What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_Who Knows]

It's more than prayer. Have you tried the FSM's doctrine? Does it work? Even if it did, I'm under no obligation to agree with you until I see for myself.

What do you mean 'see for yourself'? You mean try it out for yourself? If/when it doesn't work for you, then what?

It approaches science in that ZKP is indeed a valid method of learning about whether something is correct. It is different in that you can't prove to others that you know it is correct.

Again, I disagree. You can prove it to others, because you can show them the method that you used (ie. I told Patty to use these routes and she used those those exact routes every single time - she was never wrong - that's how i know she knows the secret password). The method has been 'scientifically' proven. Additionally, you can re-perform it any time you like, and have them observe it. You can also have others use the method, and they will get the exact same results.

[_asbestosman]

It's more than prayer. Have you tried the FSM's doctrine? Does it work? Even if it did, I'm under no obligation to agree with you until I see for myself.

What do you mean 'see for yourself'? You mean try it out for yourself? If/when it doesn't work for you, then what?

Yes, I mean try it out for myself. If it doesn't work then I consider it falsified. However, you are under no obligation to agree with me. For you know I'm insane, lying, insincere, or whatever.

It approaches science in that ZKP is indeed a valid method of learning about whether something is correct. It is different in that you can't prove to others that you know it is correct.

Again, I disagree. You can prove it to others, because you can show them the method that you used (ie. I told Patty to use these routes and she used those those exact routes every single time - she was never wrong - that's how I know she knows the secret password). The method has been 'scientifically' proven. Additionally, you can re-perform it any time you like, and have them observe it. You can also have others use the method, and they will get the exact same results.

You are right that whether the ultimate answer about whether the church is true or false is not really left up to individuals. That is to say I think the church is universally true or false. We agree on that point. Where we disagree on is whether or not we can trust another's evaluation of the truthfulness of the church. The church can't be true for me and false for you. That would be a contradiction. It can, however, be the case that we come to different conclusions on this point and yet not be required to accept the other's evalution of the evidence. Perhaps I'm insane, dishonest, insincere, or whatever. I think you have no way of knowing.

[_Runtu]

I had what I considered to be some spiritual experiences that to me confirmed that the church was what it said it was. Specifically, however, there were two core questions:

1. Did Joseph Smith restore true scriptures?
2. Was Joseph Smith an honest man of good character?

Once I realized that the answer to both of those was most likely "no," I reconsidered the spiritual experiences. They happened, but I believe they didn't mean what I thought they meant.

[_The Dude]

It approaches science in that ZKP is indeed a valid method of learning about whether something is correct. It is different in that you can't prove to others that you know it is correct.

I agree that ZKP illustrates something that you can prove for yourself but you can't prove for others, but I still don't see it as a good parallel to what goes on in a religion experiment.

Going back to the Cave Story... doesn't it depend on knowing that Peggy is really there? Your assurance that she's real is more important even than the answers Peggy gives you.

I also must question the connection between feeling happy and enlightened from following religious commandments, and knowing that it is "correct". Knowing what is correct? That certain actions make you feel happy/enlightened doesn't tell you anything about the basis of those commandments or the belief system they are attached to. I imagine the Scientologists feel a degree of happiness and enlightenment from their religious experiments, but their faith is in a manufactured scam.

If Peggy's existence can be a manufactured scam, then ZKP cannot test the truthfulness of Peggy's answers.

[_asbestosman]

Going back to the Cave Story... doesn't it depend on knowing that Peggy is really there? Your assurance that she's real is more important even than the answers Peggy gives you.

I also must question the connection between feeling happy and enlightened from following religious commandments, and knowing that it is "correct". Knowing what is correct? That certain actions make you feel happy/enlightened doesn't tell you anything about the basis of those commandments or the belief system they are attached to. I imagine the Scientologists feel a degree of happiness and enlightenment from their religious experiments, but their faith is in a manufactured scam.

If Peggy's existence can be a manufactured scam, then ZKP cannot test the truthfulness of Peggy's answers.

Indeed there needs to be more to my ZKP than I have given. Maybe nobody will be fill in the details and then it will die. However, I still think it has potential. Again, I think it has to be more than merely feeling enlightened or happy. I think there has to be other discernable results (perhaps one becomes better at various things in life--may better at communicating with others). Again, I haven't finalized the details, and I am probably incapable of doing so on my own.

[_Who Knows]

Yes, I mean try it out for myself. If it doesn't work then I consider it falsified. However, you are under no obligation to agree with me. For you know I'm insane, lying, insincere, or whatever.

So would you consider the method basically 'scientific'?

[_asbestosman]

Yes, I mean try it out for myself. If it doesn't work then I consider it falsified. However, you are under no obligation to agree with me. For you know I'm insane, lying, insincere, or whatever.

So would you consider the method basically 'scientific'?

Depends on your definition of the word, 'is'. ;)

I consider the method to be a valid way of discerning truth.

[_Who Knows]

Depends on your definition of the word, 'is'. ;)

Sorry, i'm not following you.

[_asbestosman]

Depends on your definition of the word, 'is'. ;)

Sorry, I'm not following you.

I consider the method to be a valid way of discerning truth. I don't know that I'd call it 'science' so much as another method of discerning truth which has important commanalities with science.

[_Runtu]

Depends on your definition of the word, 'is'. ;)

I consider the method to be a valid way of discerning truth.

One thing I learned after I "lost my testimony" is that for Moroni's promise to work, you have to want to believe it's true beforehand. You have to read the book with the idea that it is true and then ask for confirmation. When I followed President Hinckley's counsel to reread the Book of Mormon in 2005, it was the first time I had read the book not to confirm its validity but to evaluate the book. I kept an open mind, prayed for guidance, and asked for a spiritual witness. What came instead was a realization that I had failed to evaluate the book properly the many times I had read it before. I read it many times wanting it to be true, wishing it was true, praying it was true. When I looked at it again, the book's textual evidence was clear and plain.