Epistemology and Mormonism -- what is truth?

[@ThomasJDavis]

It's very word-crafty to say, _"there are a lot of people who have arrived at a lot of conclusions about our faith by ignoring witness testimony"_ because it's not entirely obvious if he's specifically referring to critics of the LDS church and specifically the "witness testimonies" of regular church members. But if that's what he means, then that is a blatant mischaracterization of the critics. Because critics of the LDS church are challenging the _truth claims_ upon which the veracity of the claims about member's witness testimonies rest. If the church's truth claims aren't true, then people aren't correct in what they think their experience was, or the cause of their experience. The veracity of the claims about members' experiences are contingent upon the LDS church's truth claims. Also, if we're interested in intellectual integrity when deliberating on what the most justified conclusion is for a claim, then beauty has nothing to do with it. Aesthetics deals with value judgements. There's a large degree of subjectivity to it. For an idea to be enticing or appealing has _zero_ to do with whether it is true or not. The context in which aesthetics plays a role in epistemology is with in the context of _persuasion._ You can convince someone who's driven by emotions or feelings enough to believe in a false idea. It has nothing to do with intellectual integrity and only anything to do with _persuasion._ If that is your business, then yes, it would be important. But really it's a form of appeal to emotion. The reason why it seems reasonable to include "beauty" as a contributor to "learning truth" is because you already believe those appealing beliefs of the religion are true. So the importance of beauty is actually a post hoc rationalization about one's beliefs. Beauty doesn't actually contribute to veracity. The wizarding world of Harry Potter and the idea of magical spells all sounds like a hella appealing world to believe in. That doesn't make it real. When talking about biases that scholars bring to the table, those that care about being as intellectually honest as possible will try to eliminate their biases as much as possible in their work and do their best to follow the data where it leads. This is why the scientific method includes peer review. It's to have other people challenge the work of the researchers, even challenging possible biases the researcher might be working under that would cause him to misinterpret the data of the experiment. Of course scientists aren't flawless in capturing all the flaws of their collegues, but it's the best system that we currently have to know what the best conclusion is for the information we currently have. And I would even say, that the more divided scientists are on a given subject, the more rigorous the scientific method actually becomes. As far as presuming naturalism, secular scholars hold to this premise, not because they dogmatically believe the supernatural couldn't possibly exist, but simply because we haven't found a way to detect "the supernatural". If there was a detection of it, then some form of research could be done about it. But since we haven't, there's nothing we can really do except leave it where it currently stands, as an assertion. And for that matter, the nature of it hasn't been clearly defined, so researchers aren't really sure what they would even be looking for if there _were_ to presume it exists. You can't just assert something into existence. Likewise, you can just assert something into possibility. Possibility has to be demonstrated. And allowing for possibility at the least requires ontological clarity. People speak about it as if they're referencing something in the world, but there's no clear description of what it is. All religions who posit its existence would need to come together on a clear description before anything else could move forward in starting the research/experimentation. Again, it's about intellectual integrity. But even having said that, many people who posit its existence will say that the supernatural/spiritual, by its very nature, is not detectable or falsifiable. In other words, there's no indicators or features to look for or find in the world in the event that it doesn't exist. People will argue that it is untouchable by science. So if that's the case then those who believe in it can't really be too upset with its discarding in scientific research.

[@joshuafusselman3323]

Great video! I loved it. It really helps me to understand and categorize what methods have combined to form my beliefs, religious and otherwise. Each person gets to decide for himself or herself what methods they are going to allow at their own table of belief, and how much weight to give to each of those methods. There are probably other methods not listed in this video, such as popular consensus. I think a lot of us rely a lot on only some of these methods, sometimes only one method, while denying the rest, which may or may not be quite valuable.

[@tombowers790]

This has to be the worst video about epistemology I've come across. Everything you have said can be used by all religions to prove them as correct and in no way can be used as evidence for anything

[@seans5289]

Hello. I’ve watched the video twice. I have a few questions. Please don’t feel obligated to answer them all, but i hope they help you, the creators of the video or anyone out there searching for truth to know whether their epistemological system is reliable. Is it more important that the gospel is good than that it is true? In the epistemology court analogy is there an objective truth or is every person the arbiter of their own truth? You talk about what sources we should trust on “matters of faith.” What constitutes a matter of faith? Perhaps we have different definitions of the faith part, but this seems like a foggy concept. You say logic is unreliable because it is useless when one is employing it to prove bad assumptions. Isn’t that a strength of logic? Wouldn’t the fault lie with the frivolous use of assumptions in the first place? You credit “witness testimony” as being a huge part of Latter-day Saint epistemology. But aren’t all religions mostly reliant on witness testimony as support for their truth claims? How do you assess conflicting witness testimonies? Can an epistemology leading to so many conflicting outcomes be reliably used to find truth? You say intuition can be very accurate some of the time and inaccurate some of the time, but not to discount it just because of that fact. Wouldn’t it be important to that the way you go about supporting your beliefs is accurate before employing it as a method of finding important truths? And, as with witness testimony, there seem to be more people using intuition to support their belief in Islam than in the restored gospel. Isn’t that an indicator that this may not be a reliable method as well? I must be misunderstanding the ecclesiastical authority seat at the table entirely. You may want to go over that one again from an outsider’s perspective. Also, using ecclesiastical authority as a means of deciphering whether the gospel is true might cause a stroke for whomever is sitting in the logic chair. Is it possible to follow personal revelation and not end up a faithful member of the community of Christ or Buddhism, rather than the restored gospel? Also, when the two hosts say you can’t have a personal understanding of epistemology without personal revelation, I think something other than “yes” should have been your response. I think you may have just been using yes as sort of a segue to your next statement, so maybe you didn’t hear what exactly he said before committing to that “yes.” Can you compare the beauty of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to the beauty of the Hindu religion? Can you assess the beauty of an event in church history that put you into a faith crisis and determine whether that event really happened? Couldn’t this method of thinking also lead you to believe in the existence of unicorns or the girls in anime movies? Aren’t beauty and true entirely separate? What exactly are the downsides to scholarship? You hinted that the work of a scholar would be reflective of their belief in god, but wouldn’t that also be true of the ecclesiastical leaders? And wouldn’t the evidence a scholar works with or the studies she publishes be subject to multiple scholarly studies, which would then be peer-reviewed to shreds by further studies, until a general consensus is reached? Wouldn’t that parse out areas of unsubstantiated bias? This would make the upsides far outweigh this downside, wouldn’t it? What are the downsides of personal experiences? Isn’t using the temple as evidence that Joseph Smith is a true prophet based on the fact that it is doing what you think it does, which is dependent on being a prophet in the first place? Isn’t that inference using circular logic? I was also hoping to hear which, if any, of the seats at our epistemological table is more or most reliable. I think that would be pretty important to know. (Edited for omitted words, a copy/paste error, and clarity)

[@seans5289]

DEVON BLAKE: hopefully, I resolved it.

[@isaacparsons5280]

Smart, well criticized, and sincere Sean S! Thank you for all the effort in writing it out.

[@cinnamondan4984]

Sean S i love your train 🚂 of thought, Sean

[@DalgGlidjBlimlimlim]

I know this video and comment are old, but you've brought up some very relevant questions and criticisms, some of which I also thought of during the video. I'll admit I was a little disappointed. Perhaps a 20 minute video in this format just wasn't enough time to adequately and accurately explain the guest's view of epistemology, but with all these issues it just doesn't cut it for me.

[@peter10562]

It was Jesus Christ Himself who taught us to look to children as an example. The New Testament records His answer when His Apostles disputed who should be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus answered their question with a small yet powerful object lesson. He called a little child to Him and set him in the midst of them and said: “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3-4) Explain everything you said to a child and see if he/she understands what you said.

[@static6107]

Hey saints! I love what you guys are doing, just a request could you make more videos about the holy ghost? Like how he works, or how we can find him. Thanks !

[@CraigNewsome.]

Thanks so much. I couldn't quite work out what epistemology was. Very enlightening

[@amiboacid7183]

Great video guys! Keep it up with the good work!

[@kenhilker2507]

Kudos for attempting to tackle this subject, but I am not clear how these seats at the table address the core question of "What is truth?" You listed several great examples of the things in our lives that influence what we BELIEVE. But I'm not clear about how these things you've invited to the table help us determine whether the things we believe are actually TRUE. For example: 1) How does "beauty" tell you whether something is true? I've seen beautiful statues of Greek Gods, read beautiful works of fiction, and seen gorgeous abstract paintings. How does their beauty make them true? 2) If intuition and personal revelations can be wrong, and are not always reliable, then why do they belong on at the table of determining which of our beliefs are true? Again - I agree that they often influence what we believe, but how much weight should we really be giving them in determining truth? 3) The video says that Ecclesiastical Authorities belong at the table. Do all religious authorities (Jewish Rabbis, Muslim Imams, Buddhist monks, LDS Bishops, etc...) have access to truth, or just some? How do you know which ones have the truth?

[@kathylanigan3075]

Kenneth Hilker finding truth is a long painstaking process. None of the things he mentioned on their own are enough. Just like in a court room. One piece of evidence or one witness is not enough to make a determination. You brought up ecclesiastical leaders...if you have a Protestant preacher making a claim then you bring him to the table and and use all your resources there to make a determination whether he has something of value to add to your belief. You must weight each and every witness/evidence to determine if you have enough for your belief to be reasonable.

[@kathylanigan3075]

Regarding beauty I think he’s asking is the idea or concept uplifting and worthy of admiration. (I don’t think He’s talking about a piece of art)

[@seans5289]

Kathy Lanigan: If Muslims were to use the epistemological system exactly how it’s laid out in the video, which of the chairs would point them away from Islam?

[@kathylanigan3075]

Sean S I know literally nothing about the Muslim faith. My experience has been with Protestant Christianity and LDS beliefs. I don’t necessarily agree with all of things he allows to have a seat at his table or the weight he give each. Ultimately, we all have our own list of things we use to justify our beliefs. (We may not be aware of them and some are more reliable than others) I personally lean heavily on logic, experts/specialist and personal revelation. I like to look at both sides of the argument or issue. But ultimately I think the spirit is what bears witness to truth. I think a Muslim would have to be open to comparing and justifying his belief in contrast to another belief

[@kenhilker2507]

Thank you@@kathylanigan3075 for your thoughtful replies! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that if you have a large collection of unreliable evidence you can still use that evidence as factors in making good decisions. In a courtroom, should a juror's intuition about a suspect to be a factor in whether they're convicted of a crime? How about whether or not the suspect had done uplifting/beautiful things? If they regularly donate their time at a soup kitchen, should that be a factor in whether or nor they're found guilty of armed robbery? Maybe it will effect their sentencing, but does their charity work affect the truth of their guilt/innocence?

[@arnaldohumbertopereira5120]

Everybody should watch this video!

[@jamescarmody2837]

I would love to see these two sit back down with a philosopher who has a better understanding of epistemology, a logician to explain what logic actually is, and why logical statements can still be incorrect, and a scientist to explain evidence of the world being round.

[@zzz6valvoline]

It's a little confusing. If personal Revelation is "not reliable" except under certain circumstances, then why is it at the head of the table. I don't understand the role of beauty. Beauty is subjective, so how can it lead am absolute truth? The example given was eternal families, which to many people in my mission seemed like eternal hell.

[@kathylanigan3075]

Manuel Zamora I think the concept he’s trying to convey with beauty is, is the idea uplifting and worthy of admiration. While there are plenty of individuals who have families that suck, the concept of eternal families with righteous loving people is beautiful. Beauty on its own is not enough to establish a truth but he’s simply saying is has its place.

[@ANT96-x8d]

Winter Is Coming Tomorrow

[@TBIhope]

I appreciate this, thank you.

[@wade_bo]

Don’t you mean “Epistemology and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”?

[@2kool4u_mac67]

No

[@jaredgreenway]

Hahaha rekd

[@ThomasJDavis]

Talking about belief formation in terms of decision making I would say already indicates a corrupt epistemological framework. edit: So as far as starting a "faith crisis" with regards to a round Earth, that term depends on the definition of "faith". But the main point to make about this is that, in our pursuit of intellectual integrity, one of our goals is to "apportion our belief to the evidence" ad David Hume once said. In other words, we want our degree of certainty to align with the strength of evidence we have. However, we are human beings. And there are a plethora of factors that contribute to a person's degree of certainty with regards to any given belief they hold, and they're not all rational! For example, we are social creatures, so social reinforcement of an idea can contribute to the degree of certainty we have for a given belief. It can cause a rationally unwarranted "boost in confidence" in our minds for a given belief we have. So when we start to dig into our beliefs and look at the _rational_ reasons why we believe something, (presumably with the intent to make sure we have good reasons for believing something) we often tend to come away with less confidence. And if we aren't aware of other factors that contribute to our degree of confidence for something, we won't be able to fully account for why we have such a degree of confidence. And I would think that would be extremely hard to do anyways. But the other thing to consider is that we like to _feel_ right. Sure, we would like to be right and have true beliefs, but we are also emotional creatures as well, and we _love_ to feel right. And I think the less aware we are of our desire to feel right, the more we are at risk of losing the goal of intellectual integrity and substituting it with this emotional desire. And I would say that the more closely we hold to our beliefs the greater weight and significance falsifying information will have on us cognitively and emotionally.

[@barbarafox5989]

But if I don’t come to the same faithful conclusion as you do I am wrong, evil, apostate, desiring sin, deceived and I want to be unbelieving. See the Renlunds talk. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@tommydetmer3815]

Wow, amazing! I myself had been thinking deeply in like the deepest oceans of my mind and heart and spirit about these deep and important philosophical concepts and ideas lately, and I am ecstatic about you guys sharing a video like this!!!!! And if I'm being honest and genuine, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints has answered flawlessly some of the hardest philosophical challenges in life and religion and reality itself with ease and true beauty :) I do know that Joseph Smith Jr. is a prophet of God, this through my own personal experience and revelation, but also because of the flawless ways in which the scriptures, that he so amazingly and intelligently proclaimed were oracled from God through him, testify of the truth, and fit together, and answer the hard philosophical questions, and bring applicable wisdom to our daily lives that can be applied with power and bring others and ourselves joy and peace and personal development, and for many more reasons than these listed! Thanks Everyone and may God bless you all!!!!!!! :)

[@8Slades]

Thank you! Great explanations!

[@roberthamilton4773]

A table is a great way to think about how to know true things. What about tested facts? If I want to be super confident that I know something is true, isn’t it only fair to let factual evidence from the real world to have a seat at the table?

[@lukesteele4510]

+Robert_Hamilton All the witnesses at the table present what they purport to be factual evidence. It is what you determine to be their reliability that determines how reliable their purported facts to be. So all evidence from the real world is filtered by the seats at the table.

[@roberthamilton4773]

Luke Steele Thanks Luke. So yes, if people can reliably purport facts, that should do fine. Unless of course, they were mistaken about what they experienced. We know that folks can sometimes misconstrue what they’ve seen. I mean, people are fallible, right? Isn’t there a better way?

[@lukesteele4510]

@@roberthamilton4773 One of the things that complicates the facts are emotions. We like to believe we are logical rational beings, but without emotional weight for those facts even the simplest decisions are impossible. Because of this all facts are subjective. I read a study of a man who had a severe head injury and lost his ability to feel emotion and even deciding what to wear became an almost insurmountable obstacle for him let alone more consequential questions of what to eat. He solved his dressing problem by having identical clothes and only one thing to eat in his house, and he never went shopping someone did it for him. He also never did what he wanted to do only what was on his schedule to do because he never knew what he wanted. So no there isn't a better way. Never the less Truth is objective for instance if you jump off a building or ledge you will fall and may die depending on what other forces are acting on you and other factors involved. We can determine truth by using all the witnesses at the table according to where they are most reliable.

[@roberthamilton4773]

Luke Steele Honestly Luke, that doesn’t sound too convincing. Let’s say there’s a great music concert in town. I’d much rather see it myself than hear reports about it from a friend who saw it. They may try really hard to describe it in detail, but they would never be as good as being there in person. It seems to me that facts coming straight from the real world gives us the best chance at reaching realistic decisions.

[@lukesteele4510]

@@roberthamilton4773 What makes the concert great to you is that you have an emotional response (one chair in at the table) to the group or their music and if you didn't then you would be just as satisfied with your friends report. No concert is objectively great and for that matter no facts are objectively relevant to you except as they relate to the relevance of the seats at the table. Some facts are objectively true though whether any of your decision chairs believe it to be true. In other words factual evidence from what you call the real world is always filtered through the decision chairs at the table, since a fact is an esoteric intangible idea which is by necessity filtered through our decision structure. Take for instance that one of your decision seats is a physicist who tells you that what makes you fall is magnetism not gravity. If you believed and trusted him you might step off a building with no metal expecting that you would fall with less force but since there is iron in you blood you would still fall just not as fast or with less force. It is a fact that you have iron in your body and it is a fact that the earth seems to attract us to it so we fall. So it is a conceivable fact that the iron is why we fall since you trust the physicist. 2 of those previous statements of fact are patently false though one seems to be true. The earth does not attract it pushes from above stronger than in any other direction. That force of seeming attraction has nothing to do with magnetism and iron only with mass and distance traveled.

[@Shadakin]

Good video

[@brunkke]

This guy has no clue about what epistemology is. I challenge the viewers to check out another video about epistemology. I do agree epistemology is key to live a good life and know the truth.

[@Hamann9631]

What happens if you deny personal revelation a seat at the table? You violate John 14:26 and 1 Corinthians 12:3.

[@Dustin_McNab]

John 14:25-27 was Jesus speaking directly to the Apostles in private. Jesus has not been with us or spoken to us today like he was with them and spoke to them. Since verse 25 and 27 there don't directly apply to us today, why should we try to apply verse 26 to us today? You're stretching 1 Cor 12:3 beyond what the verse says. It doesn't mean everyone who simply says the words "Jesus is Lord" is speaking God's truth, let alone that they're teaching the true gospel. That idea clearly contradicts 2 Cor 11:13-15. False teachers can appear like apostles of Christ and servants of righteousness when they are actually acting as servants of Satan, even if they don't realize it. That kind of false teacher would be teaching some true things about Christ. The fact is Jesus and the Apostles never taught people to 'pray to know the truth.' James 1:5 was written to people who already believed and needed wisdom for how to respond to persecution. Yes, we certainly should pray and seek God for wisdom on many subjects, but the Apostles never said that's a reliable way to know whether or not something is true. They didn't teach people to use those 'seats at the table' either. They did teach people how to respond to false teaching and know the truth. The primary seat at the table they taught was following scripture. If a teaching doesn't match what the Apostles taught in scripture, we need to reject that teaching (Gal 1:8-9, 2 Tim 3:16-17, 1 John 4:1-3). There are many verses that mention God revealing things to people, but those scriptures all put the emphasis on God acting on people. None of them teach people to seek a spiritual witness, let alone how we can reliably discern whatever God may or may not be saying. Since the LDS church didn't get their concepts of discerning spiritual witnesses from the Bible, where did they get them from? They may quote Alma 32 or Moroni 10, but both of those are in the Book of Mormon. Why should we trust those as a reliable way to know truth before we've established that the BoM is from God? If a stranger showed up to your house claiming to have a new revelation from God, he may be telling the truth. But would you trust his new method of epistemology, his new ideas about how to verify what he's saying? If you wouldn't trust that guy and his new ideas, why would you trust Joseph Smith and his new ideas?

[@Hamann9631]

@@Dustin_McNab In your first paragraph you destroyed a strawman. I hope you took you allergy pills. I'm not saying everybody saying "Jesus is Lord" is right. The Apostle Paul meant how we know when he wrote "...no man can say..." What do you say about people adding to the Bible? What ever it is, it is going to happen to you. James doesn't have such a detailed list of when to now ask God for wisdom and when not to. Those verses you cited in The Bible do not tell us to not follow a true prophet. Your second paragraph denounced James 1:5 and Jesus telling us to knock and ask. Good luck on judgment day when you have typed opposite to the Lord Himself. If you ask God you have faith and trust in God. If you won't maybe a book is your God or idol. I grew up with the gospel. I haven't needed to decide if I was going to use a new epistemology. Nevertheless, I follow The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I have felt The Holy Ghost, not tradition. For someone who is trying to follow God, we aren't asking them to make a dramatic change. We are asking them to follow the true God they were already trying to follow.

[@Dustin_McNab]

@@Hamann9631 I don't understand what you're saying about what Paul said. Of course, we should ask God for guidance on many issues. Yes, we should knock and ask. The question is how do we reliably discern whatever God may or may not be saying to us? Their guest in the video even acknowledged people can be wrong about personal revelation. So how can we correct ourselves when we make a mistake? Since that method can be wrong, we need a reliable way to confirm any answer to prayer we get. Are you suggesting we use logic, intuition, beauty, etc., to confirm the answer? Why should we trust any of those 'chairs' when Jesus and the Apostles never taught anyone how to trust them? You may have grown up with the LDS gospel and those chairs of truth, but they are still new compared to the Bible. Why should anyone trust a method of testing truth claims that showed up 1600+ years after the Apostles died?

[@Hamann9631]

@@Dustin_McNab You denounced asking God if The Book of Mormon is true. You denounced asking if the church is true. So, now you see the error of your ways? One way to double check our personal revelation is by comparing it to what God's true and living prophet and apostles are saying. Asking God and trusting in God isn't a new thing. It has been around since Adam prayed to God.

[@Dustin_McNab]

@@Hamann9631 I never said it's wrong to ask God if something is true. I said it's unreliable, which means we need a reliable way to verify any answer we get. Your double check method leaves one big question unanswered. How do you know Joseph Smith and other LDS leaders were living prophets in the first place? Since prayer and spiritual witnesses aren't reliable ways to know truth, how else can you know they're from God? It sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse. You need to verify a source is from God before it can be used to double check other sources.

[@cinnamondan4984]

I am pretty sure the BOM is just a 19th century document and I still believe in the restored gospel. Wired place to be

[@sarahturner4148]

why do you believe it's just a 19th century document?

[@cinnamondan4984]

Sarah Turner For one it resolves controversies amongst Protestants and Catholics at the time rather neatly. I think it was written in that environment with that knowledge of what issues were in need of contemporary attention. You could say it was Moroni just being given an insight into 19th century theological disputes from God because God knew we would need to resolve these issues in the latter days, but I am one for Occam’s razor Also, I’d say it’s more than ‘just a 19th century document.’ It is sacred and scripture to me.

[@threestacks9025]

just in time for my exam

[@seans5289]

Three Stacks: You should probably compare the things you learned from this video with the work of philosophers on this topic before taking an exam. The epistemological methods described in the video may not fit what is covered on an exam.

[@threestacks9025]

Sean S yeah u right it’s just funny coincidence they post this right before my exam on the same topic

[@manofculture467]

Your channel is great

[@Amytheproject]

But what about all the people who testify that the jehovah witness are right

[@devonblake731]

The Jehovah Witness are right about many things.

[@seans5289]

I think that’s when you’d have a more reliable method of finding the truth step in and help you decide. One of the other people at this table they talked about in the video.

[@chrisgarciahostof-isitjust6697]

That's not epistemology. It would further press on HOW you know those things to be true. Can you test it.

[@jaronanderson2997]

"You hear the flat earth people are crazy, so..." Ha! You've heard what people say about Mormons, right? Overall though, this is a great topic. It's something members of the church don't really get into that often. Because faith and facts clash a lot, and the facts usually don't come down on the side of religion. Especially a young church whose source material is still available (book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates, 3 witnesses, etc). This video is very surface level and is careful not to tell people to actually investigate anything (the testimony of the 3 and 8 witnesses would not hold up in a courtroom). But maybe a few people will watch and start to really ask how they know what they know!

[@nealljones]

"surface level" These videos are intentionally kept short. Brett McDonald goes into more detail here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iH65amOJes2DoLs By the way, the 3 and 8 witnesses and their testimonies would hold up better in court than the critics who (weakly) attempt to assail their testimony. The critics of the BoM witnesses are usually quoted decades later and not in any way connected to the events. Just spreading hearsay. By the way, in most cases with critical literature, the LDS witnesses themselves -- the 3 and the 8 -- are rarely quoted. Instead, 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th-hand and anonymous sources are used by critics. And the 3 and 8 witnesses are often ignored. To not use the primary witnesses themselves in a court would lead to sanction by the judge. Indeed, to withhold exculpatory information would get an attorney sanctioned. Law licenses get revoked for acts like that...

[@SaintsUnscripted]

Jaron Anderson - Thanks for your comment :) Like Neal said, Brett McDonald has some good, longer videos that might explain things a little better. But also, here is a link to the slides Dan made from which this discussion is based: bit.ly/2Jpw8w7 Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions. :)

[@kathylanigan3075]

The Brett McDonald videos are very good. And way more in-depth

[@nealljones]

Blake Ostler goes into these topics in even greater detail than Brett if you're interested. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZiQkptriq6Yfrs

[@nealljones]

Blake Ostler produces a very scholarly podcast. This podcast applies to this conversation: Faith, Reason, and Spirituality soundcloud.com/user-914466958/070-faith-reason-spiritual-experience-vol-5

[@geoffnoyes520]

Interestingly they mentioned the 3&8, 'witnesses' of the Book of Mormon. These men, even if they saw and handled metal plates, could have no possible idea of their written meaning,( if any, )of anything inscribed on them, ( 'reformed Egyptian' was a totally unknown written language then and remain so today.) They could not tell if they were fake. Also they could have no way of knowing if the plates were ancient, or if Joseph had really found them, or where, or even when. Their testimony was simply that they believed what Joseph Smith told them about the plates, nothing more or less. To this day that is the foundation of Mormonism, they believe what what Joseph Smith said. The presenters also stated that, " Joseph Smith gave us the gospel", (really!?). These are just two of the many many differences between Mormonism and Biblical Christianity. Kind regards to all, especially Mormon folk.

[@oldcowboy3367]

Hi Geoff, I agree they would not have known what was written on them or if Joseph made them. Perhaps the fact that they were being held by an Angel, and a voice from heaven spoke and told them to bear witness of the event, would clear up those details.

[@lukesteele4510]

+Geoff_Noyes The 3 witnesses accepted the testimony of the Angel Moroni as to the correctness of the translation and the plates being ancient. So no they didn't need to take just Joseph's word for it. Biblical Christianity is based on just such experiences. Traditional Christianity on the other hand is not.

[@Dustin_McNab]

@@oldcowboy3367 How did they know it was an angel they saw? 2 Cor 11:13-15 warns that Satan can appear as an angel of light and false teachers can appear as apostles of Christ. So just because as "angel" appears to you claiming to have the true gospel of Christ, that doesn't mean you should believe them.

[@oldcowboy3367]

@@Dustin_McNab How did Paul know it was Christ speaking to him in the light and not Satan? How did Mary know they were angels at the tomb. The shepards in the fields watching their flocks by night. You have to justify these and many others too if you are going to claim satanic influence. The angel told Abraham to kill Isaac. That one was Satanic right? Oh, it was God that told him to kill Isaac. The angel stopped him, must of been Satan trying to thwart the will of God.

[@Dustin_McNab]

​@@oldcowboy3367 None of those angels told people to follow a doctrine that doesn't match what God taught. Granted, Christ was asking Paul to radically change his beliefs, but that was supported by Christ rising from the dead, a claim that was backed up by the rest of the Apostles. If Joseph Smith rose from the dead, it would make his claims a lot more credible, but he didn't. That makes Smith one of many teachers who have taught a gospel that doesn't match what the Apostles taught. Paul was quite clear on this issue of teachers. If their gospel doesn't match the gospel the Apostles taught, we should reject them. There isn't even a suggestion that we should accept a new or restored gospel if we see a vision of an angel or plates. That is what God's word says. How can we have faith in God if we don't take God's word seriously?

[@williamhaddock1838]

If you are here in Nov/Dec 2020 - 'Epistemology' may be a process in the courtroom but it certainly does not lead to the truth in US courts !! Ideally yes, but not in practice.

[@PapaKryptoss]

What the heck is mimi wearing

[@Amytheproject]

I don't see why it matters if the scripture feels good if it isn't true . Alot of bad things have made me feel good too ex . Alcahol .

[@devonblake731]

Witnesses of feelings often reveal some sort of truth. The fact that alcohol has an effect on your feelings is a witness that alcohol has unusual properties that are unique to other substances. If you were to drink a gallon of beer and you didn’t get drunk, you could conclude it had no alcohol in it. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in a phenomenon called The Manifestation of The Holy Ghost, and we put our trust in that spirit. If we couldn’t distinguish it from any other type of Good feelings that we had or if it taught us something we knew was wrong, we would determine that there was nothing special about it. Likewise if we lived our life by certain principles and we didn’t feel the spirit, then we could determine that the spirit did not witness to us about that principle.

[@seans5289]

DEVON BLAKE: isn’t the fact that alcohol can affect your feelings make them unreliable evidence of truth?

[@devonblake731]

Sean S, Feelings can be like any type of witnesses. Some are false witnesses and some are true witnesses. When it comes to spiritual discernment, as spoken about in the scriptures, the challenge is to become familiar with the feelings from God, the feelings from the spirit of the adversary, base feelings of the flesh, and feelings developed from our own thoughts. (Edit: drug and alcohol induced feelings could be added to that list too).

[@seans5289]

DEVON BLAKE: how do you know if you are feeling the spirit vs. simply feeling happy?

[@kenhilker2507]

@@devonblake731 I understand that they have a feeling that is different from and more special than other feelings, but how are church members able to attribute that feeling to The Holy Ghost? What takes members from "this feeling is different" to "this feeling came from the LDS interpretation of the Holy Ghost"?