Mormons need to spend more time defending their bosoms.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.stormfax.com/1****ens.htm

"You don't believe in me," observed the Ghost.

"I don't." said Scrooge.

"What evidence would you have of my reality, beyond that of your senses?"

"I don't know," said Scrooge.

"Why do you doubt your senses?"

"Because," said Scrooge, "a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"

Scrooge was not much in the habit of cracking jokes, nor did he feel, in his heart, by any means waggish then. The truth is, that he tried to be smart, as a means of distracting his own attention, and keeping down his terror; for the spectre's voice disturbed the very marrow in his bones.

To sit, staring at those fixed glazed eyes, in silence for a moment, would play, Scrooge felt, the very deuce with him. There was something very awful, too, in the spectre's being provided with an infernal atmosphere of its own. Scrooge could not feel it himself, but this was clearly the case; for though the Ghost sat perfectly motionless, its hair, and skirts, and tassels, were still agitated as by the hot vapour from an oven.

"You see this toothpick?" said Scrooge, returning quickly to the charge, for the reason just assigned; and wishing, though it were only for a second, to divert the vision's stony gaze from himself.

"I do," replied the Ghost.

"You are not looking at it," said Scrooge.

"But I see it," said the Ghost, "notwithstanding."

"Well!" returned Scrooge, "I have but to swallow this, and be for the rest of my days persecuted by a legion of goblins, all of my own creation. Humbug, I tell you! humbug!"

At this the spirit raised a frightful cry, and shook its chain with such a dismal and appalling noise, that Scrooge held on tight to his chair, to save himself from falling in a swoon. But how much greater was his horror, when the phantom taking off the bandage round its head, as if it were too warm to wear indoors, its lower jaw dropped down upon its breast!

Scrooge fell upon his knees, and clasped his hands before his face.

"Mercy!" he said. "Dreadful apparition, why do you trouble me?"

"Man of the worldly mind!" replied the Ghost, "do you believe in me or not?"

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You need to read a bit more carefully. You said:

Before you said that, I said this:

So, let me say it again in another way. Neither MP, as far as I can tell, nor I are asking for a believer in spiritual experience as a means of getting truth to demonstrate why MP or I should believe their spiritual experience.

MP is not asking the question you think he's asking. You've missed the point.

Then the MP, and yourself, have done a rather poor job of explaining his question.

And since he asked this question...

So, let's settle every debate right now. Why should I accept the personal spiritual experience as sufficient reason to be Mormon?

How am I, or anyone, supposed to interpret his inquiry any other way?

[mfbukowski]

Also, note that none of this asks you to prove true the content of your personal spiritual experience. Rather, what's asked is whether spiritual experience as possible type of truth-getting is a good type of truth-getting. Is one who engages in this method doing her epistemic duty?

Key also is the KIND of "truth getting" we are talking about here.

"Evidence" CANNOT give you meaning in life. A sense of peace and knowing who you are and your place in the universe is not something one gets by exploring facts ABOUT the universe.

That is not the question- it is not about how the universe works but why it is here at all!

[Brade]

Then the MP, and yourself, have done a rather poor job of explaining your question.

And since he asked this question...

How am I, or anyone, supposed to interpret his inquiry any other way?

I think I did a perfectly fine job of sketching the relevant meta-questions. MP, I think, did not. In any case, one thing that might help you interpret the question at the end of his first post is reading his subsequent posts. For example, he later said this:

If you're not trying to convince me that I would have sufficient reason to convert if I or other non-Mormons had a personal experience, possibly similar to your own, then you don't need to waste your time in this thread... because that's what this thread is about.

What's the thread about? It's about believers in spiritual experience trying to convince MP that he would have sufficient reason to convert if he had a personal experience. Seems clear enough to me what he wants to investigate. Again, as far as I can tell, this thread is not about believers in spiritual experience trying to convince MP that he should convert on the basis of somebody else's experience. But, hey, I've been wrong before, I could be wrong about what MP wants. Hopefully MP comes back and makes it clearer for you.

[mfbukowski]

Ways that Bernard has said that a personal experience is personal and not sufficient for converting someone else:

4

Did you understand any of them?

[mfbukowski]

Or, more generally, is believing P on the basis of a certain sort of experience (i.e. spiritual experience) good grounds for believing P?

If P is a spiritual matter, I would suggest that the only way it can be "verified" is by spiritual experience.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Don't we verify scientific facts by scientific observation? (scientific experience)?

Spiritual questions are answered by spirit. Scientific questions are answered by science. What's so hard about that?

[Deborah]

Here is an example.

A person has cancer and is in constant pain, has loss of hair and probably doesn't have too much longer to live. Now the evidence would suggest that this person should be in despair and great depression.

However, the actuality is that this person has support of family and friends, has received the calming assurance of the Holy Spirit and is happy and at peace, actually lifting up others around her.

The facts don't support the reality, which is stated in my signature.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think I did a perfectly fine job of sketching the relevant meta-questions. MP, I think, did not. In any case, one thing that might help you interpret the question at the end of his first post is reading his subsequent posts. For example, he later said this:

What's the thread about? It's about believers in spiritual experience trying to convince MP that he would have sufficient reason to convert if he had a personal experience. Seems clear enough to me what he wants to investigate. Again, as far as I can tell, this thread is not about believers in spiritual experience trying to convince MP that he should convert on the basis of somebody else's experience. But, hey, I've been wrong before, I could be wrong about what MP wants. Hopefully MP comes back and makes it clearer for you.

Which is why I said this in the my original post that you responded to...

"Whether you have your own spiritual experience or not, and what you do with it, is your own business."

It is between you and God what you do with your spiritual experience. Why should I be telling you what to do as a result of your spiritual experience?

[DJBrown]

Montgomery Price,

I appreciate this question. And it is something I have spent a great deal of time contemplating.

I believe that the most reliable source of eternal truth is the Holy Ghost. Critics of the church seem to lump all answers to prayers to LDS into the "burning of the Bosom" camp. But the Holy Ghost communicates in many, many different ways and means to our minds and spirits (another discussion).

I think that this question of yours points to the reason we are here on earth (from the LDS perspective). For some reason, our willingness to submit to and heed the prompting of the spirit is a critical issue in our development. And it is at the core of the reason for our earthly existence. We cannot judge another's heart accurately. Only God can. But we do believe that each person is given promptings and some degree of understanding of right and wrong, good and evil. And every person has the ability and opportunity to respond to those promptings, no matter their religion or life circumstances.

I also believe that God provides affirmations (reminds me of SNL) and comfirming evidences when we respond faithfully to those promptings that we receive. In Mormon lingo- "ye receive no miracle until after the trial of your faith." Something like that.

In my experience, the evidences, both mental and physical, of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, or any other claim have come after my willingness to respond to spiritual promptings, feelings, and inspiration. And those evidences are very satisfying to my intellect- they are enough for me to fully buy into the claims of these books and of the prophet, etc.

There seems to be a battle between the carnal mind and the spirit. If a person gives themselvs to the carnal part of their mind, I think that has a damning influence of sorts. For me, it makes it more difficult to believe and have faith and overcome intellectual hurdles with peace. On the other hand, if a person submits to the spirit first, the evidences and physical proofs come in a balanced and fitting context. Again- this is in my experience.

I find it interesting that two people can have access to the same information and data (linguistic and geographic evidences relating to the Book of Mormon, for example), but come away with exact opposite conclusions. Of course, we all have bias, and it is difficult to negate and account for all the time. But the contradictory conclusions really is a fascinating thing and alludes to the question you ask.

In addition to the earthly evidences that follow when a person submits to spiritual answers, a person can sense the good fruit vs. bad fruit in their lives that results from decisions and actions that follow promptings. For me, I was a bum before readin the BOM. It changed my life, and I could not be happier now. Anybody who knew me before and who sees my life since reading the BOM would say that something miraculous and spectacular had to have happened- there is just no question about whether the BOM has been good for me.

My two cents.

[Montgomery Price]

You still don't get it. I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you or anyone else. What is there to debate?

I like kimchee because of my personal experience with it. You think it smells bad. OK. I still like it, but other

than inviting you to taste it, there's nothing to prove.

If this is your understanding of the LDS concept of testimony, then you are wasting your time on this board.

Let's say I have experienced X. What is your response?

My response is why should I accept X, which purportedly leads to Mormonism, as valid and experiences A, B, C, D... etc, which lead to incompatible beliefs, as invalid? I'll explain more in a later post.

An experience that leads one to exaltation is clearly superior to one that does not. My experience is sufficient for me to hope for the former.

Umm.... you're obviously missing the point.

Of course I have a bias. I could no more deny that than deny what I have personally experienced. I could tell you that I prefer the taste of red kimchee over white kimchee, or that

Mrs. Yi's kimchee is much better than Mrs. Chang's kimchee, but you might say all kimchee smells bad, so my personal experience is of no use to you...unless you taste both kinds, and then you still might think I'm deceived that kimchee is tasty. It's my personal experience that kimchee is delicious to the taste. I cannot transfer that experience to anyone else. I can only invite them to try some. If they don't like it,

what are we to argue about?

Again, you haven't understood my original request. You're dealing with this like a child. Again, I'll be fleshing out my question in a post addressed to this self-centered misunderstanding many posters seem to have here.

How does one defend a personal experience. Let's say one receives an answer to a prayer. What would you accept as proof?

I don't think there is any proof... I'm not sure if proof is possible or not. All I know is that it needs to be shown to be reliable, and I'd like to know on what basis you believe it to be reliable. Currently, I see no reason to believe it is. That's why I am asking.

Why the upper-case P? Is psychology that important to you? No, it has nothing to say about my experience because it cannot countenance the existence of God.

Bernard

I thought nothing of the upper-case P. If it bothers you so much, it'll take zero effort to make you that much happier...

What psychology has to say about God doesn't matter... It's what psychology has to say about the demonstrable effects of a powerful emotional experience, and how it creates irrational bias, which you have gone out of your way to demonstrate.

[Montgomery Price]

You seriously want to question the experience of "millions"?

I believe Bernard has answered you quite well. There's nothing more to say. All we can do is bear our testimony of our experiences. All you can do is choose to listen or ignore and if you decide to listen humble yourself and open your heart and mind to receive your own experiences.

Bernard is answering a question I didn't ask. And I have no problem questioning the experiences of millions. It's completely uncontroversial, and to suggest otherwise would only be fallacious.

Here is an example.

A person has cancer and is in constant pain, has loss of hair and probably doesn't have too much longer to live. Now the evidence would suggest that this person should be in despair and great depression.

However, the actuality is that this person has support of family and friends, has received the calming assurance of the Holy Spirit and is happy and at peace, actually lifting up others around her.

The facts don't support the reality, which is stated in my signature.

No one said that physical suffering necessarily leads to emotional suffering. This is a silly thing to say. I've been suffering from a chronic illness for the past 9 months, and I'm happy as can be while also denying that any Holy Spirit exists. But this also doesn't matter... Emotional well-being has nothing do with the truth or falsehood of religious claims. Your comments are quite naive.

[Montgomery Price]

Well seeing that no one here can really put themselves into the context of another persons experiences and feelings when they had this personal experience, I would say yes. You cannot criticize what you cannot understand, and none of us can understand what someone else has experienced and felt in there lives sufficiently enough to properly and full understand the significance or insignificance of a spiritual experience.

If personal experiences are so nebulous and immune to criticism, how do you prefer one over another? All of these arguments fail because you must believe that not all spiritual experiences are equal.

No man or woman really knows what someone else feels no matter how well they explain things, so demanding physical and tangible evidence that a spiritual experience has taken place, is like demanding the wind to reveal itself.

Needless to say, the wind can be empirically verified and measured with no issue what-so-ever. I'm not even sure physical or tangible evidence is even necessary to validate spiritual experiences... I didn't request it specifically, so I don't know why you're mentioning it.

In both cases all you can do is look at the aftermath of the event, you can look at the destruction after a hurricane and know the power of the wind even though you can never see the wind, you can look at the difference in someone's life after a profound spiritual event and know the power of the Holy Ghost even though you can never see the Holy Ghost.

Again, this method of evaluation hasn't been shown to be reliable. How do we know that the improvement of one's life after a spiritual experience indicates truth? What about those who's lives haven't improved? What about those with incompatible experiences who's life has improved? Again, how is the improvement a measure of truth at all?

Of course, my personal experience does not one but me any good at all they cannot feel what I felt at that time. Now what one can do is bear testimony of that experience and doing so can cause others to seek after the Lord and to gain there own spiritual experience and gain there own testimony of the Lord.

What it boils down to though is that each of us can only convert ourselves, we can't convert our neighbor, our spouse, our children, or any other person. All we can do is bear witness that Jesus is the Son of God and share our testimony about the truth of the Restored Gospel.

A testimony of personal spiritual experiences cannot be debated nor refuted, there is only two things one can do with a testimony:

1) Accept that the person is honest about the experience that he is sharing and that the event actually happened,

2)Accept that the person is lying to you (intentionally or accidentally in ignorance) and the event never happened, they just imagined or made it up.

Those are the only options there is no debate, consideration, or any other thing to bring to the table. All one can do is ponder the message and determine for themselves if the witness given to them seems truthful to them.

Wrong. Whether something "seems truthful" is a laughable and far from substantiated measure of the truth. What does "seem truthful" even mean?

[Montgomery Price]

In despite of your "I have the nail in the coffin for Mormonism" ego, at least you recognize spiritual experiences. Which you have had with the Bible and the belief in God for who would believe in them without a spiritual experience?

My "nail in the coffin" ego? Did you not read the next sentence? Don't you believe the exact opposite, and are therefore being hypocritical?

If by "recognize spiritual experiences" you mean accept them as reliable and valid measures of truth, then no, I do not.

Why haven't you had the same spiritual experiences as us in the Lord's Church? This should be the question to ask yourself for God knows who He has touched so why hasn't He touched you to know His complete truth?

I won't respond, because your question presumes something that has yet to be substantiated.

[Montgomery Price]

Ways that Bernard has said that a personal experience is personal and not sufficient for converting someone else:

4

Did you understand any of them?

Number of times that Benard has attempted to understand that this has nothing to do with my contention: 0

[Montgomery Price]

As a former LDS (who still believes in the Book of Mormon) I would just answer you by saying...

No one is asking you to become "Mormon" because of their personal spiritual experience. They are merely sharing why they became "Mormon". Whether you have your own spiritual experience or not, and what you do with it, is your own business.

But a debate about someone's spiritual expereince, real or perceived, is immeasurably pointless.

It's not pointless when you're having the correct debate. But, bring others to the correct starting point is proving a bit difficult.

You, and apparently MP, miss the point. No one is asking him, or you, to believe their spiritual experience- it just is what it is. People ask "Why are you Mormon?" and the spiritual experience IS the reason- at that point the questioner can take it or leave it. There is no proof, and no need to offer proof, of a spiritual experience.

Yes, there is, and no one has explained why we should believe otherwise.

Then the MP, and yourself, have done a rather poor job of explaining his question.

And since he asked this question...

How am I, or anyone, supposed to interpret his inquiry any other way?

Or... everyone has done a poor job understanding the question, and have instead focused on themselves which has led many to believe I am making an argument that I am, in fact, not proposing. Let me clarify the question, and you can point out what was not implied to begin with:

Why should I accept the personal spiritual experience as a reliable epistemic tool, which may or may not happen to lead a person to Mormonism?

Which is why I said this in the my original post that you responded to...

It is between you and God what you do with your spiritual experience. Why should I be telling you what to do as a result of your spiritual experience?

These statements presume that a spiritual experience is a reliable measure of truth. This has yet to be shown, so until then... There's no framework for anyone to answer these questions.

[Montgomery Price]

Oh gosh, do we have to go through this AGAIN?

Not before I correct your misunderstandings and expose your foolishness. I'm surprised at how absurd your comments are this time around...

Please just get educated- ready my siggy, look up some philosophy of the mind, read some Nagel, ok?

Every single decision you make in your life is founded on personal subjective feelings. You get up in the morning because of subjective feelings, you fall in love because of subjective feelings, you decide who to marry based on subjective feelings, you pick out a car based on subjective feelings, you decide to eat now because of subjective feelings, you decide it's time to take your clothes to the cleaners based on subjective feelings you decide you want to study geology instead of physics based on subjective feelings.

Starting to catch the drift? NONE of these decisions are based on "evidence".

WE DO NOT LIVE OUR LIVES BASED ON EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE GIVES OUR LIVES NO MEANING.

Half the time scientists to research and find "evidence" so they get grant money. That's the truth. So go find some nice lucrative research area and do some research and find your "evidence" and then your life will have meaning so you can leave us alone- ok??

Firstly, leave you alone? You must be joking. Am I really so inescapable? How?

But anyways... Picking a car is not based on evidence?

It matters whether evidence gives our lives meaning?

It's nearly frightening how little sense you're making.

If P is a spiritual matter, I would suggest that the only way it can be "verified" is by spiritual experience.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Don't we verify scientific facts by scientific observation? (scientific experience)?

Spiritual questions are answered by spirit. Scientific questions are answered by science. What's so hard about that?

Why is it so hard to understand that you're simply asserting spiritual matters can be reliably verified by certain epistemic tools. You haven't shown that's the case for those particular tools at all. It hasn't been shown that any spirit exists, and that you know which epistemic tools can reliable discern spiritual matters.... So the statement, "spiritual questions are answered by spirit" contains claims that have yet to be substantiated. That's the problem.

[mfbukowski]

Number of times that Benard has attempted to understand that this has nothing to do with my contention: 0

That wasn't even addressed to you.

[Montgomery Price]

Montgomery Price,

I appreciate this question. And it is something I have spent a great deal of time contemplating.

I believe that the most reliable source of eternal truth is the Holy Ghost. Critics of the church seem to lump all answers to prayers to LDS into the "burning of the Bosom" camp. But the Holy Ghost communicates in many, many different ways and means to our minds and spirits (another discussion).

I think that this question of yours points to the reason we are here on earth (from the LDS perspective). For some reason, our willingness to submit to and heed the prompting of the spirit is a critical issue in our development. And it is at the core of the reason for our earthly existence. We cannot judge another's heart accurately. Only God can. But we do believe that each person is given promptings and some degree of understanding of right and wrong, good and evil. And every person has the ability and opportunity to respond to those promptings, no matter their religion or life circumstances.

I also believe that God provides affirmations (reminds me of SNL) and comfirming evidences when we respond faithfully to those promptings that we receive. In Mormon lingo- "ye receive no miracle until after the trial of your faith." Something like that.

In my experience, the evidences, both mental and physical, of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, or any other claim have come after my willingness to respond to spiritual promptings, feelings, and inspiration. And those evidences are very satisfying to my intellect- they are enough for me to fully buy into the claims of these books and of the prophet, etc.

There seems to be a battle between the carnal mind and the spirit. If a person gives themselvs to the carnal part of their mind, I think that has a damning influence of sorts. For me, it makes it more difficult to believe and have faith and overcome intellectual hurdles with peace. On the other hand, if a person submits to the spirit first, the evidences and physical proofs come in a balanced and fitting context. Again- this is in my experience.

I find it interesting that two people can have access to the same information and data (linguistic and geographic evidences relating to the Book of Mormon, for example), but come away with exact opposite conclusions. Of course, we all have bias, and it is difficult to negate and account for all the time. But the contradictory conclusions really is a fascinating thing and alludes to the question you ask.

In addition to the earthly evidences that follow when a person submits to spiritual answers, a person can sense the good fruit vs. bad fruit in their lives that results from decisions and actions that follow promptings. For me, I was a bum before readin the BOM. It changed my life, and I could not be happier now. Anybody who knew me before and who sees my life since reading the BOM would say that something miraculous and spectacular had to have happened- there is just no question about whether the BOM has been good for me.

My two cents.

So what exactly is the evidence you believe supports the claim that "the most reliable source of eternal truth is the Holy Ghost."?

[Montgomery Price]

That wasn't even addressed to you.

What, exactly?

[mfbukowski]

Why is it so hard to understand that you're simply asserting spiritual matters can be reliably verified by certain epistemic tools. You haven't shown that's the case for those particular tools at all. It hasn't been shown that any spirit exists, and that you know which epistemic tools can reliable discern spiritual matters.... So the statement, "spiritual questions are answered by spirit" contains claims that have yet to be substantiated. That's the problem.

No, the problem is that you know nothing about epistemology because you are yet uneducated in it.

What are "epistemic tools" for heaven's sake? Tsk Tsk, I can tell you did not do your assignment of reading Nagel.

What are you going to do with a kid who won't do his homework? Oh well.

At least try to respond to my siggy ok? Do you understand that a pyramid seen from above would be perceived as a square so that if all you had were aerial photos you might not know that pyramids exist?

And then you could do a whole thread on why there was no evidence for pyramids?

It is a question of point of view.

You do not understand subjective and objective points of view. Oh well.

[Mars]

Did you understand any of them?

Of course I did. I agreed with Bernard each of the 4 times. MY personal experiences won't convince anyone anymore than MP's lack of experiences or different experiences will convince me. The only thing we can do is invite each other to give something a try and see what we think of it. When God sits me down at the end of it all and wants me to account for everything in my life, I think He's going to want to know why I did what I did. I won't be able to pull any wool over His eyes. I'll see as clearly as He always has that I chose to believe what I believed (or didn't) every bit as much as I chose to do. Did I get it right, Bernard?

MP, there's no need to spice this thread up anywhere beyond its core. My personal spiritual experiences have no convincing power. They can pique your interest, and I believe that the Spirit of God will attest to truth when it's spoken and heard, and if my experiences are truth based and if you're listening the Spirit will covey that to you, but beyond that my experiences have no convincing power.

Whatever other reasons someone my ascribe - that they're just neurons firing in my brain, that I was mistaken, deluded, persuaded by family tradition, or that they're the "effects of a frenzied mind," I just don't care. It's my job to choose what to make of my experiences and I have chosen to believe they came from God. I can't prove it to you and I don't want to. It's not my job to convince you.

[mfbukowski]

Of course I did. I agreed with Bernard each of the 4 times. MY personal experiences won't convince anyone anymore than MP's lack of experiences or different experiences will convince me. The only thing we can do is invite each other to give something a try and see what we think of it. When God sits me down at the end of it all and wants me to account for everything in my life, I think He's going to want to know why I did what I did. I won't be able to pull any wool over His eyes. I'll see as clearly as He always has that I chose to believe what I believed (or didn't) every bit as much as I chose to do. Did I get it right, Bernard?

MP, there's no need to spice this thread up anywhere beyond its core. My personal spiritual experiences have no convincing power. They can pique your interest, and I believe that the Spirit of God will attest to truth when it's spoken and heard, and if my experiences are truth based and if you're listening the Spirit will covey that to you, but beyond that my experiences have no convincing power.

Whatever other reasons someone my ascribe - that they're just neurons firing in my brain, that I was mistaken, deluded, persuaded by family tradition, or that they're the "effects of a frenzied mind," I just don't care. It's my job to choose what to make of my experiences and I have chosen to believe they came from God. I can't prove it to you and I don't want to. It's not my job to convince you.

I owe you an apology. I completely agree with you. I misunderstood your post and thought you were criticizing Bernard for saying the same thing four times.

We're on the same side- hadn't seen your posts before.

Sorry!

[Mars]

[bookofmormontruth]

My "nail in the coffin" ego? Did you not read the next sentence? Don't you believe the exact opposite, and are therefore being hypocritical?

The "nail in the coffin" comment is definitely egotistical. Like all anti-Mormons in the last 180+ years, they desperately want to be the one to find that "elusive nail" to pacify their own faithlessness.

If by "recognize spiritual experiences" you mean accept them as reliable and valid measures of truth, then no, I do not.

So you don't believe in God and the Bible, but believe in "false spirits"? Classic!

I won't respond, because your question presumes something that has yet to be substantiated.

Of course you won't, you would hate others to question your own beliefs. You only demand that others do it. From reading your other responses, it is obvious you are very insecure in your own beliefs, hence your OP.

[Montgomery Price]

To those who hold these and similar sentiments:

There's nothing to debate.

All we can do is bear our testimony of our experiences. All you can do is choose to listen or ignore and if you decide to listen humble yourself and open your heart and mind to receive your own experiences.

There is no proof, and no need to offer proof, of a spiritual experience.

I'm beginning to think that these sorts of thoughts are not only misunderstandings, but evasive tactics. Attempts to hide from criticism. I can do more wondering as to what motivates a person to say such weaselly and naive things... but I can also just show you why they're misunderstood.

The debate I am trying to hold is not over whether your particular experience is valid.

It's not over whether your particular experience should convert me.

The debate is over whether any personal experience provides sufficient basis for conversion to Mormonism.

I am questioning the very use of personal experiences as the basis for conversion.

When someone has a personal experience, they believe it logically follows that this indicates some sort of spiritual truth.

My question is: How do you know this?

Where is the logical pathway? It's the believers job to show that a spiritual experience is a good reason to accept the claims of any particular religion. I could provide my arguments as to why the spiritual experience is unreliable as an epistemic tool, but the burden of proof is on the believer who proposes that a spiritual experience is reliable.

And last... Spiritual experiences are subject to evaluation, whether you blindly believe otherwise or not. If they can't be evaluated, then how do you know they are reliable? In order to show that they are reliable, they must be evaluated... and if they can be evaluated, then criticisms can be raised.

I have severely underestimated the height of the golden pedestal believers place their personal experiences upon. Immune to debate? An unfathomably ridiculous notion. I have to say that some Mormons have a very difficult time entertaining any paradigm but their own. To help reduce misunderstanding, I suggest examining your response for whether or not your criticism depends on the presumption that spiritual experiences are reliable... If it is, don't bother, because your first step is showing just that.