You Lost Me.

[Darth_Bill]

Are you going to censure Sethbag for his similar insults now?

I don't know what insults you are referring to, and if he was insulting, then yes. Evidently you guys have a history.

You can choose to equate Sethbags and your experiences however you want, and I will choose to equate them however I like. You and he have done the same to me and mine, so fairs fair surely.

Actually, I didn't "equate" them other than they are both what you experienced. You can't just negate someones experience. I am not doubting the miracles that you say you have witnessed. I am just saying that Sethbag's is more like my own. I thought I had witnessed miracles and once I've thought about it, with my greater experience in this life, I have seen the same results without any blessings or priesthood involved. Perhaps they were pretty weak in the first place. If you say you have seen them, or talked personally to those who have had their sight restored or lived without blood, then you certainly have reason to praise God. I haven't. I haven't seen them in my 30 years of membership, at least, nothing anywhere near that level. Not even a healing of a sinus infection...without antibiotics. I have apologetics to deal with this, as I've been involved with FAIR since close to their founding. I just have to weigh what are the more reasonable answers. Perhaps it is that I'm a man of very little faith. I can accept that answer too.

That cuts both ways does it not?

Yes it does. It is best not to be dismissive of anyone and their lives and what they honestly relate. Me, SB and you included.

[Kemara]

Kemara, you accuse me of childish sign-seeking, probably with respect to the anecdote from my teenage years where I attempted to walk on water.

The fact that even you equate the experience to childish sign-seeking is very telling.

I honestly couldn't care less what you think about me.

You care enough to write a rather lengthy post directly to me, "honestly" I think that is very telling as well.

I will just tell you that for me it was an intensely meaningful episode, where I wrestled long and hard with the question of my faith, and whether I really had faith or not.

I am sure you think it was intensely meaningful but the fact that the meaning you derived from it came from a failed attempt to walk on water in my view negates any validity.

If I was sign-seeking, then I was seeking proof of myself whether I really believed what I said I believed, or just said I did.

Hang on a moment didn’t you also say that…

I really believed that the priesthood gave me the power to exercise Godly power in his name, if only I was faithful enough to take it seriously and do it, and I did it.

And…

I replayed the internal argument and just knew that if I really had faith, I wouldn't just try walking on the water, I would step out onto it with full expectation of success and do it.

So which one is it? Did you in fact really believe or not? Did you really fully expect to walk on water or did you just want to see if you believed? It can’t be both. Might I suggest that you get your story straight because contradictions like this raise questions, though it does make it easier to determine if your story is a lie, delusional or told through the lens of enthusiasm.

Sethbag you obviously didn’t take the Priesthood seriously, certainly not seriously enough to take personal responsibility in gaining a true understanding of it, its mechanics and its laws. If you did you would have known that your attempt at sign seeking was doomed to failure before it began.

I think that only because I was as willing to exercise the power in the way the scriptures described it working was I able, eventually, to look at it and realize that it just doesn't really work.

No experience that you have shared bares this out. You did not exercise the Priesthood in the way the scriptures described it, where in the scriptures does it state that a Priesthood holder can walk on water for the purposes of whimsical sign seeking? Your ignorance of the Priesthood and its mechanics and laws is the only thing that let you down. Your personal responsibility in gaining a true understanding of the Priesthood is the only thing that didn’t work.

You can say I just wasn't doing it right, or I wasn't righteous enough, or whatever, but I was doing everything I knew how to do to be a faithful believer, missionary, priesthood holder, patriarch of my family, and so forth.

You can say you were doing it right, that you were righteous enough and that you did everything you could do, but that doesnt make it so. The stories you have shared tell me something very different. Juvenile sign seeking is the opposite of what you claim.

If I wasn't "doing it right" then at least I was doing it to the best of my ability and knowledge, and faith, and this included studying the scriptures many times over and attempting to internalize their messages.

So you say, so you believe, but the stories you have told do not support this position. You routinely fall back on what you were taught in Sunday school, or in sacrament or from your family while growing up as support for you error ridden views on what to expect, all I can say is so what? Your ignorance is your fault and your ignorance on something as plain and as simple as sign seeking really brings into question your claim of doing everything to the best of your ability.

I was 36 years old when I finally "crossed over" from belief in the LDS Church to unbelief in it or any other church, so it's not like I just believed for a few months and then bolted.

It doesn’t matter if you believed a few months or a few years or a few decades if what you believed was in error. One of your defining experiences was based on an error of understanding, what has your age and/or length of membership in the Church got to do with it? 1 + 1 will never equal 3, no matter what you do. Your factors are wrong Sethbag so how can you expect the correct product?

If God really exists, then he set me up with the mind that I have, and despite my best efforts at what it means to be a faithful LDS, the mind this God set me up with viewed the evidence eventually as indicated that he almost certainly doesn't really exist.

1 + 1 = 2, always has always will, and it is your responsibility to figure out the factors, all the tools and all the materials you will ever need are at your fingertips, you will have no legitimate excuse.

One more thing. This is the second time you've accused me of looking into a crystal ball. What the heck are you talking about?

I have actually accused you of this on more than two occasions and I am thoroughly disappointed that you don’t remember the others. Our infrequent, though rather humorous interactions online almost always include you practicing some strange mystic mumbo jumbo ritual, you believe you can read people’s minds and even better than that you can read the minds of dead people, you can time travel and most impressive of all you claim to know what you can’t possibly know. It’s a common theme of yours shall I point some of them out? So there you have it O’Sethbag of the boiling cauldron and shiny crystal ball.

[Kemara]

By the way, I thought I'd link you guys to http://www.saibaba.w...racles.htm this page documenting four miracles performed by Sathya Sai Baba etc...

LOOK OUT EVERYBODY!!! I don’t want anyone getting hit by the rapidly shifting goal posts.

Sethbags not having ever witnessed a miracle is counted as evidence against the authenticity of the Priesthood, but for some reason any witness of a miracle is not counted as evidence for the authenticity of the Priesthood. And now it is no longer simply a matter of witnessing miracles, now the miracles have to be justified in comparison to other miracles. Funny how this happened only after someone turned up in the thread who had witnessed miracles.

The problem with the Sathya Sai Baba argument is that the similarly converse would be equally valid.

The thought processes of atheist’s are derived from all sorts of different experiences. Is atheist Sethbag sure that his experience matches that of atheist Joe Bloggs? Are there experiences equal in validity? The fact that atheists argue among themselves about what constitutes a true atheist and even how atheism is to be defined is evidence of the fact that the reality of the atheist is just as subjective. The epiphany, the journey the realization that there is no God is just as full of holes as the doubts that Sethbag casts on the reality of miracles.This is one point that Sethbag and those of his ilk never seem to get, that the converse or similarly converse to all their arguements are equally as valid.

Also, there are many persons, some of significant renown, who have wholeheartedly rejected their previously held position of atheism. I see no good reason to believe Sethbags position, or any similar position, is any more valid than mine when even the most ardent, seemingly intelligent and logical non-believers turn to deism and even a God of miracles.

Sethbag I am sure you took the stories of prominent atheists very seriously, and you probably believed you experienced similar things to them. Of course you don’t take the current stories as seriously from these prominent persons who are now former atheists but what has really changed about them? Are they no longer logical thinkers, critical thinkers, do they no longer engage in sound reasoning are they no longer as intelligent as they once were are they no longer to be trusted as you once did? Or have they gone mad as some claimed in the case of Flew?

The fact that you believe you experienced things similar to others who have rejected the reality of God and miracles says a lot about how you think and process information and about the lenses that you see and interpret the world through. What it also shows me is that you have not experienced the full spectrum of lenses available to atheists. I see no good reason why I should disbelieve the entire experience and full spectrum of lenses as experienced by someone like the Flew, in place of the limited lenses and experience of someone like Dawkins. Flew’s experience, among many others, applies as much to you as it does to everyone else, unless of course you want to begin the special pleading.

What category do your stories belong too? What category does Flew belong too? What category does Dawkins belong too? Who is the liar, who is delusional, who is over enthusiastic, who is wrong, whose experience is not subjective? And why is one more valid than the other?

Edited December 25, 2011 by Kemara

[Sethbag]

Dude. I haven't posted on this site, until this week, in what, 3 or 4 years? I'm trying to have a respectful, civil conversation, and you come at me with guns a-blazing, and acting like a jerk. I'd say that the tone and approach of your responses to me so far in this thread are unbecoming of you, but that word would imply that they are below your usual standard, and it's beginning to look like that might not be true. So, I guess, drive on. You won't hurt me one bit, but you'll make yourself look bad.

The fact that even you equate the experience to childish sign-seeking is very telling.

Dude, you lobbed that grenade into this conversation, not me.

I am sure you think it was intensely meaningful but the fact that the meaning you derived from it came from a failed attempt to walk on water in my view negates any validity.

If you read my posts to understand what I said, and not merely to find word-bites you can throw back in my face, you'd understand that I related how there were two different meanings I derived from my walk on water experience, and they were somewhat in competition with each other. One was my struggle to come to grips with the fact that the attempt failed, and the other was that I had actually had the faith to attempt it in the first place. And yes, the experience was intensely meaningful to me at that stage in my life. I don't expect you to understand that, because apparently it would be wrong for me to expect anything even remotely thoughtful in your approach to anything I say.

So which one is it? Did you in fact really believe or not? Did you really fully expect to walk on water or did you just want to see if you believed? It can’t be both. Might I suggest that you get your story straight because contradictions like this raise questions, though it does make it easier to determine if your story is a lie, delusional or told through the lens of enthusiasm.

You seem to try really hard to find any way at all, however strained, to turn my words against me. I won't gaze into my crystal ball to try to figure out your motivation though. Here's the thing: you're dead wrong here. It can indeed be both. I did expect to walk on water, or else I wouldn't have tried in the first place. My faith had been challenged, but I thought I had faith, and I became convinced that not to take that step out onto the water was "chickening out", ie: revealing a lack of faith. Taking the step was, to me, looking my faith in the eye and taking it seriously enough to act on it. I didn't know that I would succeed in walking on water, but I believed that with sufficient faith it was possible, because I believed that was one of the messages of the scriptures. You may disagree, but I couldn't care less. I read the scriptures, with real intent and faith, lived as righteously as I could, prayed hard, and took my faith seriously, and that's one of the messages the scriptures revealed to me. If you flippantly just disregard my conclusions as obviously false then at the least it doesn't say much for the process of finding out truth as laid out by the church, because I was following it to the best of my ability. I believed that if I only had sufficient faith I would walk on the water, and I believed that to prove to myself that my faith was real, I had to do it.

Was this sign seeking? I don't think it was. Here's the distinction: I was not trying to get God to prove something to me. I was trying to prove something to myself.

Sethbag you obviously didn’t take the Priesthood seriously...

Says the guy who keeps accusing me of believing I have access to a crystal ball, can read minds, and so forth. Dude, this is rich.

certainly not seriously enough to take personal responsibility in gaining a true understanding of it, its mechanics and its laws. If you did you would have known that your attempt at sign seeking was doomed to failure before it began.

If only I'd had your phone number as a teenager, I could have called you up and had you school me, to make sure I was doing it all right. Ah, well, I was apparently not valiant enough in the pre-existence to be priveleged to come to Earth as your pupil at the time I needed you the most.

You can say you were doing it right, that you were righteous enough and that you did everything you could do, but that doesnt make it so. The stories you have shared tell me something very different. Juvenile sign seeking is the opposite of what you claim.

I'm pretty sure you are crossing some kind of line here by constantly taking my descriptions of extremely important experiences, twisting them around to use them as clubs to beat me over the head with, and labeling it all as juvenile sign-seeking.

You routinely fall back on what you were taught in Sunday school, or in sacrament or from your family while growing up as support for you error ridden views on what to expect, all I can say is so what? Your ignorance is your fault and your ignorance on something as plain and as simple as sign seeking really brings into question your claim of doing everything to the best of your ability.

Let me restate this attack from you: "You routinely fall back on the the fact that you followed the process the church outlined to learn spiritual truths to the best of your ability, but you weren't doing it right, you ignorant moron!"

I'm betting you've never attempted to walk on water. I'm also betting you could rattle of at least a half a dozen compelling reasons why don't need to attempt this. Chicken. ;-)

It doesn’t matter if you believed a few months or a few years or a few decades if what you believed was in error. One of your defining experiences was based on an error of understanding, what has your age and/or length of membership in the Church got to do with it? 1 + 1 will never equal 3, no matter what you do. Your factors are wrong Sethbag so how can you expect the correct product?

I followed the process the church outlined to me for discovering spiritual truths, faithfully, and to the best of my ability. If, as you claim, I just never really "got it" like you apparently do, then OK, but what does that say about the process the church outlined for discovering spiritual truths? Is "you weren't doing it right" really your whole explanation for everything? I'm sorry, but that's just really lame.

I have actually accused you of this on more than two occasions and I am thoroughly disappointed that you don’t remember the others.

Apparently I made more of an impression on you than you did on me.

Our infrequent, though rather humorous interactions online almost always include you practicing some strange mystic mumbo jumbo ritual, you believe you can read people’s minds and even better than that you can read the minds of dead people, you can time travel and most impressive of all you claim to know what you can’t possibly know. It’s a common theme of yours shall I point some of them out? So there you have it O’Sethbag of the boiling cauldron and shiny crystal ball.

Is it possible this whole crystal ball meme is just you projecting? I don't know, but let me whip out my ouija board and I'll have an answer for you in a few minutes. ;-)

Look, my responses in this thread were not intended to devolve into a catfight with you, Kemara. Deborah and Tamba Tuhan had expressed an inability to comprehend how someone would not value various spiritual manifestations and experiences in their lives such as they believe they derive through their church membership and activity. I was attempting to help them understand at least in part how this could be so, at least from my point of view. I'm not going to be carrying on like this with you much more in this thread.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Sethbag

[Hamba Tuhan]

But those sorts of things have never happened to me. Let me tell you some of the things that have.

Thanks, Seth, for your very honest answer. I understand you better now, I think. It seems we've had very different experiences in the Church which seem to have led us to rather different conclusions. That makes sense to me. What confuses me is when people insist that they've had experiences identical to my own and have now stopped believing in them.

Assuming you live in America, have a beautiful day tomorrow celebrating in a way which brings happiness to you and yours!

Edited December 25, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kemara]

I'm trying to have a respectful, civil conversation, and you come at me with guns a-blazing, and acting like a jerk. I'd say that the tone and approach of your responses to me so far in this thread are unbecoming of you, but that word would imply that they are below your usual standard, and it's beginning to look like that might not be true. So, I guess, drive on. You won't hurt me one bit, but you'll make yourself look bad.

O' my poor offended Sethbag, who would ever have thought that someone who so easily and frequently gives it out cant actually take it. I shall be more mindful of your dainty sensibilities.

So Sethbag, you heroic yet tragic figure of valor, what category do your stories fit into? Lies, delusions or over enthusiasm?

Kemara has left the building.

[Deborah]

I'm curious what about the explanation I already gave you did you not understand?

You said "Or maybe they have experienced these things, but simply realized that they weren't what they were thought to be at the time, or are just part of the human experience (joy of service, unconditional love from family, etc.). "

You then give several examples where faith apparently failed and even reading a fantasy novel you had the same experience as reading the BOM and getting what you thought was a spiritual feeling. My question is if in fact you decided that things weren't what you you thought they were at the time, did your attitude change also change in your mind the original experience say upon reading the BOM. I have read the LOTR trilogy 3 times. Loved those books, got lost in that world, was inspired by the hope in them, but never equated that feeling with the BOM. I in fact probably didn't enjoy reading the BOM as much, especially in my younger years but I never once expected those same kind of feelings from it. I wonder then if it isn't the expectation we give something. It sounds to me like you had expectations which when things didn't turn out the way you thought they should you lost faith in any of it.

I am sorry if your experiences were so different from mine or someone else's, but then I suppose I never had the same expectations. I always accepted the Lord's will be done and understood some things are not going to be what we want even if we have faith. In fact most of my spiritual experiences weren't in the big things but from those "tender mercies" that the GA's have talked about, those little insignificant moments that really lifted us up when going through heavy trials.

I am with Hamba though because I agree with his statement "What confuses me is when people insist that they've had experiences identical to my own and have now stopped believing in them." It would be denying the reality of something and then how could you trust anything you do in the future.

[Sleeper Cell]

If I'm wrong, and there really is a God, and it's really Mormon God, and I have to stand before him one day and account for myself, I will feel no shame at all in how I've approached faith in my life. If God really exists, then he set me up with the mind that I have, and despite my best efforts at what it means to be a faithful LDS, the mind this God set me up with viewed the evidence eventually as indicated that he almost certainly doesn't really exist. I feel like I've taken things seriously, and made serious choices based on what serious contemplation of the various arguments, and the evidence, suggest to me is correct. That's all any of us can do.

When I find that I am wrong about something, my first instinct is to blame myself and reexamine my analysis. As a believing LDS, I also feel that I have taken things seriously and have made my choices based on my best efforts and serious contemplation of the evidence. I also feel no shame in how I have approached my faith. Nonetheless, if I stand before God one day and find out, say, that the Evangelical Christians were correct, the last thing I would do would be to try to shift the responsibility of my decisions to God.

Even in this life, we sometimes make decisions based on what we believe are our best efforts, only to realize in hindsight that we were not only mistaken, but should have known it at the time. Why would we expect it to be any different when we review our mortal decisions in the next life?

[BlueDreams]

I have no doubt that many people are convinced of Sai Baba's divine power. I also have no doubt that many, if not most of you who believe you've had your own miracle stories, probably do not believe in Sai Baba's miracles. I can see no good reason why I should disbelieve the Sai Baba miracle stories but believe those I read here in this thread. I'm not trying to be offensive here, I'm just pointing out that miracle stories may be taken very seriously by those who believe they've experienced them, but they have very little convincing power to others, and rightly so, IMHO.

And a big takeaway from these things is that the Sathya Sai Baba stories should be taken seriously by anyone who believes in miracles. I believe that the fact that people do believe they've witnessed these miracles through Sai Baba says a lot about how people think, how they process information, how they build the lenses that they see and interpret the world through, and so forth. And I believe that whatever I learn from the Sai Baba thing probably applies to my own experiences, and the experiences of those around me too. To argue otherwise will probably involve special pleading.

This reminds me of a number of experiences I've had where the Spirit let me know quite well that a miracle in someone's life was not actually from God. The first (and more extreme) example was when my companion and I were talking to a man on the street. He was nice and chatty and talking about why people weren't as kind and trusting as they used to be. He was poor and down on his luck and talked about one time when he had no money and wasn't sure what he'd do the next day. He'd prayed, asking just for a little monetary help and after doing so came up on a little bit of cash on the street. He then smiled and said he knew then God was there (or something to that extent). But I knew, just as strongly from God, that this was in no way connected to Him. There was no obvious reason for it. The story was similar to any story of finding lost keys by praying for em or getting a bit of cash or food when in dire times. But it wasn't from God...I knew it like I knew the sky was blue. A while later I would learn why as I saw this same man exit a well known drug dealer's home (really nice drug dealer too). He looked at us and we waved and he walked away quickly entirely shame faced.

There isn't a need for every event that happens on the planet that is extraordinary to constitute the spirit. And there isn't a reason that all claims must be considered as valid as the next within or outside of the church. I know for a fact that many of my first experiences that at the time I deemed spiritual, weren't. They remind me somewhat of some of the experiences that you had: Group and emotively based. I even remember having a similar thought about walking on water. They weren't bad, usually. Most were benign in my mind and a part of my growth and attachment to the church. But they also weren't the Spirit. They are what are commonly misconstrued as the Spirit.

From what I've seen and come to recognize better as the spirit is as deborah mentioned...they're usually far more gentle. I've had "big" experiences as well...thought they are far and few. Most of them are soft and gentle, the type of subtle gifts that allow us to know that God cares about us as individuals. All true miracles, in my mind, have one common factor: they point toward God. They do so by pointing us to His attributes of love, peace, joy, and compassion (among other things). The bigger miracles are not there as proof of God, but lessons for the individual and stronger manifestations of God's love for us. The big experiences for me weren't just a show of power without any real connection but more like orchestrated cards from God letting me know that He was aware of me and my needs. That I was safe and secure in His arms.

I'm still no expert on what the spirit is and isn't. In general I leave the benifit of the doubt when people share experiences, even ones I don't understand. But personally, those experiences of my childhood that were connected more to my emotions and juvenile expectations I recognize as not really from God and shallow and the ones that have replaced them are rich and deep. They're ones I continue to ponder over because they taught me to my most inner being a little bit more about who God is and who I am. About how much God loves each individual and how all of us are interconnected in love far more than we are entirely aware. It has, in a sense, led to an understanding that leaves God the author of my existence and the creator of my true joy.

I have a feeling that it's similar experiences for Deborah and kemara that would make it hard for them to understand how someone might experience this and turn away from God. In all due respect, I would agree with your assessment: What you described wasn't the spirit. But not your conclusion: that the spirit ain't there or is just our mistaken association with certain human emotions/experiences.

Edited December 26, 2011 by BlueDreams

[Hamba Tuhan]

Sorry, I just noticed this in BlueDream's reply above.

I have no doubt that many people are convinced of Sai Baba's divine power.

I actually sat next to one on a flight from America to Singapore once. He was a postgraduate psychology student from some university in Arizona, and, about 30 minutes into the flight, he asked me where I was headed. I was confused since airplanes are not like buses; we were obviously both headed to Singapore. So I said, 'The same place as you unless you're planning to use the emergency exit and jump.' Blank look. 'Singapore.'

'That's right,' he said. 'Singapore. Is that in China?'

I then explained that Singapore was a city-state at the tip of the Malay Peninsula (which he'd never heard of) and asked what he was going to be doing in Singapore despite having no idea where it was. He told me he hoped to get a flight to Bangalore (he hadn't booked one yet for some reason), from which he was planning to travel to where Satya Sai Baba lived, hoping to become one of his devotees. He then told me how Sai Baba could produce both money and diamonds out of thin air and added that he thought it would be important to study with such a figure considering that they were coming. I asked him who 'they' were. He looked around and then half whispered, 'The aliens.'

I'd never heard of Sai Baba before, but this was a fun introduction. Interestingly, about three months later I had an overnight layover in Singapore. After getting myself a cheap room in Serangoon Road, I walked to Little India and ended up eating at a place called Annapoorna's Vegetarian Fast Food (which I highly recommend, by the way!). The first thing I noticed when I walked in was a large portrait of Sai Baba on the back wall, framed with flower garlands. It all seemed like a crazy coincidence.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand, but it's one of my favourite crazy memories.

I also have no doubt that many, if not most of you who believe you've had your own miracle stories, probably do not believe in Sai Baba's miracles.

You would no doubt be right. In my case, I've never personally experienced anything which would lead me to believe the stories my seatmate shared with me en route to Singapore..

I can see no good reason why I should disbelieve the Sai Baba miracle stories but believe those I read here in this thread.

The only rational reason would be if you had repeatedly experienced for yourself the things discussed in this thread. Otherwise, in both cases you're dealing with similarly incredible claims. The confusion for me stemmed from the fact that, at the beginning, you insisted you had experienced precisely the sorts of things discussed in this thread but then you'd left the Church anyway:

I experienced a lot of the things you listed, but you would probably say I have most certainly missed the point.

I'm not trying to be offensive here, I'm just pointing out that miracle stories may be taken very seriously by those who believe they've experienced them, but they have very little convincing power to others, and rightly so, IMHO.

Indeed. Joseph Smith: 'If I had not experienced what I have, I should not have believed it myself.'

To me personally, the great miracle of the Restoration is not that it was accompanied by miracles but that, from the beginning, the invitation has been for people to develop firsthand knowledge through personal experience. The Prophet didn't say, 'I've received direct answers from God, including angelic ministrations; just trust me, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.' Instead, he taught, 'I've received direct answers from God, including angelic ministrations, and so can you. Then we'll be in this together.'

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My next question for young LDS is what kind of Mormon do you identify as? Are you orthodox? TBM? Liberal? LGBT? Moderate? Unorthodox?

I'm young LDS. Personally I could see myself in some form or fashion with all accept LGBT. Definitely straight and female. But next to that, I see myself as Mormon without labels. My only concern with ideology and my path is if God approves of it and desires me to go that way. If the spirit doesn't come with me in an endeavor, I turn around and figure out what I need to fix. Nothing else matters to me.

And for that matter, most of the examples you gave as spiritually important simply weren't. They have no effect with my relationship with God and the building of my faith.

Personally, I dislike the idea that mormonism somehow is growing more distant from the young adult. To me, it's just relabeling disenchantment to a faith to add legitimacy to it. Some will not find mormonism is their cup of tea in any generation. In part I probably just don't like it because it makes sweeping claims to youth who many do not feel the same as mentioned.

Your mission served you well, Sister Bluedreams.

[Sethbag]

Hi all, sorry for the two-day break in my end of the conversation. I read Deborah's, SleeperCell's, Blue Dreams', and Hamba Tuhan's posts, but I can't really reply to everything everyone said, so I will just acknowledge what you've said, and try to synthesize a post which I think continues my end of the conversation, in response to what you guys wrote.

First, I'd like to quote BlueDreams' sigline, because I think it encapsulates wonderfully the gist of what I have to say.

We do not see things as they are' date=' we see them as [b']we are.

I think that this sentence pretty much says it all. Vanishingly few of what people refer to as spiritual experiences, or even miracles, self-identify as such. About the only exceptions I can think of a God and Jesus announcing themselves to Joseph Smith, and the angel Nephi Moroni identifying himself in his appearance to Joseph. So, if our spiritual experiences don't identify themselves as such, how do we know what they are? I think the answer is that we interpret what we are experiencing through the lens that we have inherited from our church culture.

Let me offer a good example. Going back to my BoM experience on my mission, I experienced a set of physiological and mental sensations, none of which were obviously and indisputably the Holy Spirit doing something to/for me. Instead, I had to perceive these sensations, compare them to the descriptions of the Spirit that I'd been taught growing up, and then conclude that they must be the Spirit. I even remember thinking to myself something like "holy cow, this is what it feels like!" or something to that effect.

We were actually taught at the MTC that we had to help people recognize the Spirit. We were taught to pray with them, or go through a discussion with them, or whatever, and then if good feelings were obviously present, to ask the investigator how they felt, and if they replied that they felt good or whatever, to tell them that this is the Spirit confirming to them what we were saying. Now, it's always possible that this is exactly what we were doing. Or, looked at another way, we were teaching people how to apply the filter on their experiences that allowed them to see things the way we LDS see them, and wanted them to learn to see them that way too.

Once we've been taught to consider such feelings, emotions, or other mental experiences as evidences of the Spirit, then all we have to do to cement our beliefs is to cause such feelings, emotions, or other mental experiences to occur. Eventually we've felt "the Spirit" so much in the context of our LDS beliefs that we're utterly convinced that it's all true, and could not possibly be otherwise.

I've had conversations about the church with a lot of people, especially family members or aquaintances who know of my unbelief, and an extremely common theme is for them to concede some troubling bit of information or argument, but then fall back on "but I've had too many Spiritual experiences that I cannot deny" that they must remain true to their beliefs. Let me illustrate why I think this epistemology is problematic: "I know the church is true because I've felt the Spirit testifying to me that it is true. I know the [experience or set of experiences] was the Spirit testifying to me because the Church taught me to recognize such experiences as the Spirit." It's essentially circular reasoning.

The whole point of me recounting my mission BoM experience was because it illustrates how this modus operandi unraveled for me. I had "felt the Spirit witnessing to me of the truth of the Book of Mormon", but in reality it would be more accurate to say I had experienced some kind of euphoric state in association with the completion of the Book of Mormon, which I attributed to the Spirit because that is what I had been taught to do, and that is what I expected. It didn't occur to me to question my attribution of my experience to the Spirit until years later, when I experienced pretty much the same feelings upon finishing the secular and somewhat vulgar Glenn Cook series. It also helped that I was still processing my friend's "testimony" story about his witness from the Spirit that the Catholic Church was true, and that he should become a priest. I was more introspective than usual, and thinking about the process of feeling the Spirit, and how I knew what I knew, or why I thought I knew what I thought I knew. So the Glenn Cook experience was sort of like a loose thread in a sweater, which instead of ignoring and pushing out of my mind I sort of pulled on, and it helped unravel a lot for me.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that I did experience "spiritual" things, like a lot of LDS, many times throughout my life, and I would never deny that I experienced something. What I do deny now, however, is that the attribution by me of these things to the Holy Spirit was accurate.

While I did experience these "spiritual" experiences, I never experienced actual bona fide miracles. I believed that miracles were possible, and put myself in situations where it appeared to me that miracles were happening or were going to happen, or that I should expect them to happen, but in the end they never panned out. I've met a lot of LDS who never really think miracles are going to happen, and so they aren't surprised when they never do. I was surprised, however. I took the scriptures seriously, and really believed that the things that were described in them really happened. I couldn't see why the promises shouldn't be just as valid in my life if only I had sufficient faith, as they were in the lives of those described in the scriptures. In a sense, I set myself up for failure by taking things far too seriously. When reality couldn't deliver, I could hold on for a while with various methods we use to shelve our doubts and put off thinking about them, but eventually it was bound to come out.

Bottom line: I know of no "miracle" stories for which there is sufficient evidence to deserve being believed.

I will end this post by quoting BlueDreams' sigline again, just to introduce a crude chiastic form into my post, thus proving it's true. ;-)

We do not see things as they are' date=' we see them as [b']we are.

[BlueDreams]

Very chiasmic of you, Seth

Small comment: The question that should follow my little quote is then is who should we become? Who am I? Which is probably the crux of a lot of what this topic was about anyways.

One small thing about from your chiasma: "We were actually taught at the MTC that we had to help people recognize the Spirit. We were taught to pray with them, or go through a discussion with them, or whatever, and then if good feelings were obviously present, to ask the investigator how they felt, and if they replied that they felt good or whatever, to tell them that this is the Spirit confirming to them what we were saying."

This was definitely emphasized on our mission as well...though overall the approach has changed. nearer the end of my mission, new missionaries were coming out with a focus on personal conversion. After all, it is hard for anyone to teach what the Spirit is all about , when they have little understanding about it and how it works. There was an entire section in preach my gospel devoted to recognizing the spirit. If I had one wish (maybe a few, there's a lot I could wish for) I wish people would understand better the sense of the Spirit. On a basic level I think we focus too much on that "feel good" experience. We recognize the Spirit by feeling good. Which isn't always wrong. The Spirit can make you feel good. But the good emotion is also not always right, leading to confusion or loss of trust when we stop feeling good or feel good about things that aren't all that spiritually oriented. More problematic is that we'll often end up focusing too heavily on feel goods and less so of the plethora of other ways that the Lord speaks. The Lord's manner of conversation with us converts us in the most literal sense. It changes us to become one who more readily recognizes the Spirit. Which is maybe why those who've seen big miracles and seem to just go on their merry way in the scriptures or elsewhere are described as hearing but not really listening. They weren't really listening or they would've changed. It's why people in our times can be forever learning and not really getting it. It's not something that is taught it's an act of becoming.

I wish you could've experienced it...or maybe recognized when you truly were. My guess (from my place in the universe, of course) is that you had and just never really knew it. Seeing but not really. Not that you weren't serious about it. Not that you were obtuse or anything ridiculous like that. I think most of humanity is in the same boat initially in that respect. We all start off around the same spiritual point. Spiritual experiences for me, was (and is) an active persual and a constant seeking for conversion so that I can hear. At one point it really disturbed me that I couldn't feel the spirit as much as I thought I should and that some experiences were even iffy. So I sought it out. I earnestly strived to understand how God speaks. And it was found....or better yet understood. I'd tapped into something that was always there and I just never got it. I don't think it's circular. It's more like learning a language or the name of shapes: it's putting a symbolic connection to experiences that can't be described or fully understood any other way. Only this knowledge can become life-changing

To see it and understand it has always parralleled becoming something better than I previously was. No miracle supersedes the one that has occured in my soul. It's also the one that is probably the least convincing on world standards or for yourself. It's the one that can be least understood without learning to see for yourself. There aren't enough words to describe the great reaching arm of the atonement. But it makes every argument against it seem superflous. I am whole. That's my miracle. Conversion... becoming has brought the necessary change so that I can see. And as I have come to see, I am made whole. In it, I am free. Nothing else matters for me. It is a glimpse of the greatest view ever imaginable. Which is why I wish you could've seen it. I wish everybody could see it.

But I know I can't make you. As you chiasmically put it: we see things as we are. Only you can decide who you will be and likewise see.

Hope you had a wonderful Christmas.

With luv,

BD

[Sethbag]

BlueDreams, I'm always a little iffy on the line where a good exchange of ideas turns into an argument, or attempt to convert the other person, so I'll respond to your very thoughtful post, but at some point I'll have to recognize that you (and others) have shared your ideas, I've shared mine, and then let it lie.

"We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are." Just putting this up there again, since it's come up again as a central part of the difference between the way you and I see things.

I would translate that as "We do not see things as they are, we see them as Mormons." Or "We don't see things as they are, we see them as Muslims.", or "..., we see them as militant atheists.", or whatever. If I accept this idea, and to some extent I do, that we don't necessarily see things as they are, but how we have been trained and conditioned to interpret them, then it is my goal to align who I am with reality as closely as I can, so that in accordance with this couplet, I see reality. Hence the "Seeker after reality" line in my avatar on this board.

I take from this most recent post of yours a certain admission that the Holy Ghost's operations in our lives are not obviously of the Holy Ghost, and that a person must be instructed or trained on how to "recognize" the Holy Ghost. You even mentioned a section in "Preach My Gospel" devoted to teaching missionaries the techniques for recognizing the Holy Ghost. Btw, "Preach My Gospel" is after my time, so I am unfamiliar with its contents other than through references such as yours.

To go back the topic that came up several days ago, ie: how someone can have felt the Spirit in their lives and then turn their back on it, I would like to point out that if a person must be instructed on how to recognize the Holy Ghost, then the techniques that are instructed may actually be wrong, and lead to a false conclusion. That is, a person may apply these techniques and mis-attribute some feeling, emotion, or other mental state as the influence of the Holy Ghost, when it in fact is just some run-of-the-mill human experience, generated internally by the person themselves, or a simple response to some external person or influence. You seem to agree with me to a certain extent, although you would probably say the person is just doing it wrong, and I would suggest that the techniques themselves are bogus.

Anyhow, in my own case I have come to the conclusion that the techniques for recognizing something as the Holy Spirit are bogus, and that in all likelihood no such Spirit even exists. This would lead to the conclusion that all attributions of experiences to the Holy Spirit have been misattributions, and I have seen no good reason to believe otherwise. I have no doubt that in your spiritual journey you have made a lot of progress toward finding ways of thinking and living that have made you a better person, and the personal satisfaction that this would entail.

Anyhow, the OP of this thread was discussing a book about people who had fallen out of faith with whatever church, and it seemed that eventually in the conversation, some TBM folks seemed to be doubting the idea of people who have been believers but fall out of faith, including expressions of incredulity that someone can have experienced the Spirit and then turn their back on it. I hope I've helped people understand at least one way that this is possible. Since I acknowledge that I have trouble recognizing the line between good conversation and attempt at arguing each other into submission, I'll read any replies, and be happy to answer any questions directly asked of me, but I think I've said my piece and won't try to find yet another permutation of it that I haven't already uttered. ;-)

[Hamba Tuhan]

Hi, Seth. First of all, I hope you and yours are enjoying a peaceful, happy Christmas holiday. Please don't feel the need to apologise for not responding immediately to everything everyone (or anyone) writes. Secondly, I do wish to thank you, though, for engaging. I appreciate having an opportunity to read what you've written and try to approach your understanding. For what it's worth, I think it's important for me to try to understand.

One of the things that seemed to click for me in reading your two latest posts is that you appear to describe 'spiritual experiences' as some kind of mental or emotional state inherently devoid of content:

Vanishingly few of what people refer to as spiritual experiences, or even miracles, self-identify as such.

...

Going back to my BoM experience on my mission, I experienced a set of physiological and mental sensations....

...

I had "felt the Spirit witnessing to me of the truth of the Book of Mormon", but in reality it would be more accurate to say I had experienced some kind of euphoric state in association with the completion of the Book of Mormon, which I attributed to the Spirit because that is what I had been taught to do, and that is what I expected.

...

While I did experience these "spiritual" experiences, I never experienced actual bona fide miracles.

That is, a person may apply these techniques and mis-attribute some feeling, emotion, or other mental state as the influence of the Holy Ghost, when it in fact is just some run-of-the-mill human experience, generated internally by the person themselves, or a simple response to some external person or influence.

As a consequence, a person has to attribute some kind of meaning to the experience, and it's in your personal reassessment of that process of interpreting and assigning meaning that you've reached your current state of disenchantment with the Church. By the way, please correct me if I've got any aspect of this wrong!

My disconnect on this point is that it's been my experience that revelation actually reveals something. The classic example of this from Church history is one you already brought up, the visit of Moroni to the seventeen-year-old Joseph Smith. Trying to put myself in Joseph's shoes (or nightshirt, rather), I would suggest that the visit in and of itself, though it may have produced peace or joy or excitement or some other heightened emotional state, lacked self verification. It could easily just have been a very vivid dream brought on by eating too much of Mother Lucy's gingerbread the night before. This remained the case when Joseph the next morning explained to his father what he thought had happened during the night, and it even remained the case after the fourth appearance of the angel on the boy's return trip from the paddock.

In my opinion, where things started to get a little less open to circular interpretation, however, was on the hillside later that morning when Joseph, finding a rounded rock which looked just like the one he thought he could remember from his previous night's vision/dream/hallucination, levered it up and saw underneath a stone box and an actual set of engraved plates.

Speaking metaphorically, my experiences as a Church member have been like an endless series of such vision>plates experiences. This is precisely what I meant when I earlier referenced answers to prayers, personal revelation, and the power of the priesthood.

Now, to be sure, not everything that I've ever thought might have been a communication from God has turned out to be. In my experience, learning to recognise the voice of the Spirit amongst the noise of the world and our own thoughts/dreams/hopes is an important part of our spiritual growth. But, over time, I've come to realise that the communications which have all borne fruit--which have identified themselves by describing and even predicting reality--have all come from a single voice, so to speak, and I've got far, far better at recognising that voice in distinction to all others.

I guess I'm wondering if you also had similar experiences when you were a Church member and, if so, how you've reinterpreted them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm always a little iffy on the line where a good exchange of ideas turns into an argument, or attempt to convert the other person....

By the way, I thought I should clarify that it's not my intention to argue, and, for what it's worth, I haven't found your posts argumentative either. Thank you.

[Sethbag]

Hamba Tuhan, I've never been showed a stone box with plates, even metaphorically speaking. ;-) You said that I described experiences devoid of content, and I can see where you might think that, so let me clarify a little more. I've had "personal revelation" before where I thought that actual, legitimate content flowed to me from the Spirit. However, in retrospect, I was always already thinking about whatever it is I think I had revealed to me, and the "spiritual" aspect of it seemed to be the assurance that the thought came from the Spirit, rather than my own mind. Whatever content I may ever have felt I had had revealed to me I believe came from within myself, and whatever feelings or emotions I associated with the Spirit were merely me attributing them thus because that's what I'd been taught to do.

Even the experience of waking up with a devil sitting on my chest didn't really carry any content. There never was a devil on my chest - it was only a hallucination brought on by waking up with sleep paralysis. And why a devil? Because my culture taught me that devils exist, and do such things. I've read that in New Guinea people interpret sleep paralysis as catching the spirits of trees feeding on one's life force, and that in older days people thought it was a Succubus or Incubus come to have sex with a person, and that nowadays a not insignificant number of people interpret sleep paralysis as being abducted by aliens. So even the identification of what I thought I was experiencing was not "revealed" content, but rather inherited content from my culture, which I took with me into the experience.

When I read your explanation of how over time you are getting better at hearing and recognizing the "true Spirit" from the noise offered up by false attributions of the Spirit, your own thoughts, and so forth, I interpret this to mean that as you get older, you mature, and your instincts sharpen, and your ability to understand and make predictions about your world is improving, and that you are understanding this through the lens of LDS cultural teachings about the Spirit. So the Spirit becomes very real to you, because it is the explanation you give to yourself of very real experiences that you are having. Again, I don't doubt that when people claim to have personal spiritual experiences, that they are in fact experiencing something. I only doubt that what people really are experiencing is what they think they're experiencing.

[The Nehor]

Then let me rephrase. Not all pertinent information was shared.

As an example, it should be taught that there are several different versions of the First Vision so that the individual members of the church can more intimately develop their faith identity.

These have been published in Church magazines more then once. I have attended at least two institute, one seminary, and one Gospel Doctrine class where they were discussed. I imagine many of these complainers DID in fact hear the things they complain about but didn't pay attention. In school

I can sympathize with feeling ignorant. I thought I knew it all when I was young. The difference is that when I realized I was ignorant of many things (What's the Millenium? How did the Creation work? What is up with polygamy?) I started hunting down the answers.

I do not sympathize with the complaint that the Church is "hiding" things. When I seek I find. When I do not my ignorance is on my own head.

I also disagree with the book mentioned if it is an accurate summary of its contents. I think the more serious problem in many churches is they have stopped teaching Christianity. When you have ministers who don't believe in the atonement of Christ or his sacrifice (except maybe as a metaphor), teach worldliness in scriptural languages, and try to reach youth by trying to make the faith about self-esteem or vaguely feeling good are they really surprised so many youth find it unnecessary? On the other hand you have the dogmatic groups that make their inane interpretations of scripture "the word of God" and hold to them in the face of contrary evidence. Or you have those who turn their faith into a weapon and pick some pet project to fight against and make that their faith (gays, abortion, and liberalism seem to be common targets) to the point that the church is primarily useful in supporting the cause. In trying to make the faith palatable many (though not all) Christian faiths have diluted it to an insipid caricature which people rightly ignore.

In the LDS faith at least we (mostly) teach the doctrine. We have a few terrible teachers but we are generally teaching the revealed word. Too many don't pay attention and will run after any silly quasi-LDS teaching that they may like ("Embraced by the Light" is a good example). Others complain they weren't taught everything. What do they expect? A doctorate level knowledge of LDS theology from lessons compressing incredibly rich chapters in the scriptures into 45 minute lessons? A comprehensive knowledge of Church history when we only lightly touch it one year out of four in connection with the Doctrine and Covenants? Do they want Church expanded to 5 or 6 hour blocks? Mandatory exhaustive Institute classes every night? It seems they want knowledge but only if it is spoon-fed to them with as little effort and time as possible needed from them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Thanks once again, Seth, for your respectful and honest reply.

Hamba Tuhan, I've never been showed a stone box with plates, even metaphorically speaking.

If you had, do you think you would still be a member of the Church?

[Hamba Tuhan]

However, in retrospect, I was always already thinking....

By the way, having consumed mass quantities of Derrida as an undergrad, I greatly appreciate your use of the italicised phrase. :-)

[Sethbag]

Thanks once again, Seth, for your respectful and honest reply.

If you had, do you think you would still be a member of the Church?

If I make that assumption, I'd have to make the assumption that a lot of other things were different too. For instance, if an angel appeared to me and showed me a real stone box containing plates inscribed with an ancient language, and said these were the same plates from which Joseph Smith translated the BoM, that would clash with other things I know such as Joseph Smith's polyandry and the dishonesty and manipulation which were part and parcel of his practice of it, and other things that indicate to me that he almost certainly wasn't a true prophet. So you're proposing a self-contradicting set of circumstances, and I don't know how I'd react to it.

However, if Joseph Smith really did look like a guy who'd really talked with God, and really did represent this God's interests on Earth in a purely positive and uplifting and convincing way, and I were shown these plates and I could verify that they really did exist and so forth, then I probably would be. I'm willing to go where the evidence leads, so if that were the evidence, I'd go there.

[Sethbag]

By the way, having consumed mass quantities of Derrida as an undergrad, I greatly appreciate your use of the italicised phrase. :-)

Thanks for making me self-conscious about it now, wondering if I'm violating some manual of style unknowingly. ;-)

[Deborah]

If I make that assumption, I'd have to make the assumption that a lot of other things were different too. For instance, if an angel appeared to me and showed me a real stone box containing plates inscribed with an ancient language, and said these were the same plates from which Joseph Smith translated the BoM, that would clash with other things I know such as Joseph Smith's polyandry and the dishonesty and manipulation which were part and parcel of his practice of it, and other things that indicate to me that he almost certainly wasn't a true prophet. So you're proposing a self-contradicting set of circumstances, and I don't know how I'd react to it.

It's so interesting you say this because it is the other things that make me question the "dishonesty and manipulation" which critics portray. I've read too many accounts of people close to Joseph who loved him and saw him as the kindest and most honorable of all men. I have also read the scriptures he gave us and all these things carry weight and make me question the interpretations of those who would despise him. As I have said before I don't believe a charlatan could have given us some of the very beautiful and deep scriptures we have.

So once again we see that evidence is in the eye of the beholder and really depends on what angle one is looking at.

[BlueDreams]

BlueDreams, I'm always a little iffy on the line where a good exchange of ideas turns into an argument, or attempt to convert the other person, so I'll respond to your very thoughtful post, but at some point I'll have to recognize that you (and others) have shared your ideas, I've shared mine, and then let it lie.

No worries, I was thinking of that last post as, well, my last post on that note anyways. Like I said I'm not in the game of convincing. And I'm especially not in the game of convincing when my dog's decided to get sick and I've made a series of bad sleeping choices this week that's left my brain foggy. So if something I say comes off incoherent or rambling this is probably why.

"We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are." Just putting this up there again, since it's come up again as a central part of the difference between the way you and I see things...... then it is my goal to align who I am with reality as closely as I can, so that in accordance with this couplet, I see reality. Hence the "Seeker after reality" line in my avatar on this board.

Makes sense. I take my quote in almost a fatalistic approach. Though I too would probably describe myself as seeking what is real or (in more mormony terms) true in the world, the quote is an admission that I will constantly be hindered from full understanding by my very nature/circumstance. I will always be a product of my culture and surroundings. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes bad. The problem is that because it is who we are, it's often very difficult to even recognize when something isn't real or correct. Or when something is good or true. For example, noting that I've never had that singular moment where the HG strongly impressed me with the truth of the BoM was sometimes difficult for me to reconcile. This was a cultural expectation, but not one based on anything significantly correct. But because I was expecting it I would try to get that sort of responce. I wanted that experience because it was expected....kind of like how I wish my tear ducts were more liberally oriented so I could fit into RS better.

I take from this most recent post of yours a certain admission that the Holy Ghost's operations in our lives are not obviously of the Holy Ghost, and that a person must be instructed or trained on how to "recognize" the Holy Ghost. You even mentioned a section in "Preach My Gospel" devoted to teaching missionaries the techniques for recognizing the Holy Ghost. Btw, "Preach My Gospel" is after my time, so I am unfamiliar with its contents other than through references such as yours.

Yes, I'd agree with that assessment (and I figured you hadn't had PMG....most people haven't. It's why I tried to keep it extremely basic in referencing). Though, where you see that instruction as problematic, I don't. But its one of those points where we're viewing the same prob with different lenses. (At least that's how I'm seeing it at the moment). As you've noted and I agree with, is that there are a number of experiences that we have in life that are mistaken to be spiritual when they can be deduced to cultural expectations and personal reinterpretations of emotion/group expereriences to fit within that. The point of divergence is that you see all experiences in that same regaurd. I see them as just false experience v. true experiences. Ergo instruction for you would be indicative of this cultural indoctrination. For me, correct instruction helps to illiminate cultural expectation for truer experiences. So yes, you're correct. To me, to throw all spiritual experience under the bus because some are obviously false is far too simplistic an approach and is just as problematic as taking anything emotive, mentally enlightening, or group oriented as indication of the Spirit. Both limit our understanding and capability of seeing reality because they place unnecessary perameters around what reality is or isn't. (Fatalism kicking in) --> We're in the end still reinterpreting what is there within our own cultural expectations (or counter-cultural expectations).

Since I acknowledge that I have trouble recognizing the line between good conversation and attempt at arguing each other into submission, I'll read any replies, and be happy to answer any questions directly asked of me, but I think I've said my piece and won't try to find yet another permutation of it that I haven't already uttered. ;-)

No worries, I tend to give people a large beinifit of the doubt. I find that most people will act civil and kindly if I act civil and kindly and that most people aren't out to get me. On the lamb v. lion in debate I prefer lamb. You learn more that way. My general goal whenever I do post is for mutual understanding and noting that another method of thinking could be valid. I rarely expect more than that. It was nice talking to you. Your experiences were interesting to read.

With luv,

BD

Edited December 28, 2011 by BlueDreams

[Hamba Tuhan]

...other things I know such as Joseph Smith's polyandry and the dishonesty and manipulation which were part and parcel of his practice of it....

Nauvoo-era plural marriage certainly seems a bit messy, which I suspect is why events such as the following one recorded by Eliza Ann Whitney were so important to those involved:

My husband revealed these things to me; we had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon them continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us; He revealed unto us His power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision, a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own minds that God had heard and answered our prayers and intercedings before Him.

Of course, one could conclude that it was the Whitneys' desire for a 'special manifestation' which led them to think falsely that they'd actually received one...and that Eliza Ann felt the need to embellish what she'd thought she'd experienced over time in order to justify herself, her husband, their daughter, and the Prophet.

This is precisely the approach I would take if it weren't for one thing: My own experiences suggest that such things really do happen; therefore, I'm inclined to accept that the Whitneys experienced precisely what Eliza Ann described. Either approach--rejecting or accepting--seems to be a projection of ourselves onto the data at hand.