In this light, I reinterpret Brigham Young’s statement that one drop of the blood of Cain cuts you off from the priesthood. From what we now know, if anyone today has inherited a drop of the physical blood of Cain then we all have at least one drop. Just as the sacrament represents Christ’s blood as a spirtual covenant, I view the blood of Cain as the spiritual choices people make to seriously harm others for their own gain. I realize that Brigham Young did not have this meaning as he had the racial misunderstandings common to his day – Dr Mauss compares Brigham’s views to Abraham Lincoln’s. Brigham did help free some slaves despite his views.

I don’t mind answering your question. A little explanation first: When I first came to the Bloggernacle I was looking for a site where church members appropriately shared things of the Spirit. That was over two years ago–still looking. The Bloggernacle doesn’t tolerate anti-mormon blogs–I’m all for that. There is however, a continual chorus of doubters expressing themselves about the challenges they’re experiencing maintaining their faith. I’m not against that. What I feel is missing are those who will share the rewards that come because of their faith. So I’ve decided to share regarding the rewards of faith I’ve experienced.

Now to your questions:

When I started looking for the book, I first checked the bookshelves in my study containing about 200 books. It wasn’t there. I use those books frequently, so I’m familiar with them.

Next, I looked in the storage area where I have boxes, and a few trunks of assorted things. Additionally, I went to my office in town and double checked there as well. After doing a thorough search I told the Lord I couldn’t find it.

You asked: where do you think the book was while you were looking for it?

I don’t know. I couldn’t find it in my home or office.

You Asked: How do you think it got into your bookshelf overnight?

Again, I don’t know for sure. But I do know it wasn’t in my study when I went to bed.

By the way, when I came into my study the next morning the book wasn’t in my bookshelf, the book was lying on its side in front of some other books. It was in plain sight.

Do you mind if I ask you a couple questions about your book experience? If I understand you correctly, you believe that the book was not in your bookshelf while you were looking for it. Is that right? If so, where do you think the book was while you were looking for it, and how do you think it got into your bookshelf overnight?

Good discussion. Enjoyed the experience. I have a better appreciation for the words discussed.

#118 Ray–

At no time did I think Raymond was you.

Back to the regularly scheduled programming.

I absolutely have no problem with that. It is a matter of your personal faith, which I appreciate and respect. My hang up with the words is that an objective fact behooves consensus. Clearly we have no consensus on matters of personal faith, hence they are subjective. At the same time they none the less valid, nor necessarily untrue.

Setting the technical aspects of linguistics aside, the meaning of this experience goes to a place in my soul where communion with the Lord occurs. It is the temple of the soul, where God and fallen man meet and where words fail–utterly and completely.

Jared:

I will concede that this is your first hand experience, and I don’t intend to try and qualify the reality of your experience one way or another. Even so, I am either not understanding you or we are in conflict as to what is meant by objectivity. You refer to the experience of finding the book as a “manifestation”. I assume by this you are saying that finding the book was an objective (non-partial) demonstration of God’s influence in response to your prayer. In order for that to be objective, your conclusion must be the most rational (at the very least) explanation for the events. You don’t seem to imply that there was anything more to the manifestation than the fact that you found the book. At the very least the situation could have been coincidental, which could also be an entirely rational explanation. Intuition, would also serve. Given that I find difficulty in making the argument that the case was objective. If there was something more miraculous than possible coincidence then I apologize for misunderstanding. I would appeal again to the First Vision example. If there was something along those lines which occured, then perhaps an objective case could be made, but again I am having a hard time grasping the claim that this experience demonstrates an example how spiritual experiences can sometimes be objective.

I think I’ve created some confusion by not being as clear as I should have. I think your response is right on from the point of few of an observer.

I’m writing from the point of view of the person who receives a Spiritual experience. I should have been more clear.

When one receives an impression/prompting it is hard to know the source in many instances. That can be a subjective experience for the receiver. In your words: Subjectiveness…meaning that conclusions and perceptions depend largely upon individual bias. As a result many among us question the “feelings” they’ve received, creating enough doubt that faith is often stymied .

However, when one begins receiving manifestations of the kind I illustrated with the book, then for the recipient it is an clearly an objective experience, meaning it isn’t subject to bias, opinion, and etc.

I’m beginning to think the terms objective and subjective are confusing when used in the context of a religious discussion. The customary words, believe and know communicate meaning.

Of course, we seen many discussions critical of the use of these words in our testimony meetings. Language is a powerful tool to communicate, but it is imperfect.

“Most of the time my prayers are answered in ways that are more subjective than objective. But I do want to convey and testify that I have experienced hundreds of answers to prayer and some of them are answered in ways that are purely objective miraculous Spiritual experiences.”

I think we are starting to confuse our subject matter here. I ultimately agree with Thomas’s point in #110, but was concerned that it would lead to some of the ambiguity found here. As I understand it, what is implied by the term “obejectivity” is that conclusions and perceptions regarding a subject matter maintain a high level of consistency or unaninimity from many/most observors. The classic example of gravity is said to be objective because we can all observe it’s affects and reach similar conclusions. Subjectiveness is just the opposite, meaning that conclusions and perceptions depend largely upon on individual bias. Many people accuse Joseph Smith of instituting Polygamy as a way to take advantage of women in order to satisfy his base sexual desires. Many people also disagree, and there is no universal evidence to settle the dispute, so opinions on either side of the coin, which attempt to explain a historical figures inner motives, are entirely subjective. That is they cater to an polar assumption about a mans character, not based on conclusive evidence.

Putting this into context, using your comment quoted above. You are trying to make the case that some spiritual experiences are objective. To make this point you site the example of finding your book. Isolating the variables, finding the book would be an objective experience. A book was lost, you searched and prayed to find it, you found it. Universally we could all accept this explanation. If that is what is intended by “spiritual” then I am misunderstanding because what makes the experience spiritual is not the recovery of a lost item, but rather that the discovery represented a manifestation of Gods influence in your life and an answer to prayer. In other words, the book is probablly not important at all, but the fact that this chain events occured in a religious context in cooperation with prayer is spiritual for those who will choose to see the unfolding of events in that light. Could someone reasonablly look at the same set of circumstances and come to different conclusions? Is it possible that intuitively you ended up searching for the book in place you had put it, and that as a prayerful person the religious side of the experience is still debatable. Of course it is. The objective nature of the story, as it was told, lies in the finding of the book. The conclusion that finding the book was a result of prayer, as it could not have happened in any other reasonable way, is strictly a subjective interpretation of events based on a belief that answers prayers.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that this somehow invalidates the belief in miracles or prayer. Nor am I suggesting that a subjective conclusion is unreasonable, childish, or otherwise wrong. There are a great many things in life where true objectivity is not possible, and so our subjective interpretation of things is the best ground to work from. The importance of distinguishing subjectivity from objectivity in religion is that to suggest religious experiences are objective (particularly in this context of Mormonism), suggests the truth of a religious experience exists independant of perception. In short, it is an argument on some level that attempts to suggest that the truth of Mormonism is a proven fact, and those who don’t believe are intentionally circumnavigating established fact. You found a lost book that inspired you to visit the holy land. All else is a matter of opinion.

My faith and activity is motivated by my experiences with things of the Spirit. I wouldn’t be active in any church without these experiences.

With that said I would like to give an example from my experience to illustrate and support why I feel religious experience are both objective and subjective.

In the 1970′s I was in a bookstore and saw a book about the Saviors travels in Israel. I purchased it and told the Lord I would one day like to go there, and walk where the Savior walked.

Nearly 15 years later a friend called me up and invited me to go to Israel with him. I said, yes! As I started to rearrange my schedule for the trip the memory of the book returned. I spend nearly a whole day looking for it. The impression of the book on my mind was significant. I could see the book cover and color vividly. I felt the impression was from the Lord so I told Him I couldn’t locate the book and I needed His help.

The next morning when I came into my study the book was there, in plain site, on a shelf. I was, and still am, in awe of this experience.

I went to Israel and had a marvelous experience, a gift from the Lord resulting from a prayer offered many years earlier! I had forgotten about the book an prayer, but the Lord hadn’t.

This experience is both objective and subjective. When the impression of the book came into my mind I wasn’t sure if it came from the Lord or my own thought process–a subjective experience. However, when the book showed up on my shelf after having been lost, that was an objective experience.

Note: I don’t want to leave the impression with those who read this that every prayer I rise up is answered in such a miraculous manner. Most of the time my prayers are answered in ways that are more subjective than objective. But I do want to convey and testify that I have experienced hundreds of answers to prayer and some of them are answered in ways that are purely objective miraculous Spiritual experiences. When a voice speaks from behind the veil giving clear to understand information, or a vision results in answer to prayer, or a manifestation of the Holy Ghost of the highest order is given, there is no doubt that can enter into one’s heart.

To the extent that a person has a religious experience, causing his brain to light up in a certain way, the experience is objective. Interpreting the meaning of those firing neurons is where subjectivity and faith come in.

Barring discussions about primary and secondary qualities, I believe there is a point to garner from the Moses experience. While I think you have a losing battle to suggest that personal inspirations or revelations that occur in the mind, or as personal experiences/sensations or impulses, what about the possibility of the First Vision. If we assume that Joseph Smith was sane, then this is an objective case, provided he was telling the truth. The literal appearance and interaction of a person with God requires little interpretation and no code. Acknowledging that the mind of man cannot comprehend the infinite, he still posses enough faculty to make an objective observation about an event that was singular to him. This extends to us. If someone were to have a tangible experience with God, then the argument has nothing to do with objectivity/subjectivity, but rather it is entirely based on credibility. Which would almost apply to Joseph Smith, however we should also note that even among LDS scholars there is somewhat of an uncertainty of whether the pivotal events, such as the First Vision, actually occured in physical reality, or whether they were revelations contained within Joseph Smiths mind. Suffice it to say, if the experience is coded and requires to be deciphered, and I’m not talking about refracted light, then it is subjective.

I think you brought up some good points. However, I have a problem with the absoluteness of saying that:

“The receiving of promptings is always subjective, even to the person who receives it.”

For example, when Moses, through God’s power, parted the waters of the Red Sea allowing hundreds of thousands of people to escape the armies of Pharaoh, and provided Manna from heaven, and water from rocks, how is this subjective? Was it subjective to Moses? How about to the children of Israel, and Pharaoh’s armies?

If a soldier from Pharaoh’s army survived the encounter at the Red Sea, how do you think he would relate the experience to his family and friends?

26 Now ye know that Moses was commanded of the Lord to do that great work; and ye know that by his word the waters of the Red Sea were divided hither and thither, and they passed through on dry ground.
27 But ye know that the Egyptians were adrowned in the Red Sea, who were the armies of Pharaoh.
28 And ye also know that they were fed with amanna in the wilderness.
29 Yea, and ye also know that Moses, by his word according to the power of God which was in him, smote the rock, and there came forth water, that the children of Israel might quench their thirst.

(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 17:26 – 29)

Thanks for the fix.

When a person receives a “prompting”/”impression” it is objective to the one who receives it, and for the hearer’s who have had like experience. It is subjective to those who have not received like experience (therefore harboring doubt).”

The receiving of promptings is always subjective, even to the person who receives it. Just the idea of receiving promptings is dependent upon the notion of subjectivity in that receiving a prompting depends upon our belief that we can have discreet, individual communications with the divine. I think the problem is your definition of subjective in that it differentiates between individual experience and distortions brought on by feelings, prejudices etc. Its rare to find someone these days who believes in the possibility of this kind of perception. Various fields from cognitive psych. to phenomenology deny the possibility of such objectivity, and with good reason.

A better definition of the subjective for the religious context examines the issue in terms of who has access to a perception and how they have access to it. When we get promptings or have a prayer answered, or feel called to do something like go on a mission, it is subjective because the only way to describe or explain what has happened is from our individual point of view. No one else has access to it, it can’t be reproduced, it can’t be measured, its source can not be proven, nor can its reality. It is, and always will be subjective. Religious experiences are not objective, nor should we think of them as such, to do so is to deny elements that are critical to religion and to the mystical, that lies at the heart of our experience of the divine.

Ray said:

1. “Religious experience by nature is completely subjective.”

2. “…you have pretty much said that the experience of the Holy Ghost decides the day…Mormon’s simply don’t own “I know.””

3. “The fact is, nobody owns “testimony.” Everyone serious about their faith thinks God speaks to them and guides them.”
_____________________________________________________

Raymond et al,

This has been a fun discussion.

1. The word subjective can be troubling for me. Here is a dictionary definition:

(1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background (a) b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
:lacking in reality or substance

I think religious experience can be both subjective and objective (expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretation).

When a person receives a “prompting”/”impression” it is objective to the one who receives it, and for the hearer’s who have had like experience. It is subjective to those who have not received like experience (therefore harboring doubt).

This is just a brief explanation, and makes a general point. Much more can be said on this concept.
___________________________

Mormon theology teaches four sources of “inspiration”: 1)light of Christ, 2)Holy Ghost, 3) gift of the Holy Ghost, 4) evil spirits.

Everyone has access to three of these, only Mormons have access to the gift of the Holy Ghost (and only those who have been baptized by the Spirit).

Note: the gift of the Holy Ghost is the heart and soul of Mormonism, and what really differentiates us from all other religions.

____________________

3. I agree with Raymond that the typical Mormon idea that we have a corner on inspiration is incorrect and annoying. Most church leaders I’ve read don’t teach that. As I pointed above, people of other faiths (all of them) have access to many wonderful things of the spirit. The Lord loves all His children, but He has told us that the “righteous are favored”.

Blake Ostler made an interesting presentation, at the March 2008 FAIR conference, defending subjective spiritual experiences as a basis for knowledge. (Link at http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2007_Spiritual_Experiences.html.)

I thought his point was well-argued, except for one critical point, which he seemed to gloss over. He acknowledged your point — that people from different faith traditions all seem to have powerful spiritual experiences, which we generally have no more reason to reject than we do to reject our own — and then argued that this is perfectly understandable, since other religions contain some truth, the encounter with which can generate spiritual experiences. Thus, an evangelical Christian could have a powerful spiritual experience manifesting the truth of the Atonement, because that is a true principle.

Ostler briefly touched on the case (which I think is crucial) of a religious manifestation that conflicts with LDS doctrine, giving the example of an apparition to a Catholic mystic of the Virgin Mary, who, he says, doesn’t put in many appearances according to Mormon ways of thinking. He tries to get around that by saying that we ought to consider that such a vision might be a matter of God trying to teach a person in a cultural language he understands.

The problem with that logic is that it applies to Mormon mystical experiences as well. IF we are to look beyond the surface of a Marian apparition, ignoring some of the false doctrine it supposedly applies, and consider the false apostate aspects merely culturally-appropriate decoration of a core truth, why couldn’t a Mormon’s Moroni 10:4 witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon likewise be “decoration” — of, for example, the core principles that God exists and communicates with us, and that the gospel of Christ crucified is sacred and effective in calling people to lives of holiness?

I appreciated Ostler’s recognition that when one has a spiritual experience, one still has to have faith that it originates from God, and not one’s own mind. I believe that this faith is completely legitimate; no matter how much may be learned of neurology, psychology, or the like, I doubt it can ever be completely proven whether whatever the mind does when spiritual experience occurs, is purely biological or is merely the biological functioning of a mechanism triggered by an outside, divine agency.

But beyond that, I don’t see any way around the challenge of “mystical pluralism.” That is, it is irrational to trust a subjective mystical experience as a confirmation of a sectarian doctrine, that is, a doctrine that conflicts with the doctrines another man holds on the basis of his own spiritual experience. We have no compelling reason to believe that we are more spiritually attuned, or equipped to distinguish true from false inspiration, or interpret mystical experiences, than, say, Teresa of Avila. Therefore, subjective religious experience is an improper basis for sectarian faith.

A subjective spiritual experience can be fairly interpreted as meaning that there is some degree of divine truth within the religious tradition in the context of which the experience was felt. But if Ostler’s hypothetical Marian apparition isn’t evidence for the comprehensive, across-the-board truth of the Catholic tradition, then a Mormon spiritual experience likewise isn’t evidence for the comprehensive truth of Mormonism. All that’s being said in either case is that the truth of Christ is present in each tradition — and perhaps a sign of God’s approval of a person’s participation in each tradition.