Tal Bachman On Lds Epistemology

[Abulafia]

I see an inherent contradiction in LDS theology here.

Missionaries ask investigators to pray to God to KNOW that the Book of Mormon and hence the church is true, and Joseph was what he said he was....but.....LDS theology posits that only a very few can KNOW for certain, since only a few have that surety of knowledge that would set them up to become a 'son of perdition'.

There has to be an element of doubt for the vast majority, though I don't know that missionaries would teach investigators to get a 60% testimony. Oh well.

[why me]

I see an inherent contradiction in LDS theology here.

Missionaries ask investigators to pray to God to KNOW that the Book of Mormon and hence the church is true, and Joseph was what he said he was....but.....LDS theology posits that only a very few can KNOW for certain, since only a few have that surety of knowledge that would set them up to become a 'son of perdition'.

There has to be an element of doubt for the vast majority, though I don't know that missionaries would teach investigators to get a 60% testimony. Oh well.

I can see your point and yet, I think that you are sort of nitpicking here. As you well know, the missionaries asking people to pray about the book of mormon is contained in the book itself. Hence, the prophet Moroni gave this counsel to the people reading the book of mormon in the last days. However, knowing whether or not the book of mormon is true does not constitute all knowledge nor does it have anything to do with other knowledge from the holy ghost.

So do missionaries ask investigators to pray about the book? Yes, but it is in the book itself. But as you well know lds theology is vast and sublime and lds theology goes way beyond the Book of Mormon.

[Greg Smith]

I see an inherent contradiction in LDS theology here.

Missionaries ask investigators to pray to God to KNOW that the Book of Mormon and hence the church is true, and Joseph was what he said he was....but.....LDS theology posits that only a very few can KNOW for certain, since only a few have that surety of knowledge that would set them up to become a 'son of perdition'.

There has to be an element of doubt for the vast majority, though I don't know that missionaries would teach investigators to get a 60% testimony. Oh well.

An interesting point, but you misunderstand LDS doctrine on this point. Sons of Perdition have "perfect knowledge" as Elder McConkie called it:

Those in this life who gain a perfect knowledge of the divinity of the gospel cause, a knowledge that comes only by revelation from the Holy Ghost, and who then link themselves with Lucifer and come out in open rebellion, also become sons of perdition. (Mormon Doctrine, 746).

So, of what does this "perfect knowledge" consist?

Joseph Smith:

What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin they must receive the Holy Ghost have the heavens opened unto them, & know God, & then sin against him, this is the case with many apostates in this Church, they never seease to try to hurt me, they have got the same spirit the devil had...(Words of Joseph Smith, 347, from Wilford Woodruff Diary, 7 April 1844.)

Note the sons of perdition may be more common than one might think--Joseph said that many of the apostates of his day had sufficient knowledge to 'qualify.' On the other hand, such numbers will always be relatively low, since "strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto life eternal, and few there be that find it." If relatively "few" find the way, then even fewer will rebel against it sufficiently to be sons of perdition.

The consolidated King Follet discourse goes on:

He [potential son of perdition] has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (TJPS, 358.)

So, I think your error is that you assume any knowledge about anything is sufficient for being a son of perdition. Perdition status accrues to those who deny the sun "while he sees it." This brings us back to the idea of "perfect knowledge." The idea sits in the Book of Mormon, in the text on faith and getting a testimony to begin with. After planting the seed, and with patience:

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. (Book of Mormon | Alma 32:29)

Faith is thus increased as one's knowledge of the effects of planting happens. But, that isn't perfect knowledge, but it's more knowledge than you had before.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand. (Book of Mormon | Alma 32:33 - 34, emphasis added)

So, one gets 'perfect knowledge' in one small area--you know it has produced good things. But, this doesn't mean that you have perfect knowledge in everything, or that you can stop:

35 ...and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good. (Book of Mormon | Alma 32:35 - 36)

Thus, after a period of knowledge about a small part of things, one must return to faith. When one is in midst of revelation, denying it makes you a son of perdition--the sun is shining and you see it. But, those experiences are not permanent--at some point, the sun goes behind the cloud, so to speak.

Thus, faith continues to be necessary in the life of the believer, because he must continue to act in accordance to that which he has known, or been shown. One can doubt an experience later if one does not "nourish it with great care," and continue to live in accord with it, as Alma goes on to teach:

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life. (Book of Mormon | Alma 32:40)

(This is the common scriptural pattern--revelation, followed by God's withdrawl for a time and temptation by Satan. After the prophet has remained true to the revelation received earlier (the memory of which must subsist on faith) then God returns with more. See Moses, for example, but there are multiple examples.)

Sons of perdition deny revelation in its face--they reject God once they've had the fruit, which comes after only long patience, repeated revelation, and incremental growth in knowledge.

No investigator is anywhere but at the beginning of that process.

Kind regards,

Greg

[structurecop]

So do missionaries ask investigators to pray about the book? Yes, but it is in the book itself. But as you well know lds theology is vast and sublime and lds theology goes way beyond the Book of Mormon.

I think you're giving the missionary line of reasoning too much credit by allowing spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon to be its own experience separate from spiritual confirmation of the Church. The Church at large doesn't see it that way, and beside RLDS/CoC or others, you're the only one to portray the Book of Mormon as its own entity separate from LDS theology.

I can't recall how many times I've heard, "Well if you pray to know the Book of Mormon is true and get a confirmation, then that means Joseph Smith is a true prophet. If JS was a true prophet then he restored Christ's church to the earth. If he restored Christ's Church to the Earth then Gordon B Hinckley is the true prophet today and everything he and the Apostles teach is God's truth cut and dry!!"

That thinking skips a lot of steps and unfortunately it is quite prevalent.

[beastie]

I just finished looking back over the thread to make sure I wasn't repeating what others had already said. I must comment that this particular exchange seemed odd:

Charity posted:

Jan 11 2007, 07:59 PM

I have a hard time, like, taking a person, like, seriously, who, like, you know, like, speaks in, like, 60's vernacular. You know?

Tal was pushed - by mods and others - to participate on this thread. He naturally responded to this criticism, in a good-natured way, IMO:

Jan 13 2007, 07:56 PM)

Hi all

All I can say in defense of the "like" issue is, I grew up on the beach on the west coast...

T.

Orpheus' response:

You are trolling. If you have something to say have at it if you don't go back to your other boards. You won't be starting anymore threads to lecture the mods.

[beastie]

I disagree entirely. In areas where there is insufficient information to form definitive judgments (which includes important public and private decisions, as well as interpretatations of history, etc.) -- that is, in matters where a conclusion is "underdetermined" by the available evidence (which is to say, almost always) -- we routinely, indeed always, depend upon hunches and feelings, upon a sense of what is "right" or "fitting" to make the leap from insufficient data to decision. In religious matters, where the publicly available evidence falls far short of what is needed to make a decision, subjectivity ("feelings," if you will) inescapably enters in -- for atheists as well as for theists.

I specifically addressed this point here:

Emotions exist for reasons, and those reasons often have to do with navigating relationships. But they also can be the result of the subconscious level of processing mentioned above. If someone has had years of experience developing certain skills, the brain is processing minute details we're not consciously paying attention to, but may "tell" us something "feels" wrong with the current process.

So when individuals make that leap to which you refer, they are doing so based on background experience in the subject. Their hunches are reasonable responses built upon previous experience with the subject, hence, their hunches and leaps have a strong chance of being correct. If, on the other hand, a completely untrained person tries to make the same leap, Iâ??d warrant that the leaps would have a fifty/fifty chance of being correct.

(I don't, incidentally, concur that a revelation from the Holy Spirit is reducible merely to "feelings," any more than perception of a mountain is reducible merely to events within the optic nerve and the relevant area of the brain. That perception of a mountain is manifested, within the human perceptual apparatus, by such events hardly demonstrates that it is wholly explained by those events.)

Certainly mystical experiences transcend, in their intensity, normal, run-of-the-mill â??feelingsâ?. But they still are within the same category, just of different intensities.

[why me]

I think you're giving the missionary line of reasoning too much credit by allowing spiritual confirmation of the Book of Mormon to be its own experience separate from spiritual confirmation of the Church. The Church at large doesn't see it that way, and beside RLDS/CoC or others, you're the only one to portray the Book of Mormon as its own entity separate from LDS theology.

I can't recall how many times I've heard, "Well if you pray to know the Book of Mormon is true and get a confirmation, then that means Joseph Smith is a true prophet. If JS was a true prophet then he restored Christ's church to the earth. If he restored Christ's Church to the Earth then Gordon B Hinckley is the true prophet today and everything he and the Apostles teach is God's truth cut and dry!!"

That thinking skips a lot of steps and unfortunately it is quite prevalent.

Yes, but as you know, we humans can be simple creatures and if one assumes that if ones prays about the book of mormon being true and receives a witness, the likely conclusion is that the lds church is true too and all that goes with it in content.

However, you are right in your ending. Nothing is cut and dry. We all need to be vigilent.

[structurecop]

Yes, but as you know, we humans can be simple creatures and if one assumes that if ones prays about the book of mormon being true and receives a witness, the likely conclusion is that the lds church is true too and all that goes with it in content.

However, you are right in your ending. Nothing is cut and dry. We all need to be vigilent.

Amen. If we don't keep vigilence, we may end up as FLDS.

[koakaipo]

I have no idea where this thread is at this point after being directed here from the closed thread, but as an Angeleno, I have to say that in person, "like" and "you know" fly out of my mouth still and I'm 34. I can write like a big girl, but when I speak I still sound like I"m in high school. I used to dance over at PCC and all my Polynesian friends dubbed me and my friend from Laguna Hills, another Poly transplant, "Valley girl 1 and 2."

So from that perspective, I saw that post about being west coast as a qualification. It's a qualification I have to give myself, especially when I answer the phone and some telemarketer asks to speak to my mother after hearing me speak for a couple moments.

[Abulafia]

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I wonder though how many 'apostates' really knew enough to qualify for the 'sons of perdition' status, certainly as Joseph defines it, from the quotes you gave.

I can say, for instance, (as a leave-taker!!) that I 'felt' good while bearing testimony in a RS meeting back in the 80's, but I tend now to think that those feelings were more of a 'I'm on the right path for me at this time' kind of thing. Not some absolute confirmation that I should accept everything that the church throws at me, so to speak.

I can also say that I 'felt' my father close after he died, and that the veil seemed thin, but there is still some element of doubt. Were my emotions getting the better of me? Was the strength I gained some internal mechanism starting up at an emotionally difficult time?

I don't know that there is an experience that can leave someone with no doubt on matters of faith, our hearts and even our eyes can decieve us on occassion?

Just my opinion.

[Calm]

Certainly mystical experiences transcend, in their intensity, normal, run-of-the-mill â??feelingsâ?. But they still are within the same category, just of different intensities.

Each experience consistes of multiple categories, so just because one aspect of it only varies by intensity doesn't mean it is can be put into the same 'box', imo.

In reality (or at least the reality of cognition theories) all experiences are composed of at least three elements--in point of fact, differentiating these out of the gestalt is simply another matter of convenience, you can't really separate one from the other completely without losing signficant information. These elements are generally termed thought, emotions or feelings and action, also known as cognition, affect and behavior (though technically speaking cognition and affects are also behaviours--am I boring everyone yet, lol). Only through examining all of these elements can you accurately appraise what is going on (even when describing internal experiences such as "spiritual witness") and that is not going to happen if one indulges in labeling the experience as 'mere feelings' ignoring a substantial part of each and every experience. Thus my complaint against most of the criticism of the LDS and other spiritual occurrences.

There is also the problem of the overlap of the term "feelings" when talking about sensations and emotions. However, sensations arising from internal states are often trivialized by others (for example, phantom pain which is a very real experience) so whether or not the spiritual experience is seen as merely internal sensations or emotions, they end up being belittled when it's convenient as irrelevant to reality (certain schools of psychology took this attitude to the extreme).

While people may share the same language when talking generally about an experience due to their cultural learning, this doesn't automatically mean the internal experience is the same thing and we need to be careful not to make that mistake when discussing spirituality in general. It is surprising to me how many use the phrase "burning in the bosom" as if it was the pre-eminent spiritual witness experience, yet it is only mentioned once in the scriptures. The burning of the heart is more frequent, but still uncommon only occuring in Jeremiah, Luke and 3rd Nephi. It is certainly a dramatic phrase though so it's not surprising it has risen to a set piece in our culture both as a positive and a negative.

Personally I would be much more cautious about using the term seeing its infrequency. However, the description of experience of the Holy Ghost as a baptism of fire does seem much more appropriate for a variety of reasons to me. First is the idea of the purifying or refining of fire. Potentially in this union with the divine, not only is the heart purged of 'evil' feelings, but the mind is cleansed of false beliefs and concepts and the body or behaviour altered from 'carnal' or animal actions and reactions to perform in noble, godly ways. Obviously this is the ideal, but this is what I look for when people start speaking of their own spiritual witnesses or encounters with God--in what ways have they been changed, both internally and externally? If a change is there, whether it's expressed in terms of understanding, behaviour or emotion, I'm not going to judge their experience as trivial. Second is the concept of energy being imparted, again I don't see this as only emotion energy that leads to a "burning in the bosom" type of experience, but energy can be given to thought and behaviour processes as well.

For myself, I differentiate the transcendental experience from the "run of the mill" day to day experiences more through a cognition alteration than anything else. It is approximate to what happens at times to me when dealing with certain math problems. I arrive at the correct answer without having to process each and every step. I first noticed this ability as something significant when I was tutoring and I'd get strange looks from my students and realize that what was "so of course this leads to" for me was more along the lines of "this is pure nonsense" for them. It was only in going back and working with them through each and every step, some of which I didn't understand myself until looking at it this closely, that I realized my mind sometimes shortcircuits or wormholes through certain mathmatical problems. Eventually I got good at identifying when my mind would go into this overdrive mode. I would become both more aggressive and more cautious about what I was doing when this happened because while I realized I was operating at a more efficient level than normal, I also realized that in my speed I might ignore something significant or see something as more significant than it really was.

From what I have read and experienced of the spiritual encounter, it seems to me that my 'math processing' experience is a good analogy--a focusing on details not usually paid attention to, an intensifying of certain abilities, an understanding of purpose and meaning without having processed significant information, but it can go way beyond this in my belief in that information is not only being processed in 'short circuited' ways, but information is being received in ways that the 'natural' state cannot accomplish and at times physical abilities can be altered as well. This has happened to me enough times where information I have no way of knowing, even at the intuitive level that beastie mentioned, is given to me that I've been able to confirm as accurate that I'm willing to trust...well, most of the time, lol...enough to act on those spiritual promptings even when I'm not able to confirm whether or not they are accurate.

Serendipity, coincidence, and spiritual promptings; brain chemical mixture and ideal enviromental circumstances leading to peak experiences and spiritual witnesses...I accept that all of these occur because I require all of them to explain what I see as reality, both external and internal. Give me a better explanation for what is occurring when I believe myself and others are connecting with the spirit and I am willing to consider it. So far other explanations have too many loose ends to satisfy me.

[Daniel Peterson]

So when individuals make that leap to which you refer, they are doing so based on background experience in the subject.

Maybe. Maybe not. What background experience uniquely qualifies you or anybody else to render judgment about the existence of God?

Certainly mystical experiences transcend, in their intensity, normal, run-of-the-mill â??feelingsâ?. But they still are within the same category, just of different intensities.

And you know that in what non-question-begging way, exactly?

[juliann]

Certainly mystical experiences transcend, in their intensity, normal, run-of-the-mill â??feelingsâ?. But they still are within the same category, just of different intensities.

Call for documentation and your dictionary game. Establishing what normal is might be a good start.

[Calm]

I love it. My response to beastie's comment ends up being an essay and Dan and Juliann can get by with just a line or two.

No wonder I spend so much time on the boards.

[Greg Smith]

Certainly mystical experiences transcend, in their intensity, normal, run-of-the-mill “feelings”. But they still are within the same category, just of different intensities.

I must respectfully utterly reject the equation of mystical=LDS revelatory experience. I know something about the latter, and have read a fair amount about the former, and the two are about as far apart as I can imagine.

If there is anything Mormonism is not, it is mystical.

Where are the LDS manuals of spiritual discipline? Who is the Mormon St. John of the Cross? What's the Mormon equivalent of the Ein Sof.

And so forth.

Unless you're using "mystical" in some non-standard sense?

Greg

[Daniel Peterson]

I think she was simply being sloppy. Mysticism is commonly used in that sloppy sense by people who haven't read real mystics.

Some like to call Joseph Smith a "mystic," as if he actually has much in common with Meister Eckhart, Ibn al-â??Arabi, St. John of the Cross, Rumi, or any of the other genuine mystics in history.

[Greg Smith]

Greg, thanks for your thoughtful response.

You're welcome.

I wonder though how many 'apostates' really knew enough to qualify for the 'sons of perdition' status, certainly as Joseph defines it, from the quotes you gave.

I've no idea. I think part of the key part of being a son of perdition seems to be rather aggressive fighting against the truth that you've known. It's not enough to merely fail to live up to it; there has to be active warfare against.

It's not for anyone to judge, and I expect we aren't told more about it so we can't go around (a) trying to judge others; and ( this isn't something to aspire to anyway. :-)

I can say, for instance, (as a leave-taker!!) that I 'felt' good while bearing testimony in a RS meeting back in the 80's, but I tend now to think that those feelings were more of a 'I'm on the right path for me at this time' kind of thing. Not some absolute confirmation that I should accept everything that the church throws at me, so to speak.

Again, I think it very hard (if not impossible) to assess someone else's experience, especially at such a remove. I would say, however, that I don't think ANY revelation is a requirement to "accept everything that the church throws at me."

There's a hierarchy of things--things we have knowledge about (eg. the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, translated by divine aide), things we're pretty sure about (e.g. a given interpretation of a Book of Mormon passage, for example), and things that may not matter much but just happen to be how they are right now (e.g. 3 hour block meetings).

And, then there are mistakes that people (high and low) in the Church might make. I've never felt any need to believe anything that God wouldn't tell me about. There's some things in which my thinking is quite different from most Church members, I suspect, but that's between me an God, and He is okay with that. If He tells me to start straightening others out, then I will. There's too much other good stuff to get hung up on that, though: teaching "Jesus Christ and him crucified" manages to occupy my time quite nicely.

I can also say that I 'felt' my father close after he died, and that the veil seemed thin, but there is still some element of doubt. Were my emotions getting the better of me? Was the strength I gained some internal mechanism starting up at an emotionally difficult time?

I don't know. Either is possible. I have found, though, that such experiences usually require us to do something, to act, and to change. If we do, we get more. If we don't, then the triggering experience seems to fade in memory and become more ephemeral.

90% of faith is courage, I think--the courage to continue to act based on past experience, even though at the moment we are presently not having an experience.

Richard G. Scott put it well:

Well do I remember the first time [in praying] that there was no answer. Rather, I felt a barrier, an insurmountable wall. I reviewed … all that could affect such communication, and found no problems. It was not until after much more purposeful struggling that there came the clarification. What I had felt was not a wall but a giant step––and opportunity to rise to a higher spiritual plane––and opportunity evidencing trust that I would obey correct principles without the necessity of constant reinforcement. After more effort, the peaceful, comforting presence of the Spirit returned. - Richard G. Scott, Ensign (July 1983): 65.

I don't know that there is an experience that can leave someone with no doubt on matters of faith, our hearts and even our eyes can decieve us on occassion?

Well, I think Alma's point is that in the midst of the experience, doubt is not possible (anymore than one could doubt that one exists while experiencing existence). Afterward, doubt again becomes possible--faith must remain, because we must trust what we were told, and act for a time without "constant reinforcement."

I think that is the core principle, after all is said and done. Do we trust Father? We can't have our fingers on all the buttons.

Kind regards,

Greg

[beastie]

Hereâ??s one easily found reference that supports my statement: (from curriculum link on lds.org)

The Holy Ghost

Chapter 7

31129, Gospel Fundamentals, Part Three: Communicating with God, 7: The Holy Ghost, 28

Our Father in Heaven has chosen someone to tell us the things that He wants us to know. Who is this person, and how can we learn to understand our Father in Heavenâ??s messages?

The Holy Ghost Works with Our Father in Heaven and Jesus to Help Us

The Holy Ghost works with our Father in Heaven and Jesus. He testifies to us that They live and They love us. He helps Them teach us the things we need to know and do and helps us obey Their commandments. He does not have a body of flesh and bones as our Father in Heaven and Jesus have. He is a spirit. He looks like a man.

Our Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons. They work together to help us learn the things we need to know and do. When we receive messages from our Father in Heaven or Jesus, it is usually the Holy Ghost who brings them to us. He also helps us obey Their commandments.

(a bit later in the article)

The Holy Ghost Teaches Us in a Powerful Way

The Holy Ghost teaches us what is right and what is wrong. This teaching is so strong we never forget it. The Holy Ghost does not usually talk to us in a way we can hear with our ears. Instead, He causes us to think or feel whether what we read or hear is true. These feelings are very strong.

[beastie]

Dan responded:

Maybe. Maybe not. What background experience uniquely qualifies you or anybody else to render judgment about the existence of God?

The context of my original statements is helpful:

However, these are both entirely different scenarios then the Moroni challenge. The Moroni challenge is about accessing accurate information about external realities. If one wants to evaluate whether or not a specific historical event occurred, reading one text and then listening to one's "feelings" about it is a process unsupported by either science, logic, or what we know about human evolution and emotions.

Iâ??m not talking about determining whether or not one believes in God â?? the Moroni challenge supercedes that, and even seems to assume a pre-existing belief in God. The Moroni challenged is about determining whether or not specific historical events occurred, depending upon how one phrases the question.

Of course, if you want to interpret the Moroni challenge in a vaguer way, thatâ??s fine. Maybe asking whether or not the BoM is â??trueâ? only means â??does it contain spiritual teachings of which God approvesâ? and has nothing to do with whether or not JS translated actual plates of gold, or whether or not the people described in the text actually existed. Normally that is not the interpretation believers give the Moroni challenge.

[beastie]

I must respectfully utterly reject the equation of mystical=LDS revelatory experience. I know something about the latter, and have read a fair amount about the former, and the two are about as far apart as I can imagine.

If there is anything Mormonism is not, it is mystical.

Where are the LDS manuals of spiritual discipline? Who is the Mormon St. John of the Cross? What's the Mormon equivalent of the Ein Sof.

And so forth.

Unless you're using "mystical" in some non-standard sense

I often use the word mystical to try and avoid this whole "it's not JUST feelings" argument. I realize that LDS do not normally utilize the phrase. I'm trying to convey that I understand it's more than just every-day feelings. But since I'm a critic, apparently no word I use suits. (even if church curriculum uses the same phrase, see my citation above re: feelings)

[Calm]

(even if church curriculum uses the same phrase, see my citation above re: feelings)

It however, does not limit it to only feelings, but includes thought.

He causes us to think or feel

I would also debate whether or not the church curriculum intends to mean that spiritual feelings are in the same category as emotional feelings which is what I assumed you mean by "run of the mill" feelings. Feel free to correct me.

[beastie]

Cal,

Think or feel.

Aside from that, I'm not sure I understand why you think the inclusion of the option "think" somehow refutes the citation as supportive of the use of "feelings" to describe the event.

I would also debate whether or not the church curriculum intends to mean that spiritual feelings are in the same category as emotional feelings which is what I assumed you mean by "run of the mill" feelings. Feel free to correct me.

Never mind, I think I misunderstood your comment.

The fact is that human beings receive "input" in certain ways. Visual, auditory, sensory, and feelings. Every day feelings can run the gamut from boredom, which is almost the lack of feeling, all the way to nearly intense joy. Normally spiritual feelings are more related to intense feelings of awe and unity with the divine. For example, women often feel overwhelming euphoria and love after the pain of childbirth has ceased and upon the first sight of the infant. This is a feeling, an emotional state. It's not words you are reading or hearing, it's not a vision (although the feeling was triggered by touch and sight) - it's an emotional state. Simply because some events are emotional states should not diminish their power and impact.

[Calm]

I repeatedly stated I realize that spiritual feelings are much stronger than normal every-day feelings. You seem to be implying I said the exact opposite.

When I say "category" I mean type. You are apparently saying here that spiritual feelings are just really, really strong emotional feelings.

I'm saying I believe the authors of the manual were trying to keep it simple, but in no way meant to imply that spiritual feelings were of the same variety (as in having the same attributes except for varying in strength) as "run of the mill" feelings.

I believe that is what is being debated by Dan and Juliann here. The claim you make that the feelings are of the same species. Spiritual feelings aren't just the Monarch butterfly while the "run of the mill" feelings are more like Garden Tiger Moths, you are trying to place eagles next to moths and trying to claim they are the same save for intensity.

[beastie]

I'm sure most of you have heard of the neurological experiments that have been conducted to attempt to locate the portions of the brain connected to religious epiphanies. This information, of course, does not logically lead to any firm conclusions about the existence or non-existence of God, it simply shares information about where the brain processes spiritual events.

http://brainwaves.corante.com/archives/200..._experiment.php

"The main goal of the study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience," said Dr. Beauregard. The study demonstrated that a dozen different regions of the brain are activated during a mystical experience. In other words, mystical experiences are mediated by several brain regions and systems normally implicated in functions such as self-consciousness, emotion and body representation.

Euphoria and intimacy, no matter how intense, are still emotional states. These emotional states are commony reported in religious epiphanies (the intimacy being with God).

[beastie]

I'm saying I believe the authors of the manual were trying to keep it simple, but in no way meant to imply that spiritual feelings were of the same variety (as in having the same attributes except for varying in strength) as "run of the mill" feelings.

How many citations referring to spiritual events as "feelings" would I have to provide for them to count?

Moreover, sometimes LDS are taught not to even expect strong feelings:

I Wanted a Burning Bush

By Robert E. McGhee

Robert E. McGhee, â??I Wanted a Burning Bush,â? Ensign, Oct. 1978, 31

(end of conversion story)

Why did I suddenly decide to be baptized? Because I realized the night of the sixth lesson that a burning bush was not the right thing to look for. I realized that by looking for a burning bush I was missing something just as important. Perhaps the answer lay in the simple things that had been happening to me.

I thought back to the week before we had decided to be baptized. We had once again arrived late to church. To dispel the awkwardness of the situation, a very young man, Eddie Markle, had welcomed us with a simple handshake. At that moment I sensed in him a faith so strong that I was deeply impressed. It was the kind of faith spoken of by Jesus to Thomas: â??Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.â? (John 20:29.) I decided I wanted that kind of faith.

I realized my previous experiences had impressed me in a similar way, but, because of my desire for a miraculous conversion, I had failed to recognize the promptings of the Spirit. My encounters with members of the Church had not been spectacular, but yet they had been very significant.

Each person hadâ??in his own wayâ??displayed a strong yet simple faith: **** Reisner had planted the seed; Dennis Hill had sent the book; the missionaries had knocked on my door; President Pressler had waited for us that first Sunday; Elder Richards had delivered an inspiring message; Eddie Markle had eased an awkward moment with a handshake. Each personâ??through his exampleâ??had let the powerful light of his testimony shine forth. And to me, having been in darkness, each example was as â??the bright shining of a candleâ? (Luke 11:36), bringing me to a testimony of the truth.

The Mormons love their families and I love them for that. As a religious group they are, in fact, a family themselvesâ??with all the love and learning that implies. Yet through it all one fact never changes: they have the gospel of Jesus Christ. A burning bush is not the answer. We have free choiceâ??we can choose a darkness devoid of faith or we can light it brilliantly and forever with our belief. The Mormons believe! And so do I.