[Moderated Thread] Discussion on Mormonism

First let me thank rkronk for his gracious offer to debate these subjects.

For those who want an in-depth idea of where I'm coming from please check out my posts in the Religious Book Exchange thread and particularly my post here.

• Epistemology (is knowledge of the supernatural (God) possible?).

Let's start by going to the most rudimentary of philosophical questions. What is knowledge? Or, in a similar vain, as Pontius Pilate so famously asked of Jesus Christ, "what is truth?" John 18:38.

Mormonism holds that a person can find truth by asking god of the truthfulness of a proposition and given that the questioner asks in faith (believing that god will answer) then god will answer. This idea is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons.

1. It assumes that it is possible to correctly "know", ¹without error, the truth of a proposition innately and not by any external sensory perception. We know that this is not true. There are many examples of honest and intelligent people who believe demonstrably false propositions. I've given accounts of a number of examples in the other thread but would be happy to recount them and more here. We can test people's internal compass, so to speak (see the Monty Hall Problem). People are often certain about things that they later change their minds about. Things that cause them a degree of unease when they find out that they were wrong because the felt that they "knew" they were right. Most if not all of us have experienced this.
2. We understand from a psychological POV that people who focus on a belief with the hopes of confirming the belief by first wanting to believe, can and will often, come to believe (whew, long sentence. I had to read it twice myself.). This phenomenon has been known for centuries. It is one of the tools of the conman.
3. Excuses are made for those people who sincerely pray and do not get an answer. Further, such people are made to feel pressure for not receiving an answer. It's the emperors new clothes syndrome. If god did not answer you then you did not pray with enough faith. Like all such paranormal claims the reasoning is post hoc. Failure isn't proof that the phenomenon isn't real. Failure is proof of failure on the part of the questioner.
4. Many different people have contradictory beliefs as to what is fundamentally true (please note emphasis). Many of these people have followed the admonition of James 1:5 and got a very different answer from Mormonism. Many of these people have made great sacrifice because they believe that they know god answered their prayers and directed them to the true church, and it wasn't Mormonism.
5. Finally, the Mormon Church subscribes to the concepts of both faith and belief. In fact Mormons use those word quite a bit calling their "belief", "faith". Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1 as "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Faith is belief, not knowledge. In the end you still must have "faith" that your answer is correct ²and Mormons understand that.

I can find no reason to presume that a person who fervently prays to know if the Catholic Church is true will receive any different answer than a person who fervently prays to find out if the Mormon Church is true. I can find no reason to rely on fervent prayer to find truth because even if I came to believe that it was true, I could, like the examples in Ramachandran's book A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, still be wrong.

Not as pithy as I had hoped. My apologies.

Thanks,

RandFan

¹Potentially tautological. I apologize if it is. I want to stress the idea that a person can believe that they "know" that a proposition is true when in fact that proposition is false. For example, there are people who are honest and intelligent who believe that they know that a person in the same room with them is not their mother when in fact they are wrong. The person is their mother.

²I will concede that this could be a spurious premise, "special pleading" possibly?

I also would like to thank RandFan not only for his willingness to do this but for the patience and kindness he has shown me over the past months. Thanks.

I'll attempt to rephrase to make sure I'm understanding you – hopefully I won't mess it up too much:

Issue 1: Mormonism can't be true because:

1. It is impossible to "know" something outside of your five senses because we have some examples of people who thought they knew something outside of their five senses and they were wrong.

2. Some people have wanted to believe something so much that they then start to believe it – a self fulfilling prophecy, a placebo effect, which con men can use for their own benefit.

3. Some people don't get answers to their prayers and it's blamed on the person not doing what they need to in order to get an answer instead of blaming it on God not existing.

4. Many people have received different answers that conflict with Mormonism.

5. The Mormon Church thinks that faith is knowledge but it is not and so they really don't know their religion is true, they just have faith that it is.

Hopefully the above statements are accurate and not straw men. Please correct me if I've summarized incorrectly or oversimplified. I'll attempt to address each item below.

It seems that a common thread, that you have expressed before, also runs through these assertions: An unprovable future benefit is not worth the risk of being deceived by others or self. I'll try to address this as I go.

1. You say that "it assumes that it is possible to correctly "know" without error the truth of a proposition innately and not by external sensory perception. We know that this is not true." You then give a few examples where people have had feelings about things, thinking that they knew it to be true but it wasn't. The fact that some people have been wrong is not proof that it is impossible to receive knowledge through other than the five senses. You cannot therefore say, "we know that this is not true." You can say, however, that, "we know that in these cases it has been shown that these people have been deceived by their feelings." This would not prove it is impossible to know something from outside of your five senses, but rather that one must keep in mind that self and group deception is a real possibility. A very good suggestion with which I happen to agree.

2. I agree that this occurs. I believe that the proper way to gain hope, belief, faith, and finally knowledge is through testimony and experience. For example, if you're in a large building with a bunch of strangers scattered all over in it in separate rooms and one stranger runs by yelling, "fire!" (testimony) you will choose to believe him or not based on your past experiences. If a different person then runs by yelling fire, you may then, with multiple witnesses' testimonies, believe enough to be moved to action. It's possible they are conspiring or both deceived – you don't know yet for sure. So you get up and start looking. At this point you have only belief or faith - no knowledge. You have seen no fire, smelled no smoke. (By my definition, faith is a belief that is sufficiently strong that it moves me to action. If I need to call it trust or confidence to avoid confusion, let me know.) You then go find the fire yourself based on where they said it was. Once you see the fire for yourself and feel its heat (experience) you now have knowledge through your senses - and so you run out of the building based on that knowledge. You could have also just run out of the building without going to find the fire yourself and you might have been luckily right or you might have been unluckily deceived. There was a series of testimonies and experiences that increased your belief and faith to the point that it moved you to find out firsthand - and only then did you gain any true knowledge of the reality of the fire. You took a risk and acted without a sure knowledge. Let's say that I decide to believe the first guy and let's assume he's a con man. Let's also assume that I want to believe him because I want an excuse to go outside (it's nice out today), so I just follow him outside and then he and his buddies proceed to relieve me of my wallet. Certainly that's possible, and in this world, perhaps it's quite common. That doesn't prove that there will never be a real fire or that I should assume that anyone yelling fire is a con man. I may require more witnesses before believing it the next time though. In fact, I may demand that I get some physical evidence the next time and I may benefit from that decision by not getting mugged or there may really be a fire next time and perish because of that decision. This is an example of taking a risk of being deceived because of the huge payoff of leaving when there really is a fire. I could risk burning with the building because I don't want to be deceived by con men, or I could take the risk and possibly get out alive. I think most of us would go check out if there was a fire just based on testimony of a couple of strangers. We would be acting on faith (not knowledge) to find out if what they were saying is true because if it were true, it really would be important to know and act accordingly.

3. This would be similar to having a friend tell me that if I were to mix vinegar, baking soda, red food coloring, and soap, it would make a fun volcano-like mess. If I mix all of these ingredients correctly, I'll get a great science fair project. If I mistakenly use bleached flour instead of baking soda, then the experiment will most likely fail. Is it really invalid to suggest that the experiment might not have been executed properly? I have a choice to make based on my belief of what happened (it's belief or faith because I don't yet have knowledge of why it didn't work) - try the experiment again, checking to see where I might have incorrectly followed the instructions, or I could walk away from it claiming that my friend was playing a joke on me. If I told the friend that it didn't work and that I used vinegar, "white powder", soap, and red food coloring, and the friend says, "white powder? Are you sure that was baking soda?" Is he being a jerk? Is he putting pressure on me or being demeaning to me? Or is he just making a suggestion of a possibility. Unfortunately, many people choose to be mean or self-righteous as they suggest possibilities, but that just proves that they are currently broken, nothing else.

4. You say "Many of these people have followed the admonition of James 1:5 and got a very different answer from Mormonism." Who did? What were their specific questions? I cite my own firsthand account of specifically praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true and receiving several spiritual confirmations over several years that it is true. I could be deceived, but since there is no proof that I am or am not deceived - either scenario is possible. I have also asked about a handful of other important things that I have also found to be true. I really don't know anything else in this realm for sure - for example, I really don't know for sure if Gordon B. Hinckley (current president of the Mormon church) is the current living true prophet of God - so I have to rely on faith or belief, not knowledge in those cases. The specificity of these questions and answers is very important. If someone else prayed specifically, "Is the Catholic church the only true church?" the same possibilities exist for their answer as far as being deceived or receiving an answer to such a specific question. I believe that no two truths will conflict and therefore if we both get an answer that the church we attend is the only church with authority from God, one or the other, or both of us are wrong. My experience in talking to hundreds of people from different religions is that many times the question they are asking (if they ask at all, which was very rare in my experience) is vague rather than specific - like feeling good while giving service to someone in a church event. Most people I talked to just went because their parents went or because they liked and agreed with it. Those were my reasons as a kid, until I became an atheist. I'm now LDS (Mormon) but not for the same reasons as before.

5. I think you might be referring to some members of the church rather than the church doctrines themselves. My understanding of these terms is that faith is just belief that is strong enough to move me to action – like faith that if I turn on a light switch I will receive light – my faith is strong enough that I am moved to action to walk across the room, stubbing my toe on the way, and turn the light switch on - I did all that without knowing for sure if the light would go on or not - but it was a risk I was willing to take. The switch may be broken and so it isn't knowledge since I really don't know if all of the connections are in place and that the power isn't turned off. If there is any part that I don't know then it is not knowledge, it is just faith. I can know that I turned it on yesterday and it came on, however. Yes, there may be Mormons who say "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet of God" when they really only just believe it to be true. I said that when I was a kid because I heard other people say it. I was incorrect to say it though – A more truthful statement would be, "I believe he is a prophet" unless there was some experience that led me to know it for certain. I agree that people often think they know more than they actually do. That's a human fault. Agreed. But seeing people exhibit that fault doesn't prove that someone can't actually know something is true for certain. And taking the risk, in faith, of turning on the light and perhaps stubbing my toe in the process is worth the payoff of having light in the room.

I think you have expressed very well the risks involved in relying on faith and experiences outside of the five-senses. You have shown that there are such things as false positives (like believing a con man). We could boil it down to the question: "Do I walk away from the experiment because I might be deceived by my friend or even myself, or do I continue to try it out because the payoff is potentially large." We take that risk without a sure knowledge in other areas of life - like the examples I have given above. So why not take a similar risk with finding out the truth about the existence of God?

I believe that God wants each one of us to individually seek and find Him and so I believe He has made it impossible for one of us to prove His existence to the rest of us. I believe that part of why we're here is for us to choose independently what we really want in life without having "dad" watching over us all the time, which might taint our choices - much like having a manager standing over me would prevent me from typing this right now. Therefore, I believe that it is part of a bigger plan - that seeking and finding Him is subjective and non-transferable and that we can only know Him once we've truly independently chosen Him over the various alternatives here in life.

We have many testimonies of people who have seen God firsthand and have testimonies of people who have seen the miracles that prophets and Christ have performed. Some magicians or con men have performed convincing tricks and some people who are insane say that they have seen God. Disproving the magicians and con men is a big part of what these forums and this organization is all about. We can then either choose to assume that all miracles or witnesses are false or we can admit that it is possible that some might be true. There is no proof to the contrary and so I choose to leave the option open and have found tangible rewards from doing so - much like taking the risk of acting on testimony that I'm not sure of when the payoff is potentially big.

Are we willing to take the risk to find out if God exists? If not, why? And how does it differ from the many risks we take each day? I might be killed during my drive to work or my company might go bankrupt and I might not get a check even if I do make it there in one piece. I have no knowledge from my five senses and no way to prove that I will make it there in one piece or that I'll get a paycheck, but I take the risk in faith anyway. Why take the risk? Because I believe the potential benefit outweighs the risk. Taking a risk in faith for a potential benefit in the end. We do it every day.

P.S. I propose that we discuss a single item until we both agree to move on to the next single item. We can choose to move on leaving the item unresolved (agreeing to disagree) or resolved (finding some common ground). Again, thanks to RandFan and the moderators for giving us the opportunity to do this.

P.P.S. Nope. Mine wasn't pithy either. Maybe next time.

rcronk said:

1. The fact that some people have been wrong is not proof that it is impossible to receive knowledge through other than the five senses. You cannot therefore say, "we know that this is not true." You can say, however, that, "we know that in these cases it has been shown that these people have been deceived by their feelings." This would not prove it is impossible to know something from outside of your five senses, but rather that one must keep in mind that self and group deception is a real possibility. A very good suggestion with which I happen to agree.

2. I agree that this occurs. I believe that the proper way to gain hope, belief, faith, and finally knowledge is through testimony and experience. ... I think most of us would go check out if there was a fire just based on testimony of a couple of strangers. We would be acting on faith (not knowledge) to find out if what they were saying is true because if it were true, it really would be important to know and act accordingly.

3. This would be similar to having a friend tell me that if I were to mix vinegar, baking soda, red food coloring, and soap, it would make a fun volcano-like mess. If I mix all of these ingredients correctly, I'll get a great science fair project. If I mistakenly use bleached flour instead of baking soda, then the experiment will most likely fail. Is it really invalid to suggest that the experiment might not have been executed properly?

4. You say "Many of these people have followed the admonition of James 1:5 and got a very different answer from Mormonism." Who did? What were their specific questions? ... If someone else prayed specifically, "Is the Catholic church the only true church?" the same possibilities exist for their answer as far as being deceived or receiving an answer to such a specific question.

5. I agree that people often think they know more than they actually do. That's a human fault. Agreed. But seeing people exhibit that fault doesn't prove that someone can't actually know something is true for certain. And taking the risk, in faith, of turning on the light and perhaps stubbing my toe in the process is worth the payoff of having light in the room.

Click to expand...

1.) I think you and I should should be careful here both in our statements and our attempt to understand what is being said. First let me agree that the fact that some people have been wrong about what they thought they knew is not proof that it is impossible to receive knowledge by means other than our external senses. However, you are missing the point, though I confess that I bear responsibility for that.

My post was in the context of epistemology. The point is, there are limits to knowledge. What does it mean to say "I know"? Plato said that knowledge is a subset of that which is both true and believed.

Hypothetical: I'm at home and my wife is not. My best friend is there and asks, "where is your wife"? "At her mothers I say" confidently. "How do you know", my friend asks. "Because she just called me from her mothers, she told me that she was there and the caller ID on my phone's display showed my mother-in-law's phone #". "I'll bet you $20 that your wife is not at your mother-in-laws", offers my friend.

Two scenarios:

1. I call my Mother-in-law's house and my wife answers. I give the phone to my best friend who verifies my wife is indeed there. He gives me $20.
2. I call my Mother-in-law's house and I'm told my wife left just as soon as she hung up the phone with me earlier. I give my friend $20 and demand to know how he knew.

Now, what is the epistemological difference between the two?

Being correct about a proposition does not prove that one absolutely knows the truth value of a proposition.

To take this one step further, even knowledge based on empirical facts is limited. So, if one can "know" and be wrong then anyone could be wrong at anytime in his or her knowledge. Believing that you "know" and also being right isn't proof that you, in fact, do know absolutely.

The problem is one of language. Perhaps I should have said "absolute knowledge", would that be a fair term to use? (FTR, I don't subscribe to the notion that such a thing as absolute knowledge is likely for the reasons stated).

2.) I'm really not certain what your argument is. Let me try and clarify with an example. I could have 3 Catholic friends bear witness to me that the Catholic Church is true. Based on their lives and their testimony I could decide to investigate. I could read the Bible and study Catholic doctrine and pray and ask god to guide me in my spiritual quest. Having a confirmation that it is true I could become baptized and then spend my life practicing Catholicism all the while my experiences would reinforce in me the idea that in order to receive salvation and eternal life I must be a Catholic, to the point of not even questioning and willing to sacrifice my very life safe in the knowledge that I am saved. And, I could know that, even if two Mormons did give me the discussions, right?

Hope, belief, faith, and finally knowledge This happens. It happens a lot. I personally know people who have sacrificed much for their church precisely because of this process.

3.) Forgive me but I'm having some difficulty with this. Please excuse my incredulity.

Matthew 7:9-11

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Click to expand...

Are you saying that god requires a specific ritual or coded words? Are you saying that if a person wants to know what his or her purpose on this earth is then god will only help if the prayer is specific? Doesn't god know what is in a person's heart? Doesn't god know how to give good gifts?

4.) This is, I believe, a form of No True Scotsman fallacy. In other words, you must follow a very specific ritual to receive god's direction. First off I can tell you that in my experience, non-Mormons do pray for specifics. They also pray to god to know which church to join. I've known people both on my mission and off who have recounted such.

But let's forget that for a moment. Even in the case of those who are not specifically asking which church is true but those who simply ask for guidance. I gave you an example of a woman who prayed for help when she was homeless and had no place to go. She was inspired to drive. She did until she was tired and pulled over to the side of the road. In the morning she discovered that she was parked across the street from a church. Not a Mormon church. There she found food, shelter and eventually a job and community. The experience was so powerful in her life that when the missionaries (me and my companion) asked her to consider Mormonism it wasn't even a possibility for her.

I suppose we could have a dual over anecdotes. I have not interviewed 100's but I only need one to falsify your proposition. Though, I have to confess it would be a bit difficult at this time to demonstrate the anecdote.

5.) What is the difference between a person who is certain that he or she knows the truth and one that, in fact, does "know" the truth? How can you tell?

As far as the remainder of your post I find it largely rhetorical and redundant. If I took a risk by studying Catholicism I would likely become a Catholic. This is how it works.

BTW, having graduated seminary, served a mission and lived as an honorable Mormon I can say with all sincerity that I did take the risk to check it out.

That said, I thank you for your responses.

RandFan

1 - Yes, I get it. We as humans have limitations on knowledge acquired through senses, and some of us can get pretty sloppy on saying that we "know" something instead of just stating "Well, I just talked to her on the phone a minute ago" which is the actual truth that we do know. But the discussion is about knowledge from God. You have given some examples where people have claimed to know something that they received from God and they turned out to be wrong. That doesn't prove that people can't receive knowledge from God and that this knowledge cannot be perfect. You choose to believe knowledge can't come from God through the Holy Ghost. I, because of my experience, know that I have received knowledge from God, but I can't prove it to you. So unless you can open up to the fact that it's possible to receive perfect and complete knowledge from God, we'll have to leave this as an "agree to disagree" because neither of us can objectively prove our point.

2. Yes, you can be deceived, but it doesn't mean that you couldn't actually find truth from God. Perhaps you think it would be a waste of time chasing after something with the option of being wrong, but I think the potential payoff is worth the risk - just like it's worth the risk to believe someone yelling fire or believing you can make it to work alive each day.

3. Giving good gifts is not like a rich man giving his son a new sports car for free when he's 16. He'd make him work and earn a 1974 mercury comet so that his son would appreciate the value of honest work. I think God could work in the same way - that he could answer those who have a sincere desire to seek him instead of the things of this world, for example. I'll reiterate that I have no idea why some people don't get an answer - it's not my place to judge that at all.

4. I answered your question about the woman seeking guidance who was directed to (heaven forbid!) a non-Mormon church! I've seen people led in many directions to things that are intermediate stepping stones to other things in life - or they are the place where they can do the greatest good at that time. Following a set of rules incorrectly and then getting an incorrect outcome is not a true scotsman fallacy.

5. I don't have to know about other people, just myself. God doesn't tell us to go ask the Mormon missionaries (or any other person) what to believe or what is true or what is the next step I should take in my life. He tells us to ask Him directly. Some people mess up with that, but that doesn't mean I need to avoid the process. When I have received knowledge, confirmation of truth, or direction from Him, I know that it is true. I know it in a much stronger way than I do through my senses. I cannot prove this, so there we are.

I guess I just don't get the double standard - are we willing to take risks on uncertain things in life, without any knowledge of the outcome, but not if it deals with finding God?

Perhaps we could move on to item #2 and leave this one as "agree to disagree" for now. If we want to revisit it later, we can. I want to get through each of your items so we can see where we stand and then revisit unresolved ones as we go. This way, we can avoid getting stuck on one issue. We don't want to bore the commentary thread.

rcronk, before we move on you will at least need to understand my argument. You need not agree with the premises but you need to understand them. Further, we can't move on by your simply replacing my argument for a strawman. If you want to simply state that you disagree with the argument then that is fine.

1.) The limitation of knowledge largely isn't due to our senses. We say our senses can be fooled but that, by and large, really isn't the case. Our senses only gather data. The thing that is typically being fooled is our brain.

You concede that it is possible for a person to think he or she knows something but also be wrong. What is the difference between knowing something and only believing that you know something? What is the mechanism or method to find out the difference? You seem to be saying "well, a person just knows". Is that right? If so then your argument is circular. Please provide a non-circular argument?

Please provide answers to the questions and/or provide a coherent argument that rebuts the idea that absolute knowledge is not possible or explains the difference between wrongly believing that you know something is true and knowing that something is true without making a circular argument (you just now it's true)?

2.) How could a person know the difference between being deceived and not being deceived? What is the difference between an intelligent and honest person who is sincerely wrong in his or her belief that they know the truth and a person who "knows" the truth?

3.) You are falling into the post hoc trap again. Those who don't receive answers are not sincere. In essence, you are saying to me that because I'm not a Mormon today it proves that I'm not a sincere person, or that I was not a sincere person when I asked god for truth.

As for materialism and things of this world. I purchased a 1967 Camaro when I was 15. I completely disassembled it, removed all of the paint to the metal, had the dents pulled and filled with lead (no Bondo). Hand scrubbed the undercarriage, primed and block sanded every inch of the exterior and painted the car. Rebuilt it with a chrome and aircraft tubing accessorized engine. This took more than 1 year. I loved that car. I sold it to go on a mission. I spent my life savings to pay for a two year mission to preach the word of god and spread the word of Mormonism.

When you say, people don't get answers because of insincerity and or materialism you are in fact judging.

4.) How did this woman follow a "set or rules incorrectly". Again, you seem to be saying that answers are requisite on procedures and not intent or the desires of one's heart. Is that correct?

5.) You are bordering on solipsism.

"Mess up"? Again, you are arguing post hoc. Those who don't agree with you must not have performed the procedure properly. Why does god care about procedure? If a person is sincere and wants to know the truth why would god, who knows how to give good gifts, not give it to them?

Your "double standard" rhetoric is disappointing to say the least. It's spurious for a number of reasons. First it is a strawman you can conveniently knock down. Second it makes unwarranted assumptions. What is your basis to state that people are not willing to take risks when it comes to things about God? You can only argue post hoc.

You belittle my life's experience. Please, don't do that.

Critically important questions: (enumeration is not related to previous enumerations)

1. What is the difference between "knowing" something in an absolute sense and only believing that you know something?
2. How does one discern the difference?
3. Why does god care more about procedure than intent?

My attempt at answering the critically important questions:

1. & 2. When the Spirit of God communicates it directly to your Spirit, it is known absolutely. That is my experience. From your perspective, I could be deceived or I could be correct. You'll never actually know unless you have a similar experience. Kind of like, "How do you know if you're tasting salt or sugar?" Well, if you've only tasted sugar and I tell you that you'll just know when its salt" What else can I say? That's a true statement - I could say it tastes different or tastes "salty" but that wouldn't satisfy you. If you then dip into the sugar jar and say - nope, not salt, it's still sugar and I say, maybe you got it from the wrong jar, will you tell me that I'm being circular, belittling, and that maybe salt doesn't exist and I've been deceived. ETAerhaps if you were to provide a non-circular argument explaining what salt tastes like it might help me to see more clearly what you're expecting from me.

3. Strawman. Read Moroni 10:3-5. He wants us to sincerely choose Him, that's all.

Again, again, I know nothing about your experience and I have never called you insincere or belittled your sacrifices or life experiences. I have shared my own experience and I have expressed what's in the scriptures. I leave it up to every individual to figure out if and how that applies to them - that's not my job. I have absolutely no idea about your experiences.

I am truly just trying to answer your questions and am not trying to belittle you or do anything that is not kind and understanding. If I am failing at that, forgive me. I apologize. I've been known to suck at kindness before but I'm working on it.

Are we making any progress on this item? Sometimes it takes me a while for an idea or concept to sink in so I apologize for my thick head. If there is progress, I'm fine with continuing on this item. If not, I'd like to let this one sit for now and move to the next one.

rcronk said:

1. & 2. When the Spirit of God communicates it directly to your Spirit, it is known absolutely.

That is my experience. From your perspective, I could be deceived or I could be correct. You'll never actually know unless you have a similar experience.

Kind of like, "How do you know if you're tasting salt or sugar?" Well, if you've only tasted sugar and I tell you that you'll just know when its salt" What else can I say? That's a true statement - I could say it tastes different or tastes "salty" but that wouldn't satisfy you. If you then dip into the sugar jar and say - nope, not salt, it's still sugar and I say, maybe you got it from the wrong jar, will you tell me that I'm being circular, belittling, and that maybe salt doesn't exist and I've been deceived. ETAerhaps if you were to provide a non-circular argument explaining what salt tastes like it might help me to see more clearly what you're expecting from me.

3. Strawman. Read Moroni 10:3-5. He wants us to sincerely choose Him, that's all.

Again, again, I know nothing about your experience and I have never called you insincere or belittled your sacrifices or life experiences. I have shared my own experience and I have expressed what's in the scriptures. I leave it up to every individual to figure out if and how that applies to them - that's not my job. I have absolutely no idea about your experiences.

I am truly just trying to answer your questions and am not trying to belittle you or do anything that is not kind and understanding. If I am failing at that, forgive me. I apologize. I've been known to suck at kindness before but I'm working on it.

Are we making any progress on this item? Sometimes it takes me a while for an idea or concept to sink in so I apologize for my thick head. If there is progress, I'm fine with continuing on this item. If not, I'd like to let this one sit for now and move to the next one.

Click to expand...

1&2 a.) I have had a similar experience. It is what caused me to sell my car and give up two years of my life.

1&2 a.) You've chosen salt, a substance that you and I both know exists so you make the analogy a bit hard to shoe horn into the discussion but let's go with that for now.

Let's assume for a moment that you are the first person to taste a substance that looks like sugar but you claim that it tastes different (to you). How can we know that you are right? Easy, other people taste it. If it is different then you are right. If not then you might be deluded you might be lying.

I had a relevant experience that I documented in the Community Forum. Please see this thread. I had honestly come to believe that the taste of coffee had changed.

So, like you with the new substance (salt), I had an experience I was certain about, I knew that there was some kind of significant change in coffee to make it taste bitter but I was wrong.

3.) Simply stating "strawman" is not an argument. It does not address the issues I've raised. You are still arguing post hoc. Moroni does nothing to change this.

4.) I ask you how can two people ask god the same question and get different answers. You reply that one must be lazy or insincere. Ok, let's assume that, I tell you that I asked god the same question you did. Why did I get a different answer (assuming it was a different answer)?

You still are not addressing the point or the questions I've raised.

1. What is the difference between "knowing" something in an absolute sense and only believing that you know something?
2. How does one discern the difference?
3. Why does god care more about procedure than intent?

BTW, you did not answer the question from my hypothetical. It was an important question.

Hypothetical: I'm at home and my wife is not. My best friend is there and asks, "where is your wife"? "At her mothers I say" confidently. "How do you know", my friend asks. "Because she just called me from her mothers, she told me that she was there and the caller ID on my phone's display showed my mother-in-law's phone #". "I'll bet you $20 that your wife is not at your mother-in-laws", offers my friend.

Two scenarios:

1. I call my Mother-in-law's house and my wife answers. I give the phone to my best friend who verifies my wife is indeed there. He gives me $20.
2. I call my Mother-in-law's house and I'm told my wife left just as soon as she hung up the phone with me earlier. I give my friend $20 and demand to know how he knew.

Click to expand...

What is the difference between 1 and 2? Don't tell me how I could be wrong in the second scenario. That does not resolve the conflict. Tell me what the difference is?

Ok,

I'm sorry that we were not able to make headway on this one. I'll post another item. I'm not sure when. Let's see if anyone cares to tackle these issues in the commentary.

Item 2: DNA and The Book of Mormon.

I grew up believing that Native Americans were largely the descendants of three groups of individuals who came to America from the old world. Most were decendants of a small group of Israelites. It was taught that the color of Native American skin was due to the wickedness of some of these early Americans.

This is a key tenant of the Church. The whole story hinges on The Book of Mormon which ostensibly is an account of these Israelites and their descendants.

Now, I will concede up front that a number of LDS scholars have maintained, since the 1920's, that not all Native Americans came from these 3 groups who migrated to the new world as mentioned in the BOM.

However, in 1981 an introductory paragraph was added to The Book of Mormon identifying the Lamanites as the "principal ancestors of the American Indians." Further, Church leaders have frequently played on the misconceptions of skin color and behavior that was part of this story of origination of the American Indians.

Theories about Lamanites' "skin of blackness"

Spencer W. Kimball, another apostle of the LDS Church, who later became president of the church, also spoke about Lamanites in October 1960, in the context of LDS missionary efforts: :"(Navajo) ...are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The Indian children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3) This statement is similar to others by Kimball regarding Latter-day Saint attitudes towards Blacks. See Blacks and Mormonism.

Click to expand...

Racism is one of the items on my list. However I don't want to get into that at this point. Just note that the common belief of Mormons is that Native Americans are largely descendants of white people from the old world whose skin changed color as a result of unrighteousness.

Anthropological studies had long ago rendered this notion false. The problem was that not everyone really grasped the evidence. It didn't have the ability to call into question the beliefs of Mormons for the average person because much of it was esoteric.

Then along came DNA. While the science behind DNA can be esoteric the concept itself is straight forward and due to the reliance of DNA in court and it's ever increasing mention in popular culture DNA was something that could easily corroborate earlier scientific understanding and more importantly stand on its own to definitively say that Native Americans and Polynesians are from Asia just as their phenotype and all other scientific data pointed to all along.

>> What is the difference between "knowing" something in an absolute sense and only believing that you know something?

Knowing it means you have experience or proof or evidence that gives you that knowledge. Believing that you know something is not a real situation you either know it or you don't. I guess if the thing that you know is actually false then you just think you know it but you really don't. Is that what you're looking for?

>> How does one discern the difference?

Through rigorous honesty.

>> Why does god care more about procedure than intent?

He doesn't. I don't know where you're getting this from. If I suggested he did through what I've said, I apologize.

The problem in the mother-in-law scenarios is this: you mistakenly inferred that your wife is currently at her mom's house when you should have only stated the fact that you actually knew: that you talked to her a few minutes ago. You are assuming that she's still there and that assumption is not based on current evidence. If he had said, "I don't know, but I just talked to her a few minutes ago so she may still be there" that would have been more accurate. The difference between her being there or not is just that reality doesn't match the baseless assumption.

rcronk said:

What is the difference between "knowing" something in an absolute sense and only believing that you know something?

Knowing it means you have experience or proof or evidence that gives you that knowledge.

Click to expand...

I like it, well, almost. Proof. It has limitations but let's go with that. Evidence, again, limited but I like it.

"Experience"? I can demonstrate that people can believe that an experience is real when it is demonstrably false. Experience that can't be backed up with empirical evidence is unreliable.

Believing that you know something is not a real situation you either know it or you don't. I guess if the thing that you know is actually false then you just think you know it but you really don't. Is that what you're looking for?

Click to expand...

Saying that "you either know it or you don't" is tautological. You are not adding any information to our understanding. We need to go back to my hypothetical.

Would you say that in scenario #1 that "I knew"?

How does one discern the difference? Through rigorous honesty.

Click to expand...

This is to say nothing. One can rigorously and honestly fail to find the truth. People have been doing this for centuries.

If I suggested he did through what I've said, I apologize.The problem in the mother-in-law scenarios is this: you mistakenly inferred that your wife is currently at her mom's house when you should have only stated the fact that you actually knew: that you talked to her a few mintes ago. You are assuming that she's still there and that assumption is based on no current evidence.

Click to expand...

Again, I like it.

So if she is there and I'm right it doesn't mean that I absolutely know that she is there only that I had reason to believe that she is there? The fact that I'm right doesn't prove that I "knew", right?

This last question is of paramount importance. Please to answer.

I think we are making headway.

Wahoo! My thick head made progress.

Correct - being right doesn't prove that you knew.

Perhaps the key to this is that God's answer somehow gives a person evidence - certainly it is not objective evidence, but my experience leads me to believe that he did give me knowledge directly. I know you won't like that, but I am understanding where you're coming from better.

Do you think it is possible for God to give someone evidence directly from spirit to spirit via the Holy Ghost?

P.S. RandFan - If you haven't been following the commentary thread, we've been covering a lot of ground there on this very topic, so check it out before we continue. I think my position is more refined and explained than it was the last time I posted in this thread.

Thanks Rcronk,

Could you respond to item #2 (post #10)?

Whoops - In the frenzy of the commentary thread and the subsequent posts on this thread, I seem to have missed that you posted Item #2. I didn't realize the ball was in my court. I apologize for the delay.

So, to restate, Item 2 is that DNA shows that the Lamanites couldn't be the ancestors of the native Americans.

I'm not a DNA expert, so I'll have to rely on others' research on this matter. Here is a list of about 25 articles written on this topic: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html

A good starting point for me of those 25 articles is this one: http://www.farmsresearch.com/publications/dna/ButlerBofMandDNA_Feb2006.php

It discusses how DNA ancestry studies are performed, how that compares to forensic DNA studies, "studies that show that Native Americans possess genetic signatures closely resembling modern-day Asians", how conclusions are usually drawn that these populations are related to one another, what we know about the genetics and backgrounds of Book of Mormon peoples, how "present-day Native Americans represent only a fraction of previous genetic lineages in the Americas because of large-scale death by diseases brought to the New World by European conquerors", and that "DNA testing results from modern Native Americans do not negate the possibility of Book of Mormon peoples having existed anciently on the American continent" for a variety of reasons listed in that article.

Another article in the above list is: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence

It discusses a few things of interest. No genetic studies have been specifically designed and performed to test the hypothesis that Native Americans were of Lehite descent and that this inheritance is detectable today. (i.e. bits and pieces of other studies have been pasted together and then assertions based on this evidence have been made about the Book of Mormon.) It discusses Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y-Chromosome DNA, Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype, etc.

These articles, along with the rest of the 25 articles linked to above, show that the DNA evidence is currently not conclusive and that there are a significant number of unknowns involved in many areas of these studies. Based on what has been presented, these DNA experts don't accept the current DNA evidence as proof that the Book of Mormon is false. Again, I'm not an expert, so I don't think I could debate with anyone about DNA evidence, but anyone reading this should feel free to read these articles, write to the authors, and ask questions.

rcronk said:

These articles, along with the rest of the 25 articles linked to above, show that the DNA evidence is currently not conclusive and that there are a significant number of unknowns involved in many areas of these studies. Based on what has been presented, these DNA experts don't accept the current DNA evidence as proof that the Book of Mormon is false. Again, I'm not an expert, so I don't think I could debate with anyone about DNA evidence, but anyone reading this should feel free to read these articles, write to the authors, and ask questions.

Click to expand...

That's fine.

Let me recommend Simon Southerton's Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church.

You can read a brief biography here.

I have corresponded with Southerton. I can tell you that he is a sincere and decent human being. He served a mission, Young Men's President, counselor to the Bishop and Bishop (all positions of authority in the Mormon Church).

Southerton was trying to answer a difficult question for a church member under his authority. It was a difficult question and Southerton made a good faith attempt to answer it. Southerton holds a PHD and is a plant geneticist.

When he discovered that Smithsonian had a statement declaring that it had never used the BOM in any way as a scientific guide he was confused. Popular stories among Mormons tell of all of the archaeological evidence in support of the BOM, Southerton, a geneticist, sought to find the answers through genetics. He expected his belief to be vindicated. He didn't have an ax to grind. He was a popular Mormon Bishop.

In his own words:

In the last decade scientists from several research groups had tested the mitochondrial DNA of over 2000 American Indians from about a hundred tribes scattered over the length of the Americas. It soon became apparent to me that about 99% of their female lineages were brought into the Americas in excess of 12,000 years ago. Almost all of these lineages are most closely related to those of people in Asia, particularly in southern Siberia near Mongolia. Several tribes in Mesoamerica (which included Aztecs and Mayans) had been tested and all but a couple of individuals out of about 500 had mitochondrial DNA of Asian origin. The small fraction of Native American lineages that were not from Asia appeared to originate in Europe, most likely Spain. DNA studies also showed that the female ancestors of the Polynesians came from South East Asia and not the Americas. Y-chromosome studies, which trace male migrations, strongly support the mitochondrial work, except that the European influence is higher (about 10% in the Americas).

Click to expand...

Bear this in mind, the archeology had actually put the question to rest along time ago. All data including phenotypes did not point to Israelite heritage. It pointed to Asia as the origin of Native Americans. Here we have conclusive proof that they are, indeed, Asian.

Apologetics aside.

Thanks for the link. Simon Southerton's "Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church" is one of the books listed in the last of the three links I gave you, and its assertions are addressed by that article and many of the 25 other articles/interviews I linked to.

So, we have experts on both sides asserting different things. I see valid points on both sides but nothing close to being definitive and a lot of unknowns. I therefore don't think the DNA evidence has been shown to prove anything one way or the other.

Since I am not qualified to debate the specifics (I'm a software engineer, not a DNA expert), I don't think there's much else to say on item #2.

P.S. How many of the 25 or so articles/interviews had you read at the time you posted #17 above?

I spent a lot of time reading much of the information you provided two years ago. It was the source of my interest with Southerton. He directed me to sources to answer the issues raised.

If you are determined to believe the BOM is the word of god then no evidence will sway you. Apologetics is the art of coming up with an explanation in the hopes that there is a perception that there are two equal or near equal sides to the argument.

There isn't. It's not a controversial subject.

If you go to the Conspiracy Theory forum at JREF you will find lots and lots of "experts" who give cover for those who believe George Bush blew up the twin towers on 9/11 to reject consensus of the experts who say it was terrorists.

There are always "experts" to offer a counter viewpoint. Is the counter viewpoint reasonable?

No.