"i've Come To The Conclusion That The Church Is Not True!"

[John D the First]

David,

Why do you assume spiritual experience--like any experience--can't be redefined or reinterpreted over time? Why do you assume reason must conform to testimony? Why can't testimony be reassessed with new information? For example, those who have a testimony of the BOM's truth and inspiration assume their testimony also pertains to historicity issues. Do you think it's possible to attach false assumptions to religious experience? In short, on what grounds do you privilege religious experience over reason, especially in matters where reason and evidence are more reliable? Are you not advocating the corruption of reason--the scientific method even--by the introduction of emotions and subjective states of mind? On what grounds could any interpretation or theory be rejected?

Science must frame questions in the form of a true false dichotomy in order for its work to go forward. That is the very reason I think, why science is useful, but should not be the only means by which we attempt to understand the nature of reality. Not everything fits within the either/or framework, there are often many ways of interpreting evidence that are not brought into play when one feels compelled to apply the scientific method. The question is, what if the real explanation is the unfalsifiable one? We could never find the truth by limiting ourselves to the scientific method.

We would loose at least sixty percent of evolutionary psychology if â??just soâ? unfalsifiable myth making was off the table. As Kant says, every human being must at some point go beyond the empirical in their conception of the nature of reality and leap into the world of unfalsifiable metaphysics. Mormons who accept the existence of the Divine and validity of communication with it, take a leap of faith in accepting what God reveals, and uses such to fill in the gaps where the empirical world has not spoken. If that source brings one nothing but beauty, I see every reason to trust it.

David is saying, if I read him right, take the evidence into account and let the spirit guide you on how to both interpret it and fill in the gaps. Similar to how one might take into account all the sources on the life of Joseph Smith and let the assumptions of secular modernity determine how the evidence is interpreted and how one fills in the gaps.

Best,

Jd1

[Thinking]

I recently found my astronomy book from college. It had been gathering dust on a bookshelf for years. I'd kept it because I'd found the course so intriguing. If one wants to really change his or her view of things, there's nothing like astronomy. The problem, of course, is that our understanding of the universe is continually changing, and there's the rub. I found that the book I had so cherished was hopelessly out of date. In fact, it was virtually worthless. By "virtually" I mean that if one wanted to go through the trouble, one could recycle the cover, binding and paper from which the book was made. But this book, which would have been incalculably valuable to someone like Galileo, was no longer of any worth to anyone.

This example actually proves the opposite of what David Bokovoy suggests in the OP. With new discoveries and evidence, your old book became "worthless" because its conclusions were no longer valid. David Bokovoy, on the other hand, claims that the conclusions can remain the same (i.e. JS is a prophet, the BoM is true) by changing the assumptions (or premises). Changing the assumptions or premises is like shifting sand. Isn't there a primary song about that? "The wise man built his house upon the rock..."

[Paul Ray]

... why think there should be a cap on religion? What we still have to learn far outweighs the tiny amount that we know, and if we have a spiritual witness of the basics, and we're prepared to study, it will all be revealed at the pace we ourselves will set.

It's really a challenge, isn't it... even when God tells us something so that we know what is true.

I think one of the best ideas that has helped me recently is to see there is often an AND instead of simply an OR.

I think many people get in trouble by simply rejecting ideas instead of seeing how there can be harmony with ideas that can seem to be opposed.

For example, we (LDS) believe we have MORE knowledge of God than many other Christians accept.

We accept the Holy Bible and many other things that other Christians accept... we just don't draw a line in the sand and say that is ALL or ENOUGH... at least not always.

Even LDS can accept the idea that there can be times when what we have is ALL God has revealed and it's ENOUGH for this day and/or moment.

[wenglund]

Thanks for the response, Wade. As a Mormon (and since leaving), I had many valuable spiritual experiences. This value does not, however, lead me to adopt David's hierarchy of paradigms.

I can accept and appreciate that. I trust, though, that there was something of greater value to you, which keeps you from adopting David's hierarchy, and causes you to maintain or adopt some other hierarchy. Right?

I disagree; it seems fairly obvious to me that trust should be placed more firmly in just those paradigms that have proven reliable. You can value something immensely while still recognizing that it is of limited applicability.

But, reliability is a value, and one that you evidently use as a criteria for assessing subjectivity/objectivity and mutability/immutability. In fact, I would suspect that reliability is a value you use in determining paradigmic trust and deference.

To be clear, what David is advocating is that all other paradigms be subordinated to the supposed lessons gleaned from spiritual experiences. And while these paradigms might normally be perfectly compatible, you did not address the issue of what happens when they do clash. You might, for example, say that Nephi rightly followed the principle that David is advocating, with a spiritual experience leading to a paradigm shift that led him to kill Laban. If I believed that a spiritual impression were telling me to abandon a principle so basic as not taking others' lives, however, I would definitely question that impression. No single paradigm (be it religious, scientific or other) should be given absolute deference.

I am not sure if David is advocating an absolute deference in all cases and in all ways, but I certainly don't wish to advocating that, though I do see value in conditional or relative deference.

However, for me, my paradigm is dualistic--in that it grants the reality of a spirit universe and the reality of a physical universe, which has a nexus in the human soul. In other words, the soul of each person is comprised of both a spirit and a physical body, where each of those bodies has its own set of sensory mechanism that are processed through the nexus of the "heart" and "mind" of man.

With that having been said, it would seem reasonable to me to privilege the respective sensory mechanism in relation to the respective universes. In other words, in terms of the physical universe, the physical sensors should be privilieged over the spiritual sensors, and vice versa in terms of the spirit universe. Right?

Where it becomes somewhat challenging is when, as I understand things, the physical and spirit universes overlap. In such cases, the question becomes: "which sensors should be privileged?"

Obviously, we each tend to answer that differently for ourselves on a case-by-case basis and according to what works for each of us and makes us happy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

More interesting things from Brigham Young:

The very heathen we were talking about; if they have a law, no matter who made it, and do the best they know how, they will have a glory which is beyond your imagination, by any description I might give; you cannot conceive of the least portion of the glory of God prepared for His beings, the workmanship of His hands; for these people who are seated before me, who are the sons and daughters, legitimately so, of our Father in heaven, they all sprung from Him; it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive what He has prepared for them....

He is compassionate to all the works of His hands, the plan of His redemption, and salvation, and mercy, is stretched out over all; and His plans are to gather up, and bring together, and save all the inhabitants of the earth, with the exception of those who have received the Holy Ghost, and sinned against it. With this exception, all the world besides shall be saved. Is not this Universalism? It borders very close upon it (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:80-97).

The Book of Mormon describes it well:

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.[The "perfect day."]

And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell (Alma 12:9-11).

In this blog post I discuss some of Brigham's views on truth, prejudice, tradition, conscience, and other interesting topics related to this thread.

In this one I discuss inspiration world-wide, not as restricted to the LDS Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

To an extent, yes. Itâ??s just that as of late, I have had a few conversations and read some posts where Church members are struggling with their testimonies over specific issues that I consider of secondary significance. Things, for example, that given my assumptions just don't bother me.

I mean what are the issues that lead a person to question LDS theology? Plural marriage, scientific observations, lack of historicity in the Book of Mormon, Blacks and the Priesthood, differences in the First Vision accounts, etc.

What Iâ??m trying to express is that all of these issues that lead people to question their spiritual experiences are really not problematic. Evidence may simply require that a person adopt a new paradigm in order to make sense of the truthfulness of the Church.

For example, the issue of discrepancies between the different First Vision accounts is only problematic in accordance with certain assumptions, some of which may not even reflect reality.

Whereas I suppose that a believing member could upon discovery of these discrepancies get him or herself worked up over the fact that Joseph Smith simply referred to â??the Lordâ? in his initial description of the First Vision, if a person simply shifts his or her paradigm to recognize a perspective in harmony with Matt Brownâ??s suggestions, namely that Josephâ??s first attempt to preserve in writing the details of his spiritual encounter was in direct harmony with the writings of Paul, then this new paradigm regarding the accounts does not present any challenges for the believer.

I would go so far as to apply this standard to the Book of Mormon. If a person becomes convinced that there simply is not enough evidence to support the historicity of the work, rather than abandoning oneâ??s spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the book, one simply needs to adopt a new paradigm which allows for God to have used Joseph Smith to produce inspired pseudeopigraphy.

No one ever needs to leave the Church over theology/history. Instead, people need to continually reassess their assumptions to fit whatever it is that the Lord has revealed.

In the end, our paradigms donâ??t really matter. None of us possess all truth. So in the meantime, we should use the critical thinking skills God has given us to evaluate assumptions, but recognize that if something doesnâ??t quite fit the paradigm we ourselves espouse or the paradigm that other well-meaning individuals have taught us, that this contradiction doesnâ??t mean that the Church is not true, only that our paradigm may be off.

I haven't taken time to read through this whole thread, so some or all of what I say might be redundant.

But David characteristically has given us a very astute observation here, one we would do well to bear in mind constantly.

Applications are legion, but one of the obvious ones is critics' contentions regarding the Book of Mormon and DNA evidence. If one's faith is shaken or destroyed by this issue, it is not a result of the doctrines of the Church, but rather, one's own faulty paradigm as to what is or isn't doctrinal. Once one accepts the premise that the Nephites and Lamanites did not necessarily inhabit the entire length and breadth of the Americas and that they were not necessarily the only indigenous peoples in the hemisphere, then the DNA argument ceases to warrant any great concern from Latter-day Saints.

Thus, I worry about those who harbor unwisely rigid views about, for example, the phrase "principal ancestors" in the introduction of the current LDS edition of the Book of Mormon. Based on an alteration in the Doubleday commercial edition of the book, it appears this phrase is already on the way to being phased out. What's that going to do to the faith of those who insisted passionately that it was "doctrinal" or "canonical"?

[Gaia]

Why should we ever abandon the true church of Jesus Christ? What would be a good reason to do that?

I think we just need to find out which church is the true church of Jesus Christ... from God, personally.

... and once we know what that is, we should then continue to learn from God about everything, personally.

Heh, uh, yeah! I'd believe God more than my own opinion or the opinion of other people, anytime!

GAIA:

Hello Paul!

I think what this may be getting at (and i certainly cannot speak for the other poster, only my own understanding) is that as mortals, our comprehension of eternal truths -- even those gained from personal spiritual witness -- can only be limited/ flawed at best. Even Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:12 --

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

- And we certainly can't fault him with faithlessness or sin -- at least any more than ourselves, under the best of circumstances.

If we imagine that we've got the "last word" on things just because of a personal spiritual witness, we run the danger of becoming spiritually arrogant, prideful, and closing our minds to the "further light and knowledge" that we are always to be seeking.....

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Paul Ray]

GAIA:

Hello Paul!

I think what this may be getting at (and i certainly cannot speak for the other poster, only my own understanding) is that as mortals, our comprehension of eternal truths -- even those gained from personal spiritual witness -- can only be limited/ flawed at best. Even Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:12 --

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

- And we certainly can't fault him with faithlessness or sin -- at least any more than ourselves, under the best of circumstances.

If we imagine that we've got the "last word" on things just because of a personal spiritual witness, we run the danger of becoming spiritually arrogant, prideful, and closing our minds to the "further light and knowledge" that we are always to be seeking.....

Blessings --

~Gaia

I can see that as a possibility in some cases, but I believe it is possible to know at least some of the eternal truths now.

For example: I know Jesus is the Christ.

That is an eternal truth that I know right now, and I know that now just as well as I may know that in the future.

I'm not saying that I won't gather some more details concerning that truth later, though.

I'm just saying that on some level I do know that is true right now just as it will be true in the future.

[Dan Vogel]

Interesting questions, Dan. Do you believe in the possibility of revelation from God?

That is an untestable proposition. I think testing the BOM's historical claims is easier. But even if it's not history, it could theoretically be inspired.

[Dan Vogel]

It can.

Not necessarily. Don't confuse historicity with authenticity. If it is authentic, I would expect to find about as many "historicity" issues in the BOM as there are in the Bible....minus the multiplied transmission errors.

Of course. Reading spiritual experiences is trial and error, like anything else.

No real dispute here.

On what basis do you privilege reason and science? You are creating a false dilemma.

By their proven track record in the realm in which they claim for themselves. What does spirituality have to do with these activities?

[John Williams]

No real dispute here.

By their proven track record in the realm in which they claim for themselves. What does spirituality have to do with these activities?

One might just as easily ask why anyone would privilege "spiritual" ways of obtaining knowledge. Does the spiritual have an equally well-established track record?

[Dale]

With revelation's a lot of the restoration churches leader's have had them. LDS leaders have had them since 1844, but not all of them ever got published in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. I recall reading some by President Wilford Woodruff i saw in an LDS Relief Society manual many year's ago. President Stephen Veazey recently presented to our Community of Christ World Conference a revelation. It's now section 163 in our Doctrine and Covenants.

If one is open to these manifestation's being genuine they can be from God, the Devil, or man's imagination. I am open to modern revelation, but only because i am open to the possibility of Book of Mormon historicity. Joseph Smith claimed Moroni a Nephite visited him. If no Nephit'es existed either his story was a scam, or he hallucinated.

[cksalmon]

With revelation's a lot of the restoration churches leader's have had them. LDS leaders have had them since 1844, but not all of them ever got published in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. I recall reading some by President Wilford Woodruff i saw in an LDS Relief Society manual many year's ago. President Stephen Veazey recently presented to our Community of Christ World Conference a revelation. It's now section 163 in our Doctrine and Covenants.

If one is open to these manifestation's being genuine they can be from God, the Devil, or man's imagination. I am open to modern revelation, but only because i am open to the possibility of Book of Mormon historicity. Joseph Smith claimed Moroni a Nephite visited him. If no Nephit'es existed either his story was a scam, or he hallucinated.

Or, to be sure, it is possible that Nephi actually visited him, rather than Moroni. That possibility is just as attested in the early documents.

CKS

[BishopRic]

However, for me, my paradigm is dualistic--in that it grants the reality of a spirit universe and the reality of a physical universe, which has a nexus in the human soul. In other words, the soul of each person is comprised of both a spirit and a physical body, where each of those bodies has its own set of sensory mechanism that are processed through the nexus of the "heart" and "mind" of man.

With that having been said, it would seem reasonable to me to privilege the respective sensory mechanism in relation to the respective universes. In other words, in terms of the physical universe, the physical sensors should be privilieged over the spiritual sensors, and vice versa in terms of the spirit universe. Right?

Where it becomes somewhat challenging is when, as I understand things, the physical and spirit universes overlap. In such cases, the question becomes: "which sensors should be privileged?"

Obviously, we each tend to answer that differently for ourselves on a case-by-case basis and according to what works for each of us and makes us happy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hmm...I like this approach. I really like the heart being described as the "nexus" where the two universes meet. Great metaphor...and probably even realistic in a way, I think.

My thought about this -- and I'm wide open to being wrong -- is that when we try to use one "universe" (and its natural laws) to describe the other, we may fail miserably. For example, throughout history, and in all cultures, we humans have found ways to experience and amplify spiritual experiences. Perhaps there are ways that we intentionally "thin the veil." We use fasting, music, prayer, meditation, drugs, chanting, dreams, dancing, exercise...or combinations of these to attain and intensify an experience we believe is "spiritual."

Many times within these experiences, the person lives or views "life" from a perspective that feels real, seemingly without time constraints, and even "other-worldly." Exactly what and why these happen is the gzillion dollar question that most of us have very strong opinions about...and we each probably have a degree of understanding.

But here's where my take on it today will diverge from many here, I'm sure. I believe we fail when we make an absolute conviction of what each experience means. We can't be faulted...we were told "that" is what it means. But when we believe that an intense spiritual experience indicates the truth of a historical event, and another person's experience indicates to him a conflicting meaning in the physical universe, one is forced to question not the "spiritual event," but the interpretation of such.

I think many cultures are guilty of this. And I'm open to the possibility that one of them might be correct, but I would expect the physical universe to be consistent with what the spiritual universe is indicating...and most the time, it seems to fail. If a Native American Elder, after a peyote-induced spiritual ceremony, where he had a "vision" that a person from his tribe was to die tomorrow...then without intervention, he did not, does that mean the Elder did not have a spiritual event? I don't believe so; he just misinterpreed the meaning of it.

I have heard statements from radical Muslims that claim to have had "Spirit" tell them that if they wrap bombs around them and blow up a building with Americans in it, they will ascend straight to heaven. I can't imagine that Christian -- LDS, or otherwise -- spiritual experiences are more powerful or real than the kind of event that will convince one to sacrifice his/her life for.

IOW, I believe in spiritual events. I enjoy the clarity of thought, the peaceful, humble love I feel for others, and the unity I feel for all things. However, I think it is rare, if ever, a reliable means to indicate things in the physical realm. Logic tells me that because of these various historical tragedies and inconsistencies attributed to "Spirit," that we should be cautious in our interpretation of what the event means. Perhaps it is prudent for us to simply appreciate the event, be curious, but approach it as if they really are two separate dimensions...and are not intended to prove anything in the other.

I could be wrong.

[Dale]

CKS-With the Nephi vs. Moroni thing one source started it. One or two other later publication's copied the earlier source. It's far from certain Joseph Smith even looked over the original source before it got printed. It's thought possible another person may have inserted the name. FAIR give's a more precise answer than i could. The possibility Joseph Smith changed the story isn't the only one.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That is an untestable proposition. I think testing the BOM's historical claims is easier. But even if it's not history, it could theoretically be inspired.

Doesn't really answer the question.

Or, to be sure, it is possible that Nephi actually visited him, rather than Moroni. That possibility is just as attested in the early documents.

CKS

Or it could be that Smith didn't write the article in question mentioning Nephi. Look it up.

[Hammer]

Interesting thoughts...thank you. I like the term "paradigm shift," and offer a different view. Another possible paradigm shift may come when events in one's life creates logical conflict. The person may feel strongly about his/her spiritual witness, but is it possible that the interpretation of what it meant was not true? IOW, one may feel strongly that a particular story gives enlightenment and an intense feeling of love and compassion for others. Is it possible the story, thoughts, and prayers are all very positive events for the person, and because the person was taught/instructed that the feeling meant something more than that, he perceived it into his preconceived paradigm to be true?

In my life I've seen and experienced miraculous spiritual phenomena in Mormonism, Buddhism, and Secular humanism. Each of them have been extremely positive and enlightening. I don't doubt any of them. So my paradigm shift came when I came to believe all people could experience deep spiritual experiences that were no more or less powerful or witnessing than what was/is experienced in Mormonism.

Agreed. Consider the possibility that they mean something different than what you've been taught.

I think that what we feed grows stronger and what we negate grows weaker. The pardiem shift is to accomadating a feeding of the positive spiritual growth in gospel truths and to let go of negated events that can create a detour for our journey along 'the WAY'.

[HiJolly]

<after 2 hours of reading...> Excellent thread, thank you, everyone, for such great comments! A most enjoyable read.

I agree with David's OP. I have had to rethink and recontextualize practically all of my experiences, both secular and religious, as my life rolls on. I fully expect to continue the process, as I continue to live life. And probably beyond. Indeed, perhaps beyond it will be ever so much more important.

The real joy is that I have managed it all from within the Church, and now find myself even more grateful and in love with it, because it has fostered and enhanced the experience.

HiJolly

[wenglund]

One might just as easily ask why anyone would privilege "spiritual" ways of obtaining knowledge. Does the spiritual have an equally well-established track record?

What kind of established track record do you suppose science has had in terms of "spiritual" knowledge?

And, how do you suppose it compares with the track record of religious epistemologies in terms of the same?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hmm...I like this approach. I really like the heart being described as the "nexus" where the two universes meet. Great metaphor...and probably even realistic in a way, I think.

My thought about this -- and I'm wide open to being wrong -- is that when we try to use one "universe" (and its natural laws) to describe the other, we may fail miserably. For example, throughout history, and in all cultures, we humans have found ways to experience and amplify spiritual experiences. Perhaps there are ways that we intentionally "thin the veil." We use fasting, music, prayer, meditation, drugs, chanting, dreams, dancing, exercise...or combinations of these to attain and intensify an experience we believe is "spiritual."

Many times within these experiences, the person lives or views "life" from a perspective that feels real, seemingly without time constraints, and even "other-worldly." Exactly what and why these happen is the gzillion dollar question that most of us have very strong opinions about...and we each probably have a degree of understanding.

But here's where my take on it today will diverge from many here, I'm sure. I believe we fail when we make an absolute conviction of what each experience means. We can't be faulted...we were told "that" is what it means. But when we believe that an intense spiritual experience indicates the truth of a historical event, and another person's experience indicates to him a conflicting meaning in the physical universe, one is forced to question not the "spiritual event," but the interpretation of such.

I think many cultures are guilty of this. And I'm open to the possibility that one of them might be correct, but I would expect the physical universe to be consistent with what the spiritual universe is indicating...and most the time, it seems to fail. If a Native American Elder, after a peyote-induced spiritual ceremony, where he had a "vision" that a person from his tribe was to die tomorrow...then without intervention, he did not, does that mean the Elder did not have a spiritual event? I don't believe so; he just misinterpreed the meaning of it.

I have heard statements from radical Muslims that claim to have had "Spirit" tell them that if they wrap bombs around them and blow up a building with Americans in it, they will ascend straight to heaven. I can't imagine that Christian -- LDS, or otherwise -- spiritual experiences are more powerful or real than the kind of event that will convince one to sacrifice his/her life for.

IOW, I believe in spiritual events. I enjoy the clarity of thought, the peaceful, humble love I feel for others, and the unity I feel for all things. However, I think it is rare, if ever, a reliable means to indicate things in the physical realm. Logic tells me that because of these various historical tragedies and inconsistencies attributed to "Spirit," that we should be cautious in our interpretation of what the event means. Perhaps it is prudent for us to simply appreciate the event, be curious, but approach it as if they really are two separate dimensions...and are not intended to prove anything in the other.

I could be wrong.

Those are some interesting thoughts. And, I am not in a position to say whether you are right or wrong (even if I wanted to--which I don't)

However, I happen to think there are some areas of commonality between the two universes (physical and spirit). I believe both universes are governed by laws, and those laws have consequences resulting from obedience or disobedience--where obedience enables improved conditions and progress towards the full measure of the respective creations (physical or spiritual), and disobedience results in the opposite.

Also, the agents (persons) in each universe are inclined towards progression rather than digression, and thus are want to devise epistemologies/paradigms that will best enable them to progress in the respective universes.

And, given what I view as an overlap of the two universes, I believe that certain choices made in relation to the laws of one universe, may impact, or have consequences in terms of the other universe.

For example, I believe that disobedience to certain spiritual laws can cause a person to become spiritually "sick". And, depending upon the severity of the spiritual "sickness", it may have a deleterious affect on one's physical disposition, perhaps rendering one more vulnerable to physical sickness as well.

Likewise, I believe that obedience to spiritual laws can result in an increase in joy and happiness, which may have positive affect on one's physical disposition.

I believe the same is true in reverse: physical sicknesses can have a deletarious affect on one's spirituality, whereas physical health can have a positive influence on the spirit.

I think growth in spiritual knowledge can, at times, and in some ways, promote growth in physical/secular knowledge, and vice-versa.

At least that is how I understand things, and why I think it advantageous to gravitate towards, and somewhat co-mingle, the most efficacious paradigms for the respective universes--which, in terms of what I have found, would not include peyote or terrorist attacks. ;-)

But, like you, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Williams]

What kind of established track record do you suppose science has had in terms of "spiritual" knowledge?

And, how do you suppose it compares with the track record of religious epistemologies in terms of the same?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I believe this is where a great deal of confusion exists. The Book of Mormon and many other claims of Mormonism are "falsifiable" in the sense that one can test the physical and scientific evidence supporting those claims. Where I see the confusion is that some people privilege "spiritual" ways of knowing things that are by nature readily "knowable" through reason, logic, and science. So, I don't believe science applies to "spiritual knowledge" any more than spiritual ways of learning apply to scientific knowledge.

[BishopRic]

Those are some interesting thoughts. And, I am not in a position to say whether you are right or wrong (even if I wanted to--which I don't)

However, I happen to think there are some areas of commonality between the two universes (physical and spirit). I believe both universes are governed by laws, and those laws have consequences resulting from obedience or disobedience--where obedience enables improved conditions and progress towards the full measure of the respective creations (physical or spiritual), and disobedience results in the opposite.

Also, the agents (persons) in each universe are inclined towards progression rather than digression, and thus are want to devise epistemologies/paradigms that will best enable them to progress in the respective universes.

And, given what I view as an overlap of the two universes, I believe that certain choices made in relation to the laws of one universe, may impact, or have consequences in terms of the other universe.

For example, I believe that disobedience to certain spiritual laws can cause a person to become spiritually "sick". And, depending upon the severity of the spiritual "sickness", it may have a deleterious affect on one's physical disposition, perhaps rendering one more vulnerable to physical sickness as well.

Likewise, I believe that obedience to spiritual laws can result in an increase in joy and happiness, which may have positive affect on one's physical disposition.

I believe the same is true in reverse: physical sicknesses can have a deletarious affect on one's spirituality, whereas physical health can have a positive influence on the spirit.

I think growth in spiritual knowledge can, at times, and in some ways, promote growth in physical/secular knowledge, and vice-versa.

At least that is how I understand things, and why I think it advantageous to gravitate towards, and somewhat co-mingle, the most efficacious paradigms for the respective universes--which, in terms of what I have found, would not include peyote or terrorist attacks. ;-)

But, like you, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't find much here that I disagree with, and I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I completely agree with the obedience/sickness principle, although I might verbalize and define it a bit differently. Many years ago I read a book by Lyn Grabhorn called "Excuse Me, Your Life is Waiting : The Astonishing Power of Feelings." It describes how we have a vibration -- and how to alter it. It may be metaphorical (or maybe not), but the concept makes some sense to me. The recent popularity of the "Law of attraction" in so many books and films is consistent with the principle, I believe.

IOW, I think it's possible that the two universes are not really separate, but there is something about this "vibration" thing that we humans so far haven't been able to adeguately quantify (or even qualify), so it is easy to describe it in a "spiritual" sense. And for that reason, the "sickness" principle resonates, since it may actually have a direct impact on us when we are not "vibrating" well.

As far as the peyote, I don't know since I've never tried it. I have friends that have though, and their description is quite positive when facilitated appropriately. Also, within the last year there was a respected medical study done at Johns Hopkins with psylocybin that was quite compelling:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...0C783414B7F0000

It seems there is much positive when properly supervised and controlled. Frankly, I see it quite physiologically similar to other ways we amplify spiritual experiences, like fasting and group dynamics.

The terrorist events...well, I'm sure we agree that there is some real misinterpretation of "spiritual" feelings there; but it demonstrates how powerful, even if misinterpreted, spiritual witnesses can be.

Lots of fun speculation...but interesting possibilities!

[wenglund]

I believe this is where a great deal of confusion exists. The Book of Mormon and many other claims of Mormonism are "falsifiable" in the sense that one can test the physical and scientific evidence supporting those claims. Where I see the confusion is that some people privilege "spiritual" ways of knowing things that are by nature readily "knowable" through reason, logic, and science. So, I don't believe science applies to "spiritual knowledge" any more than spiritual ways of learning apply to scientific knowledge.

I am not sure how this directly answers either of my questions, but I apppreciate the response nonetheless.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that science can test the physical aspects of LDS claims, though it doesn't apply to the spiritual aspects of the same (though reason and logic may); and so it is only in terms of the physical aspects that science may falsify LDS claims. Is that correct? (If so, I happen to agree for the most part)

What you see as "confusion", though, is how some people privilege the spiritual methodologies when it comes to the physical aspects of LDS claims, whereas you believe that spiritual methodologies don't apply to the physical. Right? (If so, I also agree in some ways.)

However, for those of us who believe cirmustances may contain interconnected elements of the physical and the spirit, then why would it be confusing to privilege spiritual methodologies in such cases, particularly if one believes the spiritual elements predominate, and/or if such cases lend themselves more to growth in spiritual than physical knowledge?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't find much here that I disagree with, and I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I completely agree with the obedience/sickness principle, although I might verbalize and define it a bit differently. Many years ago I read a book by Lyn Grabhorn called "Excuse Me, Your Life is Waiting : The Astonishing Power of Feelings." It describes how we have a vibration -- and how to alter it. It may be metaphorical (or maybe not), but the concept makes some sense to me. The recent popularity of the "Law of attraction" in so many books and films is consistent with the principle, I believe.

IOW, I think it's possible that the two universes are not really separate, but there is something about this "vibration" thing that we humans so far haven't been able to adeguately quantify (or even qualify), so it is easy to describe it in a "spiritual" sense. And for that reason, the "sickness" principle resonates, since it may actually have a direct impact on us when we are not "vibrating" well.

As far as the peyote, I don't know since I've never tried it. I have friends that have though, and their description is quite positive when facilitated appropriately. Also, within the last year there was a respected medical study done at Johns Hopkins with psylocybin that was quite compelling:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...0C783414B7F0000

It seems there is much positive when properly supervised and controlled. Frankly, I see it quite physiologically similar to other ways we amplify spiritual experiences, like fasting and group dynamics.

The terrorist events...well, I'm sure we agree that there is some real misinterpretation of "spiritual" feelings there; but it demonstrates how powerful, even if misinterpreted, spiritual witnesses can be.

Lots of fun speculation...but interesting possibilities!

Yes...it is fun speculating, and I enjoyed reading your thoughts as well--though I may differ with you (and that is okay) on what may constitute a spiritual experience.

My reason for mentioning the peyote and terrorism in terms of the interconnectedness of the two universes (as I understand things), was to make the point that it may prove useful to look at the effect on the physical body as well as the spirit when considering certain spiritual methodologies and actions. In other words, while one may experience, through smoking pot, what one may view as spiritual experiences, it seems reasonable to me to consider whether the supposed spiritual benefits derived thereby, are worth the cost to the physical body (see scientific studies related thereto)--particularly when compared to other means for deriving spiritual experiences and knowledge, including those that are actually legal. ;-)

With terrorism, one is paying the ultimate physical price, and making others pay dearly as well. I would think that with such immense costs involved, that would at least give serious pause in considering the spiritual basis for committing terrorist acts.

As for my own spiritual epistemology, both peyote and terrorism are not compatible therewith (and the latter strikes me as quite repugnant), though I can accept that others may see it differently.

Besides, while I am not prepared or desireous to judge the Indian or Radical Islamic beliefs, I think I, along with the rest of the society or nation I belong to, do have a right to limit the negative affect on us of those beliefs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BishopRic]

Besides, while I am not prepared or desireous to judge the Indian or Radical Islamic beliefs, I think I, along with the rest of the society or nation I belong to, do have a right to limit the negative affect on us of those beliefs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Nice discussion! I think we have some differences, but probably more commonalities than differences, it seems. The bolded part above is key, IMO. I'm okay letting others have their "spiritual experiences," as long as it doesn't interfere with my life, directly or indirectly.