Miracles do not follow belief but follow those that believe. Having read a fair number of articles on this site, I know the kind of dismissal to expect should I share any specific experience of mine. As these are sacred to me, I consider it not prudent to share them in a place where I know they’ll be ridiculed.
However, I know that everyone that is willing may themselves have such experiences. I know that God is real, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and Thomas S. Monson is a Prophet. I know that if anyone follows the steps laid out in Moroni 10:3-5 (see also Alma 32, James 1:3-5) they can for themselves gain such knowledge.
Miracles do not follow belief but follow those that believe. Having read a fair number of articles on this site, I know the kind of dismissal to expect should I share any specific experience of mine. As these are sacred to me, I consider it not prudent to share them in a place where I know they’ll be ridiculed.
Question: If a chassidic Jew came in here and said the same thing about miracles he saw his Rebbe perform, would you take his miracles with the same level of credence that you assign your own? If not, why not?
A complete answer of this would require a fairly detailed look at the LDS view of faith. To be short there are many multiples of ways that miracles may occur. Miracles do not by themselves produce faith in anything as the chassidic Jew should know. ( per Egypt not being converted and the unfaithfulness of the children of Israel in the wilderness despite the miracles that were performed (at some point daily) in their behalf). The existence of a miracle does not by itself say anything about a belief system.
“And that he manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles, signs, and wonders, among the children of men according to their faith.” − 2 Nephi 26:13
You might want to look more at the topic of LDS and their view of Jews (see Orson Hyde’s dedication of Jerusalem for the gathering of the Jews in 1842, as well as Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and most other prophets in all of LDS scripture).
Interesting question for someone that isn’t interested in apologetics.
I’m sorry if the example of a chassidic Jew created more theological complications than intended. The point was a member of another religion. If it helps, imagine a religion completely orthogonal to anything in the Abrahamic tradition, like say Hinduism. Do you treat your own perceived miracles as different from those of the Hindu? If so, why are they different?
Interesting question for someone that isn’t interested in apologetics.
I am not the general LW community. I consider apologetics to be very interesting. But LW has a general established set of goals and attitudes about these things, so I will focus here purely on the basic issues related to epistemological and rationalist considerations. Hence the focus on how you would respond to other religions making fundamentally similar claims. And I’ll only do so as long as there’s not a feeling that our discussion is damaging the signal to noise ratio. I will however recommend that you read the Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions sequence (it is admittedly rather long).
Faith is a principle of action as well as power. The first part of my response still holds. Even the scripture in part still holds, the Holy Ghost testifies of truth wherever it is to be found. So miracles are not a basis for belief but arise out of belief. Further there are other supernatural entities that can be a part of miracles besides God.
I have read a fair number of those, somehow I hadn’t stumbled on the whole sequence, thank you for the link.
That doesn’t answer the question in any useful way.
So miracles are not a basis for belief but arise out of belief.
I’m not sure what this means. If miracles are not part of the basis for belief why do you think that Wednesday can use them as part of the justification for her faith?
Further there are other supernatural entities that can be a part of miracles besides God.
And if someone performs miracles and says that Mormon deity isn’t real or is actually an evil entity, how would you respond?
I didn’t say Wednesday could use miracles but could use the Holy Spirit (which might be considered miraculous).
“And if someone performs miracles and says that Mormon deity isn’t real or is actually an evil entity, how would you respond?”
Having actually dealt with this claim before I can point to “by their fruits ye shall know them” with the rest of that chapter. As well as “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself”. As well as “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith”. I also would say pretty much what I have already said.
I didn’t say Wednesday could use miracles but could use the Holy Spirit (which might be considered miraculous).
The same point applies. I don’t care whether one calls it “miracles” or “special knowledge”- the essential point applies. If someone else had access to the essentially the same claimed experiences how would you respond?
Having actually dealt with this claim before I can point to “by their fruits ye shall know them” with the rest of that chapter. As well as “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself”. As well as “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith”.
I see. And if the other individual has his own set of contradictory scriptures, how do you decide that your set is better than his set?
If someone else had access to the essentially the same claimed experiences how would you respond?
The belief is that the Holy Spirit will not lie and will tell the same truth to everyone. So I would need to know specifically what was claimed, what knowledge was received, and if there actually is a contradiction.
If the person claims to have contradictory experiences to me yet everything else still matches then I would ask if their experience is reproducible. That is, my claim is that there is a specific procedure to receive revelation so I would want to know what theirs was. If there is none then I would be willing to dismiss the claim as someone that was aware of my faith attempting to deceive me. If there was one and it involved morally objectionable actions then I would chalk up the claim to a different entity, if the claim involved mind altering drugs I would chalk it up to the drugs.
If the procedure did not involve something morally objectionable then I would be willing to test it out. If an apparently contradictory answer was received I would then attempt to receive further revelation from both sources, specifically asking what was happening. In particular I would attempt to find some specific life action that is different between the sources of revelation and then see what the effects of following or not following that action are in other people. If either is obviously bad then I would know which one I don’t want to follow. If there is no obvious ill effect to either then I would ask each which one I should follow and see if there was a consensus. If both forms do agree as to which I should follow then that is the one I would follow and I would hope that an explanation could be had on the other source.
If there is no agreement and no way for me to determine if either is lying then I would go see a doctor to see if something is off with me. If there is and some method of fixing the problem is given I would then repeat both procedure to see which still responds. If they both still respond or if I am determined to be fine then I would decide at that point what to do, either continue following the one I have been and hope for the best or become a deist try not to violate anything of either and hope for the best.
Hopefully that answers the question. I do not anticipate running into anything past the first line of the third paragraph, being testing out the other procedure. Given that I answered poorly by using previous experiences I have tried not to let my own experiences on this subject influence my answer. Generally evangelicals will tell me to read the bible and pray about it, something that is completely consistent with my own beliefs and somewhat confusing given I have read the bible many times and prayed about it many times, I know it to be true.
if the other individual has his own set of contradictory scriptures, how do you decide that your set is better than his set?
First, I would read their scriptures to see what is said. If there is an internal contradiction I would ask for an explanation of said internal contradiction. That is in my experience as far as it has ever gotten, but we are dealing in hypotheticals here so I will continue. If the individual is still willing to talk with me and explain the apparent contradiction I would ask how can I know that their scripture is true. See above for the rest of the response.
He seems to be asking why your miracles count as evidence for your faith when other people have similar experiences deriving from contradictory faiths.
However, it seems like you’re saying that these miracles don’t count as evidence for any faith, including your own (except in a strict Bayesian sense, I guess). Is that accurate?
My question was different—it was about the nature of these miracles in themselves, not their relationship to a faith. If you’re able to extract information from miraculous sources, I’d be very interested in your methods (especially as they are intended to be reproducible). Could you demonstrate this?
Alternately, if you still think a demonstration would be dismissed, could you explain on what grounds it would be dismissed and why one would be incorrect to do so? (Or, alternately, whether you believe that we would be correct to dismiss your claims due to some sort of information disparity—though this seems an unlikely position.)
Alternately-alternately, when you say that “if anyone follows the steps laid out in Moroni 10:3-5 (see also Alma 32, James 1:3-5) they can for themselves gain such knowledge”, that seems to imply I could try it myself and validate your claim. Is that your understanding?
I think you looked at the above comment, not the below one.
You are basically accurate in saying miracles don’t count as evidence of any faith, by themselves. The Spirit is a nescessary condition for determining what faith is right. (faith in this post is a collection of beliefs, faith in the other post is action, or trust, in beliefs) In as much as the Spirit is miraculus I should amend the statement to outward miracles do not, by themselves, count as evidence of anything, they merely indicate that more information is needed.
It is only reasonable that I trust my own experiences. It is also reasonable that I validate my exeriences by keeping a journal of those experiences and periodically reviewing what was recieved and what happened afterwards. This should cut down on the confirmation bias.
My experiences are valid for me, but for anyone else they are point of data that like a miracle doesn’t provide sufficient evidence for anything as there are mutliple competing claims. Throwing out evidence you disagree with or that you think is a black-swan event is not a halmark of rationality. However as they can be viewed as low probability events and there could be errors in reasoning, errors in observation, and errors in transmission of those observations means that your model of the world should not be updated unless you yourself can replicate the events.
The method of how to recieve a response is in the scriptures cited. The response should be in both your mind and in your heart. You can try it yourself and validate my claims. Realize though that you are dealing with an entity that is both intelligent and has your best interest in mind, see Alma 32:17-20 for more on that subject.
So I take it you’re not willing to demonstrate this ability? Say, by predicting what I’ve written on an index card (or whatever similar sort of verifiable prediction you’re able to access)?
If that’s the case, then I could certainly try to do so. Could you help me figure out what precisely I have to do such that you will predict success? The language of the text seems a little opaque. For others’ convenience, I’ll repost them here:
Moroni 10
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, 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.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
So it sounds like what I have to do is simply ask honestly for a sign of some verifiable sort? Or do I ask for more specific knowledge?
“Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.
18Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
19And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?” Alma 32:17-19
Further, “An adulterous generation asks for a sign” which should itself be sign enough.
Or do I ask for more specific knowledge?
Yes. See also D&C 9:7-9 which gives a further example, though it is for translating sacred text so while the method of asking is the same the method of response may not be.
Also, you may want to define what you mean by honestly. Honestly being curious as to what will happen is not sufficient if it does not also include a real intention to follow God’s commands if a response is received. You cannot fool God and He isn’t a wish granting genie.
Essentially what I’m asking for is a reason to believe it. That could include accurate predictions about things regarding which I have no relevant knowledge. It does not include reports that such things are possible and have happened but cannot be produced right now, and it does not include the fact that I am asking for a reason.
I am willing to ask, in humility, for such a reason, from anything that can hear my inner thoughts directly so as to be able to respond. If there is a God that can do so, and belief is in my best interests, and that God has my best interests in mind, then it follows that I should be presented with something convincing to me. If I actually discovered that, say, there is an afterlife and an eternity of reward or punishments depends on one’s mental state, I’d seriously consider proselytizing (though in a different manner from most proselytizers). If I discovered that some notion of objective good was not only coherent but obtained in our world, I’d probably alter my behavior drastically. Certainly, I think the prior probability of any specific organized religion being true is infinitesimal (and would in most cases I’d first have to be convinced that it’s logically consistent), and a particular religious experience of nonspecific fuzzies would cause me to question my sanity first, but if I had a coherent religious experience that held up on future observation, and provided real reasons to alter my beliefs, I’d do it in an instant.
We do not disbelieve because we have seen even the slightest hint that it is true but we wish to rebel or disobey. We disbelieve because there is absolutely no reason to believe.
I have in fact actually tried this in a different context, and managed to produce an altered mental state, but saw no evidence of the supernatural, nor even a subjective ‘experience of the divine’.
But it sounds like, when you imagine someone actually trying what you said would work for anyone, your mind jumps to reasons why it won’t work, rather than expectations that it will.
“All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it to act for itself, as all intelligence also; Otherwise there is no existence. 31. Behold, here is the agency of man”
when you imagine someone actually trying what you said would work for anyone, your mind jumps to reasons why it won’t work, rather than expectations that it will.
No, I am just used to dealing with people that don’t bother to actually try and understand the procedure and only try it partially. If you note I responded with scriptures on the subject, the same scriptures I started out with to define the procedure, so it is really just clarifying the procedure.
a reason to believe it
That is an extremely subjective statement. I will do the best I can, but from experience I know it is not likely to be sufficient, but I have been wrong about applying experience on here before so hopefully I am wrong.
Prophecy of the Civil War (not terribly impressive in my opinion given that other people also predicted it, but the rest of the section that is in is interesting)
The word of wisdom (D&C 89) prohibits substances that at the time it was given were thought to be helpful or at least not harmful which are now known to be otherwise. (some people think that the substances are still helpful)
The first law of thermodynamics is in the D&C (however it is dependent on assuming by element the meaning is classical element and not chemical element, a fair assumption in my view but I just had a debate on the subject recently with someone that chose to disagree)
The Jews have/are being gathered from their long dispersion to their ancient homeland, as prophesied in the 1840′s at about the same time the Jewish leadership in Europe stated that their would be no physical gathering.
Utah, a name forced on the territory by the US Federal Government, means top of the mountains (or people of the tops of the mountains). Reporters from the eastern US at the time of dedication of the Salt Lake Temple referred to it as the mountain of the Lord’s house (due to the granite it was built with).
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, [that] the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.”—Isaiah 2:2
“Good out of evil. One must thank the genius of Brigham Young for the creation of Salt Lake City — an inestimable hospitality to the Overland Emigrants, and an efficient example to all men in the vast desert, teaching how to subdue and turn it to a habitable garden”—Ralph Waldo Emerson ”The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. ”—Isaiah 35:1
So we’re clear, these are intended to be reasons to believe in prophecy, not Mormonism, right?
These sound pretty vague and after-the-fact, and there’s no info about specific predictions made beforehand or how often this source is wrong. More to the point—is this what convinced you? If not, what did?
these are intended to be reasons to believe in prophecy, not Mormonism, right?
How are they evidence against Mormonism? Considering that only one of those can be accepted as valid prophecy by anyone other then a Latter-Day Saint without theological complications, I think they are stronger evidence for Mormonism in particular then for prophecy in general.
after-the-fact
The prophecies were given beforehand so I don’t understand this part of your response. Are you asking for prophecies that haven’t happened yet? If so, how would that be evidence of anything?
how often this source is wrong
Please find a wrong example. I am unaware of any specific prophecies that meet the criterion to be prophecies that were not stated as being conditional on some action that have turned up false.
is this what convinced you?
Convinced me of what?
I had experiences with the Spirit that would be applicable for almost any religion on the planet before I had experiences that were specifically about my religion. So knowledge that there was a God came before knowledge of which Church was correct. Going back to Moroni 10:3-5, I eventually decided that I needed to know for myself if the Book of Mormon was true. So I read it as directed and prayed about it as directed and relieved the answer that it was indeed true.
It was only afterwards that experience that I actually read the D&C, The Pearl of Great Price, The Old Testament, and everything other then the Gospels in the New Testament. I likewise repeated the procedure for all of them, and due to the insistence of evangelicals I have dealt with repeated the procedure multiple times on the entire Bible, the New Testament, and the Gospels. This was under the hope that when they said they would do the procedure on the Book of Mormon if I did on whatever it was they said (their idea not mine (and no, none of them ever cracked the Book of Mormon that I can tell )).
Speaking of the read-the-book-of-Mormon-and-pray-about-it-and-get-a-straight-answer experiment, I’ve actually told a couple of my friends that I will eventually do this in the name of empiricism, but it’s such a profoundly boring book that I haven’t gotten very far yet. Is there a way to read it that makes it more interesting? Why isn’t scripture better-crafted?
It is hands down the most boring religious text I have ever read; I would be surprised if there was a more interesting way to read it. The Koran confused me more, and Dianetics annoyed me more, but the Book of Mormon wins on boring.
Yeah, but I didn’t tell any of my friends that I would read the Koran or Dianetics.
I did find some entertainment value in the fact that when I opened the Book of Mormon for the first time, I discovered that Orson Scott Card ripped off its plot for the Memory of Earth series, but… he’s a much better writer.
If you are going to do this, make sure that you set aside in advance what you are going to test. And make sure that it is a) easily verifiable and b) not something that could be in your subconscious memory. The most obvious thing to do would be to have now a computer pick a random number, store that in a file somewhere and then when you are done, check if the number (if any) that comes from inspiration matches the number in question.
I’ve generated a random number. To verify, there’s a relevant SHA-1 string. I will send the string to any trusted user. I’m not going to put the SHA-1 hash here to eliminate the possibility that someone will claim that Alicorn inverted the hash, either deliberately or subconsciously. I would consider such subconscious inversion to be unlikely, but it is nice to control for as many variables as possible.
I looked it up, and it does seem that the question is asked, but it does not appear to be properly answered. Can you interpret God’s reply there for me in some answer-ish way? It’s pretty hazy.
That’s not what I meant - I was just trying to clarify my understanding of your chain of thought.
Anyway. My problem with these predictions was that they generally sounded like what they predicted was determined after those things happened, e.g. the second law of thermodynamics was not formalized by a Mormon.
Please find a wrong example. I am unaware of any specific prophecies that meet the criterion to be prophecies that were not stated as being conditional on some action that have turned up false.
If you really haven’t considered this, then suppose: if I write down a thousand very specific predictions, and one of them comes true, would you call me a prophet? If you would, your standards are insufficient for your beliefs to correlate well with the truth.
Wikipedia lists a number of supposedly failed predictions—the hour of Jesus’s return was nigh (within a generation) in 1830 but he hasn’t arrived, the temple of Zion in Missouri was supposed to be built within a generation, the Civil War didn’t end all nations.
I had experiences with the Spirit...
What about these experiences convinced you of the truth of prophecy and / or Mormonism?
Other people have had vague spiritual experiences that convinced them of other, mutually contradictory religions. No one group is in the majority. Thus, no matter what, this is a method that is more likely to convince you of false things.
The Civil War prophecy needs to be read closely to actually understand what is being said, it isn’t saying what you think it is.
I believe you are referring to D&C 84:5? “which temple shall be reared in this generation” is a command which they didn’t do and are chastised later for it. Then continuing vs 6 “For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord...” and so forth which is not a command but a promise. Please see the Kirtland Temple which was built after this revelation was given and did have the promised things happen if the records are to be believed.
The hour of Jesus’s return is nigh is the history of the Church one on the list of prophecies correct? It is not given as a prophecy in the history of the Church but is an extrapolation by Joseph of being told that if he lived until he was 85 then he would see Christ, which he wasn’t sure was a prediction of the Second Coming but he believed it might have been. Clearly, he didn’t live until he was 85 so his second possible interpretation of the statement turned out to be true and his extrapolation of the prophecy turned out to be false.
vague spiritual experiences
Vague? No, they were pretty specific just not specific to only the LDS Church.
Why were your experiences different?
I am not sure what you are asking given the above, please explain further.
Generally, I agree with you having dealt with various other groups that also have specific prophecies and trying to understand how something so obviously false is explained away.
In any case here is where the debate is:
“and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.” D&C 87:3 (well not all of three just from the middle to the end)
The debate is if immediately after the South called on Great Britain to help break the Northern Navel blockade that Great Britain would then be attacked by yet other nations or if some time after this call for help that Great Britain would call for help in the case of the World Wars with the Civil War being the start of the Modern Warfare employed during those wars.
There is a simple way a deity could avoid this sort of trouble. If anyone extreme deity wanted to make a prophecy that was unambiguous they wouldn’t need to bother with this sort of claim. There’s a really easy type of prophesy that would have been fine until just a few years ago. “The following 200 digit number is prime: _ ” If any ancient scripture had that, it would convince almost everyone once we got the technology to verify it. Curiously, regardless of religion, they always seem to be vague prophecies, which are only clear after the fact, or are likely events. We wouldn’t need to have discussion about whether a verse meant to apply to a specific war, or anything like that.
True. However, that isn’t what God wants. He already knows that we will follow him if we have absolute proof on the subject, this because we didn’t rebel with Lucifer. He wants to know, or rather for us to know, if we will follow him when we don’t have such proof.
To try and bring this into terms more familiar with this site:
It is already know that we will behave properly when it is hard coded to do so. Now the test is to see if we will behave properly when we are free to choose our own morality and utility functions. If so then we become Friendly AI (gods) of our own worlds populated with our children. If not then depending on how badly we screw up will determine what we end up being useful for and if we screw up badly enough such that when the hard coded knowledge is returned we continue to behave badly then we get cast out as being unfit for anything. To assist in this God has placed the knowledge of what to do in such a way that it is accessible if we wish to use it. To not make it too easy He also placed the discarded potential AI’s (e.g. the devil and his angels) in a position to interact with us. He has also provided methods such that if we use them parts of the knowledge can be restored to us.
Hopefully that is helpful and doesn’t step on too many toes.
The second law of thermodynamics is in the D&C (however it is dependent on assuming by element the meaning is classical element and not chemical element, a fair assumption in my view but I just had a debate on the subject recently with someone that chose to disagree)
This is a claim I haven’t encountered before. I’m curious incidentally what you have to say about the claimed scientific knowledge in the Koran.
oops, sort of miswrote, it is the first law not second. Well, the second is sort of there too but not nearly in the same way, sorry.
I am not familiar with the claims of scientific knowledge in the Koran, I would be interested in seeing the references to that.
The LDS position on the Koran is interesting. We do not know if Mohammad was a prophet but generally it appears the authorities in the Church think it is likely that he was, not a presiding Apostle but still having received revelation that was of a general nature for the area he was in. This puts the Koran on the level of Apocrypha which does contain true bits but also contains lots of not true bits so can be inspirational but does not count as scripture.
It is my understanding the the Muslims hold the Koran to be perfect so our position is contrary to theirs. Also it is my understanding that not only did Mohammad not write down what revelations he actually received when he received them but they were not written down at all until his death. I, personally, think there is too many layers of filtration over top of whatever was received by revelation to know what was revelation and what was not.
oops, sort of miswrote, it is the first law not second. Well, the second is sort of there too but not nearly in the same way, sorry.
Ok. So where is it? Can you point to the specific scripture?
Regarding such knowledge in the Koran, I think you may have missed my point. I’m sorry, since that’s clearly my fault since this is the second time I’ve used an example of an Abrahamic religion that has accidental complicating factors by being connected to LDS theology. So, let’s ask the same question instead about say the Vedic texts. (The point by the way if it isn’t clear, is that almost every religion has apologists who make this sort of claim about advanced knowledge in their holy texts. Just as each religion has people dedicated to saying why apparent contradictions aren’t contradictions, why the archaeological evidence that doesn’t fit their claims really does (although Islam is actually one that has much less of this problem than others), and how they have prophesies of subsequent events.)
, why the archaeological evidence that doesn’t fit their claims really does
Having been on an archaeological dig in Belize and having a wife that is a trained Mayan epigrapher, I am familiar with how archaeology is conducted and what is actually known about the subject, at least when it comes to central America. The answer is almost nothing, and my wife will hurt anyone except her grandparents that tries to claim that the Book of Mormon is referring to the Mayans. There is certainly enough evidence to say that it wasn’t the classic or pre-classic Mayan (to begin with the dates are wrong, and the geography)
In case you didn’t know claiming the Mayan were the Nephites is a decently common one among apologetics and it is the stupidest claim I have ever heard from them. It is much more accurate to say that we have no idea where the Nephites were, but that shouldn’t be surprising if one actually goes through the Book of Mormon and tries to estimate how big the civilization was and where they lived. The answer is they were small and somewhere in southern Central America. Sorry, this is totally tangent to the discussion but you have my answer to the archeology objection now. It is not the standard one which I don’t know what that is anymore. This, because they make things up instead of saying we don’t know because apparently saying we don’t know doesn’t get rich donors to give you money.
accidental complicating factors by being connected to LDS theology
um. I think I should clue you in on a basic doctrine of the LDS Church. There is no major religion on the planet that does not have complicating factors by being connected to LDS theology (excluding other christian restoration movements such as Jehovah’s Witness or Scientology). God has revealed to every nation that portion of the truth that they were willing to receive and they subsequently fell into apostasy. I wasn’t trying to hide that, it is taught in the first lesson given to investigators into the church by the missionaries.
Can you point to the specific scripture?
D&C 93:33 is the main one.
See also 93:29 and 131:7-8 for further information on the cosmology being talked about.
She will also hurt you if you try and say the world will end in 2012 because the Mayans said it would. They didn’t, their Calendar Round just increments to the next large cycle then. Even if they had, their idea of the world ending is nothing like our idea of the world ending as for them the world ending was a cyclical event that preceded a new creation and has happened multiple times in the past.
The problem with rhetorical questions is they can be answered in ways that don’t support your argument:
“18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?” Alma 32:18-19
I put my keys down when I came into the house—in a sense I know they’re with the gun and the wallet and if I turn my head slightly to one side I’ll see them. Of course someone may have crept up on me and moved them. I do not—in the strongest possible sense of the concept ‘know’ that my keys are there.
Everything beneath that strongest possible sense of knowledge, however, is simply talking about degrees of more or less well justified belief. So what’s being asked in Alma 32:18 produces a positive answer: Of course I believe that which I know. My well justified beliefs are held much more strongly than less well justified beliefs.
Which makes of 32:19 something almost completely meaningless. Believing, having cause to believe, is simply what knowledge is. You’re essentially asking how much greater X is than X. To which the answer is, ‘Not at all. X is the same as X.’
In all honesty a god, or someone operating under divine revelation, would know how these things evaluated. He would have expressed himself properly.
Your argument only makes sense if you are a Bayesian that denies the whole idea of knowledge built off of axioms. Which is funny because Bayes theorem is built off of a set of well defined axioms. How do you know Bayes theorem is true outside of the axioms that it is built off of?
Anyways, change it to degrees of confidence such that knowledge is something like 90% and faith is anything below that. Or whatever critical values you wish to use.
Alright. I’m happy enough being a Mormon with proof that only makes you right somewhere around 90% of the time. Cough up.
Resetting confidence levels is a dangerous game for any person to play with their beliefs. You’ve said I can set it wherever I like. Fine, I choose to set it such that greater than or equal to fifty one percent confidence will be knowledge of some degree, rather than faith.
Do you see the consequences here? I’ve just reduced the chance that any aspect of your canon and testimony is actually correct to the odds of a coin flip. If you accept those boundaries, then you can’t use the book of Mormon or divine testimony or anything like that as something any more substantial than a coin flip to guide your decisions or beliefs. It’s essentially admitting that you’d be just as well off using a gambler’s dice to guide your life.
There’s a tension in fiddling with confidence levels like this. Between meaning and proof. If you want an empty faith – then that’s very easy to have without obligating yourself to any sort of evidence, but it’s not clear there’s anything there to believe in. However, if you want to preserve that sort of meaning then you’ve got to select confidence levels in excess of fifty percent and retain those as faith and that obligates you to some sort of proof.
And, by the by: this all works whether or not you’re a pure Bayesian. Axioms are true simply by virtue of the rules of the system. They are true in every possible world where the system in which they’re constructed can be made to apply. To the truth state of an axiom it doesn’t matter whether god will provide testimony or not.
If you think knowledge only comes from axioms - (or is built purely on axioms) - then in offering some prediction as being fulfilled you’re not being asked for anything that would qualify as knowledge. It’s not even clear under such a construction that you’re being asked for anything that would qualify as evidence of a particular axiom.
Of course the minute you start saying that the evidence does matter to the truth states it ceases to be an axiom; for all that the formula may itself contain or wrest on axioms.
Put it this way, if you think that there is a 1% probability (e.g. you are convinced it is bogus) that I am right in stating that if taken seriously God will answer prayers as from the scriptures I provided and this is enough to get you to try out what they say then that was sufficient faith in that instance. Clearly at 1% probability you shouldn’t be doing anything else that comes with believing in the Book of Mormon or being LDS (at least that doesn’t already coincide with what you think of as being right).
If you follow through and get evidence to boost the Book of Mormon to say 70 or 80% level then that should likewise boost the level confidence of what the book says to do to high enough to test them out. Following what the book says and finding it to be right should then boost the level, eventually at least, to whatever you have preset as your critical value to say you know it to be true.
If however one waits until they have evidence to suggest something is true with ones preset critical value then one is not acting in faith. If one has evidence at that level and then doesn’t follow the commands of God then one is worse off then someone that thinks it is bogus but has had someone tell them it isn’t or someone that due to everything else thinks it has 51% chance to be right.
That doesn’t seem consistent with part of the earlier verse you posted.
‘[I]f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.’
Under the account you’re offering faith and knowledge are just different degrees of belief – indeed under that account knowledge is the type of belief with the most cause behind it. Whereas under the account in the verse knowledge and belief seem to be completely different kinds of thing.
If you want to call different degrees of confidence faith and knowledge, I don’t really mind – the probabilities are what they are regardless of the labels you hang off them—but it doesn’t seem to be doing any work that gets you closer to the conclusion you’ve decided on. You haven’t illustrated any difference beyond the claim that at some point of arbitrarily selected confidence it’s going to become worse for us if we don’t follow the relevant commandments.
Which is fine as far as it goes I suppose – why doesn’t god provide whatever portion of the evidence doesn’t quite tip me over that vital point yet preserves enough meaning to actually be evidence?
It strikes me the answer is going to have to be along the lines of ‘The more sure you are the more liable you are.’ But then the degree of confidence is a measure of degrees of knowledge and you’ve lost that sharp divide that seems to be required for you to make meaning and faith coexist (i.e. being more sure of the religion’s groundings than of a fair coin flip). The objection that I couldn’t know because then I wouldn’t believe would become rather meaningless – all meaningful faith would be based primarily on some form of knowledge.
why doesn’t god provide whatever portion of the evidence doesn’t quite tip me over that vital point yet preserves enough meaning to actually be evidence?
It is my understanding that He does.
’The more sure you are the more liable you are
yep.
all meaningful faith would be based primarily on some form of knowledge.
Which it is. An experience once provided does give knowledge of the thing, however it is possible to doubt your experiences. Also, the experiences only provide knowledge of one thing and there will remain many things that are not known with the same surety, some of which may be difficult to understand, and these things must be taken on faith until they too become known.
arbitrarily selected confidence it’s going to become worse for us if we don’t follow the relevant commandments.
I would think that it is a continuum such that someone totally unaware of anything about the subject is not liable for anything while those that have received knowledge of everything are liable for all of it.
Confidence in something not tested is faith. Anything not known with whatever level of confidence constitutes near enough to certainty to not matter for you is taken on faith. Knowledge is anything that is known with that level of confidence to constitute certainty. I am pretty sure that is a consistent translation of the terms into something understandable in this setting, I could be wrong.
If you’re right in respect to the prophesies of Thomas S. Monson, I don’t see how this could hold. They would be strong evidence.
In any case I think, we’ve got the chunks to start doing some building.
All meaningful faith would be based primarily on some form of knowledge.
Which it is.
But.
Knowledge is anything that is known with that level of confidence to constitute certainty.
Also known things are knowledge. You seem to be invoking, admittedly with some degree of displacement, the term in its own description.
Confidence in something not tested is faith.
To a degree – if you’re going to build knowledge into the meaningfulness of faith then faith would be something like believing with a greater certainty than the evidence justifies. Since all faith would be tested to some extent, even if very weakly, in order to contain meaning.
The problem with that approach is that it never seems necessary for me to believe beyond the evidence. If I put, say, one percent confidence on the idea of god based upon things I see then that’s not faith – and if I get more evidence from investigating based on that one percent and believe it to be slightly more likely – do some more investigation and get more… it never becomes faith; it’s testing / knowledge all the way up.
You seem to be invoking, admittedly with some degree of displacement, the term in its own description.
I know, probably should be changed to “anything that is held to be true with such a level of confidence so as to not make any difference from 100%”. That removes the term but doesn’t seem to change the meaning.
faith would be something like believing with a greater certainty than the evidence justifies
hmm. That would certainly be faith but it doesn’t fit exactly with how it is used in, say “Lectures on Faith”. The confidence is the faith, it really is that broad of a concept.
If faith is just another word for confidence then knowledge would just be a high degree of faith and that doesn’t fit in with how it’s used in the Book; where it’s held that if you know you don’t have faith/believe.
If you keep using knowledge to mean a very high degree of confidence and maintain that all meaningful faith is based on knowledge—and not just in the sense of exceeding the level of confidence that evidence justifies—then I’m not sure how it’s possible for meaningful faith to exist.
Since:
If it meets the level of confidence that the knowledge justifies, then it’s not faith. And if it exceeds the level of confidence that evidence justifies then it doesn’t fit how it’s used in “Lectures on Faith”. And I take it just as a given that faith is not to believe /less/ than the evidence justifies—especially with 1 John 4:1 commanding people to test their prophets.
Knowledge would be certainty. However, this site works with the assumption that certainty is impossible so I am trying to get everything to work under that assumption.
I am looking at my computer right now so I am certain it exists were I to look away I would be slightly less certain of its existence. That difference in certainty of the current existence of the computer seems to constitute faith as used in scripture and lectures on faith. However, I am still certain that the computer did exist while I was looking at it even if I am not looking at it currently, I know it existed then (I would say that my degree of certainty of it currently existing would still constitute knowledge, but as used it would seem to be in some sense faith).
According to this site I can not say that I know with certainty that I am male. I wonder what the confidence level is that I exist or that you exist. I have seen examples of saying that one can not be certain of the prime numbers or of 1+1=2. To me all these things are certainties, I know them even if in reproducing that knowledge to an outside observer I might err in doing so. This is what I mean by knowledge, if you can come up with a better way of explaining it in terms of this site where there is no certainty other then what I have explained then please do so.
This is what I mean by knowledge, if you can come up with a better way of explaining it in terms of this site where there is no certainty other then what I have explained then please do so.
You seem to be meaning two things by knowledge, depending on the context in which you use it. I would suggest that you might find it easier if you use the words ‘information’ or ‘evidence’ when talking about justifications for a level of confidence/faith. And only use ‘knowledge’ to signify whatever high degree of confidence you’ve decided to use as your cut-off point for hands-in-fire-get-burned, I’m-looking-at-the-computer-and-it’s-still-there levels of certainty.
It still seems to me that you’re going to end up with problems if you hold faith as being another word for confidence. Since even certainty (100% confidence) is still a degree of confidence – and also knowledge under such a definition. But scripture holds that knowledge isn’t faith – which is the same as saying if you hold that faith and confidence are synonymous – that knowledge isn’t a degree of confidence (even 100% confidence).
It seems to me to be a deeper problem than one of definitions.
You’re going to have problems if you say that faith just refers to the preceding 99.9 recurring % levels of confidence, too. You’ve said that it’s a general enough idea, in “Lectures on Faith”, to just be taken as a synonymous term with confidence. But even putting that problem aside, when you wanted to start talking about scripture again I suspect you’d end up saying either, ‘People don’t believe that which they know.’ Or, ‘People don’t believe that which they have faith in.’
But belief isn’t one of those fuzzy terms, like knowledge or faith. The meaning can’t be altered to fit a particular argument without doing significant damage to the network of references into which it fits. If I say I believe my computer is in front of me while I’m typing on it, (which going by your standards would also be knowledge,) then there’s no significant question what I mean. Just as it’s coherent for me to say that I believe my front door is locked, when strictly speaking I’ve heard one of the other occupants of the building come in and do not know if they locked the door. You might ask how strongly I believe it, but it’s coherent for me to answer that in degrees of doubt/confidence; even to the point of saying that I have no doubt.
If you start saying that belief means something else to patch the problem in the epistemology, then you’re going to have to explain how that new definition is coherent with all the other instances of its use. And that will alter more, even more well defined, meanings to do that which you’re going to have to redefine along with everything that hooks onto those instances… and so on until eventually you’ve defined everything in terms of whether it makes your theology right. It doesn’t seem to be a workable approach.
what do you mean by meaningful faith?
Better odds than the chance a similarly but non-testimony privileged observer has. Or to put it another way whether the faith adds any information. (With non-adding faith being meaningless.)
Take the coin-flip example:
If we were to say that somehow divine testimony could predict the outcome of a coin flip. (Not that I’m saying it can but if it could—or someone claimed it could.) You might get three groups – in separate rooms – and one group would commune with god and score down their predictions, and the other two groups would flip coins. And you’d see what the difference between the god group and one of the coin flipping groups was as compared to the difference between the two coin flipping groups. Do it a few hundred times to get the errors down to whatever you’d decided the noise level was and see whether the faith group was more reliable.
If at the end of all that you didn’t have a higher degree of confidence in the predictions of divinity than those of a coin flip, then – assuming that was all the evidence you had for god – you may as well use the coin flip to dictate your actions. The faith wouldn’t add any information, it wouldn’t hook onto the world you were experiencing.
You could do the same sort of thing with the more day to day predictions of prophets from the Church but you’d need to compare them against experts in whatever field the prediction was being made in since the real world provides more information than they’d have in the coin flip case. The advantage of the coin flip is that there are fewer confounding variables more than anything else.
meaning two things by knowledge, depending on the context in which you use it.
I think you are right in this assessment.
when you wanted to start talking about scripture again I suspect you’d end up saying either, ‘People don’t believe that which they know.’ Or, ‘People don’t believe that which they have faith in.’
??? - you lost me here. Why would I end up saying that people don’t believe that which they know? Why would I have to redefine belief?
You could do the same sort of thing with the more day to day predictions of prophets from the Church but you’d need to compare them against experts in whatever field the prediction was being made in since the real world provides more information than they’d have in the coin flip case
Take the Word of Wisdom for instance the experts in the health fields are still not able to agree as to whether coffee, tea, and alcohol are good or bad for you in the long run. The LDS Church however has consistently said they were. If the revelations from God are correct then one would expect that those that follow the revelations would be healthier than similar populations, which is indeed the case. Is this the type of thing that you mean?
Why would I end up saying that people don’t believe that which they know?
Alma 32:18
[I]f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
But if knowledge was just a belief with 100% confidence, then that you knew it would mean you had quite a few causes to believe it.
I suppose you could also end up saying that knowledge was uncaused belief but that seems even more problematic
Take the Word of Wisdom for instance the experts in the health fields are still not able to agree as to whether coffee, tea, and alcohol are good or bad for you in the long run.
I’m not surprised, risk profiles don’t tend to reduce to a substance being absolutely good or bad for you. It depends on your genetics and the interaction of various chemicals in the drink, not all of which have linear relationships with consumption.
So far as coffee goes, broadly speaking, the consensus among the experts—i.e. those publishing studies into the effects of coffee—seems to indicate that consumption beneath four cups a day has more health benefits than risks, unless you happen to have gastro intestinal problems or need iron supplements. Paper filters seem to reduce risks even further.
Tea seems to be okay as long as you don’t put milk with it or drink it while it’s incredibly hot. Or drink stupid amounts, of course.
Alcohol? Well one or two drinks seems to be linked to reduced mortality—at least in the UK. The French seem to do well with it, though it may just be because of their diets. Heavy consumption does seem to be very bad for you.
The LDS Church however has consistently said they were. If the revelations from God are correct then one would expect that those that follow the revelations would be healthier than similar populations, which is indeed the case. Is this the type of thing that you mean?
In principle, yeah. I don’t think the WoW is very strong evidence by itself because there are loads of other possible explanations for health variances, and depending on the rationale the range of likely guesses may not have been all that wide, and because, IIRC, it was originally hot drinks in general which was changed later on when it became untenable; but it’s the right sort of thing, yeah.
If LDS’s prophets consistently make better predictions than experts, then they’ve probably got access to some sort of privileged information to narrow their range of answers down. Either that or they’re just vastly more rational than the experts, but the odds of that are slim.
Alma 32:18 [I]f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it. But if knowledge was just a belief with 100% confidence, then that you knew it would mean you had quite a few causes to believe it.
I always took it to mean that if one knows something one has no cause to doubt it.
Belief as defined at dictionary.com does work with saying that one does not believe something one knows, being if a statement has proof then one does not believe it (see # 2).
It seems to be using belief-in as opposed to belief-that. If not then you are right that my definition of knowledge doesn’t work.
it was originally hot drinks in general which was changed later on when it became untenable
It appears to have been clarified in July of 1833 when the revelation was given in February of 1833.
Close enough to 100% that it makes no practical difference.
That doesn’t seem to leave you any better off though. Which, yes, I assumed you’d seen. If the level of confidence you wish to select is to be high—perhaps even very high—before faith becomes knowledge, then the level of proof you can offer without destroying faith will be almost equally high. Even if we go all the way out to 100% you’ve just taken on a greater burden of proof.
This isn’t some abstract thing. We should be able to sit you down in a room with a fair coin—or some other thing that can be relatively easily measured—and have you call it. See what statistic it approaches—how God does against blind chance. If knowledge is to be 70% confidence and god only calls it 69% of the time that 1% difference preserves your faith. The same for whatever level of confidence you select. The only way the objection offered in Alma makes any sort of sense is if there is no such difference with which to preserve faith.
We should be able to sit you down in a room with a fair coin—or some other thing that can be relatively easily measured—and have you call it.
If I were claiming to be psychic or something then maybe. You have pretty much the same opportunity to try this out using the given method as I do. However, what makes you think that God is willing to play such a game? He isn’t a genie or oracle that grants every random wish. I could be wrong but I doubt He would be care to be treated so lightly.
. If knowledge is to be 70% confidence and god only calls it 69% of the time that 1% difference preserves your faith.
Um, I think you have the wrong idea on the type of confidence we are talking about. If we did such a coin toss experiment and the person trying to communicate with God got it right 69% of the time that would give a much greater than 69% estimate to the existence of said God. That is getting 69% of all coin tosses right over a very large subset of coin tosses should lead one to first check to make sure that the coin is a fair coin, then lead one to use a different coin even if it is, and then lead one to try and eliminate all other possible explanations, and if it is still 69% of the time right then one should a) believe fairly highly in however the person is getting that information and b) take that person gambling or have that person pick stocks for you (or figure out how to do it yourself) before publishing any results of the study.
However, what makes you think that God is willing to play such a game? He isn’t a genie or oracle that grants every random wish. I could be wrong but I doubt He would be care to be treated so lightly.
Providing solid evidence is the only way to reach people who don’t believe things without evidence. Some sort of effort in that direction would be expected of someone benevolent towards these people who predicts that this belief would be valuable. That’s the way it seems to me at least.
A prophecy counts as evidence of privileged information insofar as it generates accurate predictions. Generally it doesn’t, by itself, tell us much about the source of that privileged information, but the circumstances surrounding its creation might imply some intelligence worth updating on.
On the other hand, essentially all of the prophecies—regardless of their source—that I’m aware of are unfulfilled, unverifiable, vague or ambiguous enough to have no predictive value, or outright fraudulent. Now, I’ll be happy to update if the Rapture happens on May 21 as the billboards lining my commute keep insisting, but I’m not holding my breath.
To begin with the Rapture as understood by the evangelicals will never happen. Therefore, it will not happen on May 21. I seriously doubt saying that will increase anyone’s estimation of my religion.
I have provided specific examples of prophecy that have been fulfilled. I am also able to provide more if it is so desired.
If I were claiming to be psychic or something then maybe. You have pretty much the same opportunity to try this out using the given method as I do.
I already know it doesn’t work for me. Perhaps I wasn’t taking it seriously enough – whatever that means.
However, what makes you think that God is willing to play such a game? He isn’t a genie or oracle that grants every random wish. I could be wrong but I doubt He would be care to be treated so lightly.
You have a god that reveals his existence to guide his followers on matters of relatively minuscule importance but won’t reveal his existence to save someone’s immortal soul? He’s already playing the game. His values may be very different to our own but he’s playing. (Assuming of course he exists.)
I don’t think it’s treating him lightly either. Some kid tells you they’re a god you just smile and nod, some adult say it you ask them demonstrate some suitably implausible power. When you take something seriously you test it. Generally the more seriously you take something the more you test it – resources allowing – not less.
Treating him lightly would be dancing off to believe in some random god because I got the warm fuzzies when I went to a church/mosque/whatever, or because of what I read in some book.
It’s not like he’s being asked to do it as a parlour trick. It’s not random either – it’s for a purpose. Someone’s immortal soul may or may not be in jeopardy.
Um, I think you have the wrong idea on the type of confidence we are talking about.
I think so too. Whatever calls would give you a 69% confidence then.
He’s already playing the game. His values may be very different to our own but he’s playing.
Ok, agreed.
kid tells you they’re a god
I assume you mean there is a god?
Treating him lightly would be dancing off to believe in some random god because I got the warm fuzzies when I went to a church/mosque/whatever, or because of what I read in some book.
Also agreed.
he’s being asked to do it as a parlour trick
This is what I was assuming you were asking to have happen.
I am working on a longer response now that I have a better understanding of what it is you are requesting.
As to the most recent specific prophecies from the living prophet Thomas S. Monson so far I have come up with this:
There remain, however, areas of the world where our influence is limited and where we are not allowed to share the gospel freely. As did President Spencer W. Kimball over 32 years ago, I urge you to pray for the opening of those areas, that we might share with them the joy of the gospel. As we prayed then in response to President Kimball’s pleadings, we saw miracles unfold as country after country, formerly closed to the Church, was opened. Such will transpire again as we pray with faith.
Thomas S Monson, President of the Church, October 2008
The fall of Communism in Europe was what opened up those countries. It to me therefore seems that President Monson was prophesying the current unrest in the dictatorships throughout the world and that this will eventually allow for LDS missionaries to enter some of those countries. As the missionaries are not currently in any of the countries (nor is the unrest overwith) this is one that we should be able to watch develop.
Plus the prophecy that there will be more temples built. Further revelation given is such things as the calling of a new apostle, the calling of missionaries, and other adminstrative things which while important to the Church I doubt anyone outside of the Church cares (excluding some ex-mormons (along with some social mormons that don’t understand the doctrine) that are really upset over Prop. 8 and the reaffirming the Churches stance against homosexual behaviors, which they really should have known anyways).
I have previously listed some of the other prophecies that have come true as well as some other prophecies that to me seem very specific. I can try finding more but in the end it will almost always be possible to say that “my idol did it” or anyone could have known that or “Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken” or other such things. I am very much of the opinion that signs, prophecies, and miracles will not and should not provide sufficient evidence to convince someone without they themselves asking God to know if it is true. They should, however, provide evidence enough to begin to act and to be willing to test things out.
I do know of another precedure that is empirical but it is asking a lot more of people. Also, I am not asking for donations to my church, as I explain:
Malachi 3:10: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse … and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to recieve it”. Here is what I am actually suggesting, find some organization or charity that you beleive to be good and give that organization 10% of your income (measured however you think is honest with yourself) track your expenditures, your income, and net worth over the course of a year and then at the end of the year of so doing evaluate your situation, see if God followed through on His promise. If you believe that SIAI is a good organization then donate to them. I don’t care who you donate it to as long as you believe it to be a good worthwhile cause, therefore if you don’t think my church is true then please don’t donate to it, as I doubt it will be effective if you do.
You should look at information gain when evaulating the strength of a prophecy. For instance, “closed countries will become open at some point in the future.” Assume this requires a major change in government, then look at the expected rate of major government change—I’m going to make a guess of a 2% chance per year. After 14 years (1976-1990), observing a government change major enough to open a country gives you around 2 bits of information.
That means this “prophecy” is approximately as impressive as prophecying correctly that a fair coin will come up heads twice.
Even if you read the prophecies with no bias whatsoever, if you’re charitable enough to forgive 3 failures for each 1 amazingly correct prediction, the prophet cannot lose.
Some of the nations were opened up before 1990. Further, this is not saying one country opened up but many. Perhaps you are not aware that in 1976 it appeared as though communism would last forever and saying not just one but that all of Soviet bloc would not be communist in 14 years was viewed as an impossibility.
if you’re charitable enough to forgive 3 failures for each 1 amazingly correct prediction, the prophet cannot lose.
I’m not familiar enough with the publications of the LDS church to list any. Reading the linked speech, “opening new areas” did seem to be the only thing one could fairly call a prediction. Perhaps there are no unfulfilled predictions in the historical records.
More likely, perhaps most prophecies had different possibilities for information gain; even that prophecy--1 major government change every 50 years was just a guess, although the single government change in the USSR was the proximate cause of each country’s opening.
But all I really meant to say is that a prophecy is not a boolean quantity, but a point on a continuum from correctly predicting “the sun will rise tomorrow” to correctly predicting “the sun will not rise tomorrow.” Before treating a prophecy as evidence for any particular properties of the prophet or the prophet’s sponsor, you should locate it on that continuum.
hmm.. looks like it will be multiple comments as it is too long.
won’t reveal his existence to save someone’s immortal soul?
Some of this I will have already covered in other responses, I hope it is okay if I cover it again.
I think the best place to begin is to explain what the purpose of life is and then go from there. That is, there are reasons God operates the way He does and they are directly related to why we are here on Earth. It will seem round about and I am sorry for that, I can’t think of a shorter way to answer that would communicate the necessary information.
First, Gods goal for us is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”. That is we are here to gain a body (in case anyone is wondering, you have succeeded at that part) and to qualify to return to the presence of God which will allow us to become gods ourselves (Joint-Heirs with Christ). Therefore the goal is to have us obtain the same state of power and knowledge that God has and just as we do not wish to give god-like power to an AI that is then going to screw things up so too God does not wish to do the same to us.
Previous to this life we lived in the presence God being His sons and daughters and we knew, as we could see him, saw the power he had, and had sufficient understanding to know, that He was God and what was right. Even in this state of knowledge 1⁄3 of all of God’s children fell, they rebelled against God and were cast out into Hell (for simplicities sake I will use the term Hell, it isn’t entirely accurate to do so but the purpose isn’t to give you a complete understanding of all the details), forever. Those of us who get born on Earth did not fall but followed what was right when we knew for a surety that it was right.
Due to the fact that we did not fall we receive bodies and even after we die will again receive our bodies to no more part from them in the resurrection. This is what is meant by immortality and it is a free gift to all.
As to eternal life it is up to us on earth to live according to what we know to be right. Not what we wish was right but what we actually know to be right. This is primarily what we will be judged on. However, with the exception of Christ no one has perfectly lived according to what they know the right things to do are. We all fail and we all know that we fail, many when they so fail try to redefine what is right so that it appears to them that they have not failed but God knows their hearts and they can not fool him, or in the end themselves. Due to this state of failure, or sin, to follow what we know to be right we become unworthy of entering back into the presence of God.
This is where Christ comes in, He is our savior and able to wipe away our sins such that we can again be clean. For this to happen requires one to be baptized in the correct manner by the correct authority. After baptism one receives the companionship of the Holy Spirit to assist in making correct decisions, however one is still mortal and fallen and thus will still err regularly and so must regularly repent and renew the covenants made to obtain forgiveness again.
To obtain eternal life one must accept baptism while still alive, or at the first available opportunity when dead. That is, it does matter when one is baptized if one has heard the gospel sufficiently to have a high degree of confidence in its validity while still alive, if not then after death is fine. Refusing to hear more with the sole purpose so as to not have a that high degree of confidence (and thus not be required to change ones behaviors) is an action that demonstrates a sufficient degree of confidence for the penalty to apply
. After baptism following the commandments is required to maintain the state of grace. Everyone will have a chance to be baptized (and the other saving ordinances) whether in life or after death, this is what most of the work in the temples is.
In the final state we can end up in a variety of places, if we obtain a perfect knowledge and then reject everything then we end up cast out with those that rebelled at the beginning. Contrary to popular opinion, this is a state that will eventually be available to everyone to choose as we will all be brought back into a state of perfect knowledge and thus will again have the opportunity to reject it. If we never even tried to do what we knew to be right but accepted and reveled in our sins then we end up in the Telestial Kingdom, which is comparable to life on Earth but perfected so as to be a heaven. If we attempted to do what was right but for a variety of reasons did not accept baptism when we had the chance then we will end up in Terrestrial Kingdom, which is pretty much what is described when people are commonly describing the christian view of heaven (being no family units but a state of great happiness). The Celestial Kingdom is where God dwells and those that obtain it have eternal life, those that obtain it and are in a married family unit obtain the state of godhood called exaltation.
From all of this it should be clear that your immortal soul, while at stake, is not in any particular danger from God not revealing Himself to you. If you are trying to do what you know to be right then you have lost nothing. If you aren’t trying to do what you know to be right then revealing himself to you could very well get you cast out, which is not what God is in the business of doing. He has provided sufficient evidence to suggest His existence while not casting out those that choose to not believe in the evidence provided. More evidence will be provided in the future as things get worse in the world, but until near the end it will continue to be such that many honest people that are trying to do what is right will not have to know the truth.
Warm fuzzies may or may not be a manifestation of the Spirit. It is often described as a still small voice or a burning sensation within (not a bad burning sensation, that is probably heart burn or something). It should be in both your mind and in your heart, being thoughts and feelings. This is the primary way with which God communicates with us as it testifies of the truth and lets us know what is right. It is also easily drowned out by other emotions and feelings and easily confused with other things (uncontrollable crying, a sense of community, trances, babelling incoherently, a sense of confusion are common things mistaken for the spirit) . There are a variety of other means of communication but all of them should be accompanied by this feeling of the Spirit (angels, visions, burning bush, talking donkey, dreams are some examples from the Bible of other means of communication (if I ever have a donkey or pretty much any other animal talk to me my first reaction will be to assume I had eaten something really bad or that I was crazy and either way need to seek medical attention, but it is there))
If you are trying to do what you know to be right then you have lost nothing. If you aren’t trying to do what you know to be right then revealing himself to you could very well get you cast out, which is not what God is in the business of doing.
So why has he revealed himself even at a low level of confidence? People supposedly already know right from wrong so that’s not it.
If his revealing himself helps people to do right rather than wrong more than it imperils them, then in his not revealing himself to me I have lost something. (It’s less probable that I will do right and thus I have been imperilled.) If he helps at a particular level of confidence less than he imperils then it doesn’t make sense for him to reveal himself to anyone. If they’re equal then there’s no purpose in it.
Assorted thoughts on the rest:
That is, there are reasons God operates the way He does and they are directly related to why we are here on Earth.
Eh, there’s a tension between power and justification. If you take it to the extreme, omnipotence and reason are mutually exclusive criteria. (Outside, perhaps, of an inability to commit logical contradictions, but that doesn’t really seem to be involved here.)
Therefore the goal is to have us obtain the same state of power and knowledge that God has and just as we do not wish to give god-like power to an AI that is then going to screw things up so too God does not wish to do the same to us.
I’d be more than happy to give symmetrical power to an AI, assuming I had godly powers. The whole issue is that a recursively improving AI might become far more powerful than ourselves.
Those of us who get born on Earth did not fall but followed what was right when we knew for a surety that it was right.
Why do we need to qualify to return if we followed him and didn’t fall?
Due to this state of failure, or sin, to follow what we know to be right we become unworthy of entering back into the presence of God.
Above you said we were here to gain a body and to qualify to return to the presence of God. However, if we become unworthy of returning to God that removes a lot of the reason for being here. Why not be embodied and immediately die? The purpose of life then having been completed.
As to eternal life it is up to us on earth to live according to what we know to be right. Not what we wish was right but what we actually know to be right.
You’ve already said knowledge is an incredibly high degree of confidence – indeed you’ve said that it’s practically indistinguishable from certainty—which you’ve in turn tied to proof. I’ve seen no proof of right and wrong. A feeling certainly isn’t proof; asides from anything else I’ve felt different ways about ethical issues at different points in time. Then you have the cultural variances in preferences and emotions....
This is the primary way with which God communicates with us as it testifies of the truth and lets us know what is right. It is also easily drowned out by other emotions and feelings and easily confused with other things (uncontrollable crying, a sense of community, trances, babelling incoherently, a sense of confusion are common things mistaken for the spirit) .
Again you’ve tied knowledge to being a high degree of confidence. If it’s easily confused with other things then it doesn’t provide that high degree of confidence. It also has the same problems as communication in general concerning its purpose. If the value of the guidance of testimony is exceeded by the peril of knowing more then it shouldn’t be done. If the inverse holds then it should be done for everyone. If they’re equal then there’s no purpose in it one way or the other.
Did you not understand that the peril of knowledge is only if one does not follow what one knows? Knowledge is not something to be feared but to be sought after and this is true of all knowledge. Of course with knowledge comes responsibility to use that knowledge well and this is again true of all types of knowledge.
if we become unworthy of returning to God that removes a lot of the reason for being here. Why not be embodied and immediately die? The purpose of life then having been completed.
I actually had a discussion on Less Wrong already that covered this. The only purpose of life is not just to gain a body but also to see if we would choose to follow what is right. I do not know what the state of those that die before they are able to make such choices is except that they are saved and exalted. I see I did not explain that this life is for testing to see what we will do without the constant certainty we had before.
If his revealing himself helps people to do right rather than wrong more than it imperils them, then in his not revealing himself to me I have lost something.
This is a personal thing, if Him revealing Himself to you helps you to do right rather than wrong more than it imperils you then in His not revealing Himself to you, you would have lost something. The only way it would hurt more than help is if you were to listen and to not follow, just as the only way it would help more than hurt is if you were to listen and to follow.
I’d be more than happy to give symmetrical power to an AI, assuming I had godly powers.
Would you then be willing to entrust that AI with control of some world populated with billions of people?
If you take it to the extreme, omnipotence and reason are mutually exclusive criteria. (Outside, perhaps, of an inability to commit logical contradictions, but that doesn’t really seem to be involved here.)
We would need to precisely define omnipotence as it is often understood to be an nonsensical concept. Also, the type of omnipotence that God actually has (as understood by me, a Latter-Day Saint) is nothing like what other Christians claim He has.
There are more restrictions then just an inability to commit logical contradictions. If I have said something contradictory then please point it out so I can see if that is what I actually meant and if it is, if that is actually what the doctrine is.
I’ve seen no proof of right and wrong. A feeling certainly isn’t proof; asides from anything else I’ve felt different ways about ethical issues at different points in time.
This goes back to why God reveals Himself, so that we can find out what is actually right. If you are doing what is right to the best of your understanding and knowledge as it currently is then that is fine. If with a greater understanding things you thought were right turn out to have been wrong then you are not accountable for doing what was wrong if you actually thought it was right. The ability to judge what is right and wrong is given to everyone.
Miracles do not follow belief but follow those that believe. Having read a fair number of articles on this site, I know the kind of dismissal to expect should I share any specific experience of mine. As these are sacred to me, I consider it not prudent to share them in a place where I know they’ll be ridiculed.
However, I know that everyone that is willing may themselves have such experiences. I know that God is real, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and Thomas S. Monson is a Prophet. I know that if anyone follows the steps laid out in Moroni 10:3-5 (see also Alma 32, James 1:3-5) they can for themselves gain such knowledge.
Question: If a chassidic Jew came in here and said the same thing about miracles he saw his Rebbe perform, would you take his miracles with the same level of credence that you assign your own? If not, why not?
A complete answer of this would require a fairly detailed look at the LDS view of faith. To be short there are many multiples of ways that miracles may occur. Miracles do not by themselves produce faith in anything as the chassidic Jew should know. ( per Egypt not being converted and the unfaithfulness of the children of Israel in the wilderness despite the miracles that were performed (at some point daily) in their behalf). The existence of a miracle does not by itself say anything about a belief system.
“And that he manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles, signs, and wonders, among the children of men according to their faith.” − 2 Nephi 26:13
You might want to look more at the topic of LDS and their view of Jews (see Orson Hyde’s dedication of Jerusalem for the gathering of the Jews in 1842, as well as Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and most other prophets in all of LDS scripture).
Interesting question for someone that isn’t interested in apologetics.
I’m sorry if the example of a chassidic Jew created more theological complications than intended. The point was a member of another religion. If it helps, imagine a religion completely orthogonal to anything in the Abrahamic tradition, like say Hinduism. Do you treat your own perceived miracles as different from those of the Hindu? If so, why are they different?
I am not the general LW community. I consider apologetics to be very interesting. But LW has a general established set of goals and attitudes about these things, so I will focus here purely on the basic issues related to epistemological and rationalist considerations. Hence the focus on how you would respond to other religions making fundamentally similar claims. And I’ll only do so as long as there’s not a feeling that our discussion is damaging the signal to noise ratio. I will however recommend that you read the Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions sequence (it is admittedly rather long).
Faith is a principle of action as well as power. The first part of my response still holds. Even the scripture in part still holds, the Holy Ghost testifies of truth wherever it is to be found. So miracles are not a basis for belief but arise out of belief. Further there are other supernatural entities that can be a part of miracles besides God.
I have read a fair number of those, somehow I hadn’t stumbled on the whole sequence, thank you for the link.
That doesn’t answer the question in any useful way.
I’m not sure what this means. If miracles are not part of the basis for belief why do you think that Wednesday can use them as part of the justification for her faith?
And if someone performs miracles and says that Mormon deity isn’t real or is actually an evil entity, how would you respond?
I didn’t say Wednesday could use miracles but could use the Holy Spirit (which might be considered miraculous).
“And if someone performs miracles and says that Mormon deity isn’t real or is actually an evil entity, how would you respond?”
Having actually dealt with this claim before I can point to “by their fruits ye shall know them” with the rest of that chapter. As well as “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself”. As well as “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith”. I also would say pretty much what I have already said.
The same point applies. I don’t care whether one calls it “miracles” or “special knowledge”- the essential point applies. If someone else had access to the essentially the same claimed experiences how would you respond?
I see. And if the other individual has his own set of contradictory scriptures, how do you decide that your set is better than his set?
The belief is that the Holy Spirit will not lie and will tell the same truth to everyone. So I would need to know specifically what was claimed, what knowledge was received, and if there actually is a contradiction.
If the person claims to have contradictory experiences to me yet everything else still matches then I would ask if their experience is reproducible. That is, my claim is that there is a specific procedure to receive revelation so I would want to know what theirs was. If there is none then I would be willing to dismiss the claim as someone that was aware of my faith attempting to deceive me. If there was one and it involved morally objectionable actions then I would chalk up the claim to a different entity, if the claim involved mind altering drugs I would chalk it up to the drugs.
If the procedure did not involve something morally objectionable then I would be willing to test it out. If an apparently contradictory answer was received I would then attempt to receive further revelation from both sources, specifically asking what was happening. In particular I would attempt to find some specific life action that is different between the sources of revelation and then see what the effects of following or not following that action are in other people. If either is obviously bad then I would know which one I don’t want to follow. If there is no obvious ill effect to either then I would ask each which one I should follow and see if there was a consensus. If both forms do agree as to which I should follow then that is the one I would follow and I would hope that an explanation could be had on the other source.
If there is no agreement and no way for me to determine if either is lying then I would go see a doctor to see if something is off with me. If there is and some method of fixing the problem is given I would then repeat both procedure to see which still responds. If they both still respond or if I am determined to be fine then I would decide at that point what to do, either continue following the one I have been and hope for the best or become a deist try not to violate anything of either and hope for the best.
Hopefully that answers the question. I do not anticipate running into anything past the first line of the third paragraph, being testing out the other procedure. Given that I answered poorly by using previous experiences I have tried not to let my own experiences on this subject influence my answer. Generally evangelicals will tell me to read the bible and pray about it, something that is completely consistent with my own beliefs and somewhat confusing given I have read the bible many times and prayed about it many times, I know it to be true.
First, I would read their scriptures to see what is said. If there is an internal contradiction I would ask for an explanation of said internal contradiction. That is in my experience as far as it has ever gotten, but we are dealing in hypotheticals here so I will continue. If the individual is still willing to talk with me and explain the apparent contradiction I would ask how can I know that their scripture is true. See above for the rest of the response.
Okay. Could you instead share why exactly you think your experiences would be dismissed, and why you think these reasons are incorrect?
See JoshuaZ’s comment below for exactly why I think my experiences would be dismissed.
He seems to be asking why your miracles count as evidence for your faith when other people have similar experiences deriving from contradictory faiths.
However, it seems like you’re saying that these miracles don’t count as evidence for any faith, including your own (except in a strict Bayesian sense, I guess). Is that accurate?
My question was different—it was about the nature of these miracles in themselves, not their relationship to a faith. If you’re able to extract information from miraculous sources, I’d be very interested in your methods (especially as they are intended to be reproducible). Could you demonstrate this?
Alternately, if you still think a demonstration would be dismissed, could you explain on what grounds it would be dismissed and why one would be incorrect to do so? (Or, alternately, whether you believe that we would be correct to dismiss your claims due to some sort of information disparity—though this seems an unlikely position.)
Alternately-alternately, when you say that “if anyone follows the steps laid out in Moroni 10:3-5 (see also Alma 32, James 1:3-5) they can for themselves gain such knowledge”, that seems to imply I could try it myself and validate your claim. Is that your understanding?
I think you looked at the above comment, not the below one.
You are basically accurate in saying miracles don’t count as evidence of any faith, by themselves. The Spirit is a nescessary condition for determining what faith is right. (faith in this post is a collection of beliefs, faith in the other post is action, or trust, in beliefs) In as much as the Spirit is miraculus I should amend the statement to outward miracles do not, by themselves, count as evidence of anything, they merely indicate that more information is needed.
It is only reasonable that I trust my own experiences. It is also reasonable that I validate my exeriences by keeping a journal of those experiences and periodically reviewing what was recieved and what happened afterwards. This should cut down on the confirmation bias.
My experiences are valid for me, but for anyone else they are point of data that like a miracle doesn’t provide sufficient evidence for anything as there are mutliple competing claims. Throwing out evidence you disagree with or that you think is a black-swan event is not a halmark of rationality. However as they can be viewed as low probability events and there could be errors in reasoning, errors in observation, and errors in transmission of those observations means that your model of the world should not be updated unless you yourself can replicate the events.
The method of how to recieve a response is in the scriptures cited. The response should be in both your mind and in your heart. You can try it yourself and validate my claims. Realize though that you are dealing with an entity that is both intelligent and has your best interest in mind, see Alma 32:17-20 for more on that subject.
So I take it you’re not willing to demonstrate this ability? Say, by predicting what I’ve written on an index card (or whatever similar sort of verifiable prediction you’re able to access)?
If that’s the case, then I could certainly try to do so. Could you help me figure out what precisely I have to do such that you will predict success? The language of the text seems a little opaque. For others’ convenience, I’ll repost them here:
Moroni 10 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, 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. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
So it sounds like what I have to do is simply ask honestly for a sign of some verifiable sort? Or do I ask for more specific knowledge?
Already covered this:
“Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.
18Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
19And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?” Alma 32:17-19
Further, “An adulterous generation asks for a sign” which should itself be sign enough.
Yes. See also D&C 9:7-9 which gives a further example, though it is for translating sacred text so while the method of asking is the same the method of response may not be.
Also, you may want to define what you mean by honestly. Honestly being curious as to what will happen is not sufficient if it does not also include a real intention to follow God’s commands if a response is received. You cannot fool God and He isn’t a wish granting genie.
Essentially what I’m asking for is a reason to believe it. That could include accurate predictions about things regarding which I have no relevant knowledge. It does not include reports that such things are possible and have happened but cannot be produced right now, and it does not include the fact that I am asking for a reason.
I am willing to ask, in humility, for such a reason, from anything that can hear my inner thoughts directly so as to be able to respond. If there is a God that can do so, and belief is in my best interests, and that God has my best interests in mind, then it follows that I should be presented with something convincing to me. If I actually discovered that, say, there is an afterlife and an eternity of reward or punishments depends on one’s mental state, I’d seriously consider proselytizing (though in a different manner from most proselytizers). If I discovered that some notion of objective good was not only coherent but obtained in our world, I’d probably alter my behavior drastically. Certainly, I think the prior probability of any specific organized religion being true is infinitesimal (and would in most cases I’d first have to be convinced that it’s logically consistent), and a particular religious experience of nonspecific fuzzies would cause me to question my sanity first, but if I had a coherent religious experience that held up on future observation, and provided real reasons to alter my beliefs, I’d do it in an instant.
We do not disbelieve because we have seen even the slightest hint that it is true but we wish to rebel or disobey. We disbelieve because there is absolutely no reason to believe.
I have in fact actually tried this in a different context, and managed to produce an altered mental state, but saw no evidence of the supernatural, nor even a subjective ‘experience of the divine’.
But it sounds like, when you imagine someone actually trying what you said would work for anyone, your mind jumps to reasons why it won’t work, rather than expectations that it will.
Recent discussion brought up another one.
D&C 93:30
“All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it to act for itself, as all intelligence also; Otherwise there is no existence. 31. Behold, here is the agency of man”
No, I am just used to dealing with people that don’t bother to actually try and understand the procedure and only try it partially. If you note I responded with scriptures on the subject, the same scriptures I started out with to define the procedure, so it is really just clarifying the procedure.
That is an extremely subjective statement. I will do the best I can, but from experience I know it is not likely to be sufficient, but I have been wrong about applying experience on here before so hopefully I am wrong.
Prophecy of the Civil War (not terribly impressive in my opinion given that other people also predicted it, but the rest of the section that is in is interesting)
The word of wisdom (D&C 89) prohibits substances that at the time it was given were thought to be helpful or at least not harmful which are now known to be otherwise. (some people think that the substances are still helpful)
The first law of thermodynamics is in the D&C (however it is dependent on assuming by element the meaning is classical element and not chemical element, a fair assumption in my view but I just had a debate on the subject recently with someone that chose to disagree)
The Jews have/are being gathered from their long dispersion to their ancient homeland, as prophesied in the 1840′s at about the same time the Jewish leadership in Europe stated that their would be no physical gathering.
Utah, a name forced on the territory by the US Federal Government, means top of the mountains (or people of the tops of the mountains). Reporters from the eastern US at the time of dedication of the Salt Lake Temple referred to it as the mountain of the Lord’s house (due to the granite it was built with). “And it shall come to pass in the last days, [that] the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.”—Isaiah 2:2
“Good out of evil. One must thank the genius of Brigham Young for the creation of Salt Lake City — an inestimable hospitality to the Overland Emigrants, and an efficient example to all men in the vast desert, teaching how to subdue and turn it to a habitable garden”—Ralph Waldo Emerson
”The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. ”—Isaiah 35:1
I think that is enough for now.
So we’re clear, these are intended to be reasons to believe in prophecy, not Mormonism, right?
These sound pretty vague and after-the-fact, and there’s no info about specific predictions made beforehand or how often this source is wrong. More to the point—is this what convinced you? If not, what did?
How are they evidence against Mormonism? Considering that only one of those can be accepted as valid prophecy by anyone other then a Latter-Day Saint without theological complications, I think they are stronger evidence for Mormonism in particular then for prophecy in general.
The prophecies were given beforehand so I don’t understand this part of your response. Are you asking for prophecies that haven’t happened yet? If so, how would that be evidence of anything?
Please find a wrong example. I am unaware of any specific prophecies that meet the criterion to be prophecies that were not stated as being conditional on some action that have turned up false.
Convinced me of what?
I had experiences with the Spirit that would be applicable for almost any religion on the planet before I had experiences that were specifically about my religion. So knowledge that there was a God came before knowledge of which Church was correct. Going back to Moroni 10:3-5, I eventually decided that I needed to know for myself if the Book of Mormon was true. So I read it as directed and prayed about it as directed and relieved the answer that it was indeed true.
It was only afterwards that experience that I actually read the D&C, The Pearl of Great Price, The Old Testament, and everything other then the Gospels in the New Testament. I likewise repeated the procedure for all of them, and due to the insistence of evangelicals I have dealt with repeated the procedure multiple times on the entire Bible, the New Testament, and the Gospels. This was under the hope that when they said they would do the procedure on the Book of Mormon if I did on whatever it was they said (their idea not mine (and no, none of them ever cracked the Book of Mormon that I can tell )).
Does that answer your question?
Speaking of the read-the-book-of-Mormon-and-pray-about-it-and-get-a-straight-answer experiment, I’ve actually told a couple of my friends that I will eventually do this in the name of empiricism, but it’s such a profoundly boring book that I haven’t gotten very far yet. Is there a way to read it that makes it more interesting? Why isn’t scripture better-crafted?
It is hands down the most boring religious text I have ever read; I would be surprised if there was a more interesting way to read it. The Koran confused me more, and Dianetics annoyed me more, but the Book of Mormon wins on boring.
Yeah, but I didn’t tell any of my friends that I would read the Koran or Dianetics.
I did find some entertainment value in the fact that when I opened the Book of Mormon for the first time, I discovered that Orson Scott Card ripped off its plot for the Memory of Earth series, but… he’s a much better writer.
Yeah; I got the same amusement in the other direction, though it makes Card seem to be reaching harder.
Liveblog it. Chapter by chapter.
Would you read that?
If you are going to do this, make sure that you set aside in advance what you are going to test. And make sure that it is a) easily verifiable and b) not something that could be in your subconscious memory. The most obvious thing to do would be to have now a computer pick a random number, store that in a file somewhere and then when you are done, check if the number (if any) that comes from inspiration matches the number in question.
Mark Twain had some comments about that.
Would you like to generate and hold onto a random number for me that I can request as proof, or should I just do this myself?
I’ve generated a random number. To verify, there’s a relevant SHA-1 string. I will send the string to any trusted user. I’m not going to put the SHA-1 hash here to eliminate the possibility that someone will claim that Alicorn inverted the hash, either deliberately or subconsciously. I would consider such subconscious inversion to be unlikely, but it is nice to control for as many variables as possible.
No clue, see Ether 12:23-29 where Moroni the last prophet in the Book of Mormon pretty much appears to ask that very question of the Lord.
I looked it up, and it does seem that the question is asked, but it does not appear to be properly answered. Can you interpret God’s reply there for me in some answer-ish way? It’s pretty hazy.
That’s not what I meant - I was just trying to clarify my understanding of your chain of thought.
Anyway. My problem with these predictions was that they generally sounded like what they predicted was determined after those things happened, e.g. the second law of thermodynamics was not formalized by a Mormon.
If you really haven’t considered this, then suppose: if I write down a thousand very specific predictions, and one of them comes true, would you call me a prophet? If you would, your standards are insufficient for your beliefs to correlate well with the truth.
Wikipedia lists a number of supposedly failed predictions—the hour of Jesus’s return was nigh (within a generation) in 1830 but he hasn’t arrived, the temple of Zion in Missouri was supposed to be built within a generation, the Civil War didn’t end all nations.
What about these experiences convinced you of the truth of prophecy and / or Mormonism?
Other people have had vague spiritual experiences that convinced them of other, mutually contradictory religions. No one group is in the majority. Thus, no matter what, this is a method that is more likely to convince you of false things.
Why were your experiences different?
The Civil War prophecy needs to be read closely to actually understand what is being said, it isn’t saying what you think it is.
I believe you are referring to D&C 84:5? “which temple shall be reared in this generation” is a command which they didn’t do and are chastised later for it. Then continuing vs 6 “For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord...” and so forth which is not a command but a promise. Please see the Kirtland Temple which was built after this revelation was given and did have the promised things happen if the records are to be believed.
The hour of Jesus’s return is nigh is the history of the Church one on the list of prophecies correct? It is not given as a prophecy in the history of the Church but is an extrapolation by Joseph of being told that if he lived until he was 85 then he would see Christ, which he wasn’t sure was a prediction of the Second Coming but he believed it might have been. Clearly, he didn’t live until he was 85 so his second possible interpretation of the statement turned out to be true and his extrapolation of the prophecy turned out to be false.
Vague? No, they were pretty specific just not specific to only the LDS Church.
I am not sure what you are asking given the above, please explain further.
Almost all prophesies do. (But ‘understand’ deserves quotation marks.)
Generally, I agree with you having dealt with various other groups that also have specific prophecies and trying to understand how something so obviously false is explained away.
In any case here is where the debate is:
“and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.” D&C 87:3 (well not all of three just from the middle to the end)
The debate is if immediately after the South called on Great Britain to help break the Northern Navel blockade that Great Britain would then be attacked by yet other nations or if some time after this call for help that Great Britain would call for help in the case of the World Wars with the Civil War being the start of the Modern Warfare employed during those wars.
Take from it what you will.
There is a simple way a deity could avoid this sort of trouble. If anyone extreme deity wanted to make a prophecy that was unambiguous they wouldn’t need to bother with this sort of claim. There’s a really easy type of prophesy that would have been fine until just a few years ago. “The following 200 digit number is prime: _ ” If any ancient scripture had that, it would convince almost everyone once we got the technology to verify it. Curiously, regardless of religion, they always seem to be vague prophecies, which are only clear after the fact, or are likely events. We wouldn’t need to have discussion about whether a verse meant to apply to a specific war, or anything like that.
True. However, that isn’t what God wants. He already knows that we will follow him if we have absolute proof on the subject, this because we didn’t rebel with Lucifer. He wants to know, or rather for us to know, if we will follow him when we don’t have such proof.
To try and bring this into terms more familiar with this site:
It is already know that we will behave properly when it is hard coded to do so. Now the test is to see if we will behave properly when we are free to choose our own morality and utility functions. If so then we become Friendly AI (gods) of our own worlds populated with our children. If not then depending on how badly we screw up will determine what we end up being useful for and if we screw up badly enough such that when the hard coded knowledge is returned we continue to behave badly then we get cast out as being unfit for anything. To assist in this God has placed the knowledge of what to do in such a way that it is accessible if we wish to use it. To not make it too easy He also placed the discarded potential AI’s (e.g. the devil and his angels) in a position to interact with us. He has also provided methods such that if we use them parts of the knowledge can be restored to us.
Hopefully that is helpful and doesn’t step on too many toes.
This is a claim I haven’t encountered before. I’m curious incidentally what you have to say about the claimed scientific knowledge in the Koran.
oops, sort of miswrote, it is the first law not second. Well, the second is sort of there too but not nearly in the same way, sorry.
I am not familiar with the claims of scientific knowledge in the Koran, I would be interested in seeing the references to that.
The LDS position on the Koran is interesting. We do not know if Mohammad was a prophet but generally it appears the authorities in the Church think it is likely that he was, not a presiding Apostle but still having received revelation that was of a general nature for the area he was in. This puts the Koran on the level of Apocrypha which does contain true bits but also contains lots of not true bits so can be inspirational but does not count as scripture.
It is my understanding the the Muslims hold the Koran to be perfect so our position is contrary to theirs. Also it is my understanding that not only did Mohammad not write down what revelations he actually received when he received them but they were not written down at all until his death. I, personally, think there is too many layers of filtration over top of whatever was received by revelation to know what was revelation and what was not.
Ok. So where is it? Can you point to the specific scripture?
Regarding such knowledge in the Koran, I think you may have missed my point. I’m sorry, since that’s clearly my fault since this is the second time I’ve used an example of an Abrahamic religion that has accidental complicating factors by being connected to LDS theology. So, let’s ask the same question instead about say the Vedic texts. (The point by the way if it isn’t clear, is that almost every religion has apologists who make this sort of claim about advanced knowledge in their holy texts. Just as each religion has people dedicated to saying why apparent contradictions aren’t contradictions, why the archaeological evidence that doesn’t fit their claims really does (although Islam is actually one that has much less of this problem than others), and how they have prophesies of subsequent events.)
Having been on an archaeological dig in Belize and having a wife that is a trained Mayan epigrapher, I am familiar with how archaeology is conducted and what is actually known about the subject, at least when it comes to central America. The answer is almost nothing, and my wife will hurt anyone except her grandparents that tries to claim that the Book of Mormon is referring to the Mayans. There is certainly enough evidence to say that it wasn’t the classic or pre-classic Mayan (to begin with the dates are wrong, and the geography)
In case you didn’t know claiming the Mayan were the Nephites is a decently common one among apologetics and it is the stupidest claim I have ever heard from them. It is much more accurate to say that we have no idea where the Nephites were, but that shouldn’t be surprising if one actually goes through the Book of Mormon and tries to estimate how big the civilization was and where they lived. The answer is they were small and somewhere in southern Central America. Sorry, this is totally tangent to the discussion but you have my answer to the archeology objection now. It is not the standard one which I don’t know what that is anymore. This, because they make things up instead of saying we don’t know because apparently saying we don’t know doesn’t get rich donors to give you money.
um. I think I should clue you in on a basic doctrine of the LDS Church. There is no major religion on the planet that does not have complicating factors by being connected to LDS theology (excluding other christian restoration movements such as Jehovah’s Witness or Scientology). God has revealed to every nation that portion of the truth that they were willing to receive and they subsequently fell into apostasy. I wasn’t trying to hide that, it is taught in the first lesson given to investigators into the church by the missionaries.
D&C 93:33 is the main one. See also 93:29 and 131:7-8 for further information on the cosmology being talked about.
I love that word. I never thought I’d grow up to be an apostate but now that I have it has such a good ring to it. Even better than heretic.
She will also hurt you if you try and say the world will end in 2012 because the Mayans said it would. They didn’t, their Calendar Round just increments to the next large cycle then. Even if they had, their idea of the world ending is nothing like our idea of the world ending as for them the world ending was a cyclical event that preceded a new creation and has happened multiple times in the past.
The problem with rhetorical questions is they can be answered in ways that don’t support your argument:
“18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?” Alma 32:18-19
I put my keys down when I came into the house—in a sense I know they’re with the gun and the wallet and if I turn my head slightly to one side I’ll see them. Of course someone may have crept up on me and moved them. I do not—in the strongest possible sense of the concept ‘know’ that my keys are there.
Everything beneath that strongest possible sense of knowledge, however, is simply talking about degrees of more or less well justified belief. So what’s being asked in Alma 32:18 produces a positive answer: Of course I believe that which I know. My well justified beliefs are held much more strongly than less well justified beliefs.
Which makes of 32:19 something almost completely meaningless. Believing, having cause to believe, is simply what knowledge is. You’re essentially asking how much greater X is than X. To which the answer is, ‘Not at all. X is the same as X.’
In all honesty a god, or someone operating under divine revelation, would know how these things evaluated. He would have expressed himself properly.
Your argument only makes sense if you are a Bayesian that denies the whole idea of knowledge built off of axioms. Which is funny because Bayes theorem is built off of a set of well defined axioms. How do you know Bayes theorem is true outside of the axioms that it is built off of?
Anyways, change it to degrees of confidence such that knowledge is something like 90% and faith is anything below that. Or whatever critical values you wish to use.
Alright. I’m happy enough being a Mormon with proof that only makes you right somewhere around 90% of the time. Cough up.
Resetting confidence levels is a dangerous game for any person to play with their beliefs. You’ve said I can set it wherever I like. Fine, I choose to set it such that greater than or equal to fifty one percent confidence will be knowledge of some degree, rather than faith.
Do you see the consequences here? I’ve just reduced the chance that any aspect of your canon and testimony is actually correct to the odds of a coin flip. If you accept those boundaries, then you can’t use the book of Mormon or divine testimony or anything like that as something any more substantial than a coin flip to guide your decisions or beliefs. It’s essentially admitting that you’d be just as well off using a gambler’s dice to guide your life.
There’s a tension in fiddling with confidence levels like this. Between meaning and proof. If you want an empty faith – then that’s very easy to have without obligating yourself to any sort of evidence, but it’s not clear there’s anything there to believe in. However, if you want to preserve that sort of meaning then you’ve got to select confidence levels in excess of fifty percent and retain those as faith and that obligates you to some sort of proof.
And, by the by: this all works whether or not you’re a pure Bayesian. Axioms are true simply by virtue of the rules of the system. They are true in every possible world where the system in which they’re constructed can be made to apply. To the truth state of an axiom it doesn’t matter whether god will provide testimony or not.
If you think knowledge only comes from axioms - (or is built purely on axioms) - then in offering some prediction as being fulfilled you’re not being asked for anything that would qualify as knowledge. It’s not even clear under such a construction that you’re being asked for anything that would qualify as evidence of a particular axiom.
Of course the minute you start saying that the evidence does matter to the truth states it ceases to be an axiom; for all that the formula may itself contain or wrest on axioms.
Put it this way, if you think that there is a 1% probability (e.g. you are convinced it is bogus) that I am right in stating that if taken seriously God will answer prayers as from the scriptures I provided and this is enough to get you to try out what they say then that was sufficient faith in that instance. Clearly at 1% probability you shouldn’t be doing anything else that comes with believing in the Book of Mormon or being LDS (at least that doesn’t already coincide with what you think of as being right).
If you follow through and get evidence to boost the Book of Mormon to say 70 or 80% level then that should likewise boost the level confidence of what the book says to do to high enough to test them out. Following what the book says and finding it to be right should then boost the level, eventually at least, to whatever you have preset as your critical value to say you know it to be true.
If however one waits until they have evidence to suggest something is true with ones preset critical value then one is not acting in faith. If one has evidence at that level and then doesn’t follow the commands of God then one is worse off then someone that thinks it is bogus but has had someone tell them it isn’t or someone that due to everything else thinks it has 51% chance to be right.
Does this make more sense to you?
That doesn’t seem consistent with part of the earlier verse you posted.
Under the account you’re offering faith and knowledge are just different degrees of belief – indeed under that account knowledge is the type of belief with the most cause behind it. Whereas under the account in the verse knowledge and belief seem to be completely different kinds of thing.
If you want to call different degrees of confidence faith and knowledge, I don’t really mind – the probabilities are what they are regardless of the labels you hang off them—but it doesn’t seem to be doing any work that gets you closer to the conclusion you’ve decided on. You haven’t illustrated any difference beyond the claim that at some point of arbitrarily selected confidence it’s going to become worse for us if we don’t follow the relevant commandments.
Which is fine as far as it goes I suppose – why doesn’t god provide whatever portion of the evidence doesn’t quite tip me over that vital point yet preserves enough meaning to actually be evidence?
It strikes me the answer is going to have to be along the lines of ‘The more sure you are the more liable you are.’ But then the degree of confidence is a measure of degrees of knowledge and you’ve lost that sharp divide that seems to be required for you to make meaning and faith coexist (i.e. being more sure of the religion’s groundings than of a fair coin flip). The objection that I couldn’t know because then I wouldn’t believe would become rather meaningless – all meaningful faith would be based primarily on some form of knowledge.
It is my understanding that He does.
yep.
Which it is. An experience once provided does give knowledge of the thing, however it is possible to doubt your experiences. Also, the experiences only provide knowledge of one thing and there will remain many things that are not known with the same surety, some of which may be difficult to understand, and these things must be taken on faith until they too become known.
I would think that it is a continuum such that someone totally unaware of anything about the subject is not liable for anything while those that have received knowledge of everything are liable for all of it.
Confidence in something not tested is faith. Anything not known with whatever level of confidence constitutes near enough to certainty to not matter for you is taken on faith. Knowledge is anything that is known with that level of confidence to constitute certainty. I am pretty sure that is a consistent translation of the terms into something understandable in this setting, I could be wrong.
If you’re right in respect to the prophesies of Thomas S. Monson, I don’t see how this could hold. They would be strong evidence.
In any case I think, we’ve got the chunks to start doing some building.
But.
Also known things are knowledge. You seem to be invoking, admittedly with some degree of displacement, the term in its own description.
To a degree – if you’re going to build knowledge into the meaningfulness of faith then faith would be something like believing with a greater certainty than the evidence justifies. Since all faith would be tested to some extent, even if very weakly, in order to contain meaning.
The problem with that approach is that it never seems necessary for me to believe beyond the evidence. If I put, say, one percent confidence on the idea of god based upon things I see then that’s not faith – and if I get more evidence from investigating based on that one percent and believe it to be slightly more likely – do some more investigation and get more… it never becomes faith; it’s testing / knowledge all the way up.
I know, probably should be changed to “anything that is held to be true with such a level of confidence so as to not make any difference from 100%”. That removes the term but doesn’t seem to change the meaning.
hmm. That would certainly be faith but it doesn’t fit exactly with how it is used in, say “Lectures on Faith”. The confidence is the faith, it really is that broad of a concept.
If faith is just another word for confidence then knowledge would just be a high degree of faith and that doesn’t fit in with how it’s used in the Book; where it’s held that if you know you don’t have faith/believe.
If you keep using knowledge to mean a very high degree of confidence and maintain that all meaningful faith is based on knowledge—and not just in the sense of exceeding the level of confidence that evidence justifies—then I’m not sure how it’s possible for meaningful faith to exist.
Since:
If it meets the level of confidence that the knowledge justifies, then it’s not faith. And if it exceeds the level of confidence that evidence justifies then it doesn’t fit how it’s used in “Lectures on Faith”. And I take it just as a given that faith is not to believe /less/ than the evidence justifies—especially with 1 John 4:1 commanding people to test their prophets.
what do you mean by meaningful faith?
Knowledge would be certainty. However, this site works with the assumption that certainty is impossible so I am trying to get everything to work under that assumption.
I am looking at my computer right now so I am certain it exists were I to look away I would be slightly less certain of its existence. That difference in certainty of the current existence of the computer seems to constitute faith as used in scripture and lectures on faith. However, I am still certain that the computer did exist while I was looking at it even if I am not looking at it currently, I know it existed then (I would say that my degree of certainty of it currently existing would still constitute knowledge, but as used it would seem to be in some sense faith).
According to this site I can not say that I know with certainty that I am male. I wonder what the confidence level is that I exist or that you exist. I have seen examples of saying that one can not be certain of the prime numbers or of 1+1=2. To me all these things are certainties, I know them even if in reproducing that knowledge to an outside observer I might err in doing so. This is what I mean by knowledge, if you can come up with a better way of explaining it in terms of this site where there is no certainty other then what I have explained then please do so.
You seem to be meaning two things by knowledge, depending on the context in which you use it. I would suggest that you might find it easier if you use the words ‘information’ or ‘evidence’ when talking about justifications for a level of confidence/faith. And only use ‘knowledge’ to signify whatever high degree of confidence you’ve decided to use as your cut-off point for hands-in-fire-get-burned, I’m-looking-at-the-computer-and-it’s-still-there levels of certainty.
It still seems to me that you’re going to end up with problems if you hold faith as being another word for confidence. Since even certainty (100% confidence) is still a degree of confidence – and also knowledge under such a definition. But scripture holds that knowledge isn’t faith – which is the same as saying if you hold that faith and confidence are synonymous – that knowledge isn’t a degree of confidence (even 100% confidence).
It seems to me to be a deeper problem than one of definitions.
You’re going to have problems if you say that faith just refers to the preceding 99.9 recurring % levels of confidence, too. You’ve said that it’s a general enough idea, in “Lectures on Faith”, to just be taken as a synonymous term with confidence. But even putting that problem aside, when you wanted to start talking about scripture again I suspect you’d end up saying either, ‘People don’t believe that which they know.’ Or, ‘People don’t believe that which they have faith in.’
But belief isn’t one of those fuzzy terms, like knowledge or faith. The meaning can’t be altered to fit a particular argument without doing significant damage to the network of references into which it fits. If I say I believe my computer is in front of me while I’m typing on it, (which going by your standards would also be knowledge,) then there’s no significant question what I mean. Just as it’s coherent for me to say that I believe my front door is locked, when strictly speaking I’ve heard one of the other occupants of the building come in and do not know if they locked the door. You might ask how strongly I believe it, but it’s coherent for me to answer that in degrees of doubt/confidence; even to the point of saying that I have no doubt.
If you start saying that belief means something else to patch the problem in the epistemology, then you’re going to have to explain how that new definition is coherent with all the other instances of its use. And that will alter more, even more well defined, meanings to do that which you’re going to have to redefine along with everything that hooks onto those instances… and so on until eventually you’ve defined everything in terms of whether it makes your theology right. It doesn’t seem to be a workable approach.
Better odds than the chance a similarly but non-testimony privileged observer has. Or to put it another way whether the faith adds any information. (With non-adding faith being meaningless.)
Take the coin-flip example:
If we were to say that somehow divine testimony could predict the outcome of a coin flip. (Not that I’m saying it can but if it could—or someone claimed it could.) You might get three groups – in separate rooms – and one group would commune with god and score down their predictions, and the other two groups would flip coins. And you’d see what the difference between the god group and one of the coin flipping groups was as compared to the difference between the two coin flipping groups. Do it a few hundred times to get the errors down to whatever you’d decided the noise level was and see whether the faith group was more reliable.
If at the end of all that you didn’t have a higher degree of confidence in the predictions of divinity than those of a coin flip, then – assuming that was all the evidence you had for god – you may as well use the coin flip to dictate your actions. The faith wouldn’t add any information, it wouldn’t hook onto the world you were experiencing.
You could do the same sort of thing with the more day to day predictions of prophets from the Church but you’d need to compare them against experts in whatever field the prediction was being made in since the real world provides more information than they’d have in the coin flip case. The advantage of the coin flip is that there are fewer confounding variables more than anything else.
I think you are right in this assessment.
??? - you lost me here. Why would I end up saying that people don’t believe that which they know? Why would I have to redefine belief?
Take the Word of Wisdom for instance the experts in the health fields are still not able to agree as to whether coffee, tea, and alcohol are good or bad for you in the long run. The LDS Church however has consistently said they were. If the revelations from God are correct then one would expect that those that follow the revelations would be healthier than similar populations, which is indeed the case. Is this the type of thing that you mean?
Alma 32:18 [I]f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.
But if knowledge was just a belief with 100% confidence, then that you knew it would mean you had quite a few causes to believe it.
I suppose you could also end up saying that knowledge was uncaused belief but that seems even more problematic
I’m not surprised, risk profiles don’t tend to reduce to a substance being absolutely good or bad for you. It depends on your genetics and the interaction of various chemicals in the drink, not all of which have linear relationships with consumption.
So far as coffee goes, broadly speaking, the consensus among the experts—i.e. those publishing studies into the effects of coffee—seems to indicate that consumption beneath four cups a day has more health benefits than risks, unless you happen to have gastro intestinal problems or need iron supplements. Paper filters seem to reduce risks even further.
Tea seems to be okay as long as you don’t put milk with it or drink it while it’s incredibly hot. Or drink stupid amounts, of course.
Alcohol? Well one or two drinks seems to be linked to reduced mortality—at least in the UK. The French seem to do well with it, though it may just be because of their diets. Heavy consumption does seem to be very bad for you.
In principle, yeah. I don’t think the WoW is very strong evidence by itself because there are loads of other possible explanations for health variances, and depending on the rationale the range of likely guesses may not have been all that wide, and because, IIRC, it was originally hot drinks in general which was changed later on when it became untenable; but it’s the right sort of thing, yeah.
If LDS’s prophets consistently make better predictions than experts, then they’ve probably got access to some sort of privileged information to narrow their range of answers down. Either that or they’re just vastly more rational than the experts, but the odds of that are slim.
I always took it to mean that if one knows something one has no cause to doubt it.
Belief as defined at dictionary.com does work with saying that one does not believe something one knows, being if a statement has proof then one does not believe it (see # 2).
It seems to be using belief-in as opposed to belief-that. If not then you are right that my definition of knowledge doesn’t work.
It appears to have been clarified in July of 1833 when the revelation was given in February of 1833.
What is your confidence level that putting your hand into a campfire is will burn your hand?
edit As in I assumed you were intelligent enough to see everything you said and to assume that I was also intelligent enough to see such things.
Close enough to 100% that it makes no practical difference.
That doesn’t seem to leave you any better off though. Which, yes, I assumed you’d seen. If the level of confidence you wish to select is to be high—perhaps even very high—before faith becomes knowledge, then the level of proof you can offer without destroying faith will be almost equally high. Even if we go all the way out to 100% you’ve just taken on a greater burden of proof.
This isn’t some abstract thing. We should be able to sit you down in a room with a fair coin—or some other thing that can be relatively easily measured—and have you call it. See what statistic it approaches—how God does against blind chance. If knowledge is to be 70% confidence and god only calls it 69% of the time that 1% difference preserves your faith. The same for whatever level of confidence you select. The only way the objection offered in Alma makes any sort of sense is if there is no such difference with which to preserve faith.
If I were claiming to be psychic or something then maybe. You have pretty much the same opportunity to try this out using the given method as I do. However, what makes you think that God is willing to play such a game? He isn’t a genie or oracle that grants every random wish. I could be wrong but I doubt He would be care to be treated so lightly.
Um, I think you have the wrong idea on the type of confidence we are talking about. If we did such a coin toss experiment and the person trying to communicate with God got it right 69% of the time that would give a much greater than 69% estimate to the existence of said God. That is getting 69% of all coin tosses right over a very large subset of coin tosses should lead one to first check to make sure that the coin is a fair coin, then lead one to use a different coin even if it is, and then lead one to try and eliminate all other possible explanations, and if it is still 69% of the time right then one should a) believe fairly highly in however the person is getting that information and b) take that person gambling or have that person pick stocks for you (or figure out how to do it yourself) before publishing any results of the study.
Providing solid evidence is the only way to reach people who don’t believe things without evidence. Some sort of effort in that direction would be expected of someone benevolent towards these people who predicts that this belief would be valuable. That’s the way it seems to me at least.
So a prophecy of something happening in the world at large does not count as evidence if it comes true but predicting a coin toss does?
A prophecy counts as evidence of privileged information insofar as it generates accurate predictions. Generally it doesn’t, by itself, tell us much about the source of that privileged information, but the circumstances surrounding its creation might imply some intelligence worth updating on.
On the other hand, essentially all of the prophecies—regardless of their source—that I’m aware of are unfulfilled, unverifiable, vague or ambiguous enough to have no predictive value, or outright fraudulent. Now, I’ll be happy to update if the Rapture happens on May 21 as the billboards lining my commute keep insisting, but I’m not holding my breath.
Yeah, this.
To begin with the Rapture as understood by the evangelicals will never happen. Therefore, it will not happen on May 21. I seriously doubt saying that will increase anyone’s estimation of my religion.
I have provided specific examples of prophecy that have been fulfilled. I am also able to provide more if it is so desired.
I already know it doesn’t work for me. Perhaps I wasn’t taking it seriously enough – whatever that means.
You have a god that reveals his existence to guide his followers on matters of relatively minuscule importance but won’t reveal his existence to save someone’s immortal soul? He’s already playing the game. His values may be very different to our own but he’s playing. (Assuming of course he exists.)
I don’t think it’s treating him lightly either. Some kid tells you they’re a god you just smile and nod, some adult say it you ask them demonstrate some suitably implausible power. When you take something seriously you test it. Generally the more seriously you take something the more you test it – resources allowing – not less.
Treating him lightly would be dancing off to believe in some random god because I got the warm fuzzies when I went to a church/mosque/whatever, or because of what I read in some book.
It’s not like he’s being asked to do it as a parlour trick. It’s not random either – it’s for a purpose. Someone’s immortal soul may or may not be in jeopardy.
I think so too. Whatever calls would give you a 69% confidence then.
Ok, agreed.
I assume you mean there is a god?
Also agreed.
This is what I was assuming you were asking to have happen.
I am working on a longer response now that I have a better understanding of what it is you are requesting.
Second part
As to the most recent specific prophecies from the living prophet Thomas S. Monson so far I have come up with this:
The fall of Communism in Europe was what opened up those countries. It to me therefore seems that President Monson was prophesying the current unrest in the dictatorships throughout the world and that this will eventually allow for LDS missionaries to enter some of those countries. As the missionaries are not currently in any of the countries (nor is the unrest overwith) this is one that we should be able to watch develop.
Plus the prophecy that there will be more temples built. Further revelation given is such things as the calling of a new apostle, the calling of missionaries, and other adminstrative things which while important to the Church I doubt anyone outside of the Church cares (excluding some ex-mormons (along with some social mormons that don’t understand the doctrine) that are really upset over Prop. 8 and the reaffirming the Churches stance against homosexual behaviors, which they really should have known anyways).
I have previously listed some of the other prophecies that have come true as well as some other prophecies that to me seem very specific. I can try finding more but in the end it will almost always be possible to say that “my idol did it” or anyone could have known that or “Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken” or other such things. I am very much of the opinion that signs, prophecies, and miracles will not and should not provide sufficient evidence to convince someone without they themselves asking God to know if it is true. They should, however, provide evidence enough to begin to act and to be willing to test things out.
I do know of another precedure that is empirical but it is asking a lot more of people. Also, I am not asking for donations to my church, as I explain:
Malachi 3:10: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse … and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to recieve it”. Here is what I am actually suggesting, find some organization or charity that you beleive to be good and give that organization 10% of your income (measured however you think is honest with yourself) track your expenditures, your income, and net worth over the course of a year and then at the end of the year of so doing evaluate your situation, see if God followed through on His promise. If you believe that SIAI is a good organization then donate to them. I don’t care who you donate it to as long as you believe it to be a good worthwhile cause, therefore if you don’t think my church is true then please don’t donate to it, as I doubt it will be effective if you do.
You should look at information gain when evaulating the strength of a prophecy. For instance, “closed countries will become open at some point in the future.” Assume this requires a major change in government, then look at the expected rate of major government change—I’m going to make a guess of a 2% chance per year. After 14 years (1976-1990), observing a government change major enough to open a country gives you around 2 bits of information.
That means this “prophecy” is approximately as impressive as prophecying correctly that a fair coin will come up heads twice.
Even if you read the prophecies with no bias whatsoever, if you’re charitable enough to forgive 3 failures for each 1 amazingly correct prediction, the prophet cannot lose.
Some of the nations were opened up before 1990. Further, this is not saying one country opened up but many. Perhaps you are not aware that in 1976 it appeared as though communism would last forever and saying not just one but that all of Soviet bloc would not be communist in 14 years was viewed as an impossibility.
Where are the failures?
I’m not familiar enough with the publications of the LDS church to list any. Reading the linked speech, “opening new areas” did seem to be the only thing one could fairly call a prediction. Perhaps there are no unfulfilled predictions in the historical records.
More likely, perhaps most prophecies had different possibilities for information gain; even that prophecy--1 major government change every 50 years was just a guess, although the single government change in the USSR was the proximate cause of each country’s opening.
But all I really meant to say is that a prophecy is not a boolean quantity, but a point on a continuum from correctly predicting “the sun will rise tomorrow” to correctly predicting “the sun will not rise tomorrow.” Before treating a prophecy as evidence for any particular properties of the prophet or the prophet’s sponsor, you should locate it on that continuum.
hmm.. looks like it will be multiple comments as it is too long.
Some of this I will have already covered in other responses, I hope it is okay if I cover it again.
I think the best place to begin is to explain what the purpose of life is and then go from there. That is, there are reasons God operates the way He does and they are directly related to why we are here on Earth. It will seem round about and I am sorry for that, I can’t think of a shorter way to answer that would communicate the necessary information.
First, Gods goal for us is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”. That is we are here to gain a body (in case anyone is wondering, you have succeeded at that part) and to qualify to return to the presence of God which will allow us to become gods ourselves (Joint-Heirs with Christ). Therefore the goal is to have us obtain the same state of power and knowledge that God has and just as we do not wish to give god-like power to an AI that is then going to screw things up so too God does not wish to do the same to us.
Previous to this life we lived in the presence God being His sons and daughters and we knew, as we could see him, saw the power he had, and had sufficient understanding to know, that He was God and what was right. Even in this state of knowledge 1⁄3 of all of God’s children fell, they rebelled against God and were cast out into Hell (for simplicities sake I will use the term Hell, it isn’t entirely accurate to do so but the purpose isn’t to give you a complete understanding of all the details), forever. Those of us who get born on Earth did not fall but followed what was right when we knew for a surety that it was right.
Due to the fact that we did not fall we receive bodies and even after we die will again receive our bodies to no more part from them in the resurrection. This is what is meant by immortality and it is a free gift to all.
As to eternal life it is up to us on earth to live according to what we know to be right. Not what we wish was right but what we actually know to be right. This is primarily what we will be judged on. However, with the exception of Christ no one has perfectly lived according to what they know the right things to do are. We all fail and we all know that we fail, many when they so fail try to redefine what is right so that it appears to them that they have not failed but God knows their hearts and they can not fool him, or in the end themselves. Due to this state of failure, or sin, to follow what we know to be right we become unworthy of entering back into the presence of God.
This is where Christ comes in, He is our savior and able to wipe away our sins such that we can again be clean. For this to happen requires one to be baptized in the correct manner by the correct authority. After baptism one receives the companionship of the Holy Spirit to assist in making correct decisions, however one is still mortal and fallen and thus will still err regularly and so must regularly repent and renew the covenants made to obtain forgiveness again.
To obtain eternal life one must accept baptism while still alive, or at the first available opportunity when dead. That is, it does matter when one is baptized if one has heard the gospel sufficiently to have a high degree of confidence in its validity while still alive, if not then after death is fine. Refusing to hear more with the sole purpose so as to not have a that high degree of confidence (and thus not be required to change ones behaviors) is an action that demonstrates a sufficient degree of confidence for the penalty to apply
. After baptism following the commandments is required to maintain the state of grace. Everyone will have a chance to be baptized (and the other saving ordinances) whether in life or after death, this is what most of the work in the temples is.
In the final state we can end up in a variety of places, if we obtain a perfect knowledge and then reject everything then we end up cast out with those that rebelled at the beginning. Contrary to popular opinion, this is a state that will eventually be available to everyone to choose as we will all be brought back into a state of perfect knowledge and thus will again have the opportunity to reject it. If we never even tried to do what we knew to be right but accepted and reveled in our sins then we end up in the Telestial Kingdom, which is comparable to life on Earth but perfected so as to be a heaven. If we attempted to do what was right but for a variety of reasons did not accept baptism when we had the chance then we will end up in Terrestrial Kingdom, which is pretty much what is described when people are commonly describing the christian view of heaven (being no family units but a state of great happiness). The Celestial Kingdom is where God dwells and those that obtain it have eternal life, those that obtain it and are in a married family unit obtain the state of godhood called exaltation.
From all of this it should be clear that your immortal soul, while at stake, is not in any particular danger from God not revealing Himself to you. If you are trying to do what you know to be right then you have lost nothing. If you aren’t trying to do what you know to be right then revealing himself to you could very well get you cast out, which is not what God is in the business of doing. He has provided sufficient evidence to suggest His existence while not casting out those that choose to not believe in the evidence provided. More evidence will be provided in the future as things get worse in the world, but until near the end it will continue to be such that many honest people that are trying to do what is right will not have to know the truth.
Warm fuzzies may or may not be a manifestation of the Spirit. It is often described as a still small voice or a burning sensation within (not a bad burning sensation, that is probably heart burn or something). It should be in both your mind and in your heart, being thoughts and feelings. This is the primary way with which God communicates with us as it testifies of the truth and lets us know what is right. It is also easily drowned out by other emotions and feelings and easily confused with other things (uncontrollable crying, a sense of community, trances, babelling incoherently, a sense of confusion are common things mistaken for the spirit) . There are a variety of other means of communication but all of them should be accompanied by this feeling of the Spirit (angels, visions, burning bush, talking donkey, dreams are some examples from the Bible of other means of communication (if I ever have a donkey or pretty much any other animal talk to me my first reaction will be to assume I had eaten something really bad or that I was crazy and either way need to seek medical attention, but it is there))
So why has he revealed himself even at a low level of confidence? People supposedly already know right from wrong so that’s not it.
If his revealing himself helps people to do right rather than wrong more than it imperils them, then in his not revealing himself to me I have lost something. (It’s less probable that I will do right and thus I have been imperilled.) If he helps at a particular level of confidence less than he imperils then it doesn’t make sense for him to reveal himself to anyone. If they’re equal then there’s no purpose in it.
Assorted thoughts on the rest:
Eh, there’s a tension between power and justification. If you take it to the extreme, omnipotence and reason are mutually exclusive criteria. (Outside, perhaps, of an inability to commit logical contradictions, but that doesn’t really seem to be involved here.)
I’d be more than happy to give symmetrical power to an AI, assuming I had godly powers. The whole issue is that a recursively improving AI might become far more powerful than ourselves.
Why do we need to qualify to return if we followed him and didn’t fall?
Above you said we were here to gain a body and to qualify to return to the presence of God. However, if we become unworthy of returning to God that removes a lot of the reason for being here. Why not be embodied and immediately die? The purpose of life then having been completed.
You’ve already said knowledge is an incredibly high degree of confidence – indeed you’ve said that it’s practically indistinguishable from certainty—which you’ve in turn tied to proof. I’ve seen no proof of right and wrong. A feeling certainly isn’t proof; asides from anything else I’ve felt different ways about ethical issues at different points in time. Then you have the cultural variances in preferences and emotions....
Again you’ve tied knowledge to being a high degree of confidence. If it’s easily confused with other things then it doesn’t provide that high degree of confidence. It also has the same problems as communication in general concerning its purpose. If the value of the guidance of testimony is exceeded by the peril of knowing more then it shouldn’t be done. If the inverse holds then it should be done for everyone. If they’re equal then there’s no purpose in it one way or the other.
Did you not understand that the peril of knowledge is only if one does not follow what one knows? Knowledge is not something to be feared but to be sought after and this is true of all knowledge. Of course with knowledge comes responsibility to use that knowledge well and this is again true of all types of knowledge.
I actually had a discussion on Less Wrong already that covered this. The only purpose of life is not just to gain a body but also to see if we would choose to follow what is right. I do not know what the state of those that die before they are able to make such choices is except that they are saved and exalted. I see I did not explain that this life is for testing to see what we will do without the constant certainty we had before.
This is a personal thing, if Him revealing Himself to you helps you to do right rather than wrong more than it imperils you then in His not revealing Himself to you, you would have lost something. The only way it would hurt more than help is if you were to listen and to not follow, just as the only way it would help more than hurt is if you were to listen and to follow.
Would you then be willing to entrust that AI with control of some world populated with billions of people?
We would need to precisely define omnipotence as it is often understood to be an nonsensical concept. Also, the type of omnipotence that God actually has (as understood by me, a Latter-Day Saint) is nothing like what other Christians claim He has.
There are more restrictions then just an inability to commit logical contradictions. If I have said something contradictory then please point it out so I can see if that is what I actually meant and if it is, if that is actually what the doctrine is.
This goes back to why God reveals Himself, so that we can find out what is actually right. If you are doing what is right to the best of your understanding and knowledge as it currently is then that is fine. If with a greater understanding things you thought were right turn out to have been wrong then you are not accountable for doing what was wrong if you actually thought it was right. The ability to judge what is right and wrong is given to everyone.