I have strong feelings contrary to moral principles...

[mfbukowski]

The same goes for studies, which now rival statistics for overall accuracy. I tend to take studies quoted with a grain of salt until I get a feel for what the agenda of the authors was. I would suggest that good, useful studies are well in the minority at this point.

I think that even on the edges of "hard science" where observations are difficult to replicate without incredibly expensive equipment many supposedly objective observers have an agenda.

Even generating a hypothesis is an agenda-driven activity- one is more often than not actually trying to prove one theory valid over another with the motivation of pleasing one's PhD adviser or getting grant money, or whatever. And interpretation of the supposedly objective data always enters into conclusions as well.

We humans do things for reasons. The bread is almost always buttered on only one side.

[caudicus]

Yes, yes, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Of course it does. Gravity was here before us, and gravity will be here after us. Just because a human isn't around, doesn't make something disappear. How do I know? Well, it is the most reasonable point of view.

Really, there haven't been many studies done on religious disaffiliation, though Harvard and UC Berkeley are working on some now. By and large, the studies have been done on people who change religions. The group of people who go from one religion to another in the US is far larger than people who give up religion altogether, making them easier to study.

[caudicus]

Perhaps now that you have had a chance to read a few more posts, you can better understand the meaning, which is, really, addressing the tendency of people to change religions, and THAT has nothing to do with immorality. Religious disaffection also has nothing to do with immorality. Becoming inactive, may very well have something to do with immorality, but that is none of my concern. You can apply your own definition, but I was clarifying my own, so there were no misunderstandings. "No longer believes in the Mormon church" is what I am going for.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, yes, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Of course it does. Gravity was here before us, and gravity will be here after us. Just because a human isn't around, doesn't make something disappear. How do I know? Well, it is the most reasonable point of view.

So please tell me how reasonable it is to believe that something is "real" which has never been experienced by anyone, ever.

One would think that a scientist like yourself would not believe in such things.

[caudicus]

The spiritual has an often distinct outside influence; though emotional / spiritual experiences may often happen together, and may even be tied to each other, they do differ in a number of material ways. One sign of spiritual maturity is being able to discern between emotional and spiritual influences, and to act appropriately on them.

So you say, but I would suggest that you cannot even describe how a spiritual component could even interact with a biological (emotional) component. In this, I would say you have nothing whatsoever to back you up.

[caudicus]

So please tell me how reasonable it is to believe that something is "real" which has never been experienced by anyone, ever.

One would think that a scientist like yourself would not believe in such things.

I am not arguing science, I am arguing the reasonable point of view.

Are you trying to tell me that it is not reasonable to be of the opinion that a tree makes a sound when it falls in the woods, even if there is no one around to hear it?

[mfbukowski]

I am not arguing science, I am arguing the reasonable point of view.

Are you trying to tell me that it is not reasonable to be of the opinion that a tree makes a sound when it falls in the woods, even if there is no one around to hear it?

"Sound" is something which is experienced. Atmospheric vibrations may or may not "exist" under these circumstances, but they could not be proven to "exist".

Saying it makes a "sound" is like asserting that radio waves have "color". They are electromagnetic waves, like light, but do not have the experiential quality of "color".

It may appear to be a trivial point, but it causes confusion with unfortunate results when we are talking about how we experience things. It is much like the often confused difference between subjective and objective.

Such confusion leads for example to the error that science conflicts with religion.

But of course we don't know anyone who believes that, do we?

[caudicus]

"Sound" is something which is experienced. Atmospheric vibrations may or may not "exist" under these circumstances, but they could not be proven to "exist".

Saying it makes a "sound" is like asserting that radio waves have "color". They are electromagnetic waves, like light, but do not have the experiential quality of "color".

It may appear to be a trivial point, but it causes confusion with unfortunate results when we are talking about how we experience things. It is much like the often confused difference between subjective and objective.

Such confusion leads for example to the error that science conflicts with religion.

But of course we don't know anyone who believes that, do we?

Again, you are just playing with definitions. Do you really believe that the falling tree does not make these vibrations if you aren't standing there? What is a reasonable position?

You are the one creating the confusion, everyone else reading this thread catches the meaning, and I doubt there are many people in the world who would debate the reasonable position... which is that the falling tree acts exactly the same if there are people around, or if there are not.

[jwhitlock]

So you say, but I would suggest that you cannot even describe how a spiritual component could even interact with a biological (emotional) component. In this, I would say you have nothing whatsoever to back you up.

And I would suggest that you have no interest in understanding how the spiritual works, so it's unlikely the discussion in that area would be particularly productive.

Those who are truly spiritually mature will never be understood by those who are not, and so those who are not will resort to dismissing them and their experiences as irrelevant. Yet the point being made on this thread is that whether you are dealing with history or with science or with religion or a variety of other disciplines, there is ->always<- a high degree of subjectivity evident in them. Inferring that the study of a biological response is somehow less subjective than the study of a spiritual response misses the point entirely.

Edit: And with that, I'm done for the evening.

[mfbukowski]

Again, you are just playing with definitions. Do you really believe that the falling tree does not make these vibrations if you aren't standing there? What is a reasonable position?

You are the one creating the confusion, everyone else reading this thread catches the meaning, and I doubt there are many people in the world who would debate the reasonable position... which is that the falling tree acts exactly the same if there are people around, or if there are not.

That of course is not the question. Vibrations are not "sound" any more than radio waves have "color".

It is not my fault that most people do not understand quantum mechanics either. For that matter most people in the world have probably not even heard of atomic theory. They would never believe that the chair they are sitting in is made of electrons, protons neutrons quarks and- many things I do not pretend to know about myself.

So are you advocating that all human knowledge should be reduced to what the most uneducated think?

Definitions are all we have, especially when you define things as something they are not.

Science teaches us about what we experience, not about what "is". All we can speak about is what someone has experienced and defined in language. If you do not understand that totally obvious principle, I have nothing more to say.

It's a little hard to communicate without definitions and language. It's about all we have.

[TAO]

Cadicus, it's like saying, how do you know the Color Red is the Color Red to another person? Let's say their eyes see every color we think is red as blue - and ever color we think as blue, as red. For every red object we point out, it will be defined as red in their mind, even though the actual color is what is called blue in our mind.

It's all relative =P. It's a Zany Zany World =P.

[Nathan6329]

Note: This post is not specifically for Pale Rider. Anyone can chime in. However, this is directly related to comments he made (and others pressed him on)in the thread Good People, leaving the church. Specifically, the implication was first that many (not all) who don't leave the church haven't done the research, then that they don't want to, then that they are too emotionally invested, etc etc. These are arguments we all see from time to time, and really are along the same lines to me as the equally ridiculous (which Pale Rider also rightly condemns) view that everyone leaves the church because of immorality or the desire to be so. So to be clear, I am not accusing Pale Rider of being terrible or anything. I haven't interacted with the boards much for several months (or longer) due to work, life in general etc. But I do want to address the concept of who stays and who goes, using the "I am a Mormon" format (okay, not really, but I'll be making statements that fly in the face of what has been said by some). Also, there is only one argument I find persuasive for people both joining and leaving the church, and none of them were mentioned in the thread in question by Pale Rider or a few others, that being that intelligent, reasonable people who have full mental and emotional faculty, who have no stake either way in a worldly sense about whether they join or leave, can come to different conclusions based on historical evidence. With that said, let's continue.

I am always honest about who I am, and that I gain my strength from the Savior, so please be aware I have no issues speaking of my struggles, as well as general allusions to very real spiritual experiences, as I know in whom I have faith and redemption.

******

Hi, I'm Matt Tandy. I'm a property manager, a husband, and a father. And I'm a Mormon.

I also am not a "good member" in terms of desires. If I left the church, I would likely be a womanizer, probably a drunkard, deceitful, selfish, abrasive, a drug-user, and a vigilante. I would seriously consider a life in organized crime and would feel very little in that profession about eliminating through most means those who were in the way of what I wanted. I would still be quite loyal to my friends, friendly to strangers, the poor, and the downtrodden. I would support causes I felt were good for removing suffering, as long as it did not interfere with my own agency and happiness, hence the likelihood of organized crime. I realize this is not typical of people who leave the church, who are in the church, or who have never left the church. I do not say these things lightly or flippantly. I simply know who I am.

Almost every single urge I have is almost overpowering, and it would be extremely easy for me to give into any of these.

Much of both my wife's family and my family struggles with activity, are not members, or wouldn't bat an eye if I left. In fact, several would likely leave with me. I could likely use my power of persuasion and influence to either convince my wife to leave also, or to convince her to leave me alone in my beliefs and she can live hers if she didn't. I have next to zero chance of family repercussions should I choose to leave, so I do not stand to really lose anything by leaving the church. It would be extremely liberating and even enjoyable in many respects.

I first encountered extreme judgmental members while in Highschool, when my seminary teacher accused me of being on the road to apostasy because I did not believe the earth was created in 7,000 years, as Joseph Fielding Smith believed and taught. This was also one of my first encounters with the realization I held views very much opposed to a (then) apostle, and later prophet. I had good reason to leave right then.

My degree is Ancient Near Eastern Studies with a focus in Hebrew. I spent much of the time learning to recognize historical problems with the bible, reading about how Israel was not much different than the Canaanites, Babylonians, etc in terms of belief in being guided by deity, prophecies, etc. I went into the degree because it both interested me and I thought it would help to better answer certain criticisms. Instead my entire view of scripture morphed dramatically, as well as history, etc. I have written lengthy papers that many in the church would consider heretical, but I view as simply getting to the truth of what ancient Israel actually believed, right or wrong. I have offended sensitive members on occasion (unintentionally) to the point where I was once asked not to comment in Sunday School anymore unless it was in life-applications by a well-meaning Bishop who didn't want to deal with the few complaints.

Just a few weeks ago a religion instructor with CES implied I was on the road to apostasy (man, been on this road for ages it seems) because I did not accept his views that every footnote in the LDS scriptures, every statement in the CES manuals are true doctrine since they went through correlation, which is headed by the First Presidency and Apostles. In fact I believe they have errors of man in them and are often arbitrary inclusions!

I have probably read equal amounts of anti-Mormon literature and watched many of the movies as I have of faithful LDS history in the last decade. I pursue knowledge voraciously from every quarter, true or not, simply because I want to understand how others think and why. My addiction that I indulge in, the only stress in my marriage, is that I spend anywhere from 4-10 hours a day doing nothing other than reading history, news, and politics from all extremes. I am not a "professional apologist", but a consumer of information and analyzer of history.

It should be noted I know little of basketball, football, and baseball, which, combined with my interest in other topics, makes me generally a social outcast in church. I could leave and never return and would have few friends to come looking for me.

I was recently called to one of the few callings I dreaded the most, Ward Clerk. Before that I had no calling for almost a year, a record in my ward. Three years ago I was called to Nursery, the number one calling I did not want and feared. I loved the kids, but hated every moment of it. It should be noted I am a germaphobe, which is why I dreaded it. Every Sunday I was in there I struggled to stay calm and not go screaming out the door because of the massive amounts of snot, pee, poo, saliva, and other germ laden swapping of fluids that was there. I have, and had, no reason to stay for the sake of my calling, and would be more relaxed and happier in some sense if I simply left.

I am linked in a way to some of the worst of the bureaucracy of the corporate church. There are some crazy nut-cases in there (but, I should add, the corporate church aspects I deal with are mainly populated by overwhelmingly incredible, dedicated individuals who I would trust with my life and all I have in this world). I deal with the red-tape, the political jockeying, the off-kilter spouses, etc. It's a big organization, and it suffers all the foibles to some degree any large corporation does, including some individuals who only see the money aspects, not the people (though again, in this point I must add clarity for the other side, that being that I see overwhelming good in the corporate aspect of the church, both people, purpose, and method).

So to sum it up: I have almost over-powering desires for almost everything that is immoral and even evil. It feels like an insatiable hunger. I have a calling (and have had callings) I would gladly leave. If I left the church, few if any in my ward would notice much, few if any family would care (and some family and a few ward members would even likely leave also), I am a trained historian who finds problems with scripture and some church teachings, I know a ton about the church, good and bad, and even think most members are naive about its history and beliefs, preferring an "all is well in Zion" attitude. I know the perils of the corporate aspect of the church and have had to deal with it.

I have every single reason to leave the Church. I have done the research. I have no reason to stay. I would probably be happier in some sense out of the church. I have no "emotional investment".

I am a physically active, spiritually dedicated, wholly devoted Mormon.

Why? I fly in the face of every single reason I have seen for why someone would stay in the Church.

Why I am still here?

Because I would consider my "spiritual" experiences in general to be extraordinary.

Because the Spirit has been a powerful witness in my life.

Because I have had visions and prophecies in my personal life, directly related to the church, I have seen come to pass. Things I saw with clarity and kept in remembrance years before they eventuated.

Because I have seen things that are too sacred to share, both physically and spiritually.

Because I have had paradigm changing experiences with dark forces and seen it in others, and know more from personal experience of their reality and power than I assume most ever will in this life (hopefully).

Because many of these experiences tie directly into the truthfulness of the Gospel and Church as it stands today.

Because I know what has been revealed, because I have witnesses stronger than just a "feeling" or "voice". Because I, as Paul, am a slave to Christ, and am so joyfully. Because I am honor-bound and desire to take my knowledge and joy in the Gospel (the actual Gospel, not necessarily the organizational church) and help others, especially the youth and the downtrodden to find that same joy and hope in Christ through God's church and teachings. Because I must protect the youth and the weak from the adversary who I know to be real. Because I know the church is not perfect because of Man and the world the Church must exist in, but it is God's true and living church, and it will bring all closer to Christ. Because as a result of my experiences I know that the man Thomas S. Monson is God's authorized mouthpiece for the world and church as a whole, and the apostles are called and ordained of God. Because I know that Jesus if the Christ, that he knows me, and that his atonement helps me to be a better person and to fight the carnal man, that he makes up for my inadequacies.

In every single way, I would be happier outside of the church, EXCEPT the knowledge I have would destroy me, and that includes a sure knowledge of how I would be held accountable.

*****

I do not expect this to change too much the back and forth about why people leave the church. I do hope however that it makes some people realize that there are some, and perhaps they are few, who could vanish from the church without a trace and who in many ways desire to, but who have such a sure knowledge of it's ultimate truth, regardless of imperfections in history or modern organization, that they never can without extreme rejection of in-your face truth. Anti's will still be anti's for the most part, unbelievers will be unbelievers, those who struggle will still mostly struggle, and the faithful will be faithful. I do however hope that in speaking, even generally, about my own experience, that some will be persuaded to realize that some of us can never leave, and it's not because of fear of family, emotional investment, time investment, lack of knowledge, lack of understanding, lack of temptation, or any such thing. Let me also add that I will not likely reveal more about my experiences in general, but that I am not insane, never been on medication, have no known allergies or medical conditions, do not hear voices in my head, never taken drugs, alcohol, etc nor engaged in any offensive behavior despite my constant hour by hour battle against my baser nature. I do not see the walking dead wandering around, nor have I ever had a "near death experience" to explain things. I am of quite sound mind and body, though I suppose my saying so does not prevent some who would reject allusions as either puffing up of simpler experiences or as mental issues.

More importantly, above all else, I hope in sharing this that some who waver here know that people who have almost every reason to leave remain, not because of family or emotional or time investment or comfort, but because of a sure knowledge. Yes, this is in part flock-tending, which as Jesus did it, I believe is quite legitimate.

For discussion purposes: For those who are anti-Mormon, where do I fit in on why I haven't left the church. If it is because it is as I say (or at least you accept I believe it is as I say) why do I never hear of my group of people in the church from you? Is it because you do not believe in us, because you never encountered us, or some other reason. I am simply tired of the inference that those who have either studied the Church and Gospel or are not emotionally invested in either (or can overcome it), would not be a part of it. It seems to always be that we are either willfully deceptive, don't know enough, can't bear the emotional and social/work struggle of leaving, or choose to ignore controversial aspects of history.

I do not want to belittle those who have left the church and did go through great struggles that I would never have to in order to do so. I recognize that many of you were following what your mind said was right and were willing to pay the price. I do not doubt the sincerity of most of you. I do not doubt that some of you are happier than ever now. This is about one group of those who stay and why. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts (as I am a knowledge addict on how others view the world!).

Well although church and prayer have helped you to control your influences, if you haven't done any seeking of professional help I suggest you do. It sounds like you have some issues that require counseling and/or medication.

The church is probably good for you because your feeling and love for the church helps to suppress some of these thoughts, but it still isn't healthy to frequently have them, and as much as the church saved my life before going into my teen years when I converted at 11, the church itself had people to help, but not necessarily trained professionals, because our influences a lot of times can only help us with what they have some experience of.

It is good that you opened up to us and I will pray for you and others that have problems they are struggling with, but this however is also a forum which we only know about you what we have read, but seeking help from others you know personally and professional help may be the answer.

[caudicus]

And I would suggest that you have no interest in understanding how the spiritual works, so it's unlikely the discussion in that area would be particularly productive.Those who are truly spiritually mature will never be understood by those who are not, and so those who are not will resort to dismissing them and their experiences as irrelevant. Yet the point being made on this thread is that whether you are dealing with history or with science or with religion or a variety of other disciplines, there is ->always<- a high degree of subjectivity evident in them. Inferring that the study of a biological response is somehow less subjective than the study of a spiritual response misses the point entirely.Edit: And with that, I'm done for the evening.

Despite what you may believe, thought and behavior is the result of biological activity. This is proven in a million different ways. But, ultimately, the point is that it is a perfectly reasonable point of view for someone not to believe in the Mormon church.

That of course is not the question. Vibrations are not "sound" any more than radio waves have "color". It is not my fault that most people do not understand quantum mechanics either. For that matter most people in the world have probably not even heard of atomic theory. They would never believe that the chair they are sitting in is made of electrons, protons neutrons quarks and- many things I do not pretend to know about myself.So are you advocating that all human knowledge should be reduced to what the most uneducated think?Definitions are all we have, especially when you define things as something they are not.Science teaches us about what we experience, not about what "is". All we can speak about is what someone has experienced and defined in language. If you do not understand that totally obvious principle, I have nothing more to say.It's a little hard to communicate without definitions and language. It's about all we have.

What are you even going on about? Why don't you answer the question.

Is it a reasonable point of view to assume that a tree does, indeed, make a sound even if no one is around?

Science is about approximating what is, but this isn't about science. You are trying to take off on a tangent that is totally irrelevant to what a reasonable point of view is. This isn't about epistemology. This is about the fact that, based on the information available, it is perfectly reasonable for someone not to believe in the Mormon church. Even Hugh Nibley admitted that the Book of Mormon invited criticism. Your inane arguments have demonstrated nothing useful, and don't address the point I was trying to make.

Cadicus, it's like saying, how do you know the Color Red is the Color Red to another person? Let's say their eyes see every color we think is red as blue - and ever color we think as blue, as red. For every red object we point out, it will be defined as red in their mind, even though the actual color is what is called blue in our mind.It's all relative =P. It's a Zany Zany World =P.

You are, of course, totally wrong.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Well although church and prayer have helped you to control your influences, if you haven't done any seeking of professional help I suggest you do. It sounds like you have some issues that require counseling and/or medication.

I assure you I am not only quite healthy mentally, I am extremely stable and in control of my emotions and actions. Whether I have urges or not is irrelevant to what I do with them. That is called self-control. Unfortunately, when I was a young child, I had zero. I was prone to frequent violent bouts of rage, where I literally saw red hues over everything and essentially lost all control. It was extremely primal. Also gave me crazy headaches. Three things helped me to gain control of my baser nature: overhearing my parents having a private conversation where they debated sending my to a shrink and other options, time spent in Army JROTC to learn self-discipline and directing my energy, and ultimately coming to the practical realization that there is more to life than this mortal realm. No drugs needed, but I do honestly appreciate your concern. I in no way claim I am normal, only that God has given me the ability to overcome.

Also, for Caudicus (and others), I would like to point out that what WAS a topic about those who have every reason to leave the LDS Church do not do so AND still believe in the restoration and the modern church, has since evolved back into the bigger category I was excluding myself (and by concept others) from being a part of. And I would also add that while all things are spiritual in some sense, some of the things I have experienced were very, very physical. And Amazing. And Scary. Depending on which one. And multiple people involved, so no, not in my head. I only mention this because I see references in here and in another thread on "And I'm an Ex-Mormon" where that same drivel about how "it's all just feelings you have" is tossed out so categorically.

Whether the majority are "feel good" Mormon's or not, they are not the group that is the power in any faith. It is those with experiences outside of just "feelings" which must be addressed. This includes visions, prophecies, some impressions, etc. Multiple people or alone? Medicated or not? Of course, in the LDS faith in general, those who have some of the most incredible experiences are those who are least likely to share until they feel prompted to, which I acknowledge does make the task that much more difficult. I just find it amusing that my lengthy post had much to do with how I have had special experiences that anchor me forever in the church, and now the conversation is about the subjectivity of color, immorality, and feelings.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

You are, of course, totally wrong.

You are using absolutes, but so have others. Either way, you miss the point of the color argument. Both the color-blind person and the seeing can hear a frequency range and identify it, can discuss the speed, and a diagram can be made placing it in a general scheme. However, the actual COLOR as PERCEIVED by the individuals in their own eyes is different. This is because either their eyes, brain, or something else prevents the color-blind individual from seeing it how others do. All the knowledge of the attributes of the color red will do nothing to help them know from personal vision what a fiery sunset really looks like in its full spectrum. It's the same with salt and someone who can't taste. All the chemical attributes give no real understanding of how it tastes.

[mfbukowski]

Despite what you may believe, thought and behavior is the result of biological activity. This is proven in a million different ways. But, ultimately, the point is that it is a perfectly reasonable point of view for someone not to believe in the Mormon church.

No one is debating whether or not thought and behavior is the result of biological activity. Of course it is. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. What is the "cause" of biological activity? Some stimulus. Those stimuli can be subjectively or objectively perceived. A dream or a pain in your stomach is subjectively perceived, whereas the number of fingers on your new baby's hands are objectively perceived.

I can't feel your pain. I can't see what colors you see or dream what dreams you have at night. I can't love your wife, nor play piano like you do.

Yes, it's all "biological"- so what??

What are you even going on about? Why don't you answer the question.

Is it a reasonable point of view to assume that a tree does, indeed, make a sound even if no one is around?

And you accuse me of arguing about definitions?? Define it either way- I don't care one iota. The point is that "sound" is perceived by people. "Color" is a perception NOT A WAVELENGTH. Do you know what "qualia" are??

Read this article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

It will help you understand where I am coming from.

Science is about approximating what is, but this isn't about science. You are trying to take off on a tangent that is totally irrelevant to what a reasonable point of view is. This isn't about epistemology. This is about the fact that, based on the information available, it is perfectly reasonable for someone not to believe in the Mormon church. Even Hugh Nibley admitted that the Book of Mormon invited criticism. Your inane arguments have demonstrated nothing useful, and don't address the point I was trying to make.

Everything is about epistemology.

Who ever said it was not reasonable to not believe in the Mormon church? I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

[jwhitlock]

Despite what you may believe, thought and behavior is the result of biological activity. This is proven in a million different ways. But, ultimately, the point is that it is a perfectly reasonable point of view for someone not to believe in the Mormon church.

This is a good example of a very subjective conclusion drawn from a rather narrow viewpoint. A little bit of deeper digging might have also revealed to you that there seems to be something more involved in living things that can't be linked directly to biological activity. The biological theory involving life is not as neatly tied up in a tight, self-contained package as you would have us think.

That may be the reason no one has been able to replicate life yet in the lab.

Any belief (or non-belief) can be justified based on the subjective interpretation of evidence available. I, for instance, find it perfectly reasonable to believe in the basic truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That belief is certainly not any more subjective than anything you would present.

Matt has presented a very interesting OP about his attachment to the restored gospel, despite some significant things that could / should drive him away from it. Such evidence as presented by him is well worth pondering in trying to understand what really drives the foundations of LDS belief.

[TAO]

You are, of course, totally wrong.

Let me explain better. A cat sees in shades of green. What we call blue, to a cat, is actually a shade of green. If cats were to talk, what we would call blue, they would also call blue, however, in their eyes, if we were to see through them, to us, it would be a shade of green.

Definitions is the problem, really.

[paulpatter]

. . . the LDS Church does everything it can do to keep you from being known for who you are, up to and including asking you to give only certain responses in Sunday school [emphasis added]

.

Ah, yes. I understand that effective in April the Brethren will implement a new calling for Gospel Doctrine class: Acceptable Response Enforcer (ARE). AREs will be stationed in every Gospel Doctrine class, and if someone makes an unacceptable response or comment, he (must be a high priest) will escort the offender out of the room and issue a citation. A copy of the citation will be given to the bishop, who will then direct the offender to report to his office at a designated time; the teacher and the ARE will be present to describe the nature of the comment. The bishop may then, at his discretion, convene a Bishop's Court, making disfellowship a possibility.

Frightening, isn't it?

[caudicus]

mfbukowski

I can't tell if you are trolling me or not. Are you playing dumb? That is a serious question.

My initial claim was that it is a perfectly reasonable point of view to not believe in the Mormon church.

Having been here long enough, I predicted your response...

"If you want to play "redefine the term to win my argument," then go ahead."

At which point you went into a series of tangential, unreasonable rants trying to change the definition of the terms I used to demonstrate that I, possibly, could be wrong.

You wanted to get all murky about objective truth, so I specify, truth that is true for everyone, not just for one person. You want to get into qualia, but that is useless for the purpose of discussion. The reason we have a specific set of photon wavelengths for each color is so we can discuss it from an objective point of view, regardless of how many cones and rods a person participating in the conversation may have.

If you want to address my point of view, then stop resorting to apologetic trickery and address why it is or is not unreasonable to believe in the Mormon church. Don't keep regurgitating the same argument that everyone's own personal experience is proof or disproof of anything. We all know the limitations of subjective experience and that is why scientific method is used to establish objective parameters in which to measure and learn about the nature of the universe that we all share.

What is annoying, is everyone understands as much. I am sure you do, too. So, I have to wonder if you are trolling or playing dumb.

I used "vibration" in my reference to sound because you used the term "vibration." Then, you go ahead and redefine the term. Can you see how suspicious that looks? So, let me rephrase the question, and, perhaps, this time, without resorting to nonsense, you can give an answer.

Is it a reasonable point of view to assume that a tree makes a noise when it falls in the woods, even if no one is around to hear it?

To me, it addresses my main point, but after your wiggling around, I think we all need to see if you can answer a straight forward question.

Despite the fact that all I want is an acknowledgement of what a reasonable point of view is, I will address:

What is the "cause" of biological activity? Some stimulus. Those stimuli can be subjectively or objectively perceived.

This is a good example of a very subjective conclusion drawn from a rather narrow viewpoint. A little bit of deeper digging might have also revealed to you that there seems to be something more involved in living things that can't be linked directly to biological activity. The biological theory involving life is not as neatly tied up in a tight, self-contained package as you would have us think.

That may be the reason no one has been able to replicate life yet in the lab.

Not only has life been replicated in the lab, it has been created from scratch.

The cause of biological activity is so non-specific, I have to wonder if that is a troll question. The origin of biological impulses as a result of stimulus from the outside world is called signal transduction, of which there are several kinds. This, essentially, is the conversion of various natural happenings to electrochemical impulses that are then interpreted by our own brains.

There is nothing outside of biology that can be linked to biological activity. The smallest particle involved in the operation of perception and thought is the electron. Specifically, it is the valence electrons of the atoms of the molecules in our cells. Nuclear chemistry doesn't even fit into the picture. If you two are going to claim that there is another force at work, then you are going to have to explain how the chemistry of the body is affected by "spirit" or whatever you want to call it.

I understand that you think there is another force at work, I really do. I have been on these forums for years, and I was raised Mormon. My contention is that nobody can even create a conceptually coherent explanation of how spirit circumvents already well understood laws of chemistry to change thoughts and perception.

Until you can provide that explanation, the most reasonable point of view is not what you possess. I can appreciate you have your faith and you have your experiences, but so does everyone else. There are plenty theories of mind that do not require extra forces of nature. They operate perfectly fine with what we have already established.

To a neuroscientist, religious experiences can be explained with what we currently understand about the human mind. This is not an overstatement, and I don't claim we know every nuance of a religious experience. I do know that we can induce them, and watch them in action with real time scans. When someone feels like time stops and they are out of body, that their temporal lobe in in inhibitory mode, that when people speak in tongues their dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is inhibited while there is hyperactivity in the Broca's area of their brain. The examples go on and on about where we can tie certain aspects of religious experiences to specific patterns of activity in the brain. A more and more complete picture is being added to everyday. This picture has no need of a spiritual explanation.

I maintain that my own point of view is perfectly reasonable. There is nothing wrong with people who are not Mormon. They have no deficiencies. There is nothing wrong with people who leave the church, morally, mentally, or otherwise, be it a change to another faith or total disaffection.

There are billions of people on this earth who claim to know that their faith is the correct one. The most reasonable explanation is not the one that excludes everyone else's faith while holding one superior, but the one that provides an explanation for the existence of all faiths, and places them all on an equal playing field.

[Acris Venator]

407

There are billions of people on this earth who claim to know that their faith is the correct one. The most reasonable explanation is not the one that excludes everyone else's faith while holding one superior, but the one that provides an explanation for the existence of all faiths, and places them all on an equal playing field.

So you're talking about Gnosis, right?

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski

I can't tell if you are trolling me or not. Are you playing dumb? That is a serious question.

My initial claim was that it is a perfectly reasonable point of view to not believe in the Mormon church.

Having been here long enough, I predicted your response...

At which point you went into a series of tangential, unreasonable rants trying to change the definition of the terms I used to demonstrate that I, possibly, could be wrong.

You wanted to get all murky about objective truth, so I specify, truth that is true for everyone, not just for one person. You want to get into qualia, but that is useless for the purpose of discussion. The reason we have a specific set of photon wavelengths for each color is so we can discuss it from an objective point of view, regardless of how many cones and rods a person participating in the conversation may have.

If you want to address my point of view, then stop resorting to apologetic trickery and address why it is or is not unreasonable to believe in the Mormon church. Don't keep regurgitating the same argument that everyone's own personal experience is proof or disproof of anything. We all know the limitations of subjective experience and that is why scientific method is used to establish objective parameters in which to measure and learn about the nature of the universe that we all share.

What is annoying, is everyone understands as much. I am sure you do, too. So, I have to wonder if you are trolling or playing dumb.

I used "vibration" in my reference to sound because you used the term "vibration." Then, you go ahead and redefine the term. Can you see how suspicious that looks? So, let me rephrase the question, and, perhaps, this time, without resorting to nonsense, you can give an answer.

Is it a reasonable point of view to assume that a tree makes a noise when it falls in the woods, even if no one is around to hear it?

To me, it addresses my main point, but after your wiggling around, I think we all need to see if you can answer a straight forward question.

Despite the fact that all I want is an acknowledgement of what a reasonable point of view is, I will address:

Not only has life been replicated in the lab, it has been created from scratch.

The cause of biological activity is so non-specific, I have to wonder if that is a troll question. The origin of biological impulses as a result of stimulus from the outside world is called signal transduction, of which there are several kinds. This, essentially, is the conversion of various natural happenings to electrochemical impulses that are then interpreted by our own brains.

There is nothing outside of biology that can be linked to biological activity. The smallest particle involved in the operation of perception and thought is the electron. Specifically, it is the valence electrons of the atoms of the molecules in our cells. Nuclear chemistry doesn't even fit into the picture. If you two are going to claim that there is another force at work, then you are going to have to explain how the chemistry of the body is affected by "spirit" or whatever you want to call it.

I understand that you think there is another force at work, I really do. I have been on these forums for years, and I was raised Mormon. My contention is that nobody can even create a conceptually coherent explanation of how spirit circumvents already well understood laws of chemistry to change thoughts and perception.

Until you can provide that explanation, the most reasonable point of view is not what you possess. I can appreciate you have your faith and you have your experiences, but so does everyone else. There are plenty theories of mind that do not require extra forces of nature. They operate perfectly fine with what we have already established.

To a neuroscientist, religious experiences can be explained with what we currently understand about the human mind. This is not an overstatement, and I don't claim we know every nuance of a religious experience. I do know that we can induce them, and watch them in action with real time scans. When someone feels like time stops and they are out of body, that their temporal lobe in in inhibitory mode, that when people speak in tongues their dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is inhibited while there is hyperactivity in the Broca's area of their brain. The examples go on and on about where we can tie certain aspects of religious experiences to specific patterns of activity in the brain. A more and more complete picture is being added to everyday. This picture has no need of a spiritual explanation.

I maintain that my own point of view is perfectly reasonable. There is nothing wrong with people who are not Mormon. They have no deficiencies. There is nothing wrong with people who leave the church, morally, mentally, or otherwise, be it a change to another faith or total disaffection.

There are billions of people on this earth who claim to know that their faith is the correct one. The most reasonable explanation is not the one that excludes everyone else's faith while holding one superior, but the one that provides an explanation for the existence of all faiths, and places them all on an equal playing field.

Re-check your response.

I already said that it was reasonable to not believe in the Mormon church.

You are confusing two of us and responding as if I said things I did not say. This is compounded by the fact that you do not reference where your quotes come from- that is perhaps one reason you are confusing yourself.

I never said that life could not be replicated in a lab.

I don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

You ignored everything about qualia, and that is the issue. Spiritual experience is a quale- that is what I am asserting. It's biological reference is irrelevant to it as a quale, as a phenomenological event.

Honestly, read the article by Nagel in my siggy. You are just not getting this, sorry. No, I am not trolling.

Note that everyone else here seems to understand my point and you are the only one who does not.

[caudicus]

I am not confusing anything. You did not explicitly say "that it was reasonable to not believe in the Mormon church."

You said that there are a number of reasonable point of views and referred to my own as involving a category error because you mistakenly assume that there is a subjective, supernatural component to human experience. I maintain that there is no evidence of that, to which you will spout qualia, which is useless in this discussion unless you can explain how your own qualia is the result of anything supernatural.

Can you provide a conceptually coherent explanation of "phenomenological features" as being the result of supernatural forces?

My comment about life in the lab was directed at JeffK. As you can see, his quote is included under your own... separately, but I used one response to address the biological issues you both raised.

[mfbukowski]

I am not confusing anything. You did not explicitly say "that it was reasonable to not believe in the Mormon church."

No, I think you are indeed confused.

Who ever said it was not reasonable to not believe in the Mormon church? I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

You said that there are a number of reasonable point of views and referred to my own as involving a category error because you mistakenly assume that there is a subjective, supernatural component to human experience.

No, I never said "supernatural". I do not ever use that term. I don't believe in it. I believe in natural things which have not been discovered yet. And the category error has to do with mixing subjective with objective points of view, not with anything "spiritual"

I maintain that there is no evidence of that,

Yes, because those principles have not been discovered yet.

to which you will spout qualia, which is useless in this discussion unless you can explain how your own qualia is the result of anything supernatural.

They are not the result of anything supernatural. All I am talking about is that we all have experiences, some of which are subjective, like dreams. Dreams and similar experiences can change your life. Spiritual experiences are, I think like dreams. What is important is that they change your life, and only you can decide "where (or whom) they come from".

Can you provide a conceptually coherent explanation of "phenomenological features" as being the result of supernatural forces?

Nope. Did you read anything about the subjective nature of qualia? That was the whole point of the link!

My comment about life in the lab was directed at JeffK. As you can see, his quote is included under your own... separately, but I used one response to address the biological issues you both raised.

Sure.

Next time I address a letter I will just leave the address off. The fact that it was not addressed to anyone and mixed both replies was totally confusing. In fact, I think you don't even realize still that you were answering jwhitlock not jeffK. I think you are in fact very confused. It was a useless post.

The whole point is that subjective experiences change our lives. "Evidence" does not change our lives. No one gets out of bed and decides to live another day because of "evidence". No one falls in love because of "evidence", but all of these decisions are based on subjective factors.

The difference between subjective and objective is one of point of view- that's all.