Click Here to Read My Ongoing Interview with Wade Englund

[_Tal Bachman]

Wade

I'm happy to be interviewed by you, and you can ask me whatever you'd like, though I think we should start a new thread for that.

I hope you will read my remarks below carefully.

You might not like the phrasing of my question, but I cannot believe that you are incapable of comprehending or answering what I think is the perfectly clear and valid point behind it. Here is that point, just in case it is not clear.

Mormonism claims to be the only true religion in the universe. That ultimate claim is built on a structure of interlinked sub-claims, the falsity of any one of which, however, would demonstrate the untenability of the whole structure, and force us to conclude that Mormonism's ultimate claim is untrue. One of those sub-claims states that "through the power of the Holy Ghost", one can gain knowledge that Mormonism is all it claims. That knowledge is known as a testimony. (Your pal Jeff Lindsay agrees with me: See http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Te ... shtml#test)

Now, I think everyone, including you, would agree that it is irrefutable that if Mormonism cannot be defended on its own terms, then it cannot be defended at all. And what I am suggesting to you is that your post-modernism-inspired defense of "knowledge" that Mormonism is all it claims, relies on a rejection of what Mormonism itself says about knowledge (that is, you are trying defending it not on its own terms, but on far different, even apostate, terms). And I am suggesting that because you are doing that, in the very act of trying to defend Mormonism, you are accidentally making a very strong case for the falsity of this particular epistemic claim.

I mentioned above that if Mormonism cannot be defended on its own terms, that it cannot be defended at all. So one obvious question is, what are Mormonism's "own terms" when it comes to knowledge/testimony? Here are a few unambiguous statements about Mormon knowledge..

Joseph Smith said:

"No man can receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations. The Holy Ghost is a revelator". (Teachings, p. 328).

And what does the Holy Ghost reveal? Joseph Smith answers again:

"It needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God" (HC, 4:588). "Knowledge", Wade. There are no qualifications. It's "knowledge".

Lorenzo Snow put it this way:

"The foundation upon which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built is the rock of revelation...We have not received this knowledge through flesh and blood...but through the operations of the Holy Ghost." (JD 20:332)

Gordon B. Hinckley adds:

"The Holy Ghost is the testifier of truth...'and by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things" (Nov. '86 Ensign, p. 51).

In his talk "My Testimony", he says:

"I thank the Lord for the knowledge He has given me that Joseph Smith was a prophet of the living God...I thank the Lord, my brethren, that I will not have to wait to meet Moroni before I know the truth of his words. I know this now and have known it for a long time by the power of the Holy Ghost."

http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... ield%3ARef

He also said:

"Here is the wonder of this work, that every man may know for himself. He is not dependent on the teacher or the preacher or the missionary, except as they might instruct and bear witness."

http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... ield%3ARef

He also said:

"And so, my brothers and sisters, as we bid you good-bye for a season, we repeat our firm and enduring testimony. We do it as individuals with a sure and certain knowledge."

http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... ield%3ARef

"Now He has come again, in the latter days, to bless us and warm our hearts, to quicken our faith and bring us sure and certain knowledge of His living reality."

http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... ield%3ARef

To put it in point form:

1.) Mormonism claims that those with a sincere heart are able to gain "certain knowledge" (Hinckley's words) through the Holy Ghost of "the truth of all things" (Mor. 10:3-5);

2.) Your defense relies, literally, on distorting the meaning of the word "knowledge" so as to make it refer potentially to an entire spectrum of inclination to believe, which that word does not and cannot refer to. Moreover, in none of the prophetic passages quoted above is the word "knowledge" used in the usefully distorted way in which you use it above; rather, in every case, it is used to refer to....knowledge. It's really very simple. I suggest the only reason to confuse this all is to try to keep the whole thing somehow believable. But that's not a very good reason, is it?

I might add that the injury attempted upon the clear meaning of knowledge you attempt above, was never even contemplated prior to the advent of lunatic post-modernists, and the defenders of a church, the epistemic claims of which have obviously proven to be unbelievable even to themselves. I mean, your attempted re-definition of the concept of knowledge, were it accepted, would render totally insane the entire gospel you are trying to defend. Can you imagine your "knowledge doesn't necessarily mean knowledge" definition applied to Jesus's solemn statement to his father, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"? Trying to defend the Mormon testimony in this way, is nothing more than a tacit admission that on its own terms, the very concept of a Mormon testimony is indefensible. Anyway...

3.) Your explanation and defense of your testimony, and testimony in general, is an example of trying to defend Mormonism by ignoring the clear terms of Mormonism itself;

4.) As such, it contstitutes not only a failure, but in fact a severe, if unwitting, indictment of Mormonism.

Your own comments demonstrate that you yourself are incapable of believing Mormon doctrine on the Mormon testimony. So why should anyone else believe it, Wade? And perhaps even more illustrative of the nature of Mormon faith, and what it may actually do to our cognitive capacities, is that you seem unable to recognize what I think to almost everyone else, must be very recognizable.

How in the world can you get around this?

T.

[_wenglund]

Wade

I'm happy to be interviewed by you, and you can ask me whatever you'd like, though I think we should start a new thread for that.

I hope you will read my remarks below carefully.

You might not like the phrasing of my question, but I cannot believe that you are incapable of comprehending or answering what I think is the perfectly clear and valid point behind it. Here is that point, just in case it is not clear.

Mormonism claims to be the only true religion in the universe. That ultimate claim is built on a structure of interlinked sub-claims, the falsity of any one of which, however, would demonstrate the untenability of the whole structure, and force us to conclude that Mormonism's ultimate claim is untrue. One of those sub-claims states that "through the power of the Holy Ghost", one can gain knowledge that Mormonism is all it claims. That knowledge is known as a testimony. (Your pal Jeff Lindsay agrees with me: See http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Te ... shtml#test)

Now, I think everyone, including you, would agree that it is irrefutable that if Mormonism cannot be defended on its own terms, then it cannot be defended at all. And what I am suggesting to you is that your post-modernism-inspired defense of "knowledge" that Mormonism is all it claims, relies on a rejection of what Mormonism itself says about knowledge (that is, you are trying defending it not on its own terms, but on far different, even apostate, terms). And I am suggesting that because you are doing that, in the very act of trying to defend Mormonism, you are accidentally making a very strong case for the falsity of this particular epistemic claim.

I mentioned above that if Mormonism cannot be defended on its own terms, that it cannot be defended at all. So one obvious question is, what are Mormonism's "own terms" when it comes to knowledge/testimony? Here are a few unambiguous statements about Mormon knowledge..

Joseph Smith said:

"No man can receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations. The Holy Ghost is a revelator". (Teachings, p. 328).

And what does the Holy Ghost reveal? Joseph Smith answers again:

"It needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God" (HC, 4:588). "Knowledge", Wade. There are no qualifications. It's "knowledge".

Lorenzo Snow put it this way:

"The foundation upon which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is built is the rock of revelation...We have not received this knowledge through flesh and blood...but through the operations of the Holy Ghost." (JD 20:332)

Gordon B. Hinckley adds:

"The Holy Ghost is the testifier of truth...'and by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things" (Nov. '86 Ensign, p. 51).

In his talk "My Testimony", he says:

"I thank the Lord for the knowledge He has given me that Joseph Smith was a prophet of the living God...I thank the Lord, my brethren, that I will not have to wait to meet Moroni before I know the truth of his words. I know this now and have known it for a long time by the power of the Holy Ghost."

http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... ield%3ARef

He also said:

"Here is the wonder of this work, that every man may know for himself. He is not dependent on the teacher or the preacher or the missionary, except as they might instruct and bear witness."

http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... ield%3ARef

He also said:

"And so, my brothers and sisters, as we bid you good-bye for a season, we repeat our firm and enduring testimony. We do it as individuals with a sure and certain knowledge."

http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... ield%3ARef

"Now He has come again, in the latter days, to bless us and warm our hearts, to quicken our faith and bring us sure and certain knowledge of His living reality."

http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... ield%3ARef

To put it in point form:

1.) Mormonism claims that those with a sincere heart are able to gain "certain knowledge" (Hinckley's words) through the Holy Ghost of "the truth of all things" (Mor. 10:3-5);

2.) Your defense relies, literally, on distorting the meaning of the word "knowledge" so as to make it refer potentially to an entire spectrum of inclination to believe, which that word does not and cannot refer to. Moreover, in none of the prophetic passages quoted above is the word "knowledge" used in the usefully distorted way in which you use it above; rather, in every case, it is used to refer to....knowledge. It's really very simple. I suggest the only reason to confuse this all is to try to keep the whole thing somehow believable. But that's not a very good reason, is it?

I might add that the injury attempted upon the clear meaning of knowledge you attempt above, was never even contemplated prior to the advent of lunatic post-modernists, and the defenders of a church, the epistemic claims of which have obviously proven to be unbelievable even to themselves. I mean, your attempted re-definition of the concept of knowledge, were it accepted, would render totally insane the entire gospel you are trying to defend. Can you imagine your "knowledge doesn't necessarily mean knowledge" definition applied to Jesus's solemn statement to his father, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"? Trying to defend the Mormon testimony in this way, is nothing more than a tacit admission that on its own terms, the very concept of a Mormon testimony is indefensible. Anyway...

3.) Your explanation and defense of your testimony, and testimony in general, is an example of trying to defend Mormonism by ignoring the clear terms of Mormonism itself;

4.) As such, it contstitutes not only a failure, but in fact a severe, if unwitting, indictment of Mormonism.

Your own comments demonstrate that you yourself are incapable of believing Mormon doctrine on the Mormon testimony. So why should anyone else believe it, Wade? And perhaps even more illustrative of the nature of Mormon faith, and what it may actually do to our cognitive capacities, is that you seem unable to recognize what I think to almost everyone else, must be very recognizable.

How in the world can you get around this?

T.

There is nothing to get around, Tal. You are trying to impose onto the Church and me your fundamentalist (overly rigid, and self-undermining) INTERPRETATION of the word "knowledge" or "certain knowledge" and even "sure knowledge". Sorry, but I don't recognize you as the ultimate authortity, let alone an authority at all, for what that word is supposed to mean for me and my faith. Granted, you are within your rights to interpret it however you wish for yourself--which may explain why you have had a loss of faith, and why me and my buddy Jeff Lindsey and others, haven't. But, I am afforded that same right.

When you read the word "knowledge", you, in your fundamentalist way of thinking, interpret that to mean absolute or perfect knowledge. Using that interpretaton, and on those terms, Mormonism may not be defensible. But, then again, nothing would be (religious or secular), as you will soon discover once you start answering my questions.

However, when I read that word, I understand it to mean "that in which there is sufficient confidence that it is true--in so far as one can know the truth". Using that interpretation, and on those terms, Mormonism is quite defensible, and so are most credible epistemologies/paradigms (religious or secular).

By the way, my interpretation of the word "knowledge" cannot in any reasonable or informed way be considered as "postmodernism" (perhaps you picked up that term from Vogel, who also mis-uses it quite liberally). If you want to tie me to any philosophical school of thought, then perhaps I am best considered Kantian.

As for whether my interpretation of the word "knowledge" may be different from how others, prior to Kant, or even after him, may have understood the term, So what? Such is the progressive nature of "knowledge", and the progressive understanding of what knowledge is and how we know what we know. Perhaps you may wish to lock the notion of "knowledge" into some ancient philosophical box. But I certainly don't see that as useful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

You wrote: "There is nothing to get around, Tal."

---Indeed there is. I'll put it in syllogism form for you:

P1). If Mormonism cannot be defended on its own terms, it cannot be defended at all;

P2.) You are not defending it on its own terms, as they are made clear by Mormon scriptures and prophets, but are rather inventing entirely new (presumably more defensible) terms, for it;

C1.) Therefore, judging at least by your account, Mormonism is indefensible.

Wade, I'm trying to have a rational conversation with you. You have been on the internet trying to defend Joseph Smith's church for years. I want to give you a chance to defend it here. But denials are not a defence. Do the church you wish to defend a favour, and respond to my actual points. For example...

You wrote: "You are trying to impose onto the Church and me your fundamentalist (overly rigid, and self-undermining) INTERPRETATION of the word "knowledge" or "certain knowledge" and even "sure knowledge". Sorry, but I don't recognize you as the ultimate authortity, let alone an authority at all, for what that word is supposed to mean for me and my faith. Granted, you are within your rights to interpret it however you wish for yourself--which may explain why you have had a loss of faith, and why me and my buddy Jeff Lindsey and others, haven't. But, I am afforded that same right."

---Wade, are you able to see what others will see here? Let me try to paint it. They will see a guy trying to claim that there is no reason to take Hinckley's phrase "sure and certain knowledge" to mean "sure and certain knowledge", just so he can maintain a version of Mormonism which is contradicted by the very phrase "sure and certain knowledge". Can you imagine how strange that would appear? By the way, I'm not claiming to be an authority, because there's no need for me to do so - I've only been quoting Mormon scriptures and statements themselves. I can't see how they could be any clearer.

And if you read your above sentence again, you will see that it virtually gives away that it has only been by your ongoing revision of Mormon doctrine itself (through retroactively redefining even the plainest of words and concepts), that explains why you "and your buddy Jeff Lindsay haven't" lost your faith. But this is the whole point, isn't it? It's easy to keep believing in a claim that we can keep changing the meaning of in our heads, isn't it? What would really mean something is if the claim itself, as it is explained by its most authoritative proponents, could be believed in. But here you have all but admitted that is not possible.
They will also see, from the quotes I provided, that I have not imposed a "fundamentalist interpretation" at all on those quotes - they mean what they mean, Wade. They're not ambiguous. And what you and the FAIR guys you seem to have picked this nonsense up from cannot see, is that they are not ambiguous exactly because Mormonism has always had a fundamental epistemic claim at its core. No on "projected" that. It's been part and parcel of Mormonism from the get go. Or have you never read "The Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith"? If not, why not just try reading the quotes I provided you above again?

And just in case you feel tempted to respond with just another denial despite me having presented more than enough evidence to make a denial look extremely silly, I invite you to present just one authoritative quote from Mormon scriptures or Mormon church presidents, which supports your "interpretation" of this fundamental Mormon epistemic claim. Just one. Can you do it?

Waiting.....

When you read the word "knowledge", you, in your fundamentalist way of thinking, interpret that to mean absolute or perfect knowledge. Using that interpretaton, and on those terms, Mormonism may not be defensible. But, then again, nothing would be (religious or secular), as you will soon discover once you start answering my questions.

---WHAT?! WADE, I ain't your defense attorney, but I'm going to have to ask the stenographer to strike that from the record, because you just damned the whole thing. You just incriminated Mormonism! The reason why is because your re-definition is contradicted by all of Mormon doctrine and history, as you may finally realize once you accept my invitation to produce just one authorititative quote supporting your claim that "knowledge" doesn't really mean "knowledge" when it comes to a testimony. What you say here, in other words, is exactly what I have been trying to get across to you: Mormonism on its own terms is indefensible.

However, when I read that word, I understand it to mean "that in which there is sufficient confidence that it is true--in so far as one can know the truth". Using that interpretation, and on those terms, Mormonism is quite defensible, and so are most credible epistemologies/paradigms (religious or secular).

---But the whole point is, your "understanding" not only has NO basis in Mormon scripture or prophetic pronouncement, but is totally contradicted by EVERY relevant comment on what a "testimony" is. You've torpedoed Mormonism by lumping it in with "most credible epistemologies/paradigms (religious or secular)", because Mormonism itself refuses to be so lumped in. It is on its own terms a totally different thing, the one true way, the one religion which can call forth from heaven knowledge, transmitted via the Holy Ghost, that it is everything it claims. IT claims that this is not the case with any other religion, or any other "theory of everything". Mormonism does that, Wade. Haven't you heard? You have given the whole thing away here, by essentially admitting that its epistemic claims, as defined very clearly by Mormon scriptures and prophets themselves, are fraudulent. Why else would you have to ignore them?

By the way, my interpretation of the word "knowledge" cannot in any reasonable or informed way be considered as "postmodernism" (perhaps you picked up that term from Vogel, who also mis-uses it quite liberally). If you want to tie me to any philosophical school of thought, then perhaps I am best considered Kantian.

---I guess that means you have no clue that Kant provided the foundation for post-modern epistemology itself. You see, Wade, what "being a Kantian" necessarily means is exactly what you're proving here: you do not believe something fundamental about Mormonism, by Mormonism's own definition - namely, that the truth can be known through the Holy Ghost. Not "what I perceive to be the truth, which may or may not really be the truth", but...THE TRUTH.

You know, I was going to go ape on here for a second, and really let the sarcasm flow, but I can't. I can't, because you are a sincere guy, Wade. You have done your best to be a good Mormon. I am sure you have done far more toward that end than any of us really even knows. And I am sure you have often looked with admiration upon those prominent folks at FARMS whose job it is to defend Mormonism. How were you to know just how inadequate their arguments were? They trot out allusions to Kant, very obviously with zero clue as to how those allusions undermine what it is they're actually trying to maintain, huff and puff and stomp around with all the great vocabulary words and the swagger and the sarcastic references to "the anti-Mormons" and all the backslapping...how could any sincere, trusting member realize that it was all BS? That underneath all the braggadocio, there was nothing more than a desperate desire to just keep on believing, no matter what the truth might really be? How can you be faulted really for kind of repeating, or rather, using as a starting point, the "arguments" (such as they are) used with such smug seriousness by these guys?

No - if anyone should be faulted for what I see to be the excruciatingly obvious flaws in your own arguments here, it is the dimwits who first invented them, who couldn't even take care to follow the lines of logic to their ends, or run them past those more competent in philosophy or LDS doctrine than they were. And I suppose, really, that in the end, the church itself has to take responsibility for letting such folks defend it professionally; and if there were any doubt that the church were true, I really do think that the fact that it allows such ridiculous arguments to be used by its salaried defenders, might be all the evidence we need that there is something profoundly wrong - or perhaps better, profoundly indefensible - about the claim that...Jesus was a member of the Mormon church.

You may not believe this, but I could not possibly care less if Mormonism had the greatest defence arguments possible. I'd join again tomorrow if I thought for one moment it was what I always thought it was. But all this Kant business, which I think was started by Dan Peterson, is totally ludicrous, for reasons that I'm sure Peterson himself will never be able either to recognize or admit to himself.

I know we're not buddies, but my advice, for what it's worth is - if you want to defend Mormonism, DO NOT copy those dullards, Wade. Don't even listen to them. Read Mormon scriptures, get a good feel for what the church presidents have said, and start there. And the reason you should do that, is because it is obvious to most people, that if Mormonism cannot be defended on its own terms, then it cannot be defended at all, and just as obvious when someone attempts to distort just those terms to achieve that end. Nuh uh. That doesn't work, and never can work, and all the protestations that you simply have your own personal "definition" of words so as to keep believing, will only make the whole thing look more ridiculous.

I feel like we have kind of come to the end of a road here, Wade. I think the nature of your faith is very clear - actually, perhaps for those still holding out hope that Joseph's religion is the only true religion in the world, it has become far too clear. So if you'd like, you can interview me. Or, we can keep going here if you want. I can always ask more questions. I was going to ask, for example, which one of the Spice Girls was your favourite (mine was Baby).

By the way, Wade, I think it's awfully sporting of you to have consented to this.

Thanks,

T.

[_rcrocket]

Mormonism is indefensible.

Is the miracles story of Christianty indefensible?

[_Tal Bachman]

Plutarch mi amigo

Do you want to interview me? If so, I'm game. You wanna start a new thread? There you can ask me all this kind of stuff.

[_Tal Bachman]

Wade,

I noticed you started a new thread inviting me to be interviewed by you. That's fine, but I'm wondering about my invitation. It was this:

"And just in case you feel tempted to respond with just another denial despite me having presented more than enough evidence to make a denial look extremely silly, I invite you to present just one authoritative quote from Mormon scriptures or Mormon church presidents, which supports your 'interpretation' of this fundamental Mormon epistemic claim. Just one. Can you do it?"

Can you?

Just wondering before we move on.

Tal

[_wenglund]

Hi Tal,

You simply restated what you said previously, and you did so in the same confused and misunderstanding way as you did before. So, I am not sure what more I can do other than reclarify and correct you again.

Even were the premises correct, your syllogism would still be fallacious (non sequitur). It doesn't follow that Mormonism is indefensible. At best, what one may logically deduce from your two premises, is that I have not defended Mormonism on its own terms. That does not mean I or anyone else can't defend Mormonism on its own terms As such, it is fallacious for you to conclude that Mormonism is indefensible.

As for your second premise, it is incorrect in at least three ways: 1) I am not defending the Church, nor am I even defending my own faith. Rather, I am simply attempting to answer questions supposedly intended to understand my faith. 2) I am not inventing entirely different terms. I am using the same terms (i.e. "know" and "knowledge") used in the scriptures you quoted. 3) I am not inventing entirely different terms, I am INTERPRETING the same terms (i.e "know" and "knowledge") differently than you.

As for your first premise, that may very well be true were I defending Mormonism on its own terms. Again, I am not. Rather, if I am defending anythng at all, it is my view of the gospel of Christ and my interpretation of the scriptures and words of the prophet. In other words, your first premise is irrelevant. What it should read is, "If Wade's view of Mormonism can't be defended on it's own terms, then it can't be defended at all (this is not to be confused with me supposedly defending my view of Mormonism on your terms). This is important to understand and not confuse--as you continue to do. To keep it straight, it may help were you to stop pretending you are interviewing me with the fake intent to understand me better (when in truth you seem more intent on disclosing your own point of view,mistakingly thinking it is somehow binding on me, and thus my faith is irreconcilable), and actually interview me with that intent in mind. In short, seek for understanding rather than to debate (which you do an extremely poor job of, whether you or others here recognize that or not).

So, not only is your syllogism fallacious, but one of your two premises is false and the other is irrelevant.. As such, there is nothing to get around.

Now, this may come as a shock to you, but I am not the least bit concerned about what others here may see me as supposedly doing. Perhaps I might be concerned if the others here were sufficiently informed and intelligent enough to correctly grasp what it is I have been saying. But, then, were that the case I wouldn't have to repave the roads you keep messing up.

As for whether it's easy to keep believing in a claim that we can keep changing the meaning of in our heads, I agree with you. This is a key point. If by "changing the meaning in our heads" you mean "change due to growth and expansion of understanding", then you are correct. It is easy to keep believing on that basis. Both Jeff and I have found that to be the case even given our growth in secular understanding. Perhaps, though, you haven't grown in your understanding of the gospel, but have held on to your childhood or youthful perceptions (which is what I mean by "fundamentalism"), and now that you have gained a little secular "knowledge" as you suppose (though still evidently lacking in mature understanding), you misthink that the one negates the others, and thus you have lost your faith. Said another way, your youthful understanding of the gospel was too rigid and narrow to withstand the pressure exerted by your secular "knowledge", and the flexibility that comes with mature understanding was sufficiently lacking such that when your testimony was tested and bent, it broke--a not uncommon occurance among beginning philosophy students.

Be that as it may, such is, understandibly and reasonably, the fluid nature of "knowledge" and INTERPRETATION--at least for those who are developing and maturing epistemically. When I was taught as a child that Heavenly Father loves me, my understand of what that meant then is quite different from what it means to me now. As I have experienced love over the years, my understanding of that notion has greatly expanded, and consequently the meaning of that term has changed and revised--as well it should. The same is true for my understanding of Moroni 10 and other scriptures containing the words "know" and "knowledge". I understand them differently than when I was in my youth, and I understand them differently than you and others do. That does not mean I was wrong about those terms in my youth or you may be wrong in your youthful intrerpretation either. Rather, it is a difference in development in understanding on this issue. As Paul has said, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor. 13:8-11)

You asked me for a passage of scripture that speaks to what I have been saying. Well, that is perhaps the best.

Because of the reasonably fluid nature of interpretation as well as the inexactitude of human language (there are multiple connotations of words), relative ambiguity is unavoidable. However, it is not uncommon for those unfamiliar with the limitations and challenges of human language (particularly where translations from different languages are concerned), and who have a fundamentalistic view of textual analysis, to consider words and meanings to be unabiguous, and to also consider their interpretation to be the unabiguous one, and not recognize that in so doing they, in fact, are imposing their fundamentalist view onto others. In general, it is like when teenagers think they know what life and things are all about, and their parents don't know anything. Yet, as they mature and gain experience and knowledge and become parents themselves, it then often becomes evident to them that that their parents did know better what they were talking and the teen didn't. Who knows. Maybe the same thing will happen to you fundamentalist thinkers some day. ;-)

Waiting.....

When you read the word "knowledge", you, in your fundamentalist way of thinking, interpret that to mean absolute or perfect knowledge. Using that interpretaton, and on those terms, Mormonism may not be defensible. But, then again, nothing would be (religious or secular), as you will soon discover once you start answering my questions.

---WHAT?! WADE, I ain't your defense attorney, but I'm going to have to ask the stenographer to strike that from the record, because you just damned the whole thing. You just incriminated Mormonism! The reason why is because your re-definition is contradicted by all of Mormon doctrine and history, as you may finally realize once you accept my invitation to produce just one authorititative quote supporting your claim that "knowledge" doesn't really mean "knowledge" when it comes to a testimony. What you say here, in other words, is exactly what I have been trying to get across to you: Mormonism on its own terms is indefensible.

First of all, I wouldn't hire you to be my defense lawyer because you lack the capacity to accurately and fully understand my case, nor apparently do you have the capacity to grasp how your "thinking" fatally undermine your own case. I was obviously applying the technique of Reductio ad absurdum to YOUR "reasoning" and interpretation of the word "knowledge, and pointing out that it is absurd. YOUR "reasoning" effectively eliminates the capacity to "know" anything. Sorry you missed it.

However, when I read that word, I understand it to mean "that in which there is sufficient confidence that it is true--in so far as one can know the truth". Using that interpretation, and on those terms, Mormonism is quite defensible, and so are most credible epistemologies/paradigms (religious or secular).

---But the whole point is, your "understanding" not only has NO basis in Mormon scripture or prophetic pronouncement, but is totally contradicted by EVERY relevant comment on what a "testimony" is. You've torpedoed Mormonism by lumping it in with "most credible epistemologies/paradigms (religious or secular)", because Mormonism itself refuses to be so lumped in. It is on its own terms a totally different thing, the one true way, the one religion which can call forth from heaven knowledge, transmitted via the Holy Ghost, that it is everything it claims. IT claims that this is not the case with any other religion, or any other "theory of everything". Mormonism does that, Wade. Haven't you heard? You have given the whole thing away here, by essentially admitting that its epistemic claims, as defined very clearly by Mormon scriptures and prophets themselves, are fraudulent. Why else would you have to ignore them?

Please point out where in the scriptures the words "know" or "knowledge" are specifically defined. (Hint: I am not asking where these words have been used, nor am I asking for instances where adjectives like "certain" and "sure" have been used in relation thereto). Please also point out where the adjectives "sure" and "certain" have been specifically defined in the scriptures or by the prophets as well. (Hint: they don't)

I ask because, given that there are multiple connotations for each of these terms, and multiple levels of understanding (see above), then unless there is a specified definition, these terms are, in fact, open to interpretation, and thus you are, yet again, incorrect. For example, the Online Dictionary defines the word "certain" as: "Having or showing confidence; assured", and the word "know" as: "to be cognizant or aware of: I know it", which is precisely the connotations I had in mind when interpreting President Hinckley's statement.

By the way, my interpretation of the word "knowledge" cannot in any reasonable or informed way be considered as "postmodernism" (perhaps you picked up that term from Vogel, who also mis-uses it quite liberally). If you want to tie me to any philosophical school of thought, then perhaps I am best considered Kantian.

---I guess that means you have no clue that Kant provided the foundation for post-modern epistemology itself. You see, Wade, what "being a Kantian" necessarily means is exactly what you're proving here: you do not believe something fundamental about Mormonism, by Mormonism's own definition - namely, that the truth can be known through the Holy Ghost. Not "what I perceive to be the truth, which may or may not really be the truth", but...THE TRUTH.

Your right. I didn't know that Kant supposedly provided the foundation for post-modernism. He died in 1804, a good 60 years prior to the "modern" era, and more than a 100 years before the "post-modern" era, which began around 1910. Whether or not some of his ideas have been used and built upon by postmodernist, Kantismm and postmodernism are not the same. I guess you were clueless about that.

However, you are wrong in how you "understand" Kant. According to Kant (or a collegiate level text book on Kant): "the rationalists are right in saying that we can know about things in the world with certainty; and the empiricists are right in saying that such knowledge cannot be limited merely to truths by definition nor can it be provided by experience. Instead, we know about the world insofar as we experience it according to the unchanging and universally shared structure of mind...We can be said to know things about the world, then, not because we somehow step outside of our minds to compare what we experience with some reality outside of it, but rather because the world we know is always already organized according to a certain fixed (innate) pattern that is the mind. Knowledge is possible because it is about how things appear to us, not about how things are in themselves. Reason provides the structure or form of what we know, the senses provide the content." (Emphasis added)

---You know, I was going to go ape on here for a second, and really let the sarcasm flow, but I can't. I can't, because you are a sincere guy, Wade. You have done your best to be a good Mormon. I am sure you have done far more toward that end than any of us really even knows. And I am sure you have often looked with admiration upon those prominent folks at FARMS whose job it is to defend Mormonism. How were you to know just how inadequate their arguments were? They trot out allusions to Kant, very obviously with zero clue as to how those allusions undermine what it is they're actually trying to maintain, huff and puff and stomp around with all the great vocabulary words and the swagger and the sarcastic references to "the anti-Mormons" and all the backslapping...how could any sincere, trusting member realize that it was all BS? That underneath all the braggadocio, there was nothing more than a desperate desire to just keep on believing, no matter what the truth might really be? How can you be faulted really for kind of repeating, or rather, using as a starting point, the "arguments" (such as they are) used with such smug seriousness by these guys?

No - if anyone should be faulted for what I see to be the excruciatingly obvious flaws in your own arguments here, it is the dimwits who first invented them, who couldn't even take care to follow the lines of logic to their ends, or run them past those more competent in philosophy or LDS doctrine than they were. And I suppose, really, that in the end, the church itself has to take responsibility for letting such folks defend it professionally; and if there were any doubt that the church were true, I really do think that the fact that it allows such ridiculous arguments to be used by its salaried defenders, might be all the evidence we need that there is something profoundly wrong - or perhaps better, profoundly indefensible - about the claim that...Jesus was a member of the Mormon church.

You may not believe this, but I could not possibly care less if Mormonism had the greatest defence arguments possible. I'd join again tomorrow if I thought for one moment it was what I always thought it was. But all this Kant business, which I think was started by Dan Peterson, is totally ludicrous, for reasons that I'm sure Peterson himself will never be able either to recognize or admit to himself.

I know we're not buddies, but my advice, for what it's worth is - if you want to defend Mormonism, DO NOT copy those dullards, Wade. Don't even listen to them. Read Mormon scriptures, get a good feel for what the church presidents have said, and start there. And the reason you should do that, is because it is obvious to most people, that if Mormonism cannot be defended on its own terms, then it cannot be defended at all, and just as obvious when someone attempts to distort just those terms to achieve that end. Nuh uh. That doesn't work, and never can work, and all the protestations that you simply have your own personal "definition" of words so as to keep believing, will only make the whole thing look more ridiculous.

Let's see, on the one hand I have a semi-educated fundamentalist thinking rock star wannabe, who makes obvious and elementary syllogistic mistakes, and unwittingly and mistakenly projects his own seriously flawwed view onto the Church as well as onto the reasoning public, and is unfamiliar with and fails to grasp mature and sophisticated philosophical notions, let alone how they may or may not apply to religious faith in general and individual faith in particular, and who not only doesn't get what I have said, but who apparently has misrepresented his intents in interviewing me. And, on the other hand I have doctorates in language, who are well read and astute in philosophy, and who have a mature grasp of the restored gospel of Christ. Gee...I wonder who the real "dullard" is? Boy, is it going to be hard for me to figure out which hand to go with. LOL

I feel like we have kind of come to the end of a road here, Wade. I think the nature of your faith is very clear - actually, perhaps for those still holding out hope that Joseph's religion is the only true religion in the world, it has become far too clear. So if you'd like, you can interview me. Or, we can keep going here if you want. I can always ask more questions. I was going to ask, for example, which one of the Spice Girls was your favourite (mine was Baby).

By the way, Wade, I think it's awfully sporting of you to have consented to this. Thanks, T.

I am quite certain that you haven't sufficiently grasped how and why I believe, but you have tenaciously held firm to your false preconceived notions. I can accept that there is a dysfunctional safety in your holding to that view, and thus the road does, in fact, end there. In truth, the road (or rather your mind), was never open to my opposing point of view. Whatever.

If any time soon you chance developing enough of an inner security and a genuine and sincere interest to honestly and openly consider what I have to say (in other words, seek to understand rather than debate), and are willing to properly educate yourself, then I will be pleased to have you ask me more questions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

In truth, the road (or rather your mind), was never open to my opposing point of view. Whatever.

If any time soon you chance developing enough of an inner security and a genuine and sincere interest to honestly and openly consider what I have to say (in other words, seek to understand rather than debate), and are willing to properly educate yourself, then I will be pleased to have you ask me more questions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Were you ever open to his opposing point of view? Just curious.

[_wenglund]

In truth, the road (or rather your mind), was never open to my opposing point of view. Whatever.

If any time soon you chance developing enough of an inner security and a genuine and sincere interest to honestly and openly consider what I have to say (in other words, seek to understand rather than debate), and are willing to properly educate yourself, then I will be pleased to have you ask me more questions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Were you ever open to his opposing point of view? Just curious.

Yes, obviously--as evinced by the lengths to which I went to entertain and respond to his hypotheticals and philosophical "challenges" to my point of view.

In fact, I once held at least a key portion of his point of view--i.e. back in my youth I had a fundamentalistic (rigid and narrow) view of "knowledge".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

You wrote:

You simply restated what you said previously, and you did so in the same confused and misunderstanding way as you did before. So, I am not sure what more I can do other than reclarify and correct you again.

---(Listening)

Even were the premises correct, your syllogism would still be fallacious (non sequitur). It doesn't follow that Mormonism is indefensible. At best, what one may logically deduce from your two premises, is that I have not defended Mormonism on its own terms. That does not mean I or anyone else can't defend Mormonism on its own terms As such, it is fallacious for you to conclude that Mormonism is indefensible.

---I am getting one indication of why you find my comments so "confusing": you don't seem to have read them very carefully. What I said in that syllogism was that Mormonism, "at least judging by your own account", is indefensible. I admit that it may be entirely defensible, and you are just not doing a very good job of it; but after so many years of searching and researching, I have not been able to find any non-self-undermining defense of it anywhere. They all end up suggesting the truth of the very thing they are trying to argue against, that is, that Mormonism, whatever else it might be, is not what it claims to be. So in a funny way, I might have a less critical view of your attempts to defend it as you might. The fact is, you've done no less good a job of defending Mormonism than anyone else has. It's not your fault it (apparently) can't really be defended by anyone.

As for your second premise, it is incorrect in at least three ways: 1) I am not defending the Church, nor am I even defending my own faith. Rather, I am simply attempting to answer questions supposedly intended to understand my faith. 2) I am not inventing entirely different terms. I am using the same terms (i.e. "know" and "knowledge") used in the scriptures you quoted. 3) I am not inventing entirely different terms, I am INTERPRETING the same terms (i.e "know" and "knowledge") differently than you.

---Wade, let me try another analogy to try to help you understand me. Let's say you claim to be a devout believe in the GOP platform, which is pro-life. You then tell me that you support early, mid, and late term abortion rights, including partial-birth abortion rights. When I ask you to explain how these two things can be reconciled, you reply that you have your "own, more advanced, interpretation" of what "pro-life" really means, that it includes your opinions on abortion rights, and that there is therefore "nothing to get around". I then produce a bunch of quotes from all the drafters of the GOP platform, which are very plain about what "pro-life" means. And you yourself even produce words from your own dictionary (see below) which demonstrate that your "interpretation" is contradicted by all the GOP leaders and the GOP platform. Moreover, you cannot produce one single authoritative quote from the GOP platform or its drafters which supports a definition of "pro-life" which allows for partial-birth abortions. Despite this, you label as a "fundamentalist" anyone who concludes that there is something incongruous about your claim to believe in the GOP platform, but also believe in abortion rights. Can you see how in the act of explaining your faith, you might reveal yourself to be confused? Can you see how strange, or even silly, it might be for you to defend something which you can only believe in by ignoring what it says about itself? That doesn't make much sense, does it?

As for your first premise, that may very well be true were I defending Mormonism on its own terms. Again, I am not.

---No, you are not. That could not be more obvious, nor could it be more telling. The question it raises is this: What does it mean about Mormonism, that no Mormon defender can defend Mormonism on its own terms?

In short, seek for understanding rather than to debate (which you do an extremely poor job of, whether you or others here recognize that or not).

---Wade, you chastize me for my interviewing style, which had as its purpose understanding the nature of your own faith. Yet, this interview I think has been successful in that sense, since through it you have made plain that your continued faith in Mormonism requires you to very obviously, and seemingly almost intentionally, distort Mormonism in order to keep believing in it.

And this is just what I anticipated might happen. Do you know why? Because it always happens. Always. Why else would the likes of Richard Bushman have to ignore canonical statements like "he said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent", and then construct some weird new "interpretation" which allows him to believe it's never been "definitively established" that the setting of the Book of Mormon was the American continent? Of course it was "definitively established": if you're a believing Mormon, it was "definitively established" by none other than an angel named Moroni himself! http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/bm/jstestimony. You have peformed the same trick on the matter of the Mormon testimony. You also, earlier, allowed that the Book of Mormon setting might not be America, notwithstanding "Moroni"'s positive identification.

So the question is, then: What does this strange "belief through spontaneous apostate 're-interpretation'" really say about the nature of the faith of the person doing it? Two possibilities: that it is made possible either through profound ignorance of Mormon scriptural and prophetic statements, or through a kind of self-deception. Either way, the nature of the member's faith reveals itself to be not what Mormon scriptures promise it can be. And of course, that doesn't leave Mormonism looking very credible, does it?

Now, this may come as a shock to you, but I am not the least bit concerned about what others here may see me as supposedly doing. Perhaps I might be concerned if the others here were sufficiently informed and intelligent enough to correctly grasp what it is I have been saying. But, then, were that the case I wouldn't have to repave the roads you keep messing up.

---(Listening...)

[As for whether it's easy to keep believing in a claim that we can keep changing the meaning of in our heads, I agree with you. This is a key point. If by "changing the meaning in our heads" you mean "change due to growth and expansion of understanding", then you are correct.

---So I wonder then, Wade: where are the scriptures and prophetic statements which you now understand support your "interpretation" of the Mormon testimony?

Said another way, your youthful understanding of the gospel was too rigid and narrow to withstand the pressure exerted by your secular "knowledge", and the flexibility that comes with mature understanding was sufficiently lacking such that when your testimony was tested and bent, it broke--a not uncommon occurance among beginning philosophy students. [/i]

---I hate to say this, but no one needs to study philosophy to understand how incongruous are explanations of faith like yours with actual Mormon prophetic and scriptural statements. They only need to be able to read.

You asked me for a passage of scripture that speaks to what I have been saying. Well, that is perhaps the best.

Because of the reasonably fluid nature of interpretation as well as the inexactitude of human language (there are multiple connotations of words), relative ambiguity is unavoidable. However, it is not uncommon for those unfamiliar with the limitations and challenges of human language (particularly where translations from different languages are concerned), and who have a fundamentalistic view of textual analysis, to consider words and meanings to be unabiguous, and to also consider their interpretation to be the unabiguous one, and not recognize that in so doing they, in fact, are imposing their fundamentalist view onto others. In general, it is like when teenagers think they know what life and things are all about, and their parents don't know anything. Yet, as they mature and gain experience and knowledge and become parents themselves, it then often becomes evident to them that that their parents did know better what they were talking and the teen didn't. Who knows. Maybe the same thing will happen to you fundamentalist thinkers some day. ;-)

---Wade, the point is: it isn't me. It's the prophets of the church. Didn't you read the quotes I provided above? It's those guys who contradict your "interpretation". Those are the guys, by the way, who the D&C tells us the Lord will not permit to lead the church astray. Or do you have a new "interpretation" for the words "permit", "lead", and "astray", now, too?

The point is, the nature of your faith is a reliance on a fundamental disagreement with the most authoritative voices of your religion. You are correct that you can interpret things however you want; the point here, though, is that the degree to which you (and I might add, other apologists) have distorted Mormon doctrine, reveals that in profound ways, you are as apostate as those who you think of as "real" apostates. Turns out, that not even the most prominent defenders of Mormonism can believe in it. And that that thought might strike you as absurd, doesn't mean it is any less true, for you, and the Bushmans and Sorensons of the world, prove it every day.

First of all, I wouldn't hire you to be my defense lawyer because you lack the capacity to accurately and fully understand my case, nor apparently do you have the capacity to grasp how your "thinking" fatally undermine your own case.

---Why don't you explain how to me? I'm listening.

I was obviously applying the technique of Reductio ad absurdum to YOUR "reasoning" and interpretation of the word "knowledge, and pointing out that it is absurd. YOUR "reasoning" effectively eliminates the capacity to "know" anything. Sorry you missed it.

---Yes, I did miss it, and continue to miss it. I miss it because my reasoning doesn't eliminate the capacity to know at all; if anyone's has, it is yours, by re-defining the word "knowledge" to cover everything from a hunch to whatever it is you think is the ultimate level of certainty, and by stating that truth should only ever be put in quotation marks. By contrast, I do think we can know whether certain things are true. Or are you really unsure about whether two plus two equal four, or whether you are conscious? If you're not, then in reality, you agree with me.

Please point out where in the scriptures the words "know" or "knowledge" are specifically defined. (Hint: I am not asking where these words have been used, nor am I asking for instances where adjectives like "certain" and "sure" have been used in relation thereto).

---So, let's see: You want me to produce even more quotes which, like the last ones I produced, describe the Mormon testimony as "sure and certain knowledge", but which don't describe it as "sure and certain knowledge"? Can it be true you don't see any problem with this request? And why should I, when you ignored all the last ones I produced, which could not have been clearer? Why don't you produce a few of your own which show that a testimony is NOT "knowledge", or "sure and certain knowledge"? Why not just produce one?

Please also point out where the adjectives "sure" and "certain" have been specifically defined in the scriptures or by the prophets as well. (Hint: they don't)

---I have a better idea, Wade: Since you obviously do not believe that the words "sure" and "certain" mean "sure" and "certain", why don't you tell the world what you think the words "sure" and "certain" mean?

I ask because, given that there are multiple connotations for each of these terms, and multiple levels of understanding (see above), then unless there is a specified definition, these terms are, in fact, open to interpretation, and thus you are, yet again, incorrect. For example, the Online Dictionary defines the word "certain" as: "Having or showing confidence; assured", and the word "know" as: "to be cognizant or aware of: I know it", which is precisely the connotations I had in mind when interpreting President Hinckley's statement.

---Good, this is just what I requested.

Do I really need to point out that even by the definitions you've presented, a Mormon testimony would be an "assured awareness" of something? Why, of course it would. Why don't you further cite your dictionary's definition of the word "sure"? Then perhaps you will even prove to yourself that your "interpretation" of a Mormon testimony is contradicted not just by Mormonism's most authoritative voices, but by your own dictionary.

Your right. I didn't know that Kant supposedly provided the foundation for post-modernism. He died in 1804, a good 60 years prior to the "modern" era, and more than a 100 years before the "post-modern" era, which began around 1910. Whether or not some of his ideas have been used and built upon by postmodernist, Kantismm and postmodernism are not the same. I guess you were clueless about that.

---You're joking, right? Is "providing the foundation for" equivalent to "being identical with"? Come on, bro.

(About the Kant stuff, perhaps we should leave a long discussion about Kant until we sort out the stuff discussed so far).

Let's see, on the one hand I have a semi-educated fundamentalist thinking rock star wannabe, who makes obvious and elementary syllogistic mistakes, and unwittingly and mistakenly projects his own seriously flawwed view onto the Church as well as onto the reasoning public, and is unfamiliar with and fails to grasp mature and sophisticated philosophical notions, let alone how they may or may not apply to religious faith in general and individual faith in particular, and who not only doesn't get what I have said, but who apparently has misrepresented his intents in interviewing me. And, on the other hand I have doctorates in language, who are well read and astute in philosophy, and who have a mature grasp of the restored gospel of Christ. Gee...I wonder who the real "dullard" is? Boy, is it going to be hard for me to figure out which hand to go with. LOL

---Well Wade, all I can say is that readers will have to be the ultimate judges of all we've said here, and whether I've been misrepresenting you or "projecting", or if I can't reason, or if what I think are pretty plain points, are in fact as confusing as you suggest, etc.

I am quite certain that you haven't sufficiently grasped how and why I believe, but you have tenaciously held firm to your false preconceived notions. I can accept that there is a dysfunctional safety in your holding to that view, and thus the road does, in fact, end there. In truth, the road (or rather your mind), was never open to my opposing point of view. Whatever.

---I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't feel that way at all. As I said, I would be happy to hear a convincing defense of Mormonism, and would be happy to change my mind about it if I found I was wrong.

If any time soon you chance developing enough of an inner security and a genuine and sincere interest to honestly and openly consider what I have to say (in other words, seek to understand rather than debate), and are willing to properly educate yourself, then I will be pleased to have you ask me more questions.

---Well, again, I suppose it will be up to readers to decide who understood who best.

While I presented a number (and could have presented dozens more) of authoritative quotes demonstrating that your interpretation of the Mormon testimony was contradicted by the very religion you claim to believe in, I notice you did or could not present even one to support what I see as your (all-too-telling) distortion of the Mormon testimony. I feel that in a way, that refusal or inability itself helps clarify the nature of your faith, just as so many of your comments have. In fairness, I acknowledge that your faith, such as it is, is no more devastating to Mormonism than the "faith" of apologetic inventors of cryptograms, "limited geographies", mnemonic devices, eternal progression revisions, ad hoc word re-definitions, lost scrolls, chariot-pulling tapirs, William Clayton's shocking mendacity, etc., who inevitably undermine some part of Mormonism in trying to save some other part. Mormon apologetic efforts, as well as the nature of their faith, to me seem analogous to a trapped creature starting to eat itself, to keep from dying of hunger. But, I guess it's best to let others decide if that is so.

I look forward to answering your questions on the other thread you started, if you wish to wrap this one up.

Best,

Tal