rejects, and makes us face consequences we hope testimony obliterates. I tell you straight, it is the singular most powerful thing about Tolkien I have ever found.....
The Tolkien discussion has been fascinating, and I appreciate this comment very much, Philo, thank you!
Defining that 'a Mormon just believes' aspect as a moral shortcut explains so much. in my opinion, those who avoid the consequences by falling back on Gad's second order 8-ball confirmation end up with a level of cognitive dissonance that must be unbearable at times. It also makes it easier to understand, for me, why some Mormons get so angry at those who walk away. Taking the moral shortcut is a comfortable position only when surrounded by others who have done the same. Stereotyping and degrading those who refuse to follow along is an attempt at self-preservation.
And much to my own astonishment, it is precisely this moral "shortcut" that Tolkien utterly rejects, and makes us face consequences we hope testimony obliterates. I tell you straight, it is the singular most powerful thing about Tolkien I have ever found.....
The Tolkien discussion has been fascinating, and I appreciate this comment very much, Philo, thank you!
Defining that 'a Mormon just believes' aspect as a moral shortcut explains so much. in my opinion, those who avoid the consequences by falling back on Gad's second order 8-ball confirmation end up with a level of cognitive dissonance that must be unbearable at times. It also makes it easier to understand, for me, why some Mormons get so angry at those who walk away. Taking the moral shortcut is a comfortable position only when surrounded by others who have done the same. Stereotyping and degrading those who refuse to follow along is an attempt at self-preservation.
Jeff Holland was a great example of someone like that.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
One question that might be asked is, "Is having a spiritual witness a shortcut to truth?"
One might also ask what constitutes a “spiritual witness” such that it cannot be confused with a sensation brought on by confirmation bias?
I think Sam Harris said
I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadeauate. But for which now the best answer is a religious one."
I would ask that we keep somewhat to the general nature of this thread rather than move directly into personalities, people, or organizations. The thread has done pretty well so far in entertaining some deeper thoughts and analysis. I would rather that some don’t derail into what are essentially superficialities to the discussion. There are some posters that will not enter into substantiative discussion unless it points right at the church or a particular individual.
One might also ask what constitutes a “spiritual witness” such that it cannot be confused with a sensation brought on by confirmation bias?
I think Sam Harris said
I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadeauate. But for which now the best answer is a religious one."
I can't think of one.
That’s a good point. Religious explanations need dark corners of human knowledge in which to thrive. Once we humans start examining and understanding things, those religious beliefs don’t become more credible.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
One question that might be asked is, "Is having a spiritual witness a shortcut to truth?"
One might also ask what constitutes a “spiritual witness” such that it cannot be confused with a sensation brought on by confirmation bias?
That’s a fair epistemic question, but it’s not the one I’m trying to answer here. My concern isn’t whether spiritual witnesses are real or reducible to bias, but how certainty, however it is obtained, functions morally. Tolkien deliberately refuses any mechanism that guarantees correctness or overrides consequence. Even sincere certainty doesn’t exempt a person from tragedy, responsibility, or moral cost in his world.
One might also ask what constitutes a “spiritual witness” such that it cannot be confused with a sensation brought on by confirmation bias?
That’s a fair epistemic question, but it’s not the one I’m trying to answer here. My concern isn’t whether spiritual witnesses are real or reducible to bias, but how certainty, however it is obtained, functions morally. Tolkien deliberately refuses any mechanism that guarantees correctness or overrides consequence. Even sincere certainty doesn’t exempt a person from tragedy, responsibility, or moral cost in his world.
But isn’t that just Tolkien verbalising the contradictions he saw around him, that bad things happen to good people, and then trying to fit the evidence of his own eyes into his own religious beliefs based bias? He’s not involved in a deep philosophical wrestle with his own conscience. He’s just trying to make the world fit what he wants to believe, and using a make-believe world to verbalise it.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
That’s a fair epistemic question, but it’s not the one I’m trying to answer here. My concern isn’t whether spiritual witnesses are real or reducible to bias, but how certainty, however it is obtained, functions morally. Tolkien deliberately refuses any mechanism that guarantees correctness or overrides consequence. Even sincere certainty doesn’t exempt a person from tragedy, responsibility, or moral cost in his world.
But isn’t that just Tolkien verbalising the contradictions he saw around him, that bad things happen to good people, and then trying to fit the evidence of his own eyes into his own religious beliefs based bias? He’s not involved in a deep philosophical wrestle with his own conscience. He’s just trying to make the world fit what he wants to believe, and using a make-believe world to verbalise it.
I’m not suggesting Tolkien solved the problem of evil or made the world fit his beliefs. What interests me is almost the opposite: he refuses to let belief dissolve tragedy, failure, or moral cost. If he were simply rationalizing, we’d expect certainty, resolution, and vindication. Instead we get unfinished wounds, irreversible loss, and goodness that often fails. That feels less like wish-fulfillment and more like moral discipline.
And much to my own astonishment, it is precisely this moral "shortcut" that Tolkien utterly rejects, and makes us face consequences we hope testimony obliterates. I tell you straight, it is the singular most powerful thing about Tolkien I have ever found.....
The Tolkien discussion has been fascinating, and I appreciate this comment very much, Philo, thank you!
Defining that 'a Mormon just believes' aspect as a moral shortcut explains so much. in my opinion, those who avoid the consequences by falling back on Gad's second order 8-ball confirmation end up with a level of cognitive dissonance that must be unbearable at times. It also makes it easier to understand, for me, why some Mormons get so angry at those who walk away. Taking the moral shortcut is a comfortable position only when surrounded by others who have done the same. Stereotyping and degrading those who refuse to follow along is an attempt at self-preservation.
I really appreciate how you framed this. Calling it a moral shortcut isn’t about mocking belief, it’s more about noticing how consequences get deferred or dissolved, which is what Tolkien doesn't like and won’t allow. And this is what feels like an enlightenment moment actually. That’s why Tolkien's world feels bracing instead of comforting. It asks more of people, not less.
I’m not suggesting Tolkien solved the problem of evil or made the world fit his beliefs. What interests me is almost the opposite: he refuses to let belief dissolve tragedy, failure, or moral cost. If he were simply rationalizing, we’d expect certainty, resolution, and vindication. Instead we get unfinished wounds, irreversible loss, and goodness that often fails. That feels less like wish-fulfillment and more like moral discipline.
I agree that he didn’t write through rose tinted spectacles. I think he is reflecting the world he sees around him. For instance he wrote Lord of the Rings between 1937 and 1949. He lived through two world wars He would have seen all sorts of examples where belief didn’t dissolve tragedy, failure, or moral cost. He’s not rationalizing, he’s processing the world around him, and writing about it fantastically.
The effects of some specific experiences have been identified. Tolkien's childhood in the English countryside, and its urbanization by the growth of Birmingham, influenced his creation of the Shire,[132] while his personal experience of fighting in the trenches of the First World War affected his depiction of Mordor.
He seems to have been writing about the real world where belief didn’t dissolve tragedy, failure, or moral cost. But he will then also have been retrospectively overlaying his belief in God upon that somewhere and trying to make the two things fit together.
As an aside, his work on developing an entirely new language (Elvish) is incredible.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
