Mormons need to spend more time defending their bosoms.

[Deborah]

The believer holds the burden of proof for why the spiritual experience should be accepted as reliable.

Good grief. What we have been telling you is NO, the believer has no burden of proof except to himself. We can present you with the things that we were taught but the spiritual experiences are for each individual and if you don't have them then that is your problem not ours. And as far as I'm concerned the spiritual experiences are far more powerful than any other evidence.

Also if "everyone" seems to misunderstand your point don't you think you ought to look at yourself and how you are asking the question. Your arrogance is amazing in light of the fact that everyone else seems to be on the same page except you and Brade.

[Montgomery Price]

I completely agree with Benard.

Personal experience cannot be quantified and measured. It is meaningless to someone else. It is the equivlent of casting pearls before swine.

Personal experience can be compared to other personal experiences, and that is sufficient for their rejection.

[Montgomery Price]

Lol

You have already disproven it.

You haven't shown this.

Newsflash: I do not exist for your entertainment.

You are not ready to debate it- you don't know enough and won't listen anyway. You are out to make "points" in your own ego game. Have fun! I am not going to help feed your addiction! At least video games don't use real people- use them instead.

It's not a newsflash, and again it's not an ego game. I don't know why you keep saying that. I don't have an addiction.

Now, I've responded to your explanations many times, and you haven't given specific responses back. Please explain.

[Mars]

I'm asking what reasons specifically brought you to that decision, and why are they good and valid reasons?

You're not in authority, here, Montgomery. I don't owe you any answers. You certainly haven't proved yourself an intimate friend, someone I can confide in. You think that because you come forward with some fear tactic of "Prove it's not crazy talk and maybe I'll believe you" manipulation tactic that I'm going to start dancing for you?

Ugh.

[Mars]

I wave the white flag.

My personal beliefs, experiences, and choices that led me to where I am today don't meet the requirements laid out by Montgomery's paradigm. I would rather avoid criticism out of a tremor inducing fear that my entire world could come crumbling down before me. They're killing independent Mars!

[Montgomery Price]

Good grief. What we have been telling you is NO, the believer has no burden of proof except to himself. We can present you with the things that we were taught but the spiritual experiences are for each individual and if you don't have them then that is your problem not ours. And as far as I'm concerned the spiritual experiences are far more powerful than any other evidence.

I am asking what are the reasons you believe this to be true, and why do you believe they are good and valid reasons. Once you explain that, then you have met your burden of proof for the claim that spiritual experience is the most powerful evidence. Because, I don't see any reason to believe that spiritual experience is sufficient evidence for belief. You must believe I am wrong. I want to know why. If you believed I was right, then your own beliefs would be invalidated, would they not?

I understand that you believe spiritual experiences are for the individual.......

and that spiritual experiences are there for someone to "listen to" or "ignore"......

...yet this doesn't make spiritual experience a good reason to believe. Justification for this has yet to be provided.

Also if "everyone" seems to misunderstand your point don't you think you ought to look at yourself and how you are asking the question. Your arrogance is amazing in light of the fact that everyone else seems to be on the same page except you and Brade.

I am doing that, and I'm getting closer to explaining it clearly. And I would claim that me an Brade are correct and each of you is wrong. Your statement is meaningless until you can show that what I just said above is somehow wrong, irrelevant, or misunderstood. And likewise, my statement that Brade and I are correct is meaningless until I show that each of you are incorrect... which I am attempting to do.

So, how about we wait until the results are in before we accuse others of arrogance. And what is it with you and argument ad populum?

[Montgomery Price]

I wave the white flag.

My personal beliefs, experiences, and choices that led me to where I am today don't meet the requirements laid out by Montgomery's paradigm. I would rather avoid criticism out of a tremor inducing fear that my entire world could come crumbling down before me. They're killing independent Mars!

If you're not interested in defending the idea that a personal experience is a good and valid reason to believe then it seems I can only assume that you're here because you misunderstood my OP. I'm sad to see you give up, but I have plenty of other people to talk to.

[ERMD]

Dang you're good.

Can I move to your ward?

Name your calling! I promise to get a non-quantifiable feeling that tells me it's right for you!

[Montgomery Price]

Spiritual experience doesn't compute well with reasoned dialog.

Or the maybe it's those who experience don't compute well with reasoned dialog.

I disagree with your opinion here. Apologists, by and large, discuss reasons why faith is possible. Apologists are not just trying to supplant faith, or religious experience.

I don't see it much, so I'm bringing it up.

I dont' know if that's the hard and fast type of rule.

Ok. Why?

I see your point. I think its overstated but we'll see.

Why should you? Why not? So, are we taking for sake of argument that you have had a personal spiritual experience that suggests to you to convert to the religion? What is the extent of this hypothetical (I assume hypothetical since you don't say) spiritual experience? What is it? What is it saying?

It's not my job to prove a spiritual experience is invalid, I just don't see any reason to believe it is a good and valid reason to believe. So I've come to those who do believe, and am wondering whether they have reasons that are good and valid.

I spent most of my childhood as a Mormon. I've been to the temple several times, and have felt the burning in the bosom. I am no longer Mormon, and have come to the realization that there was no good reason to accept a burning in the bosom as confirmation of anything but emotional manipulation. I invite anyone to provide an actual reason to accept the feelings of my bosom as a good and valid reason to believe in the Mormon faith. You don't just accept something is true without reason until someone proves otherwise. You only get to that position after it is established there are good and valid reasons to accept it. What are those reasons?

[mfbukowski]

Name your calling! I promise to get a non-quantifiable feeling that tells me it's right for you!

[Deborah]

I am no longer Mormon, and have come to the realization that there was no good reason to accept a burning in the bosom as confirmation of anything but emotional manipulation.

So show us why your new realization is valid and not emotional manipulation.

[Montgomery Price]

So show us why your new realization is valid and not emotional manipulation.

I already made clear what I think... I see no good reason to accept that the burning in the bosom is a good and valid reason to believe in the Mormon faith. This realization had nothing to do with emotion, but logical evaluation of the reasons provided by Mormons.

You can't turn this around on me. You believe that there are good and valid reasons to believe the burning in the bosom justifies conversion, I'm asking for those reasons because I don't see any good ones.

To reject the burning in the bosom because I don't see any valid and good reason to accept it is logical and valid until you show that there are, in fact, good and valid reasons to believe so. I'm waiting.

[Deborah]

You believe that there are good and valid reasons to believe the burning in the bosom justifies conversion, I'm asking for those reasons because I don't see any good ones.

As someone already pointed out you don't understand that there are many ways spiritual experiences come. The burning in the bosum is only one. If you think that there hasn't been study and thought which preceded this then you don't understand how any of it works.

[HiJolly]

So I've come to those who do believe, and am wondering whether they have reasons that are good and valid.

And how would you determine whether their reasons are "good and valid" or not?? Could subjective reasons be "good and valid" in your mind?

I spent most of my childhood as a Mormon. I've been to the temple several times, and have felt the burning in the bosom. I am no longer Mormon, and have come to the realization that there was no good reason to accept a burning in the bosom as confirmation of anything but emotional manipulation. I invite anyone to provide an actual reason to accept the feelings of my bosom as a good and valid reason to believe in the Mormon faith. You don't just accept something is true without reason until someone proves otherwise. You only get to that position after it is established there are good and valid reasons to accept it. What are those reasons?

I only experienced a burning in the bosom once. It involved not only my bosom, but my entire body from the crown of the head to the soles of my feet. And it was accompanied by a overwhelming emotional and mental conviction that the Church was true. ALL of it was true. There was no debate - it was an overpowering infusion of certainty. It was not based on evidence of any kind. Afterward, I had no room for doubt.

Now, decades later I recognize that it was not possible that "ALL" of it was true, in the sense that I accepted it then. Nevertheless, the experience was USEFUL and did me no harm, but rather blessed my life from that point until now. And I think it was REASONABLE that I accepted the experience as all encompassing concerning the 'truth' of the Mormon Church. That's why I now accept that experience as good, useful and, in a way, of God.

Our problem seems to be that we tend to misinterpret or misunderstand what God (or whatever) is trying to accomplish via these experiences. And I think that is OK. I think it is OK for a Mormon to take it as confirmation of Mormon belief, and well as for a Catholic to take it as confirmation of Catholic belief. Or for a Mormon to take it as confirmation of Catholic belief, should that be the case.

HiJOlly

[mfbukowski]

I already made clear what I think... I see no good reason to accept that the burning in the bosom is a good and valid reason to believe in the Mormon faith. This realization had nothing to do with emotion, but logical evaluation of the reasons provided by Mormons.

You can't turn this around on me. You believe that there are good and valid reasons to believe the burning in the bosom justifies conversion, I'm asking for those reasons because I don't see any good ones.

To reject the burning in the bosom because I don't see any valid and good reason to accept it is logical and valid until you show that there are, in fact, good and valid reasons to believe so. I'm waiting.

Is burning in the bosom good for anything?

What are feelings in general good for?

[Mars]

So let me get this straight...

You decided that your spiritual experiences were, in a word, bunk.

You also believe that spiritual experiences can be compared. I presume you mean yours and ours?

Since you're asking us, and since you abandoned your beliefs, I'm going to assume that you believe there are no valid reasons why spiritual experience should engender conversion? Or rather, none that you've found?

So which is it, you don't think there are any and you want to pick a fight, or you are waiting to be convinced otherwise so you can, what, go back to believing what you used to believe? And if it's the latter, and you agree that there exists the possibility that there are valid reasons why spiritual experiences are real and from God and induce one to believe in Him, then why do you need us? Wouldn't you walk out on that journey with God?

I can only conclude that you're here to just score points in a debate with us.

Dangit, I said I was done.

</pissing and moaning>

Reason for edit: I said 'spiritual experiences can be prepared.' i meant 'compared.'

[mfbukowski]

Dangit, I said I was done.

I understand completely.

[Montgomery Price]

As someone already pointed out you don't understand that there are many ways spiritual experiences come. The burning in the bosum is only one. If you think that there hasn't been study and thought which preceded this then you don't understand how any of it works.

Of course I understand that there are many different ways spiritual experiences manifest. It's odd you would even think I don't understand that this is obvious. What's maybe even more odd is whether you believe this is an appropriate response to my request.

I asked for reasons to accept religious experiences as good and valid reason to believe... not whether or not there are multiple types of religious experience.

Are you going to answer me?

And what do you mean "study and thought which preceded this"? Study of religious experiences, or maybe my own personal study and thought which should have preceded my personal experience? Can you clarify?

[Montgomery Price]

And how would you determine whether their reasons are "good and valid" or not?? Could subjective reasons be "good and valid" in your mind?

For many circumstances, yes. But, I have yet to see how they are good and valid for justifying conversion. I would determine whether a reason is good or valid as soon as someone attempts to provide one, instead of dance around the subject and pretend that personal experience is immune to criticism or debate.

I only experienced a burning in the bosom once. It involved not only my bosom, but my entire body from the crown of the head to the soles of my feet. And it was accompanied by a overwhelming emotional and mental conviction that the Church was true. ALL of it was true. There was no debate - it was an overpowering infusion of certainty. It was not based on evidence of any kind. Afterward, I had no room for doubt.

Now, decades later I recognize that it was not possible that "ALL" of it was true, in the sense that I accepted it then. Nevertheless, the experience was USEFUL and did me no harm, but rather blessed my life from that point until now. And I think it was REASONABLE that I accepted the experience as all encompassing concerning the 'truth' of the Mormon Church. That's why I now accept that experience as good, useful and, in a way, of God.

Our problem seems to be that we tend to misinterpret or misunderstand what God (or whatever) is trying to accomplish via these experiences. And I think that is OK. I think it is OK for a Mormon to take it as confirmation of Mormon belief, and well as for a Catholic to take it as confirmation of Catholic belief. Or for a Mormon to take it as confirmation of Catholic belief, should that be the case.

HiJOlly

I see that you believe the simple appearance of a conviction at the end of no discernible line of logic is somehow "reasonable". For something to be reasonable, that something requires good and valid reasons to be accepted. Just because a conviction appears, doesn't mean that the conviction is therefore backed by any good and valid reason. A conviction should follow logical evaluation, obviously, and not just appear out of an emotional experience. In fact, that's reason to be suspicious of the "truth" that conviction points towards. So, if it is in fact reasonable as you claim, then what makes the sudden appearance of a conviction a good and valid reason to believe?

[Montgomery Price]

Is burning in the bosom good for anything?

I'm not sure. You tell me.

What are feelings in general good for?

Discerning subject preference in certain circumstances?

How is this question relevant at all? I'm not talking about feelings in general... If I'm talking about feelings at all, there about the feelings that occur during a spiritual experience.

[Montgomery Price]

So let me get this straight...

You decided that your spiritual experiences were, in a word, bunk.

You also believe that spiritual experiences can be prepared. I presume you mean yours and ours?

Since you're asking us, and since you abandoned your beliefs, I'm going to assume that you believe there are no valid reasons why spiritual experience should engender conversion? Or rather, none that you've found?

So which is it, you don't think there are any and you want to pick a fight, or you are waiting to be convinced otherwise so you can, what, go back to believing what you used to believe? And if it's the latter, and you agree that there exists the possibility that there are valid reasons why spiritual experiences are real and from God and induce one to believe in Him, then why do you need us? Wouldn't you walk out on that journey with God?

I can only conclude that you're here to just score points in a debate with us.

Dangit, I said I was done.

</pissing and moaning>

I do enjoy picking fights, and that is one of the reasons I am here. Another reason is that I accept the possibility that there are valid reasons, but before I consult God, I need to have reason to believe. Does anyone realize how absurd it is to tell me I need to take this up with God, when my contention is that the prime reason given for converting to belief in God is insufficient?

Why would I go on a journey with God in order to discover whether the method of conversion to belief in God is valid? Do you see how silly and backwards this is? Doesn't going on a journey with God imply that I am converted to belief in God already?!? If not, then what do you mean by "journey with God"? If you mean that I should employ some mode of inquiry that will lead me to the correct belief... then how do you know this mode of inquiry is valid? Hey, how about we make a personal spiritual experience this particular mode of inquiry? We've gone full-circle again!

Are we all misunderstanding my request this severely?

Why is everyone so incapable of comprehending this?

[HiJolly]

For many circumstances, yes. But, I have yet to see how they are good and valid for justifying conversion. I would determine whether a reason is good or valid as soon as someone attempts to provide one, instead of dance around the subject and pretend that personal experience is immune to criticism or debate.

It was said by a wise movie character that "A man's *got* to know his limitations". MP, now is one of those times for you. You are in no state to judge such things. As your posts in this thread have amply shown.

I see that you believe the simple appearance of a conviction at the end of no discernible line of logic is somehow "reasonable". For something to be reasonable, that something requires good and valid reasons to be accepted. Just because a conviction appears, doesn't mean that the conviction is therefore backed by any good and valid reason.

That is a breathtakingly inadequate wording for my experience, MP. There was *nothing* "simple" about it. As for logic, none of us are logical, though granted some of us do try. But we all fail, even the best of us. As Dr. Robert Burton clearly demonstrates via scientific studies in his book "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not", mankind is non-rational. Period.

A conviction should follow logical evaluation, obviously, and not just appear out of an emotional experience. In fact, that's reason to be suspicious of the "truth" that conviction points towards. So, if it is in fact reasonable as you claim, then what makes the sudden appearance of a conviction a good and valid reason to believe?

ROFL. You ARE funny. Would you like to prove true your statement "A conviction should follow logical evaluation, obviously, and not just appear out of an emotional experience."?? Good luck.

Our minds produce mostly non-rational judgements, even the most "logical" minds among us. It's how we are built. You need to embrace it and make it work for you. Certainty itself *cannot* be produced by the reasoning, conscious mind. Are you certain of something? Guaranteed: It's not rational. But it *is* ok.

HiJolly

[Mars]

Why would I go on a journey with God in order to discover whether the method of conversion to belief in God is valid?

Because those who seriously want to know whether or not God is there have a tendency to abandon their own reasons and understandings in favor of God's. The journey and the experience is what gives you the answer, not a logical inquiry. I don't find much use in ontological proofs.

I see six possible choices:

a.) There is a God, and it is possible to know Him

b.) There is a God, and it is impossible to know Him.

c.) There is no God, and it is possible to know this.

d.) There is no God, and it is impossible to know this.

e.) There may/not be a God, and it is possible to find out.

f.) There may/not be a God, and it is impossible to find out.

For the purpose of discussion, I'm going to define "personal spiritual experience" to be the way one discovers God, His nature, and His will concerning us. Any other external source of information would be of non-divine origin and would rob the investigator of personal choice. Robbed of personal choice because if one does believe in God but one did not chose to believe, one has been "proven to" and must accept the truth independent of desire or will. The converse is also true: If one does not believe in God but one did not choose to, then it logically follows that one was "proven to" that there is no God and now faith has become an iota of empirical data and nothing more.

Laboring under the impression that "personal spiritual experience" - in whatever form one wishes to describe it - is the way to discover God, one must begin by believing a, c, or e. It would probably help to believe that God exists but that one wishes to know His nature and His will concerning the investigator or that God could exist and so forth (a and e) otherwise there is no motivation to disprove God's existence. I suppose this is possible, but I judge it unlikely.

So if one wishes, one can strike out on a journey to discover God without knowing everything up front. You can begin with even a desire to believe and let that desire work in you until your faith is full. As you undergo the spiritual experience, you can judge of yourself whether or not to accept it as from God. What does it make you think? How does it make you feel? Is this something that makes sense to you on a deep and fundamental level?

[Pahoran]

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.

Sure, Full Monty. The industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon libel that LDS testimonies "are not only misunderstandings, but evasive tactics. Attempts to hide from criticism" has only just occurred to you. I believe you. Really.

Where do I sign up to buy that bridge?

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.

And that's not a question that can be settled by debate.

An individual has a spiritual experience. That individual has to decide, for whatever reason, whether or not that spiritual experience is sufficient for him or not.

Religious conversion is not a logical function. It is not produced by "the satisfying clink of a chain of syllogisms." Believers in many faith traditions have marshalled logical arguments in support of their faith, but such arguments are almost never the basis for their faith. While faith may be defended by reason, in the last analysis nothing that can be proven by reason could ever meaningfully be described as faith.

BTW, if you think that the "clever" little double entendre in the title makes you a wit, then at least you're half right.

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.

How very smug.

You come in here and propose a debate topic and then declare, by mere assertion, that we have the "burden of proof."

If I were a betting man, I'd willingly bet $10,000 that there is no argument in existence that could prove the validity of spiritual experiences to your satisfaction. You have no intention of being convinced; you're here to prove your point to us, not to have anything proven to you. But just to be on the safe side, you're trying to duck-shove your burden of proof onto us!

Nice try. Pity it didn't work.

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.

Your arrogance is exceeded only by your arrogance. The notion that a believer's sacred experiences are subject to the "evaluation" by the idle curiosity of a grinning, jeering sceptic is about as arrogant as an unsupported assertion can get.

Each individual must determine for herself whether she will rely upon her spiritual experiences or not. There is no spirit-o-meter that her experiences can be plugged into for "evaluation."

Oh, and just FYI: we don't "blindly believe" that spiritual experiences are undebatable; we've thought it over carefully, and that is the conclusion of our mature reflections. Perhaps it is your "blind belief" in the all-sufficiency and only-sufficiency of rational analysis that has led you astray.

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.

Whereas, I long ago stopped underestimating the height of the golden pedestal self-styled "sceptics" place their own puny intellects upon.

If there's something you cannot fathom, then perhaps that's your own shortcoming.

Now: if you think you've got fabulously strong arguments against the use of spiritual experiences to build faith, then by all means, bring them out. But it is arrogant presumption for you to ponce in here, propose a debate topic that you are interested in, and then insist that we prove something to you. This is your topic, remember?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Montgomery Price]

It was said by a wise movie character that "A man's *got* to know his limitations". MP, now is one of those times for you. You are in no state to judge such things. As your posts in this thread have amply shown.

According to you.

That is a breathtakingly inadequate wording for my experience, MP. There was *nothing* "simple" about it. As for logic, none of us are logical, though granted some of us do try. But we all fail, even the best of us. As Dr. Robert Burton clearly demonstrates via scientific studies in his book "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not", mankind is non-rational. Period.

I'm sorry I don't readily express how profound and important your experience is.... I don't do so because it doesn't matter. However profound or meaningful you think it is has nothing to do with my contention. Your comments on logic and rationality are only generalizations, and I see no reason to apply them to this situation. Care to provide one?

ROFL. You ARE funny. Would you like to prove true your statement "A conviction should follow logical evaluation, obviously, and not just appear out of an emotional experience."?? Good luck.

How about I just claim that a conviction is only useful when backed by valid reasons to hold such convicition, and given your description of your experience, I see no valid reasons. Only the emergence of a conviction, and that's it.

Our minds produce mostly non-rational judgements, even the most "logical" minds among us. It's how we are built. You need to embrace it and make it work for you. Certainty itself *cannot* be produced by the reasoning, conscious mind. Are you certain of something? Guaranteed: It's not rational. But it *is* ok.

HiJolly

Am I the one who believes that a belief as immensely important and life-changing as the belief in a particular God should be based on reason, and not subject to something we've apparently already admitted is irrational?