Is Feeling The Spirit Really Just Confirmation Bias?

[CV75]

Is that why many fellow LDS say that Darwinian Evolution has not been proven, and that it is only a theory of men? To many fellow LDS it is blasphemy to say that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. 

I don't know. The context of the conversation would have a lot to do with it. Some people are not using biological science as the means to guide their spiritual life and progress.

[Calm]

I read Smithsonian and Nat Geo and other scientific literature as a 13 year old as well as at other times in my life.

I do not claim that qualifies me to make broad judgments about others' beliefs in science.

You are self taught. Good. That is a very worthwhile investment of resources.

But it is even better to take the time and get feedback from those who have had actual training before declaring such self study has led you to be more objective and realistic than others. I have seen a lot of voracious, intelligent readers who get led down rabbit trails or who inflate the value or misconstrue the data of research because they haven't had the opportunity of give and take that usually comes in academic study...but perhaps can occur these days by hanging out on lists and message boards and discussing with experts their understanding of the principles, etc of the discussion.

Your purpose here appears to be to convince others that your arguments and viewpoints are valid. I don't see you as having much success because you depend too much on videos and graphs and constant repetition and unsupported declarations that you are right and the other is wrong. If you really just want to pontificate and see your words in print without caring about effect, then that works but if you really want to teach and open up minds, then in my opinion you would be better off taking the time spent here and if you can't afford the time and resouces to take some classes in logic and research, at least read the works of those who are described as effective teachers (not just entertainers or spokespeople) in the areas you wish to teach about and pay attention as much to the how they teach as well as what they are teaching.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I don't know. The context of the conversation would have a lot to do with it. Some people are not using biological science as the means to guide their spiritual life and progress.

 

Read the church manual, it is not talking about spiritual creation only 

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

 

and many fellow LDS agree with the manual, it is clear that many of our fellow LDS don't believe humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and will never accept that fact.  

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

But it is even better to take the time and get feedback from those who have had actual training before declaring such self study has led you to be more objective and realistic than others.

 

I do. I listen to the experts and LDS experts. 

 

Your purpose here appears to be to convince others that your arguments and viewpoints are valid. I don't see you as having much success because you depend too much on videos and graphs and constant repetition and unsupported declarations that you are right and the other is wrong. 

 

That is not true, I share videos because no one will read a scientific paper here in the MDDB. 

I am not saying I am right about everything, you keep adding words to my mouth. 

 

I simply said that most fellow LDS don't accept some scientific truths like the theory that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. I don't need scientific training to know that. 

 

I don't know what your problem is. 

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

" You are making stuff up about me"

I can only judge by what you write.

[TheSkepticChristian]

" You are making stuff up about me"

I can only judge by what you write.

 

it will Help if you read carefully what I am saying, you misrepresent everything I say

 

Bytheway, Dr. Smith says the same thing 

 

 

 

I think evolutionary biology is very poorly understood among most Church members (at least in North America). This is not surprising, since evo-bio is poorly understood among North Americans generally, and LDS members are no exception to that general rule. We have in addition some LDS leaders who have expressed decidedly anti-evolution ideas that might discourage some members from learning more. As a result of all these factors, nearly all critiques of evo-bio or appeals to creation science that one hears from LDS members are deeply flawed because the writers of these critiques either misunderstand or misrepresent the evo-bio position. Rarely, I think, is this inaccuracy intentional. However, its pervasive presence undercuts the many good things which such critiques hope to accomplish.

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[CV75]

Read the church manual, it is not talking about spiritual creation only 

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

 

and many fellow LDS agree with the manual, it is clear that many of our fellow LDS don't believe humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and will never accept that fact.  

The church manual is not a biology text. For spiritual purposes, everything in it is correct. We should follow the manuals for religious purposes.

 

Biology cannot be expected to explain the fundamental principles of our religion any more than those principles can explain any current school of thought regarding genetic processes.

 

Worldwide, whether fellow LDS believe humans and chimps share a common ancestor isn't important at all if they have the fundamental principles of our religion and its appendages) to guide them.

[TheSkepticChristian]

The church manual is not a biology text.

 

Did you bother to read it? So why is it quoting creation science and bad intelligent design arguments? 

 

Dr. Smith says the same thing. 

 

 

 

I think evolutionary biology is very poorly understood among most Church members (at least in North America). This is not surprising, since evo-bio is poorly understood among North Americans generally, and LDS members are no exception to that general rule. We have in addition some LDS leaders who have expressed decidedly anti-evolution ideas that might discourage some members from learning more. As a result of all these factors, nearly all critiques of evo-bio or appeals to creation science that one hears from LDS members are deeply flawed because the writers of these critiques either misunderstand or misrepresent the evo-bio position. Rarely, I think, is this inaccuracy intentional. However, its pervasive presence undercuts the many good things which such critiques hope to accomplish.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

it will Help if you read carefully what I am saying, you misrepresent everything I say

 

Bytheway, Dr. Smith says the same thing 

 

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/

Greg places his comments within a context and explains why he draws the conclusions he does, rather than simple declarations as alleged fact.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Greg places his comments within a context and explains why he draws the conclusions he does, rather than simple declarations as alleged fact.

 

Do most LDS think humans and chimps share a common ancestor? Yes or No? or maybe? 

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

If I did an empirical study among the LDS that I am personally acquainted with, I believe given evidence in other discussions that they would say either "yes" or "maybe".****  I also think most would think it irrelevant to how well we were practicing our faith unless we were using it as a measure from which to judge our fellow Saints (and they would generally say of that "don't do it").

 

I learned details of evolutionary sociobiology from Dr. Hal Miller, a professor at BYU who has also been a stake president.

 

My current bishop is a biologist whose research work will save hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives in a very short time (hopefully).

 

My home teacher in my previous ward was a geologist who among other things went out and discovered oil rich deposits and a new form of rock no one had seen before created in the ice cold depths of remote lakes in Canada in eons past (if I remember the process correctly).

 

Dr. Greg Smith, who you refer to as a like minded individual (and I know him relatively well, he makes for a very good teacher in most cases, imo...I greatly enjoy having discussions with him) is a bishop.

 

If you asked all these individuals, I suspect they have never taught evolutionary biology at church though they may have discussed it in the halls from time to time (I believe we did with our home teacher, I know we did on home teaching visits as we would go on for hours off topic).

 

CV is right on target and expresses it well.  I suggest you go back and reread his posts.  They are the most valuable thing I have heard in the thread imo, including my own comments.

 

 

*****I would never make the claim the people I know are a standard by which to judge the Church, the Church is made up of a huge variety of individuals, I've known a wide range of beliefs in politics, science, economics, patriotism, health care, family discipline and even religion among faithful Saints.  I am not going to make claims about LDS as a whole without a decent study to back it up.

 

If you check the numbers of active posters to those who actually address the topic of common ancestry, you will find that it is a small percentage.  Not saying this demonstrates that most are comfortable with the idea of common ancestry---though that is possible.  I do think it is evidence that most think it is irrelevant to the practice and discussion of religious faith.

Edited August 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Did you bother to read it?

This is not a good-faith question. But yes, I did bother to read it.

 

So why is it quoting creation science and bad intelligent design arguments?

Please show me which quotes you are referring to and I can comment.

[TheSkepticChristian]

If I did an empirical study among the LDS that I am personally acquainted with, I believe given evidence in other discussions that they would say either "yes" or "maybe".****  I also think most would think it irrelevant to how well we were practicing our faith unless we were using it as a measure from which to judge our fellow Saints 

 

perhaps your stake is full scientists of a field of natural science, but I did asked many LDS (friends and missionaries) , and no one believes humans and chimps share a common ancestor. I am not making any judgement out of nowhere. 

 

Here is the most objective study I am aware of 

 

 

LDS are second to last. Even Dr. Smith agrees that most LDS don't believe in Darwinian Evolution. 

 

 

 

I also think most would think it irrelevant to how well we were practicing our faith unless we were using it as a measure from which to judge our fellow Saints 

 

I agree it is irrelevant to how they practice their faith, but it is still true that most LDS don't believe in Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, at least according to my observations. What about the Global FLood? You think most LDS don't believe in a global flood? 

 

 

CV is right on target and expresses it well.  I suggest you go back and reread his posts. 

 

and please reread my response. 

 

or perhaps we are speaking in a different language? 

 

 

 

Please show me which quotes you are referring to and I can comment.

 

For example 

 

"If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors to these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found"

Edited August 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[CV75]

"If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors to these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found"

Just that? OK, read it in context of it being included in the "Points to Ponder" section with other theories, observations and facts and the "Conclusion" that constant exposure to only one scientific idea does not mean that no alternative exists (otherwise no intelligent choice can be made). Then read it in context of the preceding sections covering the Church's spiritual and doctrinal instruction on the Creation. The Gospel is a spiritual covenant, hence the use of terms such as "duty bound," "commits us," "sure knowledge," and "revelations" in relation to what is taught of the origin of man.

[cinepro]

Just that? OK, read it in context of it being included in the "Points to Ponder" section with other theories, observations and facts and the "Conclusion" that constant exposure to only one scientific idea does not mean that no alternative exists (otherwise no intelligent choice can be made). Then read it in context of the preceding sections covering the Church's spiritual and doctrinal instruction on the Creation. The Gospel is a spiritual covenant, hence the use of terms such as "duty bound," "commits us," "sure knowledge," and "revelations" in relation to what is taught of the origin of man.

 

Just to be clear (and for those who haven't bothered reading the CES Old Testament manual at the link), the manual is a very explicit collection of denials about the Theory of Evolution.  While the volume and frequency of the rhetoric from Church leaders has been toned down in the past few decades, any official statements on the subject (including Church publications and Conference talks) have continued to be just as negative.  While there are many, many LDS who support the Theory of Evolution, the Church leadership (and by their interpretations, Church doctrines) most surely do not.

 

From the OT manual (emphasis added):

 

 

 

(2-18) In Genesis and the parallel accounts in Moses and Abraham is a brief record of the creation of the earth and of man who would dwell on it. It is a simple and straightforward account. Although we are not told exactly how the Lord brought about the creative processes, we are taught several essential concepts:

First, God, the Father of all men, instituted the creation of this world as a place for men to come to mortality and progress toward their eternal destiny.

Second, man is the offspring of deity.

Third, the world was not created by chance forces or random accident.

Fourth, Adam was the first man and the first flesh on the earth (see Reading 2-16 for a definition of “first flesh” [Moses 3:7]).

Fifth, Adam fell from a state of innocence and immortality, and his fall affected all life upon the earth as well as the earth itself.

Sixth, the Atonement of Jesus Christ was planned before the world was ever created so that men could come to a fallen earth, overcome death and their sins, and return to live with God.

In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man.

“It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father.” (First Presidency [Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund], in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205.)

“Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by Latter-day Saints. … That man and the whole of creation came by chance is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one process dimly sensed by mortal man.” (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:155.)

“I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father’s children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our spirits were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our heavenly Father.” (George Albert Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1925, p. 33.)

“Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

“… I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. …

“… Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that?” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141–42.)

Edited August 24, 2015 by cinepro

[CV75]

Just to be clear (and for those who haven't bothered reading the CES Old Testament manual at the link), the manual is a very explicit collection of denials about the Theory of Evolution.  While the volume and frequency of the rhetoric from Church leaders has been toned down in the past few decades, any official statements on the subject (including Church publications and Conference talks) have continued to be just as negative.  While there are many, many LDS who support the Theory of Evolution, the Church leadership (and by their interpretations, Church doctrines) most surely do not.

 

From the OT manual (emphasis added):

Yes, the manual will deny the theory of evolution as a contradicting substitute for prophetic doctrine as you emphasized. This is consistent with the overall purpose of the course of study as stated in the Preface https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/preface?lang=eng

 

I think the rub is for those who cannot "covenant" that our origin is with Heavenly Father but rather with a temporal “last universal ancestor” common to all life forms. A related rub is the conclusion that science, and not covenant, provides the full and complete answer. Some may have reconciled the two ideas in various ways, but the manual is not designed to go that far (though it approaches some of that with the age of the earth section). While evolutionary science cannot pretend to touch on our divine origins or a Michael-to-Adam transition, geological science can pretend to explain the various ages of the earth. But ultimately we will only fully and completely know these things by covenant.

[Gray]

Well, I think it can be. The idea being that we're drawn to or feel good about ideas that confirm what we already believe, yes?

 

That's only one experience, though. There are many different ways people experience spirituality. A common one is called elevation:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation_(emotion)

 

I believe there are also other numinous, transcendent, spiritual, etc feelings that can be experienced, sometimes through meditation or prayer or just life experience.

 

Such experiences are subjective in nature, but probably subject to empirical inquiry in regard to how they function and what triggers them. Any emotion we experience is going to involve chemicals and neural pathways and all that. 

 

How such experiences are interpreted (and they can be interpreted many different ways) is very subjective. 

[Brian 2.0]

I have heard this bandied about and I don't think it is true. I spoke to lots of people on my mission and the only people that responded to any sort of spiritual witness about the LDS faith was a few people in Lynchburg and they always bore a testimony that the spirit told the BoM was false. Out side of that I am not aware of any one claiming a spiritual witness for the truthfulness of their church. And even with teh anecdotal evidence I provided  they were not bearing testimony of their own church.

 

 

I'm a little late to this thread, but I just have to respond still.  This topic came up in the Fatima thread and smac stated almost the same as you did.  I'm just going to paste my reply to him here.  

 

Honestly, the argument that people in other faiths don't talk about spiritual witnesses is just indefensible now.  It's like saying Joseph only married widows and old ladies.  

 

My reply......

 

You might need to talk to more people then. 

I always question statements like this.  Other religious people don't pray to know if their religion is true?  Hogwash.

Plenty of off-shots of the church do this EXACT method, and say they received the same feeling:

https://youtu.be/ycUvC9s4VYA?t=1m46s

And here's some from the Islamic faith asking specially and getting exclusive answers:

https://youtu.be/ycUvC9s4VYA?t=6m6s

https://youtu.be/ycUvC9s4VYA?t=7m37s

And here's the process for a followers of a self-professed Messiah:

https://youtu.be/ycUvC9s4VYA?t=8m44s

And there's the Heaven's Gate tragedy and their process:

https://youtu.be/ycUvC9s4VYA?t=11m27s

Of course it happens.  You can discount that their experiences as invalid, from another source, whatever... but OF COURSE there are people in other religions who have prayed to know if there religion is true and have received an answer... and some of them that their religion is the ONLY way to God.

*NOTE:  all these videos are pulled from the same video that's a bit long.  It's good and worth watching... if you can get past the really annoying overly sincere narration.

[CV75]

Of course it happens.  You can discount that their experiences as invalid, from another source, whatever... but OF COURSE there are people in other religions who have prayed to know if there religion is true and have received an answer... and some of them that their religion is the ONLY way to God.

See 1 Nephi 14:10. Whatever those of other faiths have received in resonance with the Light of Christ may be all they have for the moment, and that is counted as good with Him. We are accountable only for what we might reject. This is why we invite people to add to their fund of happiness by sharing the light and truth that we have, just as we accept light and truth from wherever it comes.

[KevinG]

The distinguishing feature of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not that we are exclusively receiving revelation, it is that we have the authority to organize and run the Lord's Kingdom on Earth and the fullness of what has been revealed at this time regarding this commission.

 

Not even enough Saints seem to understand this.

 

I NEVER discount someone else's claims of inspiration, knowing full well I reserve the right to my own.  It helps to look at results (works) once in a while, but discounting someone else's faith claims is not safe ground for a people who claim revelation from God.

[Brian 2.0]

See 1 Nephi 14:10. Whatever those of other faiths have received in resonance with the Light of Christ may be all they have for the moment, and that is counted as good with Him. We are accountable only for what we might reject. This is why we invite people to add to their fund of happiness by sharing the light and truth that we have, just as we accept light and truth from wherever it comes.

 

So they are misunderstanding the Light of Christ when they proclaim that through their spiritual witness they know their non-LDS religion is the only way to God?

Edited August 24, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[KevinG]

So they are misunderstanding the Light of Christ when they proclaim that though their spiritual witness they knew their non-LDS religion is the only way to God?

 

I really don't know of many churches who teach personal revelation the way the LDS Church does.  In fact many protestants believe my claims to receiving personal revelation are not Biblical or Godly.

 

Of course that doesn't stop others from mocking LDS claims of revelation and authority, or setting up the straw man that LDS think they are the only ones going to heaven, etc, etc, etc...

 

Doctrinally speaking we believe we are authorized, and directed by God with the fullness of the Gospel (what has been revealed so far), but we do not own truth, the pathway to God, or any other childish notions of what the Gospel is.

Edited August 24, 2015 by KevinG

[Brian 2.0]

I really don't know of many churches who teach personal revelation the way the LDS Church does. 

 

The LDS offshoots are obviously the closest, or the more "out there" cults with people claiming to be the Messiah.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[KevinG]

The LDS offshoots are obviously the closest, or the more "out there" cults with people claiming to be the Messiah.

 

Which is another reason I don't judge other's claims to revelation.  Although most protestant doctrines are opposed to the idea of personal revelation to the extent the LDS claim it.

 

All I can judge is the response to my own prayers, and my own witness, and sometimes sharing confirmation of another's witness to me.

 

Certainly between sacrificing sons, coming to life after three days of death, and receiving a record of an ancient people in a box on a hill, trying to judge truth claims based on "what seems reasonable" would be a bit hypocritical of me.

 

I do think part of Joseph's genius is the balance struck between the written law, general revelation, and personal revelation in the LDS understanding of the restored Gospel.  As a church we don't dwell on others claims as much as critics remind us of The Great Apostasy and assorted intemperate remarks by family members.  The bulk of the Gospel teaching is encouraging people to find their own answers to prayers.  

[CV75]

So they are misunderstanding the Light of Christ when they proclaim that through their spiritual witness they know their non-LDS religion is the only way to God?

Their religion may well be the only way to God as far as their life's experience and probation is concerned. Everyone has to start that journey somewhere. Extrapolating for others from where one sits can certainly lead to misunderstandings.

 

I also see differences between the Light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the power of the Holy Ghost, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the powwer of God, and the witnessing, quickening, powering and other functions these principles carry out. I see you just popped in; perhaps a quick look at my earlier posts in this thread might clarify where I am coming from.