Anyone who has encountered Mormon missionaries for any length of time is familiar with Mormon epistemology, that is, the Mormon way of knowing. In one sense it is an advanced epistemology comparative to the conservative Christian world. The core of it is simply this: it is not possible to prove empirically or analytically “spiritual truths” (theological claims), these can only be known by a witness through the Spirit and they can be known, not just believed. One of the first things that Mormon missionaries are likely to do will be to attempt to teach you how to recognize the Spirit witnessing a truth to you. This is accomplished by linking together a theological claim that they make to some kind of feeling of peace of comfort on your part. Likewise, if you happen to feel unease they may teach you that Lucifer is active in the world and trying to keep you from the truth.
Through this means a Mormon convert receives their testimony, that is, their grounding belief that Mormon theological claims are true. From there, it is through experimentation with these beliefs that leads to knowledge through obedience to the obligations that these beliefs carry. For example, Mormon converts are taught that they are to tithe (give 10% of their income) as a commandment and they must accept this as a precondition to baptism into the Mormon church. They are told that if they are unsure about this move, to try it out a few times as God promises to rain blessings down on those who are faithful to it. From here follows stories about those barely scraping by who nonetheless make the sacrifice to tithe and find unexpected checks in the mail. These sort of blessing experiences combined with many experiences with the Spirit testifying of truths leads to Mormon testimonies that begin “I know this church is true”.
I started out this post with the claim that Mormon epistemology is more advanced than that of the conservative Christian way. Conservative Christians often think that the existence of God can be proven, as an example, through well worn philosophical arguments such as the Argument from Design. Most of these amateur apologists (and here I do speak specifically of the non professional) are not aware of the devastating counter arguments to this argument. They may also be creationists and argue against evolution only for you to find out through the conversation that the Christian in question doesn’t really understand the theory of evolution at all (for instance, how many times have you run into someone who argues that if evolution were true there should be no monkeys?). The problem is that these conservative Christians have a naive faith in the provability of a myriad of empirical claims that are on very shakey empirical grounds.
Mormons, on the other hand, for the most part have realized long ago that their empirical claims are highly problematic and so have fully retreated into a subjective epistemology because there are so very many empirical Mormon claims that have little to no empirical evidence as a support. For instance, what solid undeniable evidence is there to support the Book of Mormon claims? If all you have is an inscription in Yemen and chiasm you aren’t exactly on the warpath to converting thousands. Similarly, sometimes the empirical evidence is directly contrary, as in the case of the Book of Abraham.
For most Mormons this stuff isn’t a problem because most aren’t aware of the problems in part because they accept Mormon epistemology so don’t bother with things that might possibly disturb their witness of the Spirit. For those who are familiar and indeed engage in apologetics a dangerous game is entered into. Such an individual needs to carefully craft apologetic answers in such a way to neutralize the immediate dangers quickly. Personally, I never could. To some extent I bought Mormon epistemology knowing as I did that the existence of God, for one thing, could never be thoroughly proven. I cast the problem as an either or issue- either the matter could be conclusively proven or there was nothing. It was only later that I realized that exiling my intellect in the matters of faith lead to a tepid and stinking sort of faith, a rot which prevented my whole will from embracing God.
Now I would recommend to all the following thoughts: It is true, theological claims cannot be conclusively proven, however, unless you demonstrate the basic reasonableness of such a claim your religion and therefore commitment to God will be a facade. If God didn’t want us to use our intellects, obviously we wouldn’t have them and God wouldn’t try to reason with us through scriptures and spokespeople. If you aren’t sure if a theological claim makes sense, suspend it and investigate the matter. Receiving a feeling of peace is not an answer since it has no content to show the intellect. Feelings, emotions have a place in the religious life, yes, but when they are all that you rely on you have put to sleep that part of you which is especially made in the image of God.