Do you ever feel like you are speaking a different language?

[John Larsen]

I don't explain them. I am not privy to their experiences.

On what grounds do I believe that spiritual witnesses are superior to emotional and intellectual witnesses? Having experienced all three forms of confirmation provides me with a pretty good basis for prioritizing them.

John, the questions you pose go right to the heart of the OP. If you've read my other comments in this thread, you'll know what I mean when I say... You are trying to convince me that I didn't hold the toy that's in the Christmas present. But I did. And no amount of trying to convince me that it isn't what it is, will change the truth.

With all due respect, the toy exists only in your mind. Trying to convince me that somehow your internal states confirm some kind of external truth is, well, impossible.

But to your point, all of the Hindus Buddhists and Muslims believe the same thing. What of their toys? Are all religions true or are only the LDS having true experiences and everyone else is mislead, even though they say the exact same things you do?

[hordak]

I think one of the problems in the dialogue is the double standard held by spiritual crowd.

I had a friend in highschool who would tell marvelous tales of his weekend "spiritual experiences" Parties that would make rockstars cringe and copious amounts of alcohol he could consume. Sure the science didn't sound right, but who knows, maybe this 15 yearold 130 lb kid could drink 4 fifths of Jack Daniels without even getting a buzz. Didn't make sense to me but who am i too judge, however when another friend would join in the conversation and tell of his own "spiritual experiences" this first guy was so quick to dismiss them. This gave his own experiences less credence.

Skeptics are consistent, they hold all these experiences, including there own, to the same standard. While many of the spiritual crowd, tend to dismiss others which doesn't help to validate their own.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Which is why I think we LDS should have more patience with the fact that people don't see what we see.

On this point, I appreciate what Joseph Smith himself said near the end of his life: 'If I had not experienced what I have, I should not have believed it myself.' I feel the same way. Recognising this reality opens up entire avenues of understanding and charity to those who don't believe. I would be with them, vociferously even, had I not experienced what I have.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We should keep shining a light - no question! - but I think the minute we engage in contention that light dims. If we were as much the Zion people as we could be, we wouldn't be able to build chapels fast enough.

Amen!

We have a member in our ward--a physical giant of a man--who works as a bouncer at a popular club. I have repeatedly said that, if people really understood what we are enjoying, we'd have to place him at the door to the chapel every Sunday to keep the throng from pushing us past fire code. The only way to let them know is simply to live it and let them see some of the fruit.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We have not had the same spiritual experiences.

Agreed. Unfortunately, this statement has the potential to come across sounding arrogant or dismissive. I actually believe it to be an attempt to understand and be charitable, however. A person who has experienced what I have experienced and turned against it would have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly evil. I don't think that's the case with most people; therefore, I conclude that we simply haven't had the same experiences.

[Hamba Tuhan]

In other words, how do you know that spiritual witnesses are not just manufactured by your own mind? Or by an evil trickster, for that matter? You seem to think that this sort of confirmation is superior to normal intellectual or emotional confirmation of the common variety, but on what grounds do you believe that?

For probably obvious reasons, I prefer not to speak much of my own personal experiences, but I think we get an apt example from the early life of Joseph Smith. If, as a seventeen-year-old boy, I had been lying in bed with my brothers one night, thinking about stuff, and then an angel had come into the room three times to talk to me about an ancient record buried nearby, my first assumption upon the break of day would have been that I shouldn't eat quite so much gingerbread before bedtime since it could generate crazy dreams. Seriously. At that point, Joseph had no way of knowing that what had happened had not just been manufactured by his own mind. Granted, it may have felt more real than a dream, but, frankly, I've had dreams that felt very, very real...and some on rare occasions that have blended so seamlessly into reality upon waking that I was confused for hours afterward as to where the line between the two lay.

All of that changed the next day when Joseph found a stone in the very place he'd seen in his dream, used a stick as a lever to pry it up, and saw underneath the plates which he had 'dreamt' about.

That's how one knows. Every single time I've been told to go to a hill, there's been a rock there. And every single time I've pried up that rock, there's been a stack of gold plates underneath. After repeated experiences of this nature, one starts to recognise the voice of the trustworthy messenger.

[John Larsen]

For probably obvious reasons, I prefer not to speak much of my own personal experiences, but I think we get an apt example from the early life of Joseph Smith. If, as a seventeen-year-old boy, I had been lying in bed with my brothers one night, thinking about stuff, and then an angel had come into the room three times to talk to me about an ancient record buried nearby, my first assumption upon the break of day would have been that I shouldn't eat quite so much gingerbread before bedtime since it could generate crazy dreams. Seriously. At that point, Joseph had no way of knowing that what had happened had not just been manufactured by his own mind. Granted, it may have felt more real than a dream, but, frankly, I've had dreams that felt very, very real...and some on rare occasions that have blended so seamlessly into reality upon waking that I was confused for hours afterward as to where the line between the two lay.

All of that changed the next day when Joseph found a stone in the very place he'd seen in his dream, used a stick as a lever to pry it up, and saw underneath the plates which he had 'dreamt' about.

That's how one knows. Every single time I've been told to go to a hill, there's been a rock there. And every single time I've pried up that rock, there's been a stack of gold plates underneath. After repeated experiences of this nature, one starts to recognise the voice of the trustworthy messenger.

But we are left to take Joseph's word for it. Sorry, extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence not merely the wagging tongue of a boy without much to lose.

[mercyngrace]

With all due respect, the toy exists only in your mind. Trying to convince me that somehow your internal states confirm some kind of external truth is, well, impossible.

Convincing you, John, may very well be impossible! LOL! Two different languages - hence the OP ;-)

But to your point, all of the Hindus Buddhists and Muslims believe the same thing. What of their toys? Are all religions true or are only the LDS having true experiences and everyone else is mislead, even though they say the exact same things you do?

We may have had this conversation before John, it feels familiar. I do not discount the toys of other religions. I believe that life is progression and so every step is forward. None of us - even those born into "Mormonism" receives of the fulness at first. We grow grace for grace and much of that growth continues after mortality. That means that I don't discount another's spiritual witness because I don't know where along the path they are.

[mercyngrace]

Agreed. Unfortunately, this statement has the potential to come across sounding arrogant or dismissive. I actually believe it to be an attempt to understand and be charitable, however. A person who has experienced what I have experienced and turned against it would have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly evil. I don't think that's the case with most people; therefore, I conclude that we simply haven't had the same experiences.

Thanks for adding your insight, Hamba Tuhan.

I do indeed feel great charity. Probably because I have had the experience of feeling something, attributing meaning, and then struggling to decide afterward if what I felt was real. But as I mentioned yesterday on another thread, there are spiritual experiences that are like lines in the sand. Once you've crossed them, there is no going back. It makes having these discussions challenging because you either have to divulge experiences much to sacred for scorn or you have to simply say "for reals" (to quote John Larsen's earlier post ;-) Which is why I started the thread - there seems to be a gulf to wide to bridge. At least for mere mortals.

[John Larsen]

Convincing you, John, may very well be impossible! LOL! Two different languages - hence the OP ;-)

Suppose one of your children comes to you one day and claims that she is now a disciple of Steve. "Who is Steve?" you ask.

"He is a guy in our building. He knows everything, more than every scientist, engineer and priest put together." She replies.

"How do you know this?" you ask.

"Steve told me. Steven knows everything." She goes on to explain that Steve is the only source for information, all other sources are a corruption of the one true source, which is Steve. Steve also explains that all other sources can be deceptive. They will sometimes seem to contradict Steve. But Steve cautions that you must never trust any other source of information, especially when it contradicts Steve because Steve is the only person who knows everything. Steve told her all of this. Steve did say that when other sources are in harmony, that is fine because he is the source of knowledge.

Of course, there is nothing you can say to your daughter to dissuade her. You say that when you talk to Steve, he seems like a regular guy living in the building. You say that he doesn't even strike you as more clever than the average guy. But she will not believe you, because she only believes Steve above everything else.

To recap our conversation so far. You say that there is an internal experience you have that is neither your emotions, you reason, or empirical experience that tells you the real truth. When you other faculties disagree with this source they should be ignored. And you know all of this because that source tells you so. I am I getting anything wrong here? You also say that even though the source is experienced completely internal, it has an external source. You cannot see or confirm this externally, but you know it is external because this selfsame internal source tells you it is external? Right?

It is amazing how many claims of religious folks, when applied to any other human endeavor, would be seen as a sign of mental illness.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But we are left to take Joseph's word for it. Sorry, extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence not merely the wagging tongue of a boy without much to lose.

I think you ignored my last paragraph, John. I wasn't talking about Joseph Smith; I was talking about me. I merely used his example as substitute for my own experiences which have worked along the exact same lines.

Unfortunately, I suspect you've already determined that I'm just one more boy with a 'wagging tongue' and not much to lose. For reasons stated above, I don't blame you.

[mercyngrace]

Suppose one of your children comes to you one day and claims that she is now a disciple of Steve. "Who is Steve?" you ask.

"He is a guy in our building. He knows everything, more than every scientist, engineer and priest put together." She replies.

"How do you know this?" you ask.

"Steve told me. Steven knows everything." She goes on to explain that Steve is the only source for information, all other sources are a corruption of the one true source, which is Steve. Steve also explains that all other sources can be deceptive. They will sometimes seem to contradict Steve. But Steve cautions that you must never trust any other source of information, especially when it contradicts Steve because Steve is the only person who knows everything. Steve told her all of this. Steve did say that when other sources are in harmony, that is fine because he is the source of knowledge.

Ahh - but you misunderstood, Steve. Steve actually said "Prove me now herewith..."

Of course, there is nothing you can say to your daughter to dissuade her. You say that when you talk to Steve, he seems like a regular guy living in the building. You say that he doesn't even strike you as more clever than the average guy. But she will not believe you, because she only believes Steve above everything else.

But she has witnesses to Steve's power. Others have seen Steve's majesty. I may just have to check this Steve out.

To recap our conversation so far. You say that there is an internal experience you have that is neither your emotions, you reason, or empirical experience that tells you the real truth. When you other faculties disagree with this source they should be ignored. And you know all of this because that source tells you so. I am I getting anything wrong here? You also say that even though the source is experienced completely internal, it has an external source. You cannot see or confirm this externally, but you know it is external because this selfsame internal source tells you it is external? Right?

I never said my witnesses were only internal. Not only can I confirm some of them externally, a couple profound experiences were shared.

It is amazing how many claims of religious folks, when applied to any other human endeavor, would be seen as a sign of mental illness.

It is amazing how many claims of non-believers, when applied to any other human endeavor, would be seen as a sign of blindness.

[John Larsen]

I think you ignored my last paragraph, John. I wasn't talking about Joseph Smith; I was talking about me. I merely used his example as substitute for my own experiences which have worked along the exact same lines.

Unfortunately, I suspect you've already determined that I'm just one more boy with a 'wagging tongue' and not much to lose. For reasons stated above, I don't blame you.

Goes for you too. Why should I believe you?

[John Larsen]

Ahh - but you misunderstood, Steve. Steve actually said "Prove me now herewith..."

How do you prove it? Please let me know, otherwise, I feel we are going around in circles.

But she has witnesses to Steve's power. Others have seen Steve's majesty. I may just have to check this Steve out.

I see no reason to believe they have or that Steve exists.

I never said my witnesses were only internal. Not only can I confirm some of them externally, a couple profound experiences were shared.

Why the caginess? It seems that if you know what you know, you would want to shout it to the world and submit it to any test.

It is amazing how many claims of non-believers, when applied to any other human endeavor, would be seen as a sign of blindness.

For example?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Goes for you too. Why should I believe you?

You shouldn't. Hence the whole 'speaking a different language' problem. The best any of us can do is try to share our experiences in such a way that it will encourage you to seek for some of your own. The fact that you're willingly to intimate that we're mentally ill doesn't give me much hope, however....

[John Larsen]

You shouldn't. Hence the whole 'speaking a different language' problem. The best any of us can do is try to share our experiences in such a way that it will encourage you to seek for some of your own. The fact that you're willingly to intimate that we're mentally ill doesn't give me much hope, however....

I am sorry if I implied that. I don't believe that at all. I only meant to point out that if you applied the same reasoning and conclusions that are acceptable in the religions world (e.g. hearing voices) even religious people would think you loony. But religion has a clear pass. This means that reasonable people can engage in religious thinking without being ill thought of. It also means they can successful bifurcate their thinking about the world. This they do every day.

However, even if those people cross over their religious thinking to the outside world, once again even religious people get nervous. For example, you may have a very spiritual stake president who extends callings not based on rational thinking, but based on the "promptings of the spirit" he would be looked up to. But if the same doctor did diagnosis based on internal promptings rather than logic and lab work, he would be labeled a quack even by the priests.

[Hamba Tuhan]

For example, you may have a very spiritual stake president who extends callings not based on rational thinking, but based on the "promptings of the spirit" he would be looked up to. But if the same doctor did diagnosis based on internal promptings rather than logic and lab work, he would be labeled a quack even by the priests.

It's interesting that you need to place 'rational thinking' and 'promptings of the spirit' in opposition to each other. It's been my personal experience that revelation doesn't really happen in a vacuum. That's precisely why we ask questions, gather input, and think rationally as we seek for the guidance of the spirit. I'm happy for both a stake president and doctor to engage in that process equally.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I wasn't going to offer this example, but I just changed my mind. A few years ago, my father came down very sick. It started off as inflammation of the sack around his heart, followed by a constellation of other problems. Every time one problem was treated, another would break out. He went through three different hospitals and five different doctors before ending up in the hospital where my sister worked as a nurse. At this point, heaps of invasive procedures were keeping him alive, but no one had a clue what was wrong. More tests were ordered, the results of which were consulted, but the attending doctors still had no diagnosis. My sister would come home from work and immediately hit her reference books, cross-referencing symptoms, checking the results of the labs, etc. One morning after a couple of days of this, she announced confidently that she knew what Dad's problem was. We asked her if she'd found it in one of her books and how she could be so sure. She said it had actually come to her as she was praying that morning. Everyone, she said, including herself, had been looking in the wrong area. As she had been praying, she had been 'informed' that the problem was hormonal. I was skeptical, but she was 100% sure that this would prove to be the correct diagnosis because of the power of the experience. She went to the hospital before her shift started and met with one of the doctors to share her idea. He wasn't convinced but agreed to order the tests. They came back later that day; every hormone level was wrong.

You live in a world I don't recognise, John, if you think spiritual enlightenment somehow exists outside of reason instead of being an inherent part of it. In the midst of her prayer, my sister was shown a rock. When she and the doctors pried it up, there was an ancient record underneath. She could be confident beforehand simply because she'd already learnt to recognise the trustworthiness of this particular messenger.

[John Larsen]

It's interesting that you need to place 'rational thinking' and 'promptings of the spirit' in opposition to each other. It's been my personal experience that revelation doesn't really happen in a vacuum. That's precisely why we ask questions, gather input, and think rationally as we seek for the guidance of the spirit. I'm happy for both a stake president and doctor to engage in that process equally.

If we look only at the history of "modern revelation" since Joseph Smith, we find that a great deal of it is in opposition to ration thought and empirical query.

[StepfordWife]

If we look only at the history of "modern revelation" since Joseph Smith, we find that a great deal of it is in opposition to ration thought and empirical query.

i was wondering about this my myself. Is a spiritual witness that defies reason worth more weight than one that does not? Does its unreasonableness at the time of its occurring make it more spiritual? Like revelations predicting the future. Do they have to be things you could not arrive at with your current knowledge in order to qualify as spiritual?

[mercyngrace]

How do you prove it? Please let me know, otherwise, I feel we are going around in circles.

Alma 32 is a good place to start.

I see no reason to believe they have or that Steve exists.

What are you talking about??? You are the one who introduced me to Steve!

Why the caginess? It seems that if you know what you know, you would want to shout it to the world and submit it to any test.

What equipment would you use to test my spiritual experiences, John? As far as I know, there is no manmade equipment sophisticated enough to meet the parameters such an experiment demands. Only the faith filled soul...

For example?

Have a man, completely enamored of his girlfriend, describe her beauties to others who find her physically repulsive.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If we look only at the history of "modern revelation" since Joseph Smith, we find that a great deal of it is in opposition to ration thought and empirical query.

Not the 'modern revelation' I've personally experienced. There is, of course, no possible way I could convince you of that. We've perfectly illustrated the point of this thread.

[mercyngrace]

However, even if those people cross over their religious thinking to the outside world, once again even religious people get nervous. For example, you may have a very spiritual stake president who extends callings not based on rational thinking, but based on the "promptings of the spirit" he would be looked up to. But if the same doctor did diagnosis based on internal promptings rather than logic and lab work, he would be labeled a quack even by the priests.

Funny you should use the doctor example. I believe it was Russell M. Nelson that shared a story recently in conference (last couple of years, maybe) about having inspiration come to him about a procedure that he then performed successfully.

I guess it depends who the doctor is.

[mfbukowski]

How do you deal with the fact that so many of us nonbelievers were once strong believers, who relied on the same (one assumes) spirit, yet later came to the conclusion that it was most likely an internally generated self confirmation?

Because you have a defective sense of the spirit?

We all know that is what we are thinking. Why not say it. It is always the 800 lb gorilla on these threads.

Maybe God needs you for another purpose. Somebody has to test us.

Wow. I actually said that.

[mfbukowski]

How do you explain the many millions of people who have been issued Moroni's promise but for whom there was no spiritual witness given (such as me)?

Even if they had all received a spiritual witness, how could you possibly know that they are real? In other words, how do you know that spiritual witnesses are not just manufactured by your own mind? Or by an evil trickster, for that matter? You seem to think that this sort of confirmation is superior to normal intellectual or emotional confirmation of the common variety, but on what grounds do you believe that?

If you felt it, you would know.

I have no idea why you have not.

Now let's have lunch.