altersteve Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 The LDS (burning of bosom), the EV (internal dwelling of the Holy Spirit), the Muslim (Sufism), the Buddhist (Nirvana), the Hindu (Moksha), etc., all claim to have spiritual experiences.We can conclude that all spiritual experiences are false, but all cannot be equally true. If we accept the notion that one amongst the crowd is true, then the rest are counterfeits.Or, we can conclude that each of those spiritual experiences contain at least some truth, and we don't have to believe that any of them are "counterfeits" by any means. I sure as heck don't.
KevinG Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 I think atheist/agnostics make a good point. Very many different religions DESCRIBE a similar subjective experience of "knowing" that their god is communicating with them. Many EV's and Mormons among other religious followers (and even non-religious people) describe a similar experience. I think at least a possible conclusion to this conundrum is that this "subjective feeling" can be explained as a product of the human mind (which Neuroscience is proving more and more every day). You may disagree with this conclusion, but I certainly find it to be both logically sound and rather reasonable, as well as adding a very real and different perspective to the thread (a perspective which, by the way, is more popular than Mormonism itself, according to the Pew Research Center). As such I find it a little harsh to discount it.Get back to me when you find the right combination of hormones and therapy that get a whole variety of people to believe in and adhere to a common doctrine. You could solve world peace.I have had "peak experiences" as a musician, a lover and as a child of God. Yet they are distinct and prompted by very real and external influences.The possible conclusion to the "subjective feeling" is oversold by atheists as the explaination for a very complex and arguably very external stimulus.
ERayR Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 I think at least a possible conclusion to this conundrum is that this "subjective feeling" can be explained as a product of the human mind (which Neuroscience is proving more and more every day). And you will probably continue to think this way until you are able to have such an experience for yourself. Then and only then will you be able to tell the difference.
Eldwynn Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Get back to me when you find the right combination of hormones and therapy that get a whole variety of people to believe in and adhere to a common doctrine. You could solve world peace.I have had "peak experiences" as a musician, a lover and as a child of God. Yet they are distinct and prompted by very real and external influences.The possible conclusion to the "subjective feeling" is oversold by atheists as the explaination for a very complex and arguably very external stimulus.Your opinion is just that. When I was religious, I had subjective experiences that I thought were true. Same goes when I served my mission. I still have the same feelings when I hear some of my favorite classical songs, or when I contemplate that I made of the dust of exploding stars. While we may not be able to FULLY replicate religious experiences in the mind, that is probably only because of ethical limitations (E.G. we can not lie to people) but there is more than enough evidence that suggests that such profound experiences reside purely in our minds. There are quite a few Neuroscientists who have evoked religious experiences in people by doing something as simple as stimulating their frontal lobes. But of course, one will likely discount their experiences as "not really from god" or offer up some other explanation. Such experiments will never convince you, so why ask for them?
KevinG Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 Given the Holy Ghost testifies of the truthfullness of God and His kingdom why would He be limited in testifying which church is God's kingdom on the earth?Placing limits on which truths the Holy Spirit will and will not testify of is placing limits on God. That seems very contrary to Christian belief. 1 Corinthians 12:4 Now there are diversities of agifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the aSpirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is agiven by the bSpirit the cword of dwisdom; to another the word of eknowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another afaith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of bhealing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of amiracles; to another bprophecy; to another cdiscerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of dtongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.The Latter-day Saints know that the Holy Spirit will guide them in the truth of all things. 3
Eldwynn Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 And you will probably continue to think this way until you are able to have such an experience for yourself. Then and only then will you be able to tell the difference.Ahh the "your subjective experience is different from mine" card. We can play that all day long. When I was sixteen years old, I prayed about the church and got what I thought to be an answer from god. A strong burning feeling, and a wanting to live and preach the gospel. Several years later I got the same feeling reading "The God Delusion". The other day I got it looking in a microscope. If my original feeling (which lead me to be strong in the church) was not really from god, then why would god give me such a feeling to wrongfully interpret it as such? It certainly is a reason for my falling out from the church. If the original feeling WAS from a god, then why give it to me again and again in very inappropriate times.
Messenger Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Because you are not convinced, for either way. Yet I am, in one way. Since you know that I am, and you have admitted not being convinced yourself of either, what would an experiment hurt you?
KevinG Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 Your opinion is just that. When I was religious, I had subjective experiences that I thought were true. Same goes when I served my mission. I still have the same feelings when I hear some of my favorite classical songs, or when I contemplate that I made of the dust of exploding stars. While we may not be able to FULLY replicate religious experiences in the mind, that is probably only because of ethical limitations (E.G. we can not lie to people) but there is more than enough evidence that suggests that such profound experiences reside purely in our minds. There are quite a few Neuroscientists who have evoked religious experiences in people by doing something as simple as stimulating their frontal lobes. But of course, one will likely discount their experiences as "not really from god" or offer up some other explanation. Such experiments will never convince you, so why ask for them?Neuroscientists can evoke the smell of popcorn if they stimulate the right portions of the human anatomy, that does not mean that real popcorn is an illusion or a false stimulus.I accept that you have convinced yourself that you were mistaken about your own religious experience. Please don't project that on everyone who ever had a religious experience.By the way this would be an exceptional topic on its own. can you please not derail this distinction between an Evengelical and LDS witness thread? 2
KevinG Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 Ahh the "your subjective experience is different from mine" card. We can play that all day long. When I was sixteen years old, I prayed about the church and got what I thought to be an answer from god. A strong burning feeling, and a wanting to live and preach the gospel. Several years later I got the same feeling reading "The God Delusion". The other day I got it looking in a microscope. If my original feeling (which lead me to be strong in the church) was not really from god, then why would god give me such a feeling to wrongfully interpret it as such? It certainly is a reason for my falling out from the church. If the original feeling WAS from a god, then why give it to me again and again in very inappropriate times.I would argue that anyone who bases their faith in a single feeling is not "strong" in anything. Atheists and religionists alike who persist in characterizing a Testamony as a singular feeling or emotional response reveal a terrible and cynical ignorance of the workings of the Holy Ghost.
altersteve Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Ahh the "your subjective experience is different from mine" card. We can play that all day long. When I was sixteen years old, I prayed about the church and got what I thought to be an answer from god. A strong burning feeling, and a wanting to live and preach the gospel. Several years later I got the same feeling reading "The God Delusion". The other day I got it looking in a microscope. If my original feeling (which lead me to be strong in the church) was not really from god, then why would god give me such a feeling to wrongfully interpret it as such? It certainly is a reason for my falling out from the church. If the original feeling WAS from a god, then why give it to me again and again in very inappropriate times.Again, a knowledge of the gospel does not and should not come only by simply "asking God," or from "a strong burning feeling." It comes, as I said a few posts up, "by study and also by faith" and from a sincere desire to learn, and it takes time. It doesn't come all at once. What was it that led you to read The God Delusion? Were you doubting the gospel? I'm not trying to be offensive (rather the opposite), but I think there are more factors that go into it. Was it really as simple as getting a "strong burning feeling" from reading an anti-religion book that contains many fatally erroneous statements, that led you to stop believing and leave the Church? It seems to me that you didn't have the "real intent" and the "faith in Christ" that is required for us to obtain the knowledge of the Church's truthfulness.
Eldwynn Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Neuroscientists can evoke the smell of popcorn if they stimulate the right portions of the human anatomy, that does not mean that real popcorn is an illusion or a false stimulus.I accept that you have convinced yourself that you were mistaken about your own religious experience. Please don't project that on everyone who ever had a religious experience.By the way this would be an exceptional topic on its own. can you please not derail this distinction between an Evengelical and LDS witness thread?This is very much relevant! We are arguing about what distinguishes one experience (the evangelical witness) from another (the LDS testimony). Well, many people think that they are actually very similar experiences- with a source in human psychology and not divine origin. I find your popcorn analogy as rather short-sighted. Unless you are claiming that popcorn is of divine nature, with no way to verify its existence in our world save through each of our own personal smells and stories about it, then it really isn't an accurate comparison at all. That we can go in and induce religious experiences in people does not "prove" religion false (nothing can prove anything false in the sense religious people demand)it certainly shows that religious experiences are just as likely to be resulted from natural origins, as supernatural (if not more likely).
Eldwynn Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Again, a knowledge of the gospel does not and should not come only by simply "asking God," or from "a strong burning feeling." It comes, as I said a few posts up, "by study and also by faith" and from a sincere desire to learn, and it takes time. It doesn't come all at once. What was it that led you to read The God Delusion? Were you doubting the gospel? I'm not trying to be offensive (rather the opposite), but I think there are more factors that go into it. Was it really as simple as getting a "strong burning feeling" from reading an anti-religion book that contains many fatally erroneous statements, that led you to stop believing and leave the Church? It seems to me that you didn't have the "real intent" and the "faith in Christ" that is required for us to obtain the knowledge of the Church's truthfulness.I did not know you required my entire life history. When someone bears their testimony, do you simply think that's the only thing they did? That's a little harsh. The prayer came after both a careful study and thorough reading of religious texts etc. etc. I was a good standing and faithful member of the church. If you want my entire life leading up to it, then at least fly to Seattle and buy me dinner first. FWIW, it wasn't by reading "fatally" erroneous statements when I had the experience. It was actually when contemplating something much more grand than anything I had ever thought when I was religious.
altersteve Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) We are arguing about what distinguishes one experience (the evangelical witness) from another (the LDS testimony).The "LDS testimony" is not an experience. It is the knowledge that comes as a result of an experience. Evangelicals also have a "testimony" that what they believe is true, as do people of all faiths, they simply don't use that terminology.I did not know you required my entire life history. When someone bears their testimony, do you simply think that's the only thing they did? That's a little harsh. The prayer came after both a careful study and thorough reading of religious texts etc. etc. I was a good standing and faithful member of the church. If you want my entire life leading up to it, then at least fly to Seattle and buy me dinner first. FWIW, it wasn't by reading "fatally" erroneous statements when I had the experience. It was actually when contemplating something much more grand than anything I had ever thought when I was religious.I wasn't trying to be harsh or offensive, as I said, or to claim that I know your entire life story. It was only a question. Edited August 20, 2011 by altersteve
jmordecai Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Viola, and they said Pharisees died out. Take that philosphy and twist into any pretzel you wish. For for those who seek to have no belief there is a host other beings that will have them. You make me think of a scripture in Eph 6:12 "For we awrestle not bagainst cflesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the drulers of the edarkness of this world, against spiritual fwickedness in high places." Friend, may you find peace in the h*** that you create.Your point is lost on me.
jmordecai Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Or, we can conclude that each of those spiritual experiences contain at least some truth, and we don't have to believe that any of them are "counterfeits" by any means. I sure as heck don't.Then you don't accept the truth claims made in the First Vision?
Franktalk Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 This is not only true of the evangelicals you characterize here.1. Anyone who equates factual knowledge with spiritual knowledge is not spiritually inclined.2. Anyone who attempts to sustain a relationship without knowledge is ignorant of how relationships work, and can sustain only ignorant relationships.3. Anyone that does not settle the question of which version of Christianity is true by appealing to or receiving a private religious experience simply hasn’t found the question to be important enough.4. Anyone that feels or reasons that he should not pray for divine guidance (a private revelation or spiritual experience) simply lacks the interest to do so, or lacks a fuller personal relationship with God. Sometimes these things are done in ignorance, sometimes in pride. In either case, the Light of Christ calls upon all God's children to move forward in developing a fuller relationship with God through the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. Everyone responds in their own way, at their own pace, and sometimes not in the way God wants them to.I am sure that God has heard me so many times that I must seem like a broken record. I am sure I have asked for spiritual strength 5000 times at least. And I became a Christian about five years ago. Yesterday as I was driving down the freeway I came over a rise and before me was a car in my lane who was passing someone illegally. I slowed down hard but waited for the car to dive left or right before I turned. As it turned out they dived to the shoulder on my side of the road because the car being passed also was braking hard so they could not get back into their own lane. I shot between the two cars doing at least fifty and they were doing the same. The whole thing did not last two seconds. I was told to wait. I am sure of that. I believe we can't die until God wants us. But if we don't listen we can die anytime.Was this a test of my faith? I don't know. But I thanked God the moment I cleared the two vehicles.
altersteve Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) Then you don't accept the truth claims made in the First Vision?Of course I do, I never said otherwise. I only meant that the Church has never taught that it is the only religion that teaches truth. If a Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, or Hindu tells me that he had a strong spiritual experience, I have no reason to deny it, nor am I in any position to.God works in and through all religions on this earth and has raised up teachers and leaders here and there around the world and throughout the ages, and He continues to do so, even outside the Church, as 2 Nephi 29 so clearly tells us. In the words of Elder Orson F. Whitney:[God] is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints by and of themselves ("The Gospel—A Global Faith," Ensign, November 1991, pp. 1819). Edited August 20, 2011 by altersteve
Eldwynn Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) I would argue that anyone who bases their faith in a single feeling is not "strong" in anything. Atheists and religionists alike who persist in characterizing a Testamony as a singular feeling or emotional response reveal a terrible and cynical ignorance of the workings of the Holy Ghost.Ummm I think a certain 14 year old farm boy from New York may disagree with you. Edited August 20, 2011 by Eldwynn
KevinG Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 Then you don't accept the truth claims made in the First Vision?What claims are those. Be careful - critics almost always overstate the scope of the admonition that Joseph received about joining a particular religious sect.
KevinG Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 Ummm I think a certain 14 year old farm boy from New York may disagree with you.Your opinion is just that.After demonstrating such a narrow and tenuous grasp of what it means to receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost I cannot comprehend you really understand the experience and doctrines of Joesph Smith.And would you please take the atheist argument against religious experience to another thread. While you may think it is relevant to the OP it is a rabbit trail that does not help to distinguish the Evangelical and LDS belief systems vis a vis Testimony or Witnesses of the Holy Spirit.(Its not about you.) 1
Eldwynn Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 The "LDS testimony" is not an experience. It is the knowledge that comes as a result of an experience. Evangelicals also have a "testimony" that what they believe is true, as do people of all faiths, they simply don't use that terminology.I think quibbling over the terminology used (one calls it an experience, the other calls it a testimony) is rather juvenile. I guess I will make sure to choose my words more carefully for now on. Or perhaps I misunderstood you.
KevinG Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 I think quibbling over the terminology used (one calls it an experience, the other calls it a testimony) is rather juvenile. I guess I will make sure to choose my words more carefully for now on. Or perhaps I misunderstood you.Insisting that someone who wishes to discuss LDS religion respect the tennants of that religion and not deal in thin characatures of said faith is not quibbling or juvenile. You have yet to discuss the LDS (or more general religious) concept of revelation in any meaningful way. That may be what leads people to assume your experiences were shallow and not complete. If your experiences were truly more profound and included continuous companionship of the Holy Ghost and the many diverse gifts of the Spirit before you found out that they were fraudulant or artificial then you should share your transformative experience in more detail. ON ANOTHER THREAD!
Storm Rider Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Your point is lost on me.It is not too difficult to understand particularly for those of such enlightenment that they are able to discount all spiritual experiences. First, pharisees were great at twisting belief into anything they wanted; they had perfected how to make law say anything they wanted. Second, philosphers often can twist themselves into such a twisted maze built solely on the understanding of man that they don't even know where they are. Third, for those without God there is a host of those who work darkness; those who reject the Holy Spirit are at their mercy. Fourth, sadly we create our own h*** in this earthy existence. Those who reject the witness of the Holy Spriit in the name of pseudo intelligece, much as we might wish them peace, are condemned to a life bereft of the Spirit of Light and truth. Not very difficult at all.
KevinG Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 This is very much relevant! We are arguing about what distinguishes one experience (the evangelical witness) from another (the LDS testimony). Well, many people think that they are actually very similar experiences- with a source in human psychology and not divine origin. I find your popcorn analogy as rather short-sighted. Unless you are claiming that popcorn is of divine nature, with no way to verify its existence in our world save through each of our own personal smells and stories about it, then it really isn't an accurate comparison at all. That we can go in and induce religious experiences in people does not "prove" religion false (nothing can prove anything false in the sense religious people demand)it certainly shows that religious experiences are just as likely to be resulted from natural origins, as supernatural (if not more likely).Since we consider the Holy Ghost a natural being of substance (pure albeit but substance) I don't see your experiment simulating a very narrow slice of the experience of interacting with God as being problematic at all.
ldsfaqs Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 ldsfaq wrote:bullbullbulletc.....I attempted to report this post to the moderators, but the system timed out and I have no way of verifying that the report was sent. So, I am bringing attention to it here to make sure. I believe that such rudeness, belittling, and accusation of lying are contrary to board policy.So, instead of responding to the "content" of my post, you instead focus on a MINOR my irritated with YOUR behavior word such as "bull"....???Predictable anti-mormon behavior.
Recommended Posts