Pelagius gets Knowitanical

[ERCougar]

Interesting thread.

The problem I see with your view is that I would guess that most Mormons, like other Christians, don't have a dialogic relationship with God. Even Oliver Cowdery was warned by Joseph Smith/God not to necessarily seek this. So sure, we may believe in dialogic revelation, but very few of us have experienced it, and frankly, I'm very suspicious of those who claim to have. Early church history is full of Joseph trying to maintain some sort of control over would-be prophets.

When Sister Jones claims that she knows the Church is true, I sincerely doubt she is referring to an Alma-the-younger moment. She's referring to a good feeling she has when she goes to church, reads the scriptures, and does her visiting teaching.

[beefytee]

Interesting thread.

The problem I see with your view is that I would guess that most Mormons, like other Christians, don't have a dialogic relationship with God. Even Oliver Cowdery was warned by Joseph Smith/God not to necessarily seek this. So sure, we may believe in dialogic revelation, but very few of us have experienced it, and frankly, I'm very suspicious of those who claim to have. Early church history is full of Joseph trying to maintain some sort of control over would-be prophets.

When Sister Jones claims that she knows the Church is true, I sincerely doubt she is referring to an Alma-the-younger moment. She's referring to a good feeling she has when she goes to church, reads the scriptures, and does her visiting teaching.

I think there are some things in between here. You can have experiences that are not celestial manifestations but that are highly unlikely to be coincidence or chance. This is the category I would say I fall under. I would consider this more than a special feeling but I've had that too and it can be powerful. However, I admit that I could possibly rationalize away the "special feelings" as my own emotions.

[ERCougar]

I think there are some things in between here. You can have experiences that are not celestial manifestations but that are highly unlikely to be coincidence or chance. This is the category I would say I fall under. I would consider this more than a special feeling but I've had that too and it can be powerful. However, I admit that I could possibly rationalize away the "special feelings" as my own emotions.

But that's not unique to Mormonism. I would venture to say that most Christians account some special type of experience to their belief. Why are Mormons so much more apt to say that they "know" something? Why does "the first-order Taylor approximation" (sorry...I had to roll my eyes at that one, pelagius...) work any better in Mormonism than outside of it?

Givens is pretty specific in his reason--that Mormons believe in a dialogic relationship with God--yet ignores the fact that the vast majority of Mormons don't have this relationship.

EDIT: Rereading the excerpt, I see that it appears that Givens is just pointing out that Mormons believe that all is eventually "knowable". He's not saying anything about the nature of "knowing". With that in mind, I'm not sure how this really addresses the issue of "I know".

[Moliere]

But that's not unique to Mormonism. I would venture to say that most Christians account some special type of experience to their belief. Why are Mormons so much more apt to say that they "know" something? Why does "the first-order Taylor approximation" (sorry...I had to roll my eyes at that one, pelagius...) work any better in Mormonism than outside of it?

Because we are one-uppers. Here's the progression:

• Sister Smith: I hope the church is true
• Brother Taylor: I believe the church is true
• Sister Brown: I konw the church is true
• Brother Williams: I know wihtout a doubt the chuch is true
• Sister Corley: I know the church is true with evey fiber of my being
• Brother Mendenhall: I know without a doubt and with evey fiber of my being that the church is true

Pretty soon just hoping or believing is no longer valid. You have to know and have a solid knowledge. I personally think people can know certain things as Moroni wrote. I personally know that God answers prayers. I usually won't say "I know the church is true" but I also understand what is actually being said when someone says this.

[All-American]

We really just mean that dialogic revelation produces a higher posterior odds ratio than other methods ... Why can't we just say that?

I can't say for sure, but I've got at least one guess that I think is pretty good.

"I'd like to bear my testimony, and I acknowledge that my experiences of dialogic revelation presents a higher posterior odds ratio than an inferior alternative . . . ."

(It's a great post, and makes several good points.)

[Jacob]

Interesting thread.

The problem I see with your view is that I would guess that most Mormons, like other Christians, don't have a dialogic relationship with God. Even Oliver Cowdery was warned by Joseph Smith/God not to necessarily seek this. So sure, we may believe in dialogic revelation, but very few of us have experienced it, and frankly, I'm very suspicious of those who claim to have. Early church history is full of Joseph trying to maintain some sort of control over would-be prophets.

When Sister Jones claims that she knows the Church is true, I sincerely doubt she is referring to an Alma-the-younger moment. She's referring to a good feeling she has when she goes to church, reads the scriptures, and does her visiting teaching.

I think you nailed it. this dialogic revelation is something we, as a people, believe. It is part of our doctrine. It is everywhere in our correlated materials. Yet hardly anyone can say that they have experienced it. Very few people who I have asked have ever experienced anything beyond a good feeling, a new insight, or more common, a stupor of thought.

I've heard the testimonies where people say that they actually heard a voice tell them to do something (usually stop the car before an accident would have occurred). But rarely, if ever, a voice that spoke to them to testify of truth.

We are taught to seek after these experiences. It is that democratization of revelation that was mentioned. Many a missionary has spent the good part of a day in secluded prayer and study, seeking that experience that Enos had when he wrestled with God. (As an aside, why do we want the metaphorical wrestle with God rather than the seemingly more literal wrestling match of Jacob in the OT?) But most people who honestly seek after such an experience are disappointed in the result, or as is often the case, rationalize a satisfaction with the good feeling or with the understanding that God will reveal only to those he wants to reveal to, or that the seeker is just not worthy.

In the end, our experience doesn't align with our belief. We believe in the dialogic revelation, but we don't experience it. At least that's been my experience and the experience of most of those whom I have questioned. Very few of the prophets after Joseph discuss any dialogic revelation. Though they and we allow the impression that they often do to permeate our society.

[Jacob]

On the occasion we do get a bit from a prophet about how we don't need such revelatory experiences, it can have the effect of making members feel better about themselves. I used to like the quote from McConkie about how we need not bother the Lord with everything. To paraphrase, he said that he didn't ask the Lord if he should marry his wife. That he should marry her was already blatantly obvious to him.

I took a similar approach with respect to most major decisions. I made the decision on my own. Then I would approach the Lord in prayer, and let him know of my decision, and to let me know if I were making a mistake. He never let me know otherwise, so I've always proceeded with the decision. The decisions were often made after careful and sometimes prayerful consideration, so it is surely possible that inspiration played its role in the decision. But it would seem to me that this is the more common christian understanding of revelation or inspiration, not the dialogic revelation we are talking about here.

[wuapinmon]

On the occasion we do get a bit from a prophet about how we don't need such revelatory experiences, it can have the effect of making members feel better about themselves. I used to like the quote from McConkie about how we need not bother the Lord with everything. To paraphrase, he said that he didn't ask the Lord if he should marry his wife. That he should marry her was already blatantly obvious to him.

I took a similar approach with respect to most major decisions. I made the decision on my own. Then I would approach the Lord in prayer, and let him know of my decision, and to let me know if I were making a mistake. He never let me know otherwise, so I've always proceeded with the decision. The decisions were often made after careful and sometimes prayerful consideration, so it is surely possible that inspiration played its role in the decision. But it would seem to me that this is the more common christian understanding of revelation or inspiration, not the dialogic revelation we are talking about here.

I think you nailed it. this dialogic revelation is something we, as a people, believe. It is part of our doctrine. It is everywhere in our correlated materials. Yet hardly anyone can say that they have experienced it. Very few people who I have asked have ever experienced anything beyond a good feeling, a new insight, or more common, a stupor of thought.

I've heard the testimonies where people say that they actually heard a voice tell them to do something (usually stop the car before an accident would have occurred). But rarely, if ever, a voice that spoke to them to testify of truth.

We are taught to seek after these experiences. It is that democratization of revelation that was mentioned. Many a missionary has spent the good part of a day in secluded prayer and study, seeking that experience that Enos had when he wrestled with God. (As an aside, why do we want the metaphorical wrestle with God rather than the seemingly more literal wrestling match of Jacob in the OT?) But most people who honestly seek after such an experience are disappointed in the result, or as is often the case, rationalize a satisfaction with the good feeling or with the understanding that God will reveal only to those he wants to reveal to, or that the seeker is just not worthy.

In the end, our experience doesn't align with our belief. We believe in the dialogic revelation, but we don't experience it. At least that's been my experience and the experience of most of those whom I have questioned. Very few of the prophets after Joseph discuss any dialogic revelation. Though they and we allow the impression that they often do to permeate our society.

Good posts

You will notice, and I want the record to show, I have never once referred to pelagius as a "needlenecked wanker." He's got some Sparta to go with all this Athens!

pelagius's qualities are self-evident. The fact that you have never called him a needlenecked wanker means absolutely nothing to my impression of him.

[pellegrino]

An excellent post. It strikes me that our "dialogic" view of revelation certainly has a lot to do with our anthropomorphic view of God - you know, "body, parts, and passions," which is pretty close to unique among modern faiths. I.e., we believe in a being we can talk to. I think that sometimes we are too hard on the use of the term "know" when people use it in the sense they "are confident they have experienced a dialogic revelation," as you say. In lay terms, we are just saying the Holy Ghost has manifested something to us. It's simply knowledge on a spiritual level.

I always drew this distinction as a difference in types of knowledge. You have two broad categories: sapientia cordis or knowledge of the heart, knowledge experienced through emotions, feelings as opposed to sapientia mentis, or knowledge of the mind, knowledge experienced through rational thought, empirical means. At one time this was the only way I could justify using the phrase "I know . . . " in a church setting. I've since moved away from that and prefer to say "I believe . . ." I don't know that one is better than the other, it's just what I feel comfortable with.

[UtahDan]

Maybe it is obvious to say but this thread seems to highlight that language seems inadequate to express some of the concepts we try to express respecting our religious or spiritual feelings, belief, knowledge (see I can't even really come up with a good word). I'm also very struck by the fact that Jacob has finally said something I agree with. Wowzers!

[pelagius]

When did this thread rise from the dead? isn't this like 5 years old? I have no idea what I originally wrote ... So I agree with all the comments and none of the comments. If something I wrote didn't make sense, no doubt I was trying to be funny or erudite in that particular case.

[pellegrino]

When did this thread rise from the dead? isn't this like 5 years old? I have no idea what I originally wrote ... So I agree with all the comments and none of the comments. If something I wrote didn't make sense, no doubt I was trying to be funny or erudite in that particular case.

not even a year, well worth resurrecting

[Solon]

[QUOTE=Goatnapper'96;410417 He's got some Sparta to go with all this Athens! [/QUOTE]

Just so you folks who get your information from Mrs. Jensen's Fifth Grade Website and the movie "300" know, Athens at least pretended to look down on pederasty. Sparta institutionalized it.

[creekster]

Just so you folks who get your information from Mrs. Jensen's Fifth Grade Website and the movie "300" know, Athens at least pretended to look down on pederasty. Sparta institutionalized it.

ANd crab claw hands. DOn't forget those. It's the best part.

[Taq Man]

Because most people wouldn't understand it.

which is also the reason likelihood ratios have never caught on in the court room either. Too hard to explain to a jury...well an american jury anyway. Europeans seem to get it.

Can you work it into a random match probability?

The probability of knowing is 1 in 1000.

The probability of believing is 1 in 5,000,000

The probability of it all being complete BS is 1 in 1 Quintillion.