Dna Revisited

[YH8]

Oh, that would have been useful to know before my debate with the physician/surgeon,

That, I think, would be the physician/surgeon who has a degree in molecular biology, right?

Unfortunately, I don't think a bachelor's degree in molecular biology qualifies one as an expert in DNA. I'm not sure a bachelor's degree in anything qualifies one to be an expert in something. A basic level of education in a given area, OK, but I'm not even sure that level rises to competence in said area.

Granted, someone with a bachelor's degree in molecular biology likely knows more than the average loudmouted baiter, such as I/me (I'm not a grammaticist), but an expert? I hardly think so. That's not to say Dr. Stewart isn't an expert in this area, but from his brief bio I'm not sure there is evidence to conclude that he is an expert.

Similarly, Dr. Dude claims a PhD in Biomedical Sciences (along with a bachelors in molecular biology) and a research career in non-human cancer genetics. Does this prove him/her to be an expert in human DNA? Hard to tell. For one, from my experience, listing a PhD in Biomedical Sciences doesn't really say much about what one studied and/or researched in their doctoral program.

[cinepro]

While "The DNA Issue" may not be enough to destroy spiritually-grounded belief in the Book of Mormon, it does seem to have the power to hasten the Church's departure from Lehite literal-ancestral claims for the Native Americans, Polynesians, Mexicans and South Americans (as well as limiting the scope and depth of Book of Mormon claims regarding geography, culture and influence on New World peoples). It also may have the power to radically redefine the approach taken by Church leaders, Ward and CES teachers to these issues, introducing many to the wonderful gray area that leads away from a literal interpretation.

If that is all the DNA Issue does, it is more than enough for me.

[Gervin]

1a) The Dude isn't going to try and claim expertise in DNA now, is s/he?

I'm going to try and claim expertise in gender identification and say that someone who goes by the name "The Dude" is a "he." But maybe YH8 is just trying to be politically correct, in which case I withdraw my comment on his/her post.

[Daniel Peterson]

(1)

Unfortunately, I don't think a bachelor's degree in molecular biology qualifies one as an expert in DNA.

I don't either. But The Dude's apparent tacit insinuation that, as a "physician/surgeon," Dr. Stewart has no formal credentials at all with respect to DNA (one of the principal areas studied in the field of molecular biology, as that field is commonly defined) needed, I thought, a bit of a correction.

I'm not sure a bachelor's degree in anything qualifies one to be an expert in something. A basic level of education in a given area, OK, but I'm not even sure that level rises to competence in said area.

I've had some contact with the process of undergraduate education, and would never dream of claiming otherwise.

(2)

For cinepro, for the sake of clarification, and for what it's worth: I'm unaware of anybody connected with FARMS -- and that includes those who have written on the Amerindian DNA issue for FARMS -- who is in any way inclined to back away from a "literal" interpretation of Book of Mormon historicity.

[USU78]

Lognormal: There are presently no detailed linguistic accounts of the evolution of any Hebrew or Egyptian language into Uto/Aztecan, only a variety of wishful speculations. Gee, that was easy.

My. An appeal to one's own authority.

Color me impressed.

[William Schryver]

Lognormal:

There are presently no detailed linguistic accounts of the evolution of any Hebrew or Egyptian language into Uto/Aztecan, only a variety of wishful speculations.

Gee, that was easy.

I hold in my hands at this moment Brian Stubbs' preliminary study which represents a detailed linguistic account of the evolution of Egyptian and two dialects of Northwest Semitic to Uto-Aztecan.

It is entitled, ironically enough: A Few Hundred Hints of Egyptian and Two Dialects of Northwest Semitic in Uto-Aztecan.

In its introduction, Professor Stubbs writes:

Beginning with the Indo-European language family, linguists found that sounds of a language change in consistent patterns, resulting in sets of sound correspondences between related languages. A few hundred similarities between Hebrew and UA give rise to a fairly consistent pattern of sound correspondences ...

He then proceeds to give several hundred examples of these "consistent patterns."

While he himself is careful to pronounce the work "exploratory in nature," he nonetheless provides many examples that demonstrate a remarkably consistent pattern of evolution from Hebrew (and Egyptian) to Uto-Aztecan.

It is not surprising that the contramos would immediately dismiss this ground-breaking study as a bunch of fooey. However, the data is persuasive, and I will follow Brian's work closely as he continues to pursue this very interesting study.

[Marvelous]

I agree. All the evidence in the world never seems to convince someone who says they made the decision based on what meager shred of evidence to the contrary. It's not about objectivity, it's about justifying a move that is based on (as William James would say) your passional side.

Right, it's not about objectivity. If you ask Juliann, conversion to a religion is the same thing as deconversion. I agree with her; this is true in most cases. I think in both cases material reasons are used as props.

Unfortuantely, it is common for people in the group being left behind (in this case, the LDS left behind by the ex-) to invent disparaging personal reasons in place of the real one. They suspect secret sins. The ex- found LDS-style righteousness too difficult. The ex- doesn't want to pay tithing. The ex- isn't sufficiently reading/praying/fasting/attending/sacrificing. I believe for many, the very personal reason for deconversion is simply "I'm not happy in the Church," and that should be enough. This is hard for many true-believing LDS to accept (for how can an honest, righteous, sincere person not be happy in the Church??), and the apostate knows this, having been among the LDS long enough to know what they think of apostates. So material reasons are presented and endlessly debated. Some of us get over the personal reasons and continue the debates just for the intellectual challenge.

In the case of DNA and the Lamanites, there is a scientific question/answer that should be (and I believe is) material and non-subjective. Dr. Stewart's position is that Book of Mormon people *could have* been the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. My position, the position of LDS critics, and the position of the majority of LDS apologists (who favor Limited Geography/Genetics Theories) is that BoM people *could NOT have* been the principal ancestors. It seems that nobody, anywhere, is willing to say that Book of Mormon people *were* the principal ancestors. For whatever reason....

I'm not so sure about that. What counts as personal? Does simply not being able to believe based on life experienece and knowledge count as personal? My reasons for not believing are many but they do include the conflict between the DNA thing and the traditional teachings--though it is just part of a big picture in my mind.

What do you make of someone that wishes it were true and would be an active member if only they felt it were true?

Do you really wish it were true? I don't.

By "felt" do you mean they had a supernatural experience?

What do you make of active members who are just as smart and intelligent and informed as you, Tarski?

There are exceptions to what I'm saying, I suppose. A person could behave like a computer and have no fundamental "personal" reasons. But I think in a lot of cases the apparent exceptions are people who haven't distanced themselves enough from their LDS past to have time to reflect and realize that the reasons were personal.

I'm sorry I'm responding to this so belatedly, but I have had little opportunity to visit here lately. Although I think what you say applies to many people, it apparently doesn't apply to Tarski, nor does it to me.

You seem to be asserting that people aren't guided by logic or evidence. If there's any field in which this may be true, it's religion, but I believe such is only partly true. Yes, religion brings out strong emotions in people, I think primarily because religion is exclusive, for the most part. If one is wrong about one's religious choice, many religionists believe it will have eternal implications. A lot is at stake, and people are understandably emotional about it.

I, for one, want to believe in whatever is true, not in what is convenient or makes me "happiest". If I thought drugs would make me happy, I still wouldn't take them, and not for health reasons alone. I want to deal with reality, and drugs mask it.

It's the same with religion. It would be far more convenient for me to believe in the Church. In this sense, I wish it was true. What's most important to me isn't what is convenient. It's what's right and true. I use my intellect and intuition to determine this. Once I was able to get some perspective and objectivity about the Church, I realized that the evidence didn't warrant my continued belief in it. I reached the same conclusion about Christianity. I don't believe an intelligent and impartial person who examines all the facts will convert.

Facts do matter. I think the facts, on the whole, are unsupportive of Mormonism.

[urroner]

From the article "The Diffusionists Have Landed":

Arrayed against the diffusionists stand the so-called independent inventionists -- mainstream scholars who regard Western Hemisphere aboriginals as having been essentially free of cross-cultural contamination until 1492. What the inventionists and the diffusionists are fighting over is the right to propose -- or, better yet, to define -- the prehistory of the Americas. The two camps, it seems, agree on little before Columbus's landing. The Norwegian archaeologists Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad's famous identification, in 1961, of a Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, from just after A.D. 1000 is, of course, a notable exception, no longer in dispute. But that discovery has so far gone nowhere. The Norse settlers, who may have numbered as many as 160 and stayed for three years or longer, seem to have made no lasting impression on the aboriginal skraellings that, according to Norse sagas, they encountered, and to have avoided being influenced in turn. The traditions of the Micmac people, modern-day inhabitants of the area, have not been seriously investigated; another people historically associated with this area, the reputedly fair-skinned Beothuks, have been extinct since 1829. The Vikings came, kept to themselves, and left -- that appears to be as much revision of the long-standing history of New World settlement as the hard-core academic establishment will entertain.

To many, the inventionists have clearly gained the upper hand, having marshaled shards, spearpoints, and other relics that indicate the independent cultural development of a native people whose Ice Age ancestors came overland from Northeast Asia. Still, the diffusionists have a habit of raising awkward questions -- questions that even some mainstream scholars find hard to ignore, much less to explain away. Who carved Phoenician-era Iberian script into a stone found at Grave Creek, West Virginia? How did a large stone block incised with medieval Norse runes make its way to Kensington, Minnesota? Why would a rough version of the Ten Commandments appear in Old Hebrew script on a boulder-sized tablet near Los Lunas, New Mexico? Conversely, how could the sweet potato, known to be indigenous to the Americas, have become a food staple throughout Polynesia and the Pacific basin as early as A.D. 400? And why would dozens of eleventh- to thirteenth-century temple sculptures in Karnataka, India, include depictions of what appears to be American maize?

[Daniel Peterson]

Once I was able to get some perspective and objectivity about the Church, I realized that the evidence didn't warrant my continued belief in it. I reached the same conclusion about Christianity. I don't believe an intelligent and impartial person who examines all the facts will convert.

Facts do matter. I think the facts, on the whole, are unsupportive of Mormonism.

Just for the record, I believe that a reasonable case can be made, on purely secular grounds (i.e., on the basis of ordinary evidence and analysis), for the rationality of belief in both Christianity in general and the Mormon form of Christianity in particular.

[The Dude]

(The Dude's apparent tacit insinuation that, as a "physician/surgeon," Dr. Stewart has no formal credentials at all with respect to DNA (one of the principal areas studied in the field of molecular biology, as that field is commonly defined) needed, I thought, a bit of a correction.

I don't believe David Stewart has any formal credentials with respect to human genetics. I thought I made it clear that IMO this does not automatically render his views irrelevant -- a line of thinking that is perhaps unseemly to Lognormal.

FWIW, I also do not have formal credentials with respect to human genetics. Only non-human (i.e. murine) genetics.

Since you're here, Daniel, I was wondering... do papers in the FARMS review undergo any sort of peer review process?

[Marvelous]

Once I was able to get some perspective and objectivity about the Church, I realized that the evidence didn't warrant my continued belief in it. I reached the same conclusion about Christianity. I don't believe an intelligent and impartial person who examines all the facts will convert.

Facts do matter. I think the facts, on the whole, are unsupportive of Mormonism.

Just for the record, I believe that a reasonable case can be made, on purely secular grounds (i.e., on the basis of ordinary evidence and analysis), for the rationality of belief in both Christianity in general and the Mormon form of Christianity in particular.

A case can be rationalized, but it doesn't make the case rational.

Let's assume that those who have come to a conclusion about Mormonism are biased, which to varying degrees they must be. I believe a fair test of rationality is the judgement of intelligent and impartial observers. I don't believe such a group would be won over by either the case for Christianity or Mormonism, any more than that same group would be won over by Islam or Sufism.

[Daniel Peterson]

A case can be rationalized, but it doesn't make the case rational.

I realize that.

But that isn't what I was talking about, and that isn't what I claimed.

I don't believe such group would be won over by either the case for Christianity or Mormonism, any more than that same group would be won over by Islam or Sufism.

I didn't necessarily claim that anybody would be "won over," though I think that entirely possible. I simply say that a case can be made that belief is rational. (I think the case somewhat stronger than that, actually, but will settle, in this context, for the more modest formulation.)

Incidentally, just to be clear, Sufism is a mode of Islamic belief and worship, not a separate religion nor even a separate Islamic "denomination."

[The Dude]

Since you're here, Daniel, I was wondering... do papers in the FARMS review undergo any sort of peer review process?

Dr. Peterson? Yes/No?

I suspect not, or maybe some do and some don't. Any sort of negative from you will certainly give some critics a reason to shout for joy, but not me. My (relatively uninformed) understanding is that the FARMS review is intended as opinion and not scholarly material, per se; as such, peer review would not be called for.

[Daniel Peterson]

Since you're here, Daniel, I was wondering... do papers in the FARMS review undergo any sort of peer review process?

Dr. Peterson? Yes/No?

I suspect not, or maybe some do and some don't. Any sort of negative from you will certainly give some critics a reason to shout for joy, but not me. My (relatively uninformed) understanding is that the FARMS review is intended as opinion and not scholarly material, per se; as such, peer review would not be called for.

Sorry. If you asked that earlier, I didn't notice.

Here's the basic process for the FARMS Review, which is not the process for FARMS as a whole:

Every manuscript that is submitted is carefully read and commented upon (and either approved or rejected) by me (Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, UCLA), my two associate editors (Ph.D. in political philosophy, Brown; doctoral work in political science, Columbia), the Review's production editor (Ph.D. in family sciences, BYU), and the FARMS/Maxwell Institute publication director (M.A. in ancient Near Eastern studies, BYU). Manuscripts are always offered for reading (and comment and possible rejection) to other members of the FARMS/Maxwell Institute leadership as well, which includes people trained in religious studies at UC Santa Barbara, in Hebrew Bible at Harvard, etc. Not uncommonly, when special expertise is required (for example, on matters of genetics), we send manuscripts out to people possessing the required expertise. Every manuscript is subjected to meticulous source checking by student employees.

This is not peer review as it is practiced for, say, the main articles section of the Journal of the American Oriental Society or Analysis. (The rest of FARMS follows conventional peer review.) But the FARMS Review is, first and foremost and by design, a collection of review essays, and so its review procedures are properly compared to those involved with book reviews elsewhere. (Moreoever, you're correct that I, at least, see the FARMS Review as something of an opinion journal.) To put it in perspective: I've written several academic book reviews for non-LDS journals. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has been subjected to peer evaluation (or even to multiple readings by editors) at all. My only contact has been with the relevant book review editor, and not even with the overall editor of the journal. Reviews published in the FARMS Review undergo a much more rigorous evaluation process than I've experienced with book reviews published, for instance, in Al-Masaq, the Religious Studies Review, al-â??Arabiyya, the Review of Religious Research, The Medieval Review, the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, or The International Journal of Middle East Studies.

[The Dude]

Here's the basic process for the FARMS Review, which is not the process for FARMS as a whole:

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity.

[Hawkmoon]

Lognormal:

There are presently no detailed linguistic accounts of the evolution of any Hebrew or Egyptian language into Uto/Aztecan, only a variety of wishful speculations.

Gee, that was easy.

I hold in my hands at this moment Brian Stubbs' preliminary study which represents a detailed linguistic account of the evolution of Egyptian and two dialects of Northwest Semitic to Uto-Aztecan.

It is entitled, ironically enough: A Few Hundred Hints of Egyptian and Two Dialects of Northwest Semitic in Uto-Aztecan.

Where did you get this "preliminary study"? Do you have the actual document in hand? Or is it a colored copy given to you illegally? Finally, I must insist in knowing whether or not you stole it? Your answers to these questions will greatly influence whether I can ignore your responses from this point forward-- since we will then know they have little to no value. Thanks in advance!

[Marvelous]

A case can be rationalized, but it doesn't make the case rational.

I realize that.

But that isn't what I was talking about, and that isn't what I claimed.

I don't believe such group would be won over by either the case for Christianity or Mormonism, any more than that same group would be won over by Islam or Sufism.

I didn't necessarily claim that anybody would be "won over," though I think that entirely possible. I simply say that a case can be made that belief is rational. (I think the case somewhat stronger than that, actually, but will settle, in this context, for the more modest formulation.)

Incidentally, just to be clear, Sufism is a mode of Islamic belief and worship, not a separate religion nor even a separate Islamic "denomination."

The problem, as I see it, is that most people believe their views are rational, or they wouldn't hold them. Humans are adept at rationalizing their beliefs, however irrational they may be. How does one determine whether one has been blinded by one's prejudices into rationalizing the irrational? I think one way is to ask those who are intelligent and have no bias to judge. In effect, it's what our judicial system does when it designates a jury to render a verdict. I don't believe that organized religion can pass this rationality test. I know of no one who has embraced a religion when armed with all the facts. Conversion is an emotional process that has little to do with rationality.

As you may recall, a seminal experience for me was investigating Jehovah's Witnesses. I can't say honestly that I was impartial, as I firmly believed in Mormonism. I was curious about how intelligent people could believe in what was patently absurd! As I researched the Society, I became less dogmatic and more intrigued. The psychology of belief and rationalization became clearer to me and I wondered if I perhaps was engaged in the same self-deception as Witnesses. It turned out that I believe I was.

I submit that you and I cannot be relied upon for objectivity when it comes to this subject, as much as we might be committed to it. (And I believe we both are.) That is why I suggest that the determination of rationality is best made by those who have no emotional stake in the matter. I believe an impartial jury would find for the plaintiff, in this case.

BTW, thanks for the comment about Sufism. My very rudimentary understanding of Islam is that it doesn't have denominations or sects. That's fascinating, considering how fragmented Chrisitianity is.

[William Schryver]

Hawkmoon:

Where did you get this "preliminary study"? Do you have the actual document in hand? Or is it a colored copy given to you illegally? Finally, I must insist in knowing whether or not you stole it? Your answers to these questions will greatly influence whether I can ignore your responses from this point forward-- since we will then know they have little to no value. Thanks in advance! rofl.gif

I paid Tom Cruise to break into the vault of the First Presidency.

Only later did I discover that the stupid thing would be on sale at the FAIR conference.

[Daniel Peterson]

The problem, as I see it, is that most people believe their views are rational, or they wouldn't hold them. Humans are adept at rationalizing their beliefs, however irrational they may be. How does one determine whether one has been blinded by one's prejudices into rationalizing the irrational?

A problem for everybody, I expect, both religious and irreligious. I don't see it counting particularly against my position.

I don't believe that organized religion can pass this rationality test.

I'm quite confident that it can.

I know of no one who has embraced a religion when armed with all the facts.

I know of nobody who has "all the facts."

But I'm familiar with plenty of highly intelligent and very well informed people who have embraced religious belief.

Conversion is an emotional process that has little to do with rationality.

Like deconversion -- and, for that matter, like most life-orientational or comprehensive decisions (e.g., deciding on a career and deciding whom to marry) -- it involves the whole human, not merely the rational intellect. True. But, again, not uniquely a liability for religious believers.

[juliann]

That is why I suggest that the determination of rationality is best made by those who have no emotional stake in the matter. I believe an impartial jury would find for the plaintiff, in this case.

Too bad life decisions aren't made by impartial juries. In the meantime, everyone will have emotions unless they are dead...which often seems to be the state of mind that contra-mos advocate. Until you can provide a rational basis for your belief that religion is self-deception...it is an emotional reaction.

[William Schryver]

DCP:

Like deconversion -- and, for that matter, like most life-orientational or comprehensive decisions (e.g., deciding on a career and deciding whom to marry) -- it involves the whole human, not merely the rational intellect.

And herein lies the key.

The champions of "rational" thought would have us believe that the human brain is the summum bonum of our existence, divorcing it from the rest of our being as though it contained everything we are.

I have come to regard it as a fabulous bit of bio-engineering; a remarkable central processing unit. But I also recognize something about me that transcends the electro-chemical processes that occur there. It is that that makes me something unique, and not the specific sequence of my DNA encoding.

I suppose some will simply have to wait until the electro-chemical processes in that device cease in order to once again recognize that there was something else all along.

But, in the meantime, don't ask the rest of us to deny the reality of our total being, just because you can no longer sense your own.

[William Schryver]

Marvelous:

... I suggest that the determination of rationality is best made by those who have no emotional stake in the matter.

I've thought about this for several hours now, and I've finally concluded that I must require some elaboration in order to understand what you mean.

What do you consider to be the parameters of "the determination of rationality"?

[Marvelous]

Marvelous:

... I suggest that the determination of rationality is best made by those who have no emotional stake in the matter.

I've thought about this for several hours now, and I've finally concluded that I must require some elaboration in order to understand what you mean.

What do you consider to be the parameters of "the determination of rationality"?

Thanks to all of you (including Dan & Juliann) for responding. I'm sorry I'm so slow in answering. I'm busier than a one-armed paperhanger, but I know you are, too!

At issue is the rationality of Mormonism. I think it's vital to differentiate between rationality and rationalization. I don't believe Mormonism is rational, although many smart people try valiantly to rationalize their faith, including apologists on this board. I don't believe their intelligence and reasoning establish the rationality of their case.

An important element in this discussion is emotion, which is antithetical to reason. I think there is polarity between them. The more emotional one is, the less rational one is able to be. A challenge for all of us is being dispassionate about anything that is important to us. Both apologists and critics have this difficulty.

This is why I suggest that the best measure of what is rational is made by those who have the intellectual capacity to understand the issue at hand and are impartial, which assumes dispassion. This is the theoretical jury to which I referred.

One example of the irrationality of Mormonism is the tool used to translate the BOM. I think we can agree that folk magic is irrational. In nineteenth century New England, one of the tools of this irrational pursuit was the peep stone. It was used as a sort of crystal ball. As you're aware, JS used his favorite peep stone to translate the BOM. I think it is irrational to believe that the same stone that in one circumstance is hocus pocus, in another is sacred.

I know you will disagree with this. That is understandable. In your minds, God works in mysterious ways and can't be constrained by the perception of men. However, you have much at stake in evaluating this situation. I believe your emotion blinds you to the irrationality of it, just as mine may me. (Mine may me? A writer I am not.)

I propose that only intelligent and impartial observers can properly judge the rationality of using a peep stone to translate a book. I am confident that such a "jury" will recognize such an idea as preposterous and irrational.

[William Schryver]

Marvelous:

An important element in this discussion is emotion, which is antithetical to reason.

In the context of this discussion, what would be your definition of â??emotionâ?? And in what way do you believe this element of â??emotionâ? is antithetical to reason? Why, if an individual has the ability to feel â??emotionâ?, does this capability prove an impediment to the capacity for rational thought that may also be possessed by the same individual?

I assume that your use of the term â??emotionâ? is actually a code word for what many people call their capacity for â??spiritualâ? discernment. Is this what you mean to say?

The more emotional one is, the less rational one is able to be.

By this, do you mean to say that the more an individual gives credence to his/her â??spiritualâ? self, then s/he is incapable of rational thought?

Did you note my statement above? I will repeat it here for your consideration:

The champions of "rational" thought would have us believe that the human brain is the summum bonum of our existence, divorcing it from the rest of our being as though it contained everything we are.

I have come to regard it as a fabulous bit of bio-engineering; a remarkable central processing unit. But I also recognize something about me that transcends the electro-chemical processes that occur there. It is that that makes me something unique, and not the specific sequence of my DNA encoding.

I suppose some will simply have to wait until the electro-chemical processes in that device cease in order to once again recognize that there was something else all along.

But, in the meantime, don't ask the rest of us to deny the reality of our total being, just because you can no longer sense your own.

Some dismiss the reality of the combination of the spiritual and the physical in the human being. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as a spiritual component to our being?

[Marvelous]

Marvelous:

An important element in this discussion is emotion, which is antithetical to reason.

In the context of this discussion, what would be your definition of “emotion”? And in what way do you believe this element of “emotion” is antithetical to reason? Why, if an individual has the ability to feel “emotion”, does this capability prove an impediment to the capacity for rational thought that may also be possessed by the same individual?

I assume that your use of the term “emotion” is actually a code word for what many people call their capacity for “spiritual” discernment. Is this what you mean to say?

I didn't specifically have this in mind when I wrote those words but, yes, I believe what people refer to as the Spirit is an emotion. Usually, members describe their encounters with the Spirit in emotional terms, e.g., burning in the bosom. The evidence these encounters emotionally, e.g., crying during testimony meeting.

My assertion about emotion comes from both my studies in psychology and real world experience with others. Success in my job relies heavily on influencing others. I am very conscious of others' emotional states because people are unable to reason until their emotional barriers have been removed.

I think this board provides ample evidence of this phenomenon. It is why little persuasion actually occurs. Everyone is so emotionally committed to their position that they have difficulty dropping their defensiveness and trying to understand the other fellow.

The more emotional one is, the less rational one is able to be.

By this, do you mean to say that the more an individual gives credence to his/her “spiritual” self, then is he/she incapable of rational thought?

Did you note my statement above? I will repeat it here for your consideration:

The champions of "rational" thought would have us believe that the human brain is the summum bonum of our existence, divorcing it from the rest of our being as though it contained everything we are.

I have come to regard it as a fabulous bit of bio-engineering; a remarkable central processing unit. But I also recognize something about me that transcends the electro-chemical processes that occur there. It is that that makes me something unique, and not the specific sequence of my DNA encoding.

I suppose some will simply have to wait until the electro-chemical processes in that device cease in order to once again recognize that there was something else all along.

But, in the meantime, don't ask the rest of us to deny the reality of our total being, just because you can no longer sense your own.

Some dismiss the reality of the combination of the spiritual and the physical in the human being. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as a spiritual component to our being?

No, I don't take what I would describe as an extreme view on the subject. For one, I don't know that humans are capable of divorcing themselves entirely from their emotions. Nonetheless, our emotional states vary, and our ability to reason is in inverse proportion to it.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I use what I refer to as intuition, as well as my intellect. In some cases, this may be what believers are referring to when they invoke the term "spirituality". Intuition, or spirituality, is not emotionally-charged. By that I mean that it doesn't cloud reasoning. It is a calm inner sense of the validity of something. I consider it the culmination of one's experiences. One might not be able to articulate why one feels that something is correct or amiss. One just has a feeling that it is. I don't deny that this can be construed as an emotion. However, it is an emotion that is benign. Perhaps this is because it doesn't trigger a "fight or flight" reaction. I haven't pondered it deeply.

I don't trust either my reason (intellect) or intuition (spiritual sense) perfectly. When combined, I have found them the best way to discern the truth of something. It's certainly not infallible. Since humans are by nature fallible, it cannot be otherwise.

I am sure many TBMs feel that their testimony is a combination of these two elements. I can't refute this, but my experience in the Church suggests otherwise. I submitted an example of what is clearly irrational, yet most Latter-Day Saints believe it. I believe this is because their emotion clouds their reason. They can't find the objectivity to recognize the preposterousness of it.

As I recalled in a previous post, it was when I investigated Jehovah's Witnesses that I gained the objectivity that enabled me to honestly examine my own faith. I wanted Mormonism to be true, but the evidence was insurmountable.