Before I share the email I wrote about James 1:5, I want to share a few things I've heard from Mormons themselves about how they came to be Mormons.
They all rely on a subjective experience to substantiate their beliefs, but they don't all describe the subjective experience in the same way. Some describe it solely in terms of their subjective experience, and some say it is a combination of their subjective experience and the evidence for the Book of Mormon.
Most Mormons who have explained their subjective experience to me explain it in terms of some sort of feeling or emotion. A Mormon friend of mine has tried to explain it to me a few times. The last time, I had a chance to ask her questions about it. She would explain something, and I'd say, "So you basically base it on your feelings?" And then she would explain some more, and I'd ask the same question. She didn't dispute that it was based on her feelings. She just seemed to think I wasn't getting it and needed more explanation. But she did explicitly use the word "feelings" to describe her experience then and in previous conversations. She did tell me in one of our conversations (or email; I don't remember) that it's something I would have to experience for myself before I could understand it.
Just last Friday, a Mormon explained to me how she came to be a Mormon. She said she grew up in the LDS church, and around the age of 12, she began to have doubts. After struggling with the doubts and praying about it, she had a profound experience that caused her to believe. While trying to explain her experience she said that it was not a feeling. She just said that when she reads Paul, she can't help but love him, and she has the same experience when she reads the Book of Mormon.
Later in the conversation, she started giving me objective reasons to believe the Book of Mormon was true. She pointed out the Hebrew chiasmus poetry found in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith could not have known about. And she pointed to Smith's lack of education in comparison to his prolific writing as evidence that the Spirit was teaching him. She didn't say whether these things had any bearing on her belief. She may have just been trying to give me reasons to believe. After all, the reasons we believe things are not always the reasons we give other people to believe. One might use an alibi to prove their innocence, but the alibi is not why the person believes in their own innocence.
The first Mormon missionaries I talked to over ten years ago wanted me to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, and they told me God would reveal the truth of it to me. I didn't read the whole Book of Mormon back then, but I did pray about it. I had a rather negative feeling about it at the time. Recently, I have read the whole Book of Mormon and no longer feel the need to pray about it. I'll say more about that in a future blog entry.
I talked to some Mormon missionaries about a year ago, and we talked for at least an hour just about epistemology. They based their beliefs entirely on their subjective experience. I asked them what they thought about FARMS, which is a Mormon apologetics organization that attempts to defend the Book of Mormon using objective evidence. One of them told me they thought FARMS was misguided, because their beliefs were not supposed to be based on objective evidence, but on the witness of the Holy Ghost. He even went so far as to say that no evidence or argument could overturn his belief. If I could show him from the Bible that Mormonism was false, that would just cause him to have doubts about the Bible. I am not kidding.
Lastly, as I've mentioned before, the Mormon fellow I had the email exchange with told me that his beliefs are based on a combination of his subjective experiences and the objective evidence. He said that one, by itself, could lead a person astray.
Part 3
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mormon epistemology. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mormon epistemology. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 6
Part three of the email...
****************
When the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true, they couldn't have been searching the new testament since it hadn't been written yet. Later revelation is always tested by earlier revelation. But that raises an interesting question. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon claim to be ancient documents that, with the exception of everything written before 600 BCE, were written independently of each other and close to the same time period. So, do we test the Bible in light of the Book of Mormon, or do we test the Book of Mormon in light of the Bible?
Well, I think we should test the Book of Mormon in light of the Bible for at least three reasons. First, because we have ancient fragments and manuscripts of the Bible, and we KNOW that it's an ancient document, but we have nothing but Joseph Smith's word that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document. There are no ancient manuscripts of the Book of Mormon whatsoever, and the only one we know to have existed was supposedly taken away by an angel so that nobody can examine it. So there's doubt about whether the Book of Mormon is even an ancient document.
Second, because it is well-established that the Bible is rooted in history, but it is not well-established that the Book of Mormon is rooted in history. Even people who completely reject the Bible, Judaism, Christianity, and God acknowledge that the Bible is rooted in history. It refers to real people and real places and real events. But it seems like the only people who think the Book of Mormon has any connection to history are Mormons themselves. But even among Mormons, they are not all in agreement that archeology supports the BOM. And even among those who think archeology DOES support the BOM, the evidence they present pales in comparison to the archeology supporting the Bible.
Third, because the BOM itself testifies to the truth of the Bible (I remember reading that several times in the BOM, but I can't find in my notes where I wrote it down), but the Bible does not testify to the truth of the BOM. That means that if the BOM is true, then the Bible is also true. But if the Bible is true, that doesn't necessarily mean the BOM is true. So either way you look at it, the Bible is true, but the BOM is not necessarily true.
Since I think we can be confident that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and since there is some doubt about whether the BOM is the inspired word of God, I think we should test the BOM in light of the Bible rather than vice versa.
Now, I understand that Mormons don't think there is any contradiction between the Bible and the BOM--at least not insofar as the Bible is translated correctly. But that's another subject, and too broad to go into now.
Unfortunately, my friend has read the entire Book of Mormon, but she hasn't even read half of the Bible. When she converted to Mormonism, she was in no position to test whether the BOM was true or not. She had nothing but her subjective experience to go on. From reading her testimony, I got the impression that she already believed it before she said her prayer. It's no shock that her feelings would confirm it for her since she not only already believed it, but she wanted it to be true. Jeremiah tells us that "The heart is more deceitful than all else," (Jeremiah 17:9), and Solomon says that "He who trusts in his own heart is a fool"
(Proverbs 28:26).
to be continued...
Part 7
****************
When the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true, they couldn't have been searching the new testament since it hadn't been written yet. Later revelation is always tested by earlier revelation. But that raises an interesting question. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon claim to be ancient documents that, with the exception of everything written before 600 BCE, were written independently of each other and close to the same time period. So, do we test the Bible in light of the Book of Mormon, or do we test the Book of Mormon in light of the Bible?
Well, I think we should test the Book of Mormon in light of the Bible for at least three reasons. First, because we have ancient fragments and manuscripts of the Bible, and we KNOW that it's an ancient document, but we have nothing but Joseph Smith's word that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document. There are no ancient manuscripts of the Book of Mormon whatsoever, and the only one we know to have existed was supposedly taken away by an angel so that nobody can examine it. So there's doubt about whether the Book of Mormon is even an ancient document.
Second, because it is well-established that the Bible is rooted in history, but it is not well-established that the Book of Mormon is rooted in history. Even people who completely reject the Bible, Judaism, Christianity, and God acknowledge that the Bible is rooted in history. It refers to real people and real places and real events. But it seems like the only people who think the Book of Mormon has any connection to history are Mormons themselves. But even among Mormons, they are not all in agreement that archeology supports the BOM. And even among those who think archeology DOES support the BOM, the evidence they present pales in comparison to the archeology supporting the Bible.
Third, because the BOM itself testifies to the truth of the Bible (I remember reading that several times in the BOM, but I can't find in my notes where I wrote it down), but the Bible does not testify to the truth of the BOM. That means that if the BOM is true, then the Bible is also true. But if the Bible is true, that doesn't necessarily mean the BOM is true. So either way you look at it, the Bible is true, but the BOM is not necessarily true.
Since I think we can be confident that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and since there is some doubt about whether the BOM is the inspired word of God, I think we should test the BOM in light of the Bible rather than vice versa.
Now, I understand that Mormons don't think there is any contradiction between the Bible and the BOM--at least not insofar as the Bible is translated correctly. But that's another subject, and too broad to go into now.
Unfortunately, my friend has read the entire Book of Mormon, but she hasn't even read half of the Bible. When she converted to Mormonism, she was in no position to test whether the BOM was true or not. She had nothing but her subjective experience to go on. From reading her testimony, I got the impression that she already believed it before she said her prayer. It's no shock that her feelings would confirm it for her since she not only already believed it, but she wanted it to be true. Jeremiah tells us that "The heart is more deceitful than all else," (Jeremiah 17:9), and Solomon says that "He who trusts in his own heart is a fool"
(Proverbs 28:26).
to be continued...
Part 7
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 1
If you've ever talked to Mormon missionaries or if you've ever even breathed the air around Mormons, you've probably caught wind of something about their epistemology. Maybe you've heard about their "burning in the bosom," or how their feelings cause them to believe that the LDS church is the true church of Christ. Well, personally I've been hearing a lot of different things lately. I haven't got it all sorted out just yet, but I wanted to share with you the wide variety of things I've been hearing on the subject from Mormons and from their scriptures.
The most common thing that comes up is Moroni 10:4. Moroni was supposedly the last living Nephite after the Lamanites exterminated the rest of them (except for the three disciples Jesus promised would never die). The book of Moroni contains some of Moroni's last words before burying the golden plates that Joseph Smith found and that supposedly the Book of Mormon was translated from. Chapter 10 of Moroni is the last chapter of the Book of Mormon. Moroni was writing about the Book of Mormon itself, and he said:
So where does the idea come from that God reveals truths to people by way of feelings or burnings in their bosoms? I spent some time this morning looking for references in the index of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants and came up with a few references. I'm going to bring some of them up, but keep in mind that I don't know for sure that Mormons use all of these to justify their views. I'm only bringing up the ones I think they might use.
If God speaks, then your heart will burn.
My heart burns.
Therefore, God is speaking.
But this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. A person's heart can burn for a variety of reasons--something you ate, how you feel about what is being said (e.g. fear, excitement, enthusiasm, etc.), or the conviction you feel because of what is being said. The burning in the bosom, by itself, doesn't give you any information.
If I were a Mormon, I'd be reluctant to universalize it because of how Smith tells Cowdry how he can know something is not from God. It says he will forget the thing that is wrong. If that were universalized, Mormons would not be able to remember what other Christians teach or believe, or what they've read in Christian literature about Christian doctrine.
The Mormon fellow I mentioned in my previous blog entries told me that he thinks it applies to us as well. He also told me that "We should use our hearts and our minds to learn truth. One with out the other can (as history shows us) often leads men astray."
There are also a few Biblical passages Mormons use to justify their epistemology.
There are many sciptures Mormons use to justify their heart/feeling epistemology. They aren't unique, either. Many evangelicals use the same scriptures to make the same points. Rather than go into detail about all of them, I just want to recommend Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen and J. Robin Maxson. Or, if you don't want to read all of that, get Greg Koukl's MP3's or CD's on Decision-Making and the Will of God.
There's one last scripture I want to mention because the Mormon fellow I've been talking about brought it up.
Part 2
The most common thing that comes up is Moroni 10:4. Moroni was supposedly the last living Nephite after the Lamanites exterminated the rest of them (except for the three disciples Jesus promised would never die). The book of Moroni contains some of Moroni's last words before burying the golden plates that Joseph Smith found and that supposedly the Book of Mormon was translated from. Chapter 10 of Moroni is the last chapter of the Book of Mormon. Moroni was writing about the Book of Mormon itself, and he said:
And when ye shall receive these things [i.e. the BOM], I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.If you look carefully, all this passage says is that if you ask God whether the BOM is true, he will let you know. It doesn't say anything about feelings or burnings in the bosom. It doesn't say anything about how God will let you know it's true, only that he will. Maybe he does it through feelings, burnings in the bosom, audible voices, exposing you to convincing evidence, or directly zapping your brain with belief.
So where does the idea come from that God reveals truths to people by way of feelings or burnings in their bosoms? I spent some time this morning looking for references in the index of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants and came up with a few references. I'm going to bring some of them up, but keep in mind that I don't know for sure that Mormons use all of these to justify their views. I'm only bringing up the ones I think they might use.
1 Nephi 17:45In this passage, Nephi is speaking to his unbelieving brothers. I'm not sure what it means to feel words. I get the impression that since they heard the words but did not feel them, it probably just means to believe them or take them to heart.
Ye have seen an angel, and he spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words.
2 Nephi 4:12This passage uses two phrases--"feelings of his heart" and "Spirit of the Lord"--to describe the sources from which Lehi spoke. It could be that these are two ways of saying the same thing. It is the Spirit of the Lord who speaks to Lehi through the feelings of his heart. That's one way to look at it. Another possibility is that they are distinct, and the author is saying that some of the things Lehi spoke, he spoke because of the feelings he had for his household, and some of the things Lehi spoke, he spoke because the Spirit of the Lord commanded him to.
And it came to pass after my father, Lehi, had spoken unto all his household, according to the feelings of his heart and the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, he waxed old. And it came to pass that he died, and was buried.
3 Nephi 11:3This is the first reference I found to anything like a burning in the bosom. In this case, though, it isn't the burning in their hearts that communicated information from God. They already heard the voice. They just didn't understand it. And the heartburn didn't cause them to understand it either. It was simply the result of hearing it. I suppose you could say that since voices from God cause your heart to burn, then you can tell from your heartburn that a voice is from God. The argument would look like this:
And it came to pass that while they were thus conversing one with another, they heard a voice as if it came out of heaven; and they cast their eyes round about, for they understood not the voice which they heard; and it was not a harsh voice, neither was it a loud voice; nevertheless, and notwithstanding it being a small voice it did pierce them that did hear to the center, insomuch that there was no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake; yea, it did pierce them to the very soul, and did cause their hearts to burn.
If God speaks, then your heart will burn.
My heart burns.
Therefore, God is speaking.
But this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. A person's heart can burn for a variety of reasons--something you ate, how you feel about what is being said (e.g. fear, excitement, enthusiasm, etc.), or the conviction you feel because of what is being said. The burning in the bosom, by itself, doesn't give you any information.
D&C 9:8-9This is a prophecy given through Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdry concerning Cowdry's ability to translate or write for Joseph Smith. The burning in the bosom is how Cowdry was supposed to be able to tell whether a message or translation was coming from God or not, but notice it also says he should first study it out in his mind. I don't know whether you can universalize this passage so that it applies, not just to Cowdry, but to everybody. And I don't know whether you can universalize it so that it applies, not just to translating, but to any kind of message from God.
But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
If I were a Mormon, I'd be reluctant to universalize it because of how Smith tells Cowdry how he can know something is not from God. It says he will forget the thing that is wrong. If that were universalized, Mormons would not be able to remember what other Christians teach or believe, or what they've read in Christian literature about Christian doctrine.
The Mormon fellow I mentioned in my previous blog entries told me that he thinks it applies to us as well. He also told me that "We should use our hearts and our minds to learn truth. One with out the other can (as history shows us) often leads men astray."
There are also a few Biblical passages Mormons use to justify their epistemology.
Acts 2:37This passage doesn't really say they were pierced to the heart and therefore believed what Peter had just told them. My impression is that it's the other way around. They were pierced to the heart (i.e. convicted) as a result of believing what Peter was saying. So the belief came before the piercing.
Now when they heard this [Peter's speech], they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
Luke 24:32This comes from the passage in Luke where Jesus was walking with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and he explained the Scriptures to them. Again, the passage doesn't tell us whether they believed because their hearts burned or whether their hearts burned because they believed. I get the impression that their hearts burned because they believed. After all, it says that Jesus "explained to them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures" (v.27). It's the explanation that clarified things for them, not the heartburn. The heartburn was a result of having it explained. They had just explained to Jesus (who they didn't recognize at the time) how they had high hopes that Jesus would be the one who would redeem Israel, and how they had been disappointed. By explaining the Scriptures to them, Jesus was restoring their hopes. Of course their hearts would burn!
And they said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he was speaking to us on the road, while he was explaining the Scriptures to us?"
There are many sciptures Mormons use to justify their heart/feeling epistemology. They aren't unique, either. Many evangelicals use the same scriptures to make the same points. Rather than go into detail about all of them, I just want to recommend Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen and J. Robin Maxson. Or, if you don't want to read all of that, get Greg Koukl's MP3's or CD's on Decision-Making and the Will of God.
There's one last scripture I want to mention because the Mormon fellow I've been talking about brought it up.
James 1:5I wrote kind of a lengthy response, so I'm going to save my comments for a future blog entry.
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
Part 2
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 7
The rest of the story...
**************
A long time ago when I first talked to some Mormon missionaries and went through their presentation, I did pray about it, asking God whether it was true. I prayed that prayer because at the time I thought it was at least possible that it could be true, and I figured it couldn't hurt to pray about it. But I didn't get any warm fuzzy, and I had no inclination whatsoever to think that it was true. In fact, I felt just the opposite. What does a Mormon say in response to that? Was it because I was insincere? Or was it because I was wicked? If a feeling of acceptance confirms that it is true, why doesn't a feeling of rejection confirm that it is false?
Well, I had not read the BOM at that time except for the few passages the missionaries recommended for me, but now I have. And having read it, I'm even more convinced than I was before that it is not an ancient document and that it is definitely not the word of God. I don't think it's possible for me to pray that prayer with any sincerity. It would be like you praying to ask God whether it's okay for you to commit murder as if you didn't already know [I'm indebted to James R. White from Alpha and Omega Ministries for this point]. It would be dishonest for you to pray such a prayer to God, and it would be dishonest of me to pray to God to ask him whether the BOM is true when I think God has already revealed that to me.
Nevertheless, I do think it's at least possible--remote as that possibility may be--that the Book of Mormon is true. But just because something is possible doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe. I also think it's possible that we're plugged into the Matrix and that our perception of the external world is just generated by a computer plugged into our brains. The mere possibility doesn't create any serious doubt in my mind, though. I'm pretty confident, just based on the use of the cognitive faculties and resources God has already given me that the external world exists, that it is pretty much the way it appears to be, and that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'm just as sure that the BOM is false as I am that the external world exists. I'm much more confident that the external world exists than that the BOM is false. I'm just making the point that mere possibility is not enough to entertain serious doubt or belief about something. And unless I had serious doubt or belief, I don't think I could go to God with a sincere question. God would know I was lying if I ever went to prayer asking him whether the external world exists or is just an illusion.
Well, this is longer than I meant to write. Sorry about that. I have one question for you, though. If, hypothetically, Joseph Smith is not a true prophet, and the Book of Mormon is not true, how could a person know it? It seems like the only test Mormons employ is prayer and a subjective experience. But anybody who prays that prayer and does not get a confirmation that it's true, you can say that they are insincere or wicked. How, then, could anybody tell that it is not true if it's not true?
Do you think it's possible for somebody to get a strong feeling, a conviction, a burning in the bosom, etc. about something if that thing is untrue?
It seems to me that this test in the BOM only works one way. It can verify something, but it can't falsify something. It's interesting. The Bible gives us several methods of falsifying a prophet, but not many to verify a prophet. But the BOM gives one test to verify a prophet, but nothing to falsify a prophet.
**********
...and that's the end of my email to George. Next, I will post some of his response.
Part 8
**************
A long time ago when I first talked to some Mormon missionaries and went through their presentation, I did pray about it, asking God whether it was true. I prayed that prayer because at the time I thought it was at least possible that it could be true, and I figured it couldn't hurt to pray about it. But I didn't get any warm fuzzy, and I had no inclination whatsoever to think that it was true. In fact, I felt just the opposite. What does a Mormon say in response to that? Was it because I was insincere? Or was it because I was wicked? If a feeling of acceptance confirms that it is true, why doesn't a feeling of rejection confirm that it is false?
Well, I had not read the BOM at that time except for the few passages the missionaries recommended for me, but now I have. And having read it, I'm even more convinced than I was before that it is not an ancient document and that it is definitely not the word of God. I don't think it's possible for me to pray that prayer with any sincerity. It would be like you praying to ask God whether it's okay for you to commit murder as if you didn't already know [I'm indebted to James R. White from Alpha and Omega Ministries for this point]. It would be dishonest for you to pray such a prayer to God, and it would be dishonest of me to pray to God to ask him whether the BOM is true when I think God has already revealed that to me.
Nevertheless, I do think it's at least possible--remote as that possibility may be--that the Book of Mormon is true. But just because something is possible doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe. I also think it's possible that we're plugged into the Matrix and that our perception of the external world is just generated by a computer plugged into our brains. The mere possibility doesn't create any serious doubt in my mind, though. I'm pretty confident, just based on the use of the cognitive faculties and resources God has already given me that the external world exists, that it is pretty much the way it appears to be, and that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'm just as sure that the BOM is false as I am that the external world exists. I'm much more confident that the external world exists than that the BOM is false. I'm just making the point that mere possibility is not enough to entertain serious doubt or belief about something. And unless I had serious doubt or belief, I don't think I could go to God with a sincere question. God would know I was lying if I ever went to prayer asking him whether the external world exists or is just an illusion.
Well, this is longer than I meant to write. Sorry about that. I have one question for you, though. If, hypothetically, Joseph Smith is not a true prophet, and the Book of Mormon is not true, how could a person know it? It seems like the only test Mormons employ is prayer and a subjective experience. But anybody who prays that prayer and does not get a confirmation that it's true, you can say that they are insincere or wicked. How, then, could anybody tell that it is not true if it's not true?
Do you think it's possible for somebody to get a strong feeling, a conviction, a burning in the bosom, etc. about something if that thing is untrue?
It seems to me that this test in the BOM only works one way. It can verify something, but it can't falsify something. It's interesting. The Bible gives us several methods of falsifying a prophet, but not many to verify a prophet. But the BOM gives one test to verify a prophet, but nothing to falsify a prophet.
**********
...and that's the end of my email to George. Next, I will post some of his response.
Part 8
Friday, October 03, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 3
In one of the emails from the Mormon fellow I've been talking about, he said, "I've received my answer from the Lord. However, I don't want you to believe me. I want you to take it to the Lord and get an answer from Him." He didn't say how the Lord answered him. I just assumed he was referring to some sort of subjective experience since that's what most Mormons say. So I wrote back and said, "I don't think asking God for a subjective experience is the best way to determine whether somebody is a true prophet or not, or whether a book contains his revelation or not."
That's when he brought up James 1:5:
Anyway, George said he'd be interested in knowing what I think about James 1:5. This is the rest of his email:
Part 4
That's when he brought up James 1:5:
But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.Before I go on, lemme explain why I keep saying, "Mormon fellow" instead of saying, "Jim" or "Bob" or whoever he is. I asked him ahead of time if he'd be okay with me posting some of our dialogue on my blog. He didn't come right out and say "no," but at the same time, he didn't seem to feel entirely comfortable with it. He said that as long as I wasn't degrading that he didn't mind. So, I'm protecting his identity. Let's just call him George. I like that name, and I'm tired of saying "Mormon fellow."
Anyway, George said he'd be interested in knowing what I think about James 1:5. This is the rest of his email:
I don't see any disclaimers on that verse. Anything that says "you can ask anything BUT _____". Nor does it say "if any of you lack wisdom, read the Bible, and you'll find the answers there (although I believe that can be the case sometimes). God is our father, we are his children. I believe that this scripture is true. Most people in the world "lack wisdom" as to whether or not there is a true prophet of God on the earth today.In my next blog entry, I'll post my response. I may break it up into parts, though, because it's long.
Lastly, I think it's interesting how many Christians feel that praying to God and asking him if Joseph Smith was a prophet and if the Book of Mormon is true is a terrible thing to do.....don't they believe God answers prayer? If it's false he'll tell them "nope....it's not true". Shouldn't they confidently pray to God, and then if God reveals to them that it is true, shouldn't they be joyful that they've received light and truth from heavenly father?
Isn't this a truly biblical and Christian way to access truth? The LDS teachings do not contradict the Bible....we believe in both. They may conflict with certain interpretations of the Bible, but that does not mean that they conflict with the Bible.
Matthew 21:22 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
Part 4
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 8
George's response to my email about epistemology.
**************
Let me start with a question. Suppose an Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu began studying Christianity. How could he discover that the Bible is the word of God and not simply a historical fiction maintained over the years? How would he know that Christ actually rose from the dead? Afterall, 2000 years ago it would have been easy to write that down and claim it happened even if it didn't. What if this person asked for proof that Christ rose from the dead? We could make similar arguments for may of the spectacular stories of the Bible. Afterall, most cultures in the world have embellished legends of some sort. Here in America we have Johnny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, and Davy Crockett. There are statues built of them, stories written of them, and even some elements of truth to their tale. Suppose this person argued that the Bible was simply a book of Good advice, rooted in ancient history, geography, and culture that took real people and created legends of them through embellishment and fiction?
The next question he might ask could be "who is the authority to interpret the Bible". What happens if you get 5 religious scholars who all seem to be well-meaning and all know the Bible extensively, yet they all interpret something in 5 different ways? Which one is right and how would this person (who is new to Christianity) KNOW which one was right?
Many of the Jewish people studied the words of the ancient prophets. The Sadducee's and the Pharisees studied extensively....yet they were still unable to identify their Messiah face to face. So how is it that they were so far off, when they studied the "Bible" (what they had of it) and knew it so well? Shouldn't their studying of it have made them more able to identify their Messiah? In fact the vast majority of Jewish people failed to recognize their Messiah. The Christians were a small minority in ancient Israel. How is it that the majority was so far off? What went wrong?
I am interested in your opinion on that. Mine is that we need to do both. I think you're splitting hairs when you say that James "meant this" but "didn't mean that". We'd have to look at the language in the original text to get any idea of what he might have really meant. Additionally Matthew said:
(21:22) "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
Again, I don't see any disclaimers in there or exceptions. There are quite a few scriptures that are similar to this that I could continue to bring up. I believe that both are important. One biblical story that comes to mind is when the resurrected Lord walked with the two men, and after words (Luke 24:32) they said: "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" He taught them from the scriptures and the holy ghost testified to their hearts that what was being taught was true. In the Doctrine & Covenants 8:2 we read "Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart." This is referring specifically to the process of translation for them, but I believe it is true to us as well. We should use our hearts and our minds to learn truth. One with out the other can (as history shows us) often leads men astray.
I agree with you that this is not a simple process. It's not as easy as just casually asking once and then having God speak right to you. However, I believe God does answer the prayers of those who have honest and sincere desires and are seeking truth or answers. It may not be when or how they like, however, the revelation will eventually come.
[Editing some stuff out...]
I think it's interesting to apply your logic on identifying false prophets to the Jews that Christ interacted with. Afterall, Christ was teaching a "new gospel". It contradicted the Old Testament in many ways (at least it's easy to interpret it that way). Using your logic, would the Jews have been able to identify their Messiah? Afterall, Christ taught that the Old Testament was true, and they believed it was true. So weren't they just "playing it safe" by just sticking to the Old Testament and only accepting that, as everyone agreed that it at least was true? I'm clearly playing Devil's Advocate and not trying to be sinister.
to be continued...
Some evidences for the Book of Mormon
Part 9
**************
Let me start with a question. Suppose an Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu began studying Christianity. How could he discover that the Bible is the word of God and not simply a historical fiction maintained over the years? How would he know that Christ actually rose from the dead? Afterall, 2000 years ago it would have been easy to write that down and claim it happened even if it didn't. What if this person asked for proof that Christ rose from the dead? We could make similar arguments for may of the spectacular stories of the Bible. Afterall, most cultures in the world have embellished legends of some sort. Here in America we have Johnny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan, and Davy Crockett. There are statues built of them, stories written of them, and even some elements of truth to their tale. Suppose this person argued that the Bible was simply a book of Good advice, rooted in ancient history, geography, and culture that took real people and created legends of them through embellishment and fiction?
The next question he might ask could be "who is the authority to interpret the Bible". What happens if you get 5 religious scholars who all seem to be well-meaning and all know the Bible extensively, yet they all interpret something in 5 different ways? Which one is right and how would this person (who is new to Christianity) KNOW which one was right?
Many of the Jewish people studied the words of the ancient prophets. The Sadducee's and the Pharisees studied extensively....yet they were still unable to identify their Messiah face to face. So how is it that they were so far off, when they studied the "Bible" (what they had of it) and knew it so well? Shouldn't their studying of it have made them more able to identify their Messiah? In fact the vast majority of Jewish people failed to recognize their Messiah. The Christians were a small minority in ancient Israel. How is it that the majority was so far off? What went wrong?
I am interested in your opinion on that. Mine is that we need to do both. I think you're splitting hairs when you say that James "meant this" but "didn't mean that". We'd have to look at the language in the original text to get any idea of what he might have really meant. Additionally Matthew said:
(21:22) "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
Again, I don't see any disclaimers in there or exceptions. There are quite a few scriptures that are similar to this that I could continue to bring up. I believe that both are important. One biblical story that comes to mind is when the resurrected Lord walked with the two men, and after words (Luke 24:32) they said: "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" He taught them from the scriptures and the holy ghost testified to their hearts that what was being taught was true. In the Doctrine & Covenants 8:2 we read "Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart." This is referring specifically to the process of translation for them, but I believe it is true to us as well. We should use our hearts and our minds to learn truth. One with out the other can (as history shows us) often leads men astray.
I agree with you that this is not a simple process. It's not as easy as just casually asking once and then having God speak right to you. However, I believe God does answer the prayers of those who have honest and sincere desires and are seeking truth or answers. It may not be when or how they like, however, the revelation will eventually come.
[Editing some stuff out...]
I think it's interesting to apply your logic on identifying false prophets to the Jews that Christ interacted with. Afterall, Christ was teaching a "new gospel". It contradicted the Old Testament in many ways (at least it's easy to interpret it that way). Using your logic, would the Jews have been able to identify their Messiah? Afterall, Christ taught that the Old Testament was true, and they believed it was true. So weren't they just "playing it safe" by just sticking to the Old Testament and only accepting that, as everyone agreed that it at least was true? I'm clearly playing Devil's Advocate and not trying to be sinister.
to be continued...
Some evidences for the Book of Mormon
Part 9
Friday, October 10, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 5
In my last entry, I started to post an email I wrote about why I don't think asking God for a subjective experience is the best way to determine whether somebody is a true prophet or not, or whether a book contains his revelation or not, but I didn't post the whole thing. Here's some more of it:
****************
The Bible also gives us criteria for examining prophets and prophecies. I'm sure you're aware of these--Deuteronomy 18:20-22 says that whatever a prophet says in the name of YHWH has to come about or be true, but that is a negative test. It tells you how to recognize a false prophet, but not how to recognize a true prophet. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the author considers the case of a false prophet who gives true prophecies or produces signs and wonders. A true prophecy is not enough to establish that somebody is a true prophet. It says,
Matthew 7:15-20 tells us we can test prophets by their fruit. A lot of people take this to simply mean we can tell a true prophet from a false prophet by how moral their lives are or how many converts they win. But those two criteria alone are not enough because there are plenty of false prophets and teachers who could produce such fruit. After all, the servants of Satan disguise themselves as servants of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). I think the fruit must also include their teachings, and that is consistent with Deuteronomy 13:1-5. They cannot teach false doctrine, a false gospel, a false Jesus, or anything contrary to what has already been revealed and established. But we have to know the scriptures in order to recognize what is contrary to what has already been revealed.
One doctrinal test, for example, comes from 1 John 4:1-3:
These methods for examining prophets and prophecies are fairly specific, but none of them include praying to God and asking whether those thing are true, as it says in Moroni 10:4-5.
In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul says to Timothy that "from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." So even if James did NOT specifically say that we can get wisdom from the scriptures, Paul clearly DID say that. He went on to say that "All Scripture is inspired by God [literally "theopneustos" which means "God-breathed"] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." If the scriptures are profitable for teaching, reproof, and correction, it would be negligent to rely merely on a subjective experience to determine whether something is true or not.
Have you noticed that most of the tests for prophets given in the Bible are negative tests? That is, they are useful for discovering a false prophet, but they aren't quite as useful for discovering a true prophet. It's only speculation on my part, but I think it might be because it is more dangerous to believe in a false prophet than it is to disbelieve in a true prophet. What we have in the old and new testament is adequate. It contains the gospel and all that we need to live righteously. It contains all that we need to know to be saved. Anything in addition to it may be helpful, but it isn't necessary. So if a true prophet comes along and reveals something we didn't know before, and we don't believe it, we aren't in danger of losing our salvation over it. That means we can chuck the whole Book of Mormon and all the writings, teachings, and prophecies of Joseph Smith and still be safe even if Joseph Smith is a true prophet and the Book of Mormon is God's word.
to be continued...
Part 6
****************
The Bible also gives us criteria for examining prophets and prophecies. I'm sure you're aware of these--Deuteronomy 18:20-22 says that whatever a prophet says in the name of YHWH has to come about or be true, but that is a negative test. It tells you how to recognize a false prophet, but not how to recognize a true prophet. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the author considers the case of a false prophet who gives true prophecies or produces signs and wonders. A true prophecy is not enough to establish that somebody is a true prophet. It says,
If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, "Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them," you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams.I know there are a lot of misconceptions about Mormons out there, and that I probably have some myself, but from what I understand, I think the Mormon concept of God is so radically different than the Jewish and Christian concept of God that they are not the same God.
Matthew 7:15-20 tells us we can test prophets by their fruit. A lot of people take this to simply mean we can tell a true prophet from a false prophet by how moral their lives are or how many converts they win. But those two criteria alone are not enough because there are plenty of false prophets and teachers who could produce such fruit. After all, the servants of Satan disguise themselves as servants of righteousness (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). I think the fruit must also include their teachings, and that is consistent with Deuteronomy 13:1-5. They cannot teach false doctrine, a false gospel, a false Jesus, or anything contrary to what has already been revealed and established. But we have to know the scriptures in order to recognize what is contrary to what has already been revealed.
One doctrinal test, for example, comes from 1 John 4:1-3:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that is coming, and now is already in the world.I think John was specifically addressing the docetists in this passage who believed that Jesus was only a spirit and that he only appeared to be in the flesh.
These methods for examining prophets and prophecies are fairly specific, but none of them include praying to God and asking whether those thing are true, as it says in Moroni 10:4-5.
In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul says to Timothy that "from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." So even if James did NOT specifically say that we can get wisdom from the scriptures, Paul clearly DID say that. He went on to say that "All Scripture is inspired by God [literally "theopneustos" which means "God-breathed"] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." If the scriptures are profitable for teaching, reproof, and correction, it would be negligent to rely merely on a subjective experience to determine whether something is true or not.
Have you noticed that most of the tests for prophets given in the Bible are negative tests? That is, they are useful for discovering a false prophet, but they aren't quite as useful for discovering a true prophet. It's only speculation on my part, but I think it might be because it is more dangerous to believe in a false prophet than it is to disbelieve in a true prophet. What we have in the old and new testament is adequate. It contains the gospel and all that we need to live righteously. It contains all that we need to know to be saved. Anything in addition to it may be helpful, but it isn't necessary. So if a true prophet comes along and reveals something we didn't know before, and we don't believe it, we aren't in danger of losing our salvation over it. That means we can chuck the whole Book of Mormon and all the writings, teachings, and prophecies of Joseph Smith and still be safe even if Joseph Smith is a true prophet and the Book of Mormon is God's word.
to be continued...
Part 6
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Some general comments on Mormonism
I've been learning as much as I can lately about Mormonism, and I thought I'd share some of my thoughts on it in a few blog entries. Mormons are extremely sensative about being misrepresented. Since I don't know a whole lot about the LDS church, I'm sure I have some misunderstandings, but I'm going to try to be accurate and fair. One of the things I've learned lately is that LDS theology is not nearly as well-defined as I thought it was. There is far more diversity of belief within the LDS church than I used to think. Some of their peculiar beliefs that I used to think were official doctrine turn out to be just some people's opinions. Or at least that's what I've been told.
For me, there are really two major questions to concern myself with about Mormonism, or any other worldview. First, what is it? Second, is it true? The question of epistemology always comes up when delving into the second question, and I plan on spending a lot of time on it.
According to a conversation I had recently with some Mormons, it isn't necessary to fully answer the first question before answering the second. In an email I got from a Mormon fellow I met on Yahoo Answers, there are three things I ought to focus on to determine whether Mormonism is true:
1. Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God?
2. Was the Book of Mormon really written by ancient prophets (...and is it true)?
3. Was Christ's church lost from the earth and then restored through Joseph Smith?
If these things are true, then all the peculiarities of the LDS church are also true, and he listed several of them. If a person answered "yes" to all of the above questions, I suppose they could conclude that Mormonism is true and they could convert without knowing all of the things that follow from those three points. I'm sure they'd have to know some of them; just not all.
It seems to me that these three questions are interrelated. If it turns out that the Book of Mormon was not really written by ancient prophets, then Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God. And if Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God, then Christ's church was not restored through Joseph Smith. So it seems like if you could answer "no" to any one of these questions, you'd have to answer "no" to the rest of them. But does it work the other way around if you answered "yes" to any one of them?
I don't think so. If Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if Joseph Smith restored Christ's church, then I think the others would follow. But if it turns out that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets, I don't think that necessarily entails a "yes" answer to the other questions.
Lemme explain. If the Book of Mormon really is an accurate translation of ancient American writings, then I think it's safe to say that Joseph Smith translated those writings through some kind of supernatural power. But does that necessarily make him a true prophet of God? No, it doesn't. In Deteronomy 13:1-5, it says that if a prophet or a dreamer of dreams gives a sign or a wonder, and if it turns out to be true or comes to pass, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a prophet of God. That prophet may go on to encourage people to go after other gods, in which case he is to be rejected.
For me, there are really two major questions to concern myself with about Mormonism, or any other worldview. First, what is it? Second, is it true? The question of epistemology always comes up when delving into the second question, and I plan on spending a lot of time on it.
According to a conversation I had recently with some Mormons, it isn't necessary to fully answer the first question before answering the second. In an email I got from a Mormon fellow I met on Yahoo Answers, there are three things I ought to focus on to determine whether Mormonism is true:
1. Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God?
2. Was the Book of Mormon really written by ancient prophets (...and is it true)?
3. Was Christ's church lost from the earth and then restored through Joseph Smith?
If these things are true, then all the peculiarities of the LDS church are also true, and he listed several of them. If a person answered "yes" to all of the above questions, I suppose they could conclude that Mormonism is true and they could convert without knowing all of the things that follow from those three points. I'm sure they'd have to know some of them; just not all.
It seems to me that these three questions are interrelated. If it turns out that the Book of Mormon was not really written by ancient prophets, then Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God. And if Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God, then Christ's church was not restored through Joseph Smith. So it seems like if you could answer "no" to any one of these questions, you'd have to answer "no" to the rest of them. But does it work the other way around if you answered "yes" to any one of them?
I don't think so. If Joseph Smith is a prophet, or if Joseph Smith restored Christ's church, then I think the others would follow. But if it turns out that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets, I don't think that necessarily entails a "yes" answer to the other questions.
Lemme explain. If the Book of Mormon really is an accurate translation of ancient American writings, then I think it's safe to say that Joseph Smith translated those writings through some kind of supernatural power. But does that necessarily make him a true prophet of God? No, it doesn't. In Deteronomy 13:1-5, it says that if a prophet or a dreamer of dreams gives a sign or a wonder, and if it turns out to be true or comes to pass, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a prophet of God. That prophet may go on to encourage people to go after other gods, in which case he is to be rejected.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 4
This is my response to George when he asked me what I thought about James 1:5, and it's an explanation for why I don't think asking God for a subjective experience is the best way to determine whether somebody is a true prophet or not, or whether a book contains his revelation or not. Keep in mind that I'm not posting all of our emails. I'm editing some stuff out, and I'm doing a bit of formatting and italicizing. If I add anything, I'll put it in [brackets].
******************
I don't think that "knowledge" and "wisdom" are the same thing. Knowledge is, for the most part, accurate information. Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge effectively, or you might say it's the ability to make good decisions. You have to have some knowledge already before you can apply wisdom. So I don't think James is telling us that if we want to know if something is true, we should ask God about it.
If simply praying to God to ask him for a bit of information was the best way to determine whether something was true, the majority of the scriptures would be superfluous. And even in our everyday lives, teaching, learning, investigating, and all the things we do on a daily basis to determine whether things are true or false would be superfluous.
Mormons aren't unique in their epistemology. I see this sort of thing rampant among Evangelical Christians. The vast majority of them think they should pray to God to answer their questions, to determine God's will for their lives, and to make decisions. But the vast majority of them are Biblically illiterate, too. It has never made sense to me. Everybody wants to hear the voice of God, but few take an interest in what God has already revealed in the Scriptures. I think it's perfectly appropriate to pray for understanding when you're reading the Bible, but I think it's absurd to pray for God to reveal some truth to you that he has already revealed in the Scriptures when you won't even go to the effort of reading them. I don't imagine, for example, that you would pray to God to ask him whether you ought to steal or lie or something like that. You already know you shouldn't do those things.
In 2 Thessalonians 2, it talks about the coming of the "Man of Lawlessness," and how his coming will be "with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive a love of the truth so as to be saved" (v.9-10). You have to love the truth if you want to avoid being deceived. The passage goes on to say that "God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false..." If a person loves the truth, they will study the Bible as far as they are able to discover it. And in doing so, they are far less likely to fall for every wind of teaching floating around out there. I think Hosea 4:6 aptly applies to a lot of evangelicals today when it says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." [I'm indebted to Amy Hall from Stand to Reason for this point.]
We know different things in different ways. The Bible is specific about how we know whether a person is presenting a message from God or not. It doesn't say that we should pray about such things. It says, "Do not despise prophetic utterance, but examine everything carefully" (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21). When it comes to prophecy, we are to examine it, not simply ask God if it's true. But how do we examine some new message if we have nothing to compare it to?
We have to know the scriptures if we are to effectively examine it. People fall for counterfeits when they don't know the genuine. That applies, not just to religious things, but to all things in life. For example, you couldn't recognize a counterfeit hundred dollar bill if you did not know what a real hundred dollar bill was like. Likewise, Paul said that "if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" (Galatians 1:9). So we have to know the true gospel before we can recognize that something is a false gospel or a distortion of the true gospel.
to be continued...
Part 5
******************
I don't think that "knowledge" and "wisdom" are the same thing. Knowledge is, for the most part, accurate information. Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge effectively, or you might say it's the ability to make good decisions. You have to have some knowledge already before you can apply wisdom. So I don't think James is telling us that if we want to know if something is true, we should ask God about it.
If simply praying to God to ask him for a bit of information was the best way to determine whether something was true, the majority of the scriptures would be superfluous. And even in our everyday lives, teaching, learning, investigating, and all the things we do on a daily basis to determine whether things are true or false would be superfluous.
George:It does say that when Paul took the gospel message to the Bereans that "these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Clearly, the author of Acts thought that examining the scriptures to determine whether somebody's message is true was a noble thing to do.
Nor does it say "if any of you lack wisdom, read the Bible, and you'll find the answers there (although I believe that can be the case sometimes).
Mormons aren't unique in their epistemology. I see this sort of thing rampant among Evangelical Christians. The vast majority of them think they should pray to God to answer their questions, to determine God's will for their lives, and to make decisions. But the vast majority of them are Biblically illiterate, too. It has never made sense to me. Everybody wants to hear the voice of God, but few take an interest in what God has already revealed in the Scriptures. I think it's perfectly appropriate to pray for understanding when you're reading the Bible, but I think it's absurd to pray for God to reveal some truth to you that he has already revealed in the Scriptures when you won't even go to the effort of reading them. I don't imagine, for example, that you would pray to God to ask him whether you ought to steal or lie or something like that. You already know you shouldn't do those things.
In 2 Thessalonians 2, it talks about the coming of the "Man of Lawlessness," and how his coming will be "with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive a love of the truth so as to be saved" (v.9-10). You have to love the truth if you want to avoid being deceived. The passage goes on to say that "God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false..." If a person loves the truth, they will study the Bible as far as they are able to discover it. And in doing so, they are far less likely to fall for every wind of teaching floating around out there. I think Hosea 4:6 aptly applies to a lot of evangelicals today when it says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." [I'm indebted to Amy Hall from Stand to Reason for this point.]
We know different things in different ways. The Bible is specific about how we know whether a person is presenting a message from God or not. It doesn't say that we should pray about such things. It says, "Do not despise prophetic utterance, but examine everything carefully" (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21). When it comes to prophecy, we are to examine it, not simply ask God if it's true. But how do we examine some new message if we have nothing to compare it to?
We have to know the scriptures if we are to effectively examine it. People fall for counterfeits when they don't know the genuine. That applies, not just to religious things, but to all things in life. For example, you couldn't recognize a counterfeit hundred dollar bill if you did not know what a real hundred dollar bill was like. Likewise, Paul said that "if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" (Galatians 1:9). So we have to know the true gospel before we can recognize that something is a false gospel or a distortion of the true gospel.
to be continued...
Part 5
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
The Book of Mormon 4/18
Mormons often ask me how I feel when I read the BOM. I find that a little frustrating because it doesn't matter how I feel when I read it. It only matters whether it's true. I don't think you can tell whether it's true by how you feel when you read it, so it doesn't matter how you feel. I wrote more about that in my series on Mormon epistemology.
I don't mind saying how I felt, though. When I was first visited by the Mormons over ten years ago, I prayed about the BOM like they asked me to, and all I felt was a foreboding. It was the same foreboding I felt before I prayed about it, though. Now I don't attribute this foreboding to the Holy Spirit. I attribute it to the fact that I already had serious doubts about it. But I didn't read the whole BOM back then. I only read the passages the missionaries gave me to read.
Last August, I read the whole BOM. When I met with Kay's bishop later on, he asked me how I felt when I read it. I told him I couldn't remember since I wasn't really thinking about my feelings when I was reading it.
But reading the BOM caused me to have far more doubts about it than I had before I read it. So I don't feel very good about the BOM at all now.
The BOM is much better when read cover to cover. What kept me from reading it before was pure boredom and lack of interest. But I was only reading isolated passages. I couldn't possibly see how it all fit into the story. The BOM isn't like the Bible where you have a collection of independent books from different genres. The BOM is more like a novel. You can read it from cover to cover, and it's just one long story. I think that's the way it ought to be read, at least the first time you read it. Then you can go back and read passages over again and know how they fit in the broader story.
Part 5
I don't mind saying how I felt, though. When I was first visited by the Mormons over ten years ago, I prayed about the BOM like they asked me to, and all I felt was a foreboding. It was the same foreboding I felt before I prayed about it, though. Now I don't attribute this foreboding to the Holy Spirit. I attribute it to the fact that I already had serious doubts about it. But I didn't read the whole BOM back then. I only read the passages the missionaries gave me to read.
Last August, I read the whole BOM. When I met with Kay's bishop later on, he asked me how I felt when I read it. I told him I couldn't remember since I wasn't really thinking about my feelings when I was reading it.
But reading the BOM caused me to have far more doubts about it than I had before I read it. So I don't feel very good about the BOM at all now.
The BOM is much better when read cover to cover. What kept me from reading it before was pure boredom and lack of interest. But I was only reading isolated passages. I couldn't possibly see how it all fit into the story. The BOM isn't like the Bible where you have a collection of independent books from different genres. The BOM is more like a novel. You can read it from cover to cover, and it's just one long story. I think that's the way it ought to be read, at least the first time you read it. Then you can go back and read passages over again and know how they fit in the broader story.
Part 5
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 10
This is an email I wrote to George:
********************
If I were talking to an atheist or a Muslim about Christianity, I would ignore the issue of the authority of the Bible altogether initially. Remember the four points I thought were essential to Christianity? The authority of the Bible wasn't one of them. And the authority of the Bible doesn't even show up in the ancient creeds--neither the Nicaean creed, the apostles creed, nor the Athanasian creed. It is important, of course, but it's not definitional to Christianity. I think a person can discover that Christianity is true without ever addressing the question of whether the Bible is the authoritative word of God. These things can be based on philosophical and historical arguments, and there is plenty of literature out there on arguments for and against God, the historical Jesus, the resurrection, etc. If I were talking to an atheist or a Muslim, I would talk about the evidence for my beliefs without addressing the issue of the authority of the Bible. A few books that have been influential to me regarding the historical Jesus and the resurrection include N.T. Wright's series on "Christian Origins and the Question of God." So far, he's published three volumes, and there are at least two more coming. They include:
The New Testament and the People of God
Jesus and the Victory of God
and...
The Resurrection of the Son of God
When I first started studying the Bible, I used to pray that God would reveal the truth to me. I knew there were many denominations and many beliefs out there. I didn't have much faith that God would answer my prayer because I figured there were lots of people who had prayed that same prayer, and yet people still disagreed with each other. I used to be quite a bit discouraged about it. But as I studied, my anxieties began to fade as I began to realize there were good arguments and bad arguments, well-justified views, and unjustified views. The more I learned, the more I began forming opinions. And I came to a point where I decided absolute certainty wasn't necessary. Reasonableness was enough. So I'm no longer anxious about the mere possibility that I could be wrong about some things. I'm sure I'm AM wrong about some things. By I try to proportion my beliefs to the strength of their supporting arguments. That is, I believe strongly in what I think is well-justified, and I hold my beliefs lightly when they are speculative. I wrote a blog about the subject of authoritative interpreters, if you're interested. I think the notion creates problems of its own. [I also wrote a blog] about how I deal with the issue of "whose interpretation is right?."
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to address the evidences you brought up to support the BOM. I plan to get into that eventually, ... but at the moment, I'm still learning the basics. All I know is from secondary literature, and from what I've read, secular archaeologists and historians aren't very impressed with the evidences that Mormons bring up. You mentioned bias on the part of these archaeologists as an explanation for their reluctance to yield to these evidences, but it seems to me that knife cuts both ways. As I pointed out in my last email, the difference between the BOM and the Bible is that while all people--those who believe in the Bible and those who don't--agree that the Bible is rooted in history, but when it comes to the BOM, it seems that only Mormons think it is rooted in history. So I don't think bias is the deciding factor. If it was, then you'd have the same thing with the Bible as you do with the BOM--only Christians saying it is rooted in history. Since both secular and Christian scholars agree that the Bible is rooted in history, but only Mormons think the BOM is rooted in history, if bias is a deciding factor, I'm inclined to think the bias is on the part of Mormon scholars, not secular or Christian scholars.
[Editing some stuff out...]
You said that Jesus' statement that we could ask anything we want was unqualified, but do you really believe there are no qualifications at all? What if I prayed and asked God to send a worldwide flood to remove wickedness from the world? Well, we know that would be praying amiss because the Bible already tells us that God won't do that again. It seems to me that Jesus' statement IS qualified in a few places in the New Testament. We must pray according to God's will (1 John 5:14), and I think much of God's will is revealed in the Bible. The only way people can have whatever they want is if God has no purpose in the world. If God has specific plans and purposes, then I don't think those plans and purposes are going to be thwarted just because people make requests of God that are inconsistent with those plans and purposes. Qualification to Jesus' statement about prayer seem to permeate the Bible when you look at it like that.
*******************
And that's the end of my email to George.
Part 11
********************
If I were talking to an atheist or a Muslim about Christianity, I would ignore the issue of the authority of the Bible altogether initially. Remember the four points I thought were essential to Christianity? The authority of the Bible wasn't one of them. And the authority of the Bible doesn't even show up in the ancient creeds--neither the Nicaean creed, the apostles creed, nor the Athanasian creed. It is important, of course, but it's not definitional to Christianity. I think a person can discover that Christianity is true without ever addressing the question of whether the Bible is the authoritative word of God. These things can be based on philosophical and historical arguments, and there is plenty of literature out there on arguments for and against God, the historical Jesus, the resurrection, etc. If I were talking to an atheist or a Muslim, I would talk about the evidence for my beliefs without addressing the issue of the authority of the Bible. A few books that have been influential to me regarding the historical Jesus and the resurrection include N.T. Wright's series on "Christian Origins and the Question of God." So far, he's published three volumes, and there are at least two more coming. They include:
The New Testament and the People of God
Jesus and the Victory of God
and...
The Resurrection of the Son of God
When I first started studying the Bible, I used to pray that God would reveal the truth to me. I knew there were many denominations and many beliefs out there. I didn't have much faith that God would answer my prayer because I figured there were lots of people who had prayed that same prayer, and yet people still disagreed with each other. I used to be quite a bit discouraged about it. But as I studied, my anxieties began to fade as I began to realize there were good arguments and bad arguments, well-justified views, and unjustified views. The more I learned, the more I began forming opinions. And I came to a point where I decided absolute certainty wasn't necessary. Reasonableness was enough. So I'm no longer anxious about the mere possibility that I could be wrong about some things. I'm sure I'm AM wrong about some things. By I try to proportion my beliefs to the strength of their supporting arguments. That is, I believe strongly in what I think is well-justified, and I hold my beliefs lightly when they are speculative. I wrote a blog about the subject of authoritative interpreters, if you're interested. I think the notion creates problems of its own. [I also wrote a blog] about how I deal with the issue of "whose interpretation is right?."
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to address the evidences you brought up to support the BOM. I plan to get into that eventually, ... but at the moment, I'm still learning the basics. All I know is from secondary literature, and from what I've read, secular archaeologists and historians aren't very impressed with the evidences that Mormons bring up. You mentioned bias on the part of these archaeologists as an explanation for their reluctance to yield to these evidences, but it seems to me that knife cuts both ways. As I pointed out in my last email, the difference between the BOM and the Bible is that while all people--those who believe in the Bible and those who don't--agree that the Bible is rooted in history, but when it comes to the BOM, it seems that only Mormons think it is rooted in history. So I don't think bias is the deciding factor. If it was, then you'd have the same thing with the Bible as you do with the BOM--only Christians saying it is rooted in history. Since both secular and Christian scholars agree that the Bible is rooted in history, but only Mormons think the BOM is rooted in history, if bias is a deciding factor, I'm inclined to think the bias is on the part of Mormon scholars, not secular or Christian scholars.
[Editing some stuff out...]
You said that Jesus' statement that we could ask anything we want was unqualified, but do you really believe there are no qualifications at all? What if I prayed and asked God to send a worldwide flood to remove wickedness from the world? Well, we know that would be praying amiss because the Bible already tells us that God won't do that again. It seems to me that Jesus' statement IS qualified in a few places in the New Testament. We must pray according to God's will (1 John 5:14), and I think much of God's will is revealed in the Bible. The only way people can have whatever they want is if God has no purpose in the world. If God has specific plans and purposes, then I don't think those plans and purposes are going to be thwarted just because people make requests of God that are inconsistent with those plans and purposes. Qualification to Jesus' statement about prayer seem to permeate the Bible when you look at it like that.
*******************
And that's the end of my email to George.
Part 11
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 9
The rest of George's email...
****************
I do believe that God answers sincere, honest, and faithful prayers. If you read the Koran and ask God "is this your word and is this true" I think he'll reveal to you that it is not, assuming you're sincere in your efforts and not just testing him.
I know the experiences that I've had. I don't know the experiences that you've had. I think the question to ask yourself is "Did God answer your prayer"? Is it possible that you moved on before any answer was given by God? I believe God loves all of us. I also believe that God may have a plan for each and everyone of us. Perhaps you weren't ready at the time and so no answer was given then. I can't interpret your revelation for you.....but I do believe that God does reveal things to us.
As for your question to me, I believe that if you prayed to God and sincerely asked "Is the Pope a Prophet of God" that God would reveal to you that he was not. In the event that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, I believe God would steer honest seekers of truth away from a false prophet and false scripture.
D&C 9:8-9 reads: But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
Now, keep in mind, this is advice given regarding the process of translation. I think the "burning in the bosom" happens very rarely. I've only had one experience that I could describe like that and it was regarding a serious life decision. I have experienced the "stupor of thought" however as I've been steered away from other things.
More often, I believe revelation comes in this way as described in D&C 85 "Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things". For me it's most often a thought that is accompanied by feelings of joy or peace. If I'm unsure, I'll often pray and say "Father, this is what I THINK you're telling me, is that right".
******************
That's the end of George's email.
Part 10
****************
I do believe that God answers sincere, honest, and faithful prayers. If you read the Koran and ask God "is this your word and is this true" I think he'll reveal to you that it is not, assuming you're sincere in your efforts and not just testing him.
I know the experiences that I've had. I don't know the experiences that you've had. I think the question to ask yourself is "Did God answer your prayer"? Is it possible that you moved on before any answer was given by God? I believe God loves all of us. I also believe that God may have a plan for each and everyone of us. Perhaps you weren't ready at the time and so no answer was given then. I can't interpret your revelation for you.....but I do believe that God does reveal things to us.
As for your question to me, I believe that if you prayed to God and sincerely asked "Is the Pope a Prophet of God" that God would reveal to you that he was not. In the event that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, I believe God would steer honest seekers of truth away from a false prophet and false scripture.
D&C 9:8-9 reads: But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
Now, keep in mind, this is advice given regarding the process of translation. I think the "burning in the bosom" happens very rarely. I've only had one experience that I could describe like that and it was regarding a serious life decision. I have experienced the "stupor of thought" however as I've been steered away from other things.
More often, I believe revelation comes in this way as described in D&C 85 "Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things". For me it's most often a thought that is accompanied by feelings of joy or peace. If I'm unsure, I'll often pray and say "Father, this is what I THINK you're telling me, is that right".
******************
That's the end of George's email.
Part 10
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Mormon epistemology, part 11
I'm not going to post all of the emails George and I exchanged. I just posted those last few because I'm lazy and didn't want to rewrite all that stuff. Now I'm going to post one paragraph of another email I wrote George.
*******************
I was just thinking earlier today about the whole notion of feelings/impression/etc. giving people knowledge, answering questions, etc. The notion seems odd to me, but I was having a hard time putting my finger on why. And then it occurred to me. It's because a feeling is a feeling; a feeling is not a proposition. Feelings don't have propositional content. They're just feelings. So a feeling cannot correspond to reality in the same way that a statement or a claim can correspond to reality. "Warm fuzzy" is not true or false; rather, you either feel it or you don't. The only way a feeling can confirm a truth is if you already somehow know that certain feelings are to be associated with certain answers. That's how language works. Words like "car" and "chalk," refer to things in the real world, so we associate these words with the objects they represent. In the same way, we'd have to have some way of associated feelings with propositions. A burning in the bosom might mean "yes," or a shiver in the liver might mean "no." (I can't remember where I got that phrase "shiver in the liver," but I heard it somewhere and thought it was funny.) But how do we come to associate feelings with propositions? How do we know that a burning in the bosom (or what have you) doesn't mean "no" instead of "yes"? I'm just very skeptical of the view that God communicates with people through feelings and impressions. I tend to think that people find the confirmation they are looking for. People believe what they want to believe. They feel good about the things they like, and therefore think they are true.
*****************
There ye have it!
*******************
I was just thinking earlier today about the whole notion of feelings/impression/etc. giving people knowledge, answering questions, etc. The notion seems odd to me, but I was having a hard time putting my finger on why. And then it occurred to me. It's because a feeling is a feeling; a feeling is not a proposition. Feelings don't have propositional content. They're just feelings. So a feeling cannot correspond to reality in the same way that a statement or a claim can correspond to reality. "Warm fuzzy" is not true or false; rather, you either feel it or you don't. The only way a feeling can confirm a truth is if you already somehow know that certain feelings are to be associated with certain answers. That's how language works. Words like "car" and "chalk," refer to things in the real world, so we associate these words with the objects they represent. In the same way, we'd have to have some way of associated feelings with propositions. A burning in the bosom might mean "yes," or a shiver in the liver might mean "no." (I can't remember where I got that phrase "shiver in the liver," but I heard it somewhere and thought it was funny.) But how do we come to associate feelings with propositions? How do we know that a burning in the bosom (or what have you) doesn't mean "no" instead of "yes"? I'm just very skeptical of the view that God communicates with people through feelings and impressions. I tend to think that people find the confirmation they are looking for. People believe what they want to believe. They feel good about the things they like, and therefore think they are true.
*****************
There ye have it!
Wednesday, September 04, 2024
Questions for God
If you could interview God and ask him anything, what questions would you ask? Here are some things I'd like to know. Feel free to leave a comment sharing your own view, even if speculative.
1. How big is the universe?
2. Are there other universes?
3. How much life is in the observable universe?
4. How much life is in our galaxy?
5. How much intelligent life comparable to our own is in the universe/galaxy?
6. Where is the closest extraterrestrial life?
7. Where is the closest civilization of beings comparable to us?
8. What is the most intelligent being in the galaxy/universe?
9. What is the most advanced civilization in the galaxy/universe?
10. What is the biggest sentient being in the galaxy/universe?
11. Is there a limit to how intelligent a physical being can get?
12. What is really going on in the quantum world?
13. How do general relativiy and quantum mechanics actually fit together? What is the correct theory? Is there a theory of quantum gravity? If so, what is it?
14. What is dark matter?
15. What is dark energy?
16. What's going on inside a black hole?
17. What is the correct theory of time? Is it static, dynamic, or something else?
18. What was the universe like in its earliest stages? Was there an inflationary period? If so, what made it stop?
19. How does the soul interact with the brain?
20. What's it like to be a disembodied spirit?
21. How should we interpret the creation account in Genesis? What really happened literally? How should that inform our theology?
22. What happened to Jesus' body after the ascension?
23. Who is right? The Calvinist or the non-Calvinists?
24. Who is right? The protestants, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox? What are the major things that each of them get right or wrong?
25. Who would win in a debate between Jonathan Edwards and William Lane Craig if each were in their prime, and they were debating Calvinism vs. Molinism?
26. What did the dinosaurs really look like? What colour were they? What sounds did they make? How did they hunt? (Hopefully God would show me some picures or a video or something.)
27. How did life begin on our planet?
28. What role did you play in the evolution of life, especially human life?
29. How massive is the most massive black hole in the universe, and where is it?
30. What's the best design for a fusion reactor that could actually be useful to humans?
31. Why does the New Testament give the impression that the second coming of Jesus was right around the corner when it still hasn't happened after 2000 years?
32. Are there any Dyson spheres in the galaxy/universe?
33. Why do you allow there to be so much suffering in the world?
34. What's the longest a human could live given optimum conditions but without altering the current genome?
35. What happened to that pocket knife Glen gave me?
36. What should I do with the rest of my life?
37. What are the top ten most important theological truths?
38. What should I know that I haven't asked?
39. What's something I would find really interesting but that I haven't asked about?
40. What's the best way to treat cancer?
41. Besides earth, where is the most habitable planet for humans in terms of atmospheric composition, gravity, etc.?
42. What is the oldest organism in the universe that has ever lived?
43. Who is the smartest human besides Jesus who ever lived?
44. Who is the smartest human currently?
45. How smart is the smartest creature in the universe?
46. What's the best economic system?
47. What does the healthiest diet consist of?
48. Who wrote the gospels?
49. Who is right--Mike Licona or Lydia McGrew?
50. What's the best Bible translation?
51. What will things literally be like once the resurrection and judgment have happened?
52. What are the most fundamental laws of physics? What is the most fundamental physical stuff?
53. What role does the brain play in our conscious experience? How does the brain store memories? How do those memories manifest themselves from the physical brain to our conscious experiene of them?
54. Where is the best place for me to live?
55. What does it mean that we are created in your image?
56. Where is the earliest surviving fragment of any book in the New Testament, and what is it?
57. What happened to the Ark of the covenant?
58. What is the biggest animal in the galaxy/universe that can fly?
59. What happened to the Roanoke colony?
60. What happened to the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon?
61. What was the last original autograph of any book in the New Testament, and what happened to it?
62. What is the expansion rate of the universe, and why are astrophyscists getting different results depending on how they try to measure it?
63. What was the original ending of Mark's gospel?
64. How will the universe change after everything happens in the eschaton? Will the laws of nature be the same or altered?
65. How was the tetragrammaton originally pronounced?
66. What became of Jesus' brothers and sisters? Are any of their descendants around today? Who are they?
67. When and where did the Shroud of Turin come from, and how was it made?
68. What is the answer to the Fermi paradox?
69. What is the real solution to the Twin paradox?
70. What's the best solution to the health care situation in America and everywhere else?
71. Why did David Crocket, James Bowie, and William Travis decide to stay and defend the Alamo?
72. Is it wrong for Christians to join militaries and fight in wars?
73. Is there anything inexplicable about the applicability of math to the physical world that I'm just not seeing?
74. Are there any animals besides humans that believe in God, gods, or any sort of spirits or ghosts?
75. What is the correct view of epistemology when it comes to foundational beliefs, especially synthetic a priori beliefs? How is knowledge ultimately justified?
76. What is the best chess opening if you are white? What is the best response to that opening if you are black?
77. Are there brute facts? If so, what are some examples?
78. Where did Robert Harper come from, and who were his parents?
79. How much total gold is in earth's crust?
80. Where are the most well-preserved dinosaur remains, and what kind of dinosaur is it?
81. Where is the biggest naturally occuring gold deposit in the solar system?
82. Where is Planet 9 (formerly Planet 10), and why is it so hard to find? What is it like? Does it even exist?
83. Are there any civilizations that are alien to each other but who have made contact with each other? If so, where are they? What's their story?
84. Are space and time quantized? If so, what is the smallest unit of space and time?
85. Are there any rogue planets with life on them? If so, what is the most complex life on a rogue planet, and where is it?
86. What kind of stars are most favourable to life (e.g. M-type, K-type, G-type, etc.)?
87. Are there any civilizations that developed under water? If so, where are they, and what are they like?
I may add to these later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)