Is Feeling The Spirit Really Just Confirmation Bias?

[Stargazer]

so no response? It will be nice

 

I'm busy with taking care of my wife and can't always get back to this place.

[TheSkepticChristian]

You're making emphasis about memory, and I don't understand it.  My memory of these very distinctive events is extremely vivid, primarily because of their simplicity. And trust me, my memory of them is 100% accurate.  The thing about this is that the Spirit seems to make it memorable.  Or so my experience leads me to conclude.

 

I am not saying your memory is not accurate, I don't know. However, studies show that events can manipulate memory, they don't have to be complex.

 

So, if your memory is 100% accurate, what about the other points? Will be nice to know.

 

 

I'm busy with taking care of my wife and can't always get back to this place.

 

I hope she gets better.

Edited September 9, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Calm]

I hope she gets better.

Please read:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65941-the-time-is-near/

[TheSkepticChristian]

Please read:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65941-the-time-is-near/

 

I am sorry

[Stargazer]

President Boyd K. Packer said, “I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently"

I am not saying that, but I don't know that. I am glad you know, good for you. As for me, I hope the Holy Ghost is real, but I don't have a clear testimony yet. I trained my brain against patternicity.

PS I said memory is not always 100% accurate.

I am not saying your memory is not accurate, I don't know. However, studies show that events can manipulate memory, they don't have to be complex.

Believe it or not, I am familiar with this notion that memory can be quite fragile and as you say manipulable. However, I have every detail of these events quite well tabulated and accounted for. Studies can show all they want, but no study exists as to my memory of these things. I can nail down pretty much every detail connected with them, and surrounding them. I'm quite a scientific guy, for all that I am not a "scientist", and in order to validate what I experienced I have tried to find fault with, and examined my experiences of them from many angles. I cannot convince myself that I made them up. They came from outside me, and are Not-Me. They have also proven to be true from every angle. I have never experienced a "vision" or other dramatic spiritual event, but I have a suspicion that denying these events would, for me, constitute denying the Holy Ghost.

So, if your memory is 100% accurate, what about the other points? Will be nice to know.

The only point I know enough about to comment on is what Elder Packer wrote, which you quoted, and I have to say that this has been true for me. Not very frequent; in my 63 years I have had only 6 such experiences. It's possible that if my prayer and scripture study life had been much more consistent and deep I might have had more.

One thing that might count as a deep and impressive spiritual experience, but not among those 6, is how my testimony of the Saviorship of Christ has grown. 40 years ago I certainly believed that Christ was my Savior, and I know I bore testimony of this back then, but compared to where I am now with this, well, I would characterize my earlier condition vis-à-vis conviction as being something more along the line of lip service.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 Studies can show all they want, but no study exists as to my memory of these things.

 

I agree, but I don't know. I hope it was a divine reveletion, but other possibilities come to my mind too. 

 

, and in order to validate what I experienced I have tried to find fault with, and examined my experiences of them from many angles.

 

Good

 

but I have a suspicion that denying these events would, for me, constitute denying the Holy Ghost.

 

Doubt is not denying. I have doubts, and it is not nice to have them.

 

I have never experienced a "vision" or other dramatic spiritual event

 

Please tell me, how do you know it was not chance? There are millions of faithful LDS, and we see thousands of events every day. Stuff happens around us every minute. 

 

Not very frequent; in my 63 years I have had only 6 such experiences.

 

and that is why I have my doubts. 6 out of Millions of events that you seen in your life.

Everyone agrees that impressive miracles sometimes happen somewhere. You experienced six impressive spiritual miracles, but not me, and not millions of people.   

 

Valerie Wilson won the loterry (One million) twice,  and she thinks it is a miracle from God. She said, "God's on my side"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901001.html

 

In fact, many people that win the loterry think it is a miracle from God. So please tell me, how do you know it was not chance?

[Stargazer]

I agree, but I don't know. I hope it was a divine reveletion, but other possibilities come to my mind too. 

 

 

Good

 

 

Doubt is not denying. I have doubts, and it is not nice to have them.

 

 

Please tell me, how do you know it was not chance? There are millions of faithful LDS, and we see thousands of events every day. Stuff happens around us every minute. 

 

 

and that is why I have my doubts. 6 out of Millions of events that you seen in your life.

Everyone agrees that impressive miracles sometimes happen somewhere. You experienced six impressive spiritual miracles, but not me, and not millions of people.   

 

Valerie Wilson won the loterry (One million) twice,  and she thinks it is a miracle from God. She said, "God's on my side"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901001.html

 

In fact, many people that win the loterry think it is a miracle from God. So please tell me, how do you know it was not chance?

I speak of 6 events that clearly came from a divine source. There may have been others which did not come to the fore in this way. In fact, I'm editing this right now to say that I am just now remembering something else that came in immediate answer to prayer that was also quite dramatic, although it seemed small at the time. So that makes 7.

As to how I could say these events were not chance? I am perplexed at the question, honestly.

If I came to you and asked you what time it was, and you told me, was THAT chance? If I was walking down a hallway, and you told me that there was a copy of a magazine on the table in a particular room, would THAT be chance? If I wondered out loud who was going to be the next bishop of the ward, and you knew and told me, could THAT be chance?

I am only trying to shoehorn this one concept into your mind, that if you have faith and trust that God will not lead you astray, that he will guide you such that you lose at least some of your doubts. But if you always seek to second-guess every spiritual impression you might receive, then your chances of receiving any will go down. Because God is not trying to force these things upon you. Stop taking counsel of your doubts, and you might receive something that grows from faith. Alma 32. Ponder and pray upon it.

I don't think I can say much more than this.

 

And of course chance operates in the Universe.  But I will not commit one way or the other that the lady who won the lottery twice was blessed by God or by chance in the winning.  How should I know which it was?  It didn't happen to me (more's the pity), so it's not mine to deny or affirm. 

Edited September 11, 2015 by Stargazer

[Storm Rider]

I think the process of recognizing the still small voice, the whisperings of the Holy Spirit is a process that we must learn.  We have to learn to separate the inspiration from our own wants and desires and from all other extraneous impressions.  Sometimes the Spirit speaks loudly and there is no confusion; obviously this caliber of spiritual experience/guidance is not the type of experience I am alluding.  

 

There mere fact that it is a learning experience means that we will get some things wrong or even that we will misunderstand where the impressions are coming from.  However, that does not mean that we then must distrust all spiritual guidance.  To the contrary, it means that we remain open to the Spirit's guidance; that we pray to learn, to hear, and to have the strength to follow.  

 

It is foolish to point to a few examples where an individual was wrong - of course this will happen - but it is learning and getting it right, and coming to a point of having the conviction to stand by our spiritual guidance because we know the voice of our Master.  

[Brian 2.0]

I speak of 6 events that clearly came from a divine source. There may have been others which did not come to the fore in this way. In fact, I'm editing this right now to say that I am just now remembering something else that came in immediate answer to prayer that was also quite dramatic, although it seemed small at the time. So that makes 7.

As to how I could say these events were not chance? I am perplexed at the question, honestly.

If I came to you and asked you what time it was, and you told me, was THAT chance? If I was walking down a hallway, and you told me that there was a copy of a magazine on the table in a particular room, would THAT be chance? If I wondered out loud who was going to be the next bishop of the ward, and you knew and told me, could THAT be chance?

I am only trying to shoehorn this one concept into your mind, that if you have faith and trust that God will not lead you astray, that he will guide you such that you lose at least some of your doubts. But if you always seek to second-guess every spiritual impression you might receive, then your chances of receiving any will go down. Because God is not trying to force these things upon you. Stop taking counsel of your doubts, and you might receive something that grows from faith. Alma 32. Ponder and pray upon it.

I don't think I can say much more than this.

 

And of course chance operates in the Universe.  But I will not commit one way or the other that the lady who won the lottery twice was blessed by God or by chance in the winning.  How should I know which it was?  It didn't happen to me (more's the pity), so it's not mine to deny or affirm. 

 

I'm not trying to discount your experiences here.  You had them and not I.  I just know there are others out there that have had experiences and describe them much like you as clearly coming from a divine source... yet their direction/answer/experience runs counter to what other peoples experiences from a divine source tell them to do.  

 

How to reconcile that I'm not sure.  

 

I know there are some on this board that say I shouldn't really care about others experiences, just my own.  But in looking at the variation of other people's experiences with a divine source, it does make me question the "source" of any experience I may have.  

[mfbukowski]

I'm not trying to discount your experiences here.  You had them and not I.  I just know there are others out there that have had experiences and describe them much like you as clearly coming from a divine source... yet their direction/answer/experience runs counter to what other peoples experiences from a divine source tell them to do.  

 

How to reconcile that I'm not sure.  

 

I know there are some on this board that say I shouldn't really care about others experiences, just my own.  But in looking at the variation of other people's experiences with a divine source, it does make me question the "source" of any experience I may have.  

I still don't see why you think that a fourth grader who needs remedial math should have the same instructions as a PhD in physics

 

We all have different needs and get different answers perhaps even to the same question.  What you should do with your life may or may not be what I should do with mine.   I think it is as simple as that.  What am I missing??

[Brian 2.0]

I still don't see why you think that a fourth grader who needs remedial math should have the same instructions as a PhD in physics

We all have different needs and get different answers perhaps even to the same question. What you should do with your life may or may not be what I should do with mine. I think it is as simple as that. What am I missing??

I'm not referring to decision to be Mormon vs Lutheran. I'm talking more about the types that decided to join Heaven's Gate and take their lives.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not referring to decision to be Mormon vs Lutheran. I'm talking more about the types that decided to join Heaven's Gate and take their lives.

They did what they thought was right. You disagree. Should they not have that right?

[TheSkepticChristian]

As to how I could say these events were not chance? I am perplexed at the question, honestly.

 

I though you examined your experiences "from many angles"?

 

 

If I wondered out loud who was going to be the next bishop of the ward, and you knew and told me, could THAT be chance?

 

I hope not, I hope it was a revelation from God. . 

However, chance is a possibility.

 

1. There are Billions of people in the world, some of them are going to experience extraordinary miracles. 

2. You experienced millions of events in your life, some of them are going to be extraordinary. 

 

Read about the The Improbability Principle, or watch it 

 

 

 

 I hope someday I can receive a clear revelation. 

Edited September 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Tacenda]

WARNING! HUGE POST! IF YOU WANT TO CUT TO THE CHASE READ THE CONCLUSION AT THE END!

Well I finally got some time clear to answer this- it was a crazy week and weekend and couple of days.

This goes to the center of the issue, but honestly I don't think the answer is that complicated. I will give the long answer because I may use this somewhere else someday, so if you want to cut to the chase, just go to the end and find the "Conclusion" section.

We are talking about how one can know the "source" of what is arguably an emotional response, and whether or not that emotional feeling is based on "outside" stimuli or "internal" stimuli. I don't see many other possibilities here - either it is from outside us, and attributed to "the spirit"- but what we name that doesn't much matter, or it is something "in our heads". One of the problems is assuming that it HAS a "source" at all- and that gets us into causation and won't get us anywhere. I mean if one is a refugee who just lost their home and family, and one is emotionally devastated, is that due to an "outside" source directly or is it "internal"? Clearly most would say that such experiences, or being in a war, are not interally caused, and certainly they are not. But our ATTITUDE in those situations can always be adjusted to compensate for the uncontrolled reality. That goes back to the Stoic philosophers and remains an essential part of spiritual life, as far as I am concerned. Some prisoners in concentration camps came through the experience actually enriched for it- read Viktor Frankl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man's_Search_for_MeaningPRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WILLED TO MAKE THE EXPERIENCE MEANINGFUL. Indeed I see this as "organizing meaning from matter unorganized" which is for me, a relgious function, in fact, for me it is a godly function. It is similiar to seeing the fall of man as a "good thing" which gives the potential for human growth instead of seeing it as a disaster which condemned mankind to a depraved nature, as sectarian Christians see it. It is a choice of attitude, not a passive "source"- it is the will to act instead of being acted upon. It is the creation of your own universe from moment to moment as you will it to be.

Seeing the world as a place in which we are subject to forces beyond our control- our "brain chemistry", to me, is in the category of the "way of death" as the Didache might have called it if it was written today. Hume showed that the search for "causes" itself is a dead end, but that is far far beyond this discussion.

In other words, the search for the "source" is highly complex, and includes one's will to create meaning out of experience, and I don't know how to include that factor in this kind of discussion. I am trying to explain this on this thread with Skeptic who is obsessed with scientisim and he isn't getting it.

To repeat, you said

And the answers to those questions, while in the end maybe impossible to determine with 100% certainty, are important because a lot of life decisions or choices can hinge upon that "direct experience."

And the quick reply to this statement might well have been "No, a lot of life decisions or choices can hang upon YOUR INTERPRETATION of that "direct experience" as we see in the case of Frankl. See your experience as expansive, and it will be. See your experience as the result of brain chemicals, and it will be. You are right either way, because there is no standard for measurement beyond your attitude and your will for how to decide to interpret the experience. The bottom line is you really do create your way of seeing the world, unless you don't want to see it that way, and give up your will to things beyond your control. Either way, you will be right. You have the choice to act, or be acted upon. If you have ever been caught in a riptide you know what I mean. Death lies in being acted upon, life lies in acting in these situations, and the turn of the reality of it is in your mind. In the case of a riptide that is a physical reality, in the rest of life it is a spiritual reality.

But let's take the analysis farther, and push it to the wall.

Let's take each position here and analyze it.

Here are essentially the two positions we will analyze: God is an illusion created by men, the opiate of the masses, a view I personally learned from Angela Davis, a wonderful person and an atheist Communist who was convinced that unfortunately political power grows out the barrel of a gun and if necessary, that tool may be used as needed in the struggle for the liberation of mankind from the opression of capitalism and its religion. False "Morality" is concocted by the ruling class to opress the proletariat and CORRECT morality frees the masses to create their own destiny.

Let's assume that is correct, as in fact I personally did for a few years of my young life.

Now let's look at your question from that perspective, on how an atheist might make an important life changing decision, considering the "source" as perhaps an atheist might make the decision.

I have some acquaintance historically with an actual decision probably being made by an actual young professor, because I was the roomate of a philosophy student, as I was as well, of course, who was on the "Philosophy Action Committee" at UCLA which the philosophy faculty agreed to allow to give "input" on new hires for the department. We were aware of a student of Herbert Marcuse- who was the mini-god of radicalism, who taught at UC San Diego, who was 1- totally brilliant and articulate 2- Black, 3- Radical, 4- a woman and 5-(But don't tell anybody)also happened to be very attractive. It is my understanding from my friend that she was the choice of the PAC, and got hired by UCLA. No causation between the recommendation and her hiring are implied. I have no clue.

But this is an important decision now she was facing and let's speculate on the issues and how she might have made the decision. On the negative side, she would be branching out on her own and leaving behind one of the most famous Marxist theorists in the world to "start her own shop". On the positive side, that might have been seen as a good thing to do- that indeed she was ready to move on after learning all she could from Marcuse. She may have had collegues, romantic interests and who knows what to leave and move 150 miles up the freeway from UCSD to UCLA.

But was this the right career move not only for herself, but for the Movement in which she was involved for social change? I insert this factor as a substitute for religion because indeed both radical Marxism and religion share the belief that one life is not as important as the Movement, and that the belief in the Movement should guide decisions because one participates in a Cause of world importance- AND both of these are the "salvation of mankind"- one from economic opression and the other from the results of sin. Perhaps the motivating cause could be the cure for cancer, or leaving a financial legacy for one's great grandchildren or even as perhaps in the case of the Kardashians, "getting your own Show!"- Fame, fortune and all that comes with it.

Everyone wants to be "successful" by whatever measure they choose, if it is "being saved" or helping the "revolution" or "converting souls to Christ" or "saving the whales" or "getting married", or "having a happy life", "saving up for a new car" or "getting to the Celestial Kingdom". Humans must have goals- things to work toward, have faith in their attainability in order to create meaning in their lives.

So how does an atheist make huge life decisions? Deep pondering of the ramifications of the decision. Deep thought about the career change. One crawls into one's self and considers all the possibilities and where they might lead.

Does one worry about if one's feelings are relvant to the decision? No, they are the basis for many of the considerations. "I might be farther away from....", "I am afraid that if I do that.... might happen". "Am I sure I am including the right things to worry about, or SHOULD (value judgement) I just be logical about this?"

"Well, logically, I should probably......, but on the other hand, my mother is getting old and...., after all she has been so good to me....."

After all the analysis there still is a decision to be made. How does one do that? One deeply probes one's mind and makes a "gut" decision. She might even have a "verbal" discussion with herself since putting all these options into language helps one see things more clearly sometimes. She goes, I would argue, into her deepest place, the source of who she is, her ideal self, if you will, and asks herself what is right, after all the factors have been weighed.

Essentially, one makes a "gut" decision and decides whether or not one should "go with your gut" or some other factor. Yet the decision comes out of one's deepest self. Is that "source" just the chemicals in one's brain? Presumably yes, for the atheist that is the case. Is that relevant to anything? No. Why not? Everyone has a brain and everyone makes choices that way. Everyone has brain chemicals- so what? Even for the atheist the "source" for a "gut response" is irrelevant to reaching the goal. Yes, she concludes, she really should care for her mother. Yes, she really also must worry about her career, and perhaps most importantly, her place in the Movement.

Now let's look at how a Mormon makes a deep life-changing decision.

First, we are admonished to "study it out in our minds". She weighs the pros and cons. What will this do for my career? What are her goals? The highest goal is keeping close to Christ and emulating Him, and then returning to our Father in heaven. Will this decision lead her to Christ or away from Christ? What about caring for her mother? (same situation with the atheist, let's assume)

She goes to her Father in prayer seeking the Holy Ghost. In doing so she goes to the deepest part of her consciousness and exposes her soul to her Lord in conversation with Him. She receives a revelation deep in her heart of what the right course is.

As far as a functional, pragmatic, description is possible, I would say there is no difference definable between what the atheist does and what the Mormon does in making the decision. Both consult their "best selves" and "deepest consciousness" in making such a decision. In both cases, "the source" of such decisions is indefinable.

Weighing their internal states, their interpretations of what are "facts" and what are "emotions" as they personally describe them, both being led by their deepest motivations and desires, they make a decision.

The atheist might describe the decision as being a "gut decision"- "I had to go with my gut and do such and such". Perhaps it would be described as "intuition", or "it just seems best if I do it this way", or "it was the best choice".

The Mormon would describe it as a revelation from the Spirit.

But suppose the Mormon was confronted by an investigator with the old "How come I prayed about it and got a different answer?"

The Mormon could well respond "God leads us to him in different ways, according to our needs. The right path for you may not be the right path for me, after all there is truth in all religions".

The atheist would see the Mormon as inventing fables, while at the same time ignoring the fact that she essentially tacitly acknowledged that the explanation was "chemicals in her brain", a physicalist explanation which has no more basis than the Mormon citing the Spirit.

Philosophers have repeatedly shown that consciousness cannot be explained by chemical reactions any more than Beethoven's Fifth can be explained in terms of vibrations of air molecules caused by violin strings.

Would either be right or wrong? I see it as two different paradigms- two different realities, two different descriptions seeming to clash because the explanations clash. There is no good way to choose one above the other.

But as a Mormon myself, my paradigm includes the view that indeed THIS view, as the writer of these statements- my view which I interpret also as "Mormon" includes the idea that I have personally experienced an Intelligence beyond my own which has given my things beyond my ability to know. I ascribe that to the "Spirit" as would any other Mormon, but I am under no illusions that my experience should convince anyone else that my paradigm is "real", whatever that means. In other words, in the final analysis I proudly state that I have a testimony of the church and that in fact, this view I am stating is entirely compatible with classical Mormonism as taught by the church. My central paradigm is perhaps slightly different than the average Mormon but well within the boundaries of "doctrine" insofar as that exists.

CONCLUSION

So here was the original question

Both Mormons and atheists come to their own conclusions about the "source" of emotions as they subjectively are experienced and objectively attempt explanations for their personal experience.

Neither can distinguish "synapses in the brain firing" from "reality" when facing a complex decision. The explanation that it was "Taco Bell" that made me decide to marry Susie is inadequate as well as the explanation that it was an "external power or force" making the decision for me.

Both the atheist and the Mormon think these things through as rationally as they can, and then consult their deepest desires and their Ideal Selves in making such decisions, the Mormon calling their Ideal Selves "the Spirit" because indeed they have experienced that deepest self AS "the Spirit", as an entity outside of themselves. That assertion is non-falsifiable, and is similar to an atheist blaming their decisions on their "gut".

These are both verbal descriptions and vocabulary distinctions chosen to describe similar experiences by different people using the faulty device of language to communicate. Of course it happens to be the only such device we have, despite its inadequacy.

But in both cases, neither explanation is really an "explanation". Expectaions are part of life for the Mormon and the atheist, and basing decisions on expectations is what we do as humans.

Worrying about the "reality" of what is behind these decisions is irrelevant. And 100% "certainty" in such decisions is irrelevant anyway since life goals themselves are moving targets. This year I want to go to grad school, next year I get a lucrative job offer. Which is objectively "right" and how can I be "certain" about the outcome?

Impossible.

So ultimately as I see it, did God make us in His image, or did we make God in ours?

The answer is ultimately unknowable in this life so take your pick, but choose after pondering and consulting your deepest self including both reason and emotion because the two cannot be separated anyway.

Ultimately I choose the Mormon explanation based on my personal experiences.

I read the long version...good stuff. Tonight I came across this from our friend Kerry Shirts, former LDS apologist/scholar turned Athiest turned ? What do you think of his article about the kingdom of God is already in us? Or his explanation of that that he takes from Luke 17:21. Hopefully this won't derail. https://drpepaw.wordpress.com/ Edited September 12, 2015 by Tacenda

[Stargazer]

I though you examined your experiences "from many angles"?

 

 

 

I hope not, I hope it was a revelation from God. . 

However, chance is a possibility.

 

1. There are Billions of people in the world, some of them are going to experience extraordinary miracles. 

2. You experienced millions of events in your life, some of them are going to be extraordinary. 

 

Read about the The Improbability Principle, or watch it 

 

 

 

 I hope someday I can receive a clear revelation.

 

Yes, I've looked things from many angles.  You seem convinced that looking at something from many angles leads inevitably to the conclusion that it was all chance. 

 

Let's examine the one event I detailed in my previous post.  Having been informed that the bishopric was to be released that morning, I collected my papers and things and headed for the chapel to prepare, as Ward Clerk, to record everything that would happen as a result of the change.  I walked out of the clerk's office and headed down the hallway.  Nobody was in the hallway, which was to be expected since it was at least a half hour before the meeting.  I noticed that a classroom to the right had its light on.  As soon as I noticed this, I heard words in my head: "The new bishop is in there."  Not an audible voice, but words.  I walked the rest of the way to the room, peeked inside, and found Br. Fox (not his name) organizing some papers, looking like he was getting ready to leave the room.  I said "Hi, Bob!" and he said "Hi, Mike."  I said something like, "Well, see you up there!" and he answered something, and off I went.  Later in Sacrament meeting, the Stake President presented Br. Fox as the new bishop. 

 

I had no reason to suspect that the new bishop would be anywhere in the building.  There was no reason to suspect that the new bishop was in that room, and in fact it wasn't unusual for some of the classrooms to have a light on, since some organizations had brief prayer meetings before services began.  In this case, Br. Fox was a ward missionary, and that room had been used for the Ward Mission's Sunday morning meeting, which explains why he was in there.  Now, I suppose that you could say that it was chance that this brother had been called to be bishop, and it was chance that he happened to be a ward missionary and attending their morning meeting, and it was chance that I decided there was no point in staying in the bishop's office with the other three brethren, and what else could there be.  I suppose someone with a head for numbers could look at all these chances and calculate a good figure for "what are the chances?"

 

The key to this whole thing, however, is not that there was a bunch of chances, but that there was a voice that said "The new bishop is in there."  Let's see, how often has a similar voice popped into my head unexpectedly?  The number is definite: exactly four times in my life.  Every time this happened I have learned something which I had no way of knowing myself.  Twice it occurred in answer to a matter of what was going to happen. 

 

Now, if this kind of thing had been happening and the track record of success was 1 or 2 out of 7 then I suppose I might chalk up the few successes to chance.  But the track record leads me to believe that what I have been experiencing was real and came from outside myself, and all the evidence strongly suggests that it was from God.

 

Now, you say that you hope that one day you receive a clear revelation.  I am afraid that I must tell you, that unless something changes inside of you, you may never receive such a thing.  Keep in mind that you may actually receive something, but you will do so doubtfully, and will take it apart and analyze it from one end to the other.  You will finally conclude that there is no way you can determine if this is just some chance occurrence.  Thus a clear revelation will not have been received, even if Father actually delivered one to you.  It is only in very rare cases that He forces Himself upon his children against their own will, and that occurs only upon His great need.  Are you Saul of Tarsus?  Are you Jonah of Nineveh?  No?  Then you will not be shoved roughly into the light.

 

The key is faith.  James 1:6-7 talks of receiving something from the Lord, not doubtfully but in faith.  If you will not receive it in faith, then the Lord has no cause to give you anything at all.  Because you will analyze it to death and in the end it will be as if you hadn't received anything.  When Elder Boyd K. Packer spoke in General Conference about the qualifications for being an Apostle, he made no firm declarations about his witness, didn't describe whether the Savior parted his hair on the left, the right or the middle, and said in great unspecificity that it was the Spirit which bore record, not the words.  I heard the Spirit when I first heard that talk, and it electrified me with certainty.  I know what he meant.  Yet here in this forum when it came to discussing it, the Quorum of Doubt essentially analyzed it to dust, and finally concluded (what a surprise) that they couldn't conclude anything at all about whether Elder Packer had had a vision of Christ at some point or other.  Apparently they wanted Elder Packer to lay it out in detail before they'd believe it, or give it any credence.  But I know better.  Even if Elder Packer had done exactly what they asked for, they would still be debating whether it was actually true or not, because it remains a fact that it is the Spirit that bears record, and not the words.  And the Quorum of Doubt has apparently no idea what the Spirit is, and if anyone of them had ever felt it, they mistook it for heartburn.  Who is the Quorum of Doubt here at MDB?  I'll let you figure it out for yourself.

 

I'm going to ask you to read something.  Perhaps you will, and perhaps you won't.  It's your choice.

Divine Designs: Tracing the Lord’s “Pattern in All Things”, a BYU speech given by Richard H. Cracroft

 

It's kind of long, and while I recommend the entire thing as a really neat experience, if you don't want a neat experience, scroll down to the section labeled "The One Step into the Dark Pattern".  Read that, if nothing else.  It's about 2/3rds down the page. 

 

If you read it, based on what I have observed in you and others with a similar outlook, I will predict to the nth degree what your reaction is going to be when Br. Cracroft describes the loss of one of his contact lenses and the subsequent finding of it after a sincere prayer.  You will attempt to analyze it, calculating the chances in connection with the Improbability Principle, and factoring in Confirmation Bias, and in the end you will decide that there is no possible way you can determine whether this event occurred as a direct result of humble and sincere prayer.  And so you will be left in darkness.

 

Or will you? 

 

If you truly want to receive a clear revelation, you have to have faith.  You can have doubt, too (who doesn't?), but the doubt cannot overshadow the faith.  What do you want to know?  If the Church really is true?  Enos prayed all day long and bothered God for hours without let before he got his answer.  How important is it to you, to know?  I am embarrassed to say that I received a testimony of this Church well before I ever spoke to the missionaries, and with hardly any effort on my part, or so it seemed.  I just didn't recognize it until quite a bit later.  Perhaps it has been hard for you because the Lord wants you to want it, and when you get it, it will be that much more precious to you.  I can't say, as I am not in any kind of authority for you.

 

But you're going to have to leave the "analysis paralysis" behind.  If you think your intellect can comprehend it all, I have bad news.  Your intellect is what is holding you back.

 

Well, I've gone on at length when I didn't even intend to devote ten minutes to this.  And usually by the time I get this far into it, I finally decide that I'm wasting my time and effort and nobody will read it all, or if they do, in the end they will just not "get" it, so I might as well just toss it into the bit bucket.

 

But not this time, I guess.

[mfbukowski]

This has happened to me many times as well

It's real

[mfbukowski]

I read the long version...good stuff. Tonight I came across this from our friend Kerry Shirts, former LDS apologist/scholar turned Athiest turned ? What do you think of his article about the kingdom of God is already in us? Or his explanation of that that he takes from Luke 17:21. Hopefully this won't derail. https://drpepaw.wordpress.com/

I appreciate you bringing this up and heck no it is not a derail it is the subject of the thread

I think he's right but missing some parts.

That great prophet John Lennon had a line that stuck with me- "Life goes on within you and without you"- using that word "without" in two senses at once, it is within you but it is also 1- outside of you also and 2- continues along without you after you are gone.

 

The point is that one can be absolutely sure about what is happening inside you subjectively as long as you do not seek for an unknowable "source" outside you to explain what is within you.

 

Brian2 brought this up- how do you know it wasn't the tacos?

 

You can never know that.  It is impossible because you are seeking a "source" for an experience that is outside you, and that cannot be known any more than what "red" looks like to someone else.   It just is what it is- to you it is just red, or it is a voice or a feeling or intelligence flowing through you.

 

If you just dropped acid and are seeing things which are not there, then you know the "source" and have a rational way of dealing with the question even while you are yourself irrational.   Don't ask me how I know that. 

 

But if you are sitting in your chair and suddenly feel you must call your daughter or the old lady in your ward-- (When I was a bishop, once on a bike ride 40 miles from home, I suddenly thought of an old lady in the ward, out of the clear blue sky and had a prompting that something was wrong.  I didn't have her number and called the RS president who also had the same impression at the same time I did.  She went to her house and found her fallen in her kitchen and unable to get to the phone- how did that happen?  Coincidence?  No way!  Riding a bike you are constantly aware of what is around you- pavement, cars, dogs, adjusting for balance etc and the farthest thing from your mind is an old sister in the ward)-- or have a prompting, "sources" are the farthest thing from your mind.  

 

You know what you know and don't care about how you know it.

 

But back to Kerry whom I love dearly.

 

He's right.  But that doesn't mean that the kingdom of heaven is NOT ALSO outside you.  And that is unknowable just as it is unknowable for me to know what you are thinking or what "red" really is, outside in the world independent of people and people's explanations.   We can't know that.

 

I find it funny that Kerry had to go on a scholarly quest and go to all these other experts in ancient languages to figure out that the kingdom of heaven was inside of him all the time.  All he had to do is click his heels three times to find that out. 

 

But what if the scholars were wrong?  Why listen to the bible in the first place instead of worrying about 14 different translations of the bible?

It cracks me up that his whole thesis still rotates around what he bible tells us and that his best evidence that the kingdom of heaven is within him is the bible.   Why listen to silly scholars instead of your own heart?  What do they know about what is inside your heart?

 

But if you are looking for a verbal paradigm explaining God and how it all might "work" then there is no better paradigm than the LDS model.

 

Know God directly within you, and use the LDS paradigm for the kingdom without you- that is my advice and what I have done with my life.  Forget about church history- it's irrelevant.   It's the philosophy that counts at least for me.   I don't worry about the biographies of my favorite philosophers either.

[mfbukowski]

I betcha Kerry will be back.  He just needed a paradigm change from literalism

[Gervin]

 

That great prophet John Lennon had a line that stuck with me- "Life goes on within you and without you"- 

that would be the minor prophet, george harrison ... but one of my favorites from SP

[mfbukowski]

that would be the minor prophet, george harrison ... but one of my favorites from SP

Oh wow- major error, seriously!

 

I should have know that.   I stand corrected by Gervin.

 

Who woulda thunk it?

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

Y  You seem convinced that looking at something from many angles leads inevitably to the conclusion that it was all chance. 

 

I am not saying it is chance, I don't know. It is possible, but I can't make that judgment.

 

  Having been informed that the bishopric was to be released that morning

 

I see. How many members does your ward have?

 

 

 There was no reason to suspect that the new bishop was in that room, and in fact it wasn't unusual for some of the classrooms to have a light on

 

You didn't suspect that, but it makes sense that the new Bishop was going to be in the building before the services began.

 

Since some organizations had brief prayer meetings before services began.

 

So how many members are usually in the building before the services begin?

 

  in fact it wasn't unusual for some of the classrooms to have a light on

 

and a room with the light on means that someone (a person or a group) is there.

 

 The key to this whole thing, however, is not that there was a bunch of chances, but that there was a voice that said "The new bishop is in there."  Let's see, how often has a similar voice popped into my head unexpectedly?  The number is definite: exactly four times in my life. 

 

It is very impressive if it was a unique and special voice.  Are you sure it was a unique voice? and does that same voice always work?

 

 

 The key is faith.

 

Yes, I still hope for a unique, powerful, and special feeling.

[Calm]

 

 

You didn't suspect that, but it makes sense that the new Bishop was going to be in the building before the services began.

Except he wasn't there in his role as new bishop:

"In this case, Br. Fox was a ward missionary, and that room had been used for the Ward Mission's Sunday morning meeting, which explains why he was in there."

[TheSkepticChristian]

Except he wasn't there in his role as new bishop:

"In this case, Br. Fox was a ward missionary, and that room had been used for the Ward Mission's Sunday morning meeting, which explains why he was in there."

 

My bad, I am reading fast because I can't spend a lof of time here.

 

What you pointed out doesn't help because most Bishops had previous callings that required them to be early in the building before the services.

So chance is a possibility.

 

 

Having been informed that the bishopric was to be released that morning

 

Were you excited to learn who the next Bishop was going to be?

 

 

The number is definite: exactly four times in my life.

 

Like I said, it is very impressive if it was a unique voice. Was it the same unique voice the four times? Did it predict the future the four times your heard it? 

 

I am not trying to be a jerk, I am also looking at testimonies from "many angles"

Edited September 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Glenn101]

   Trying to convince another person of the reality of a spiritual experience is an exercise in futility. I have had a couple of them which I know were not confirmation bias. I don't really care what anyone else believes about them because I was the one who experienced them and I am the only one, other than God, who can know the reality of them.

   Possibly, probably some spiritual experiences are conformation bias, but there are others that are legitimate. I cannot speak informedly as to the validity of a reported spiritual experience related by another. Well, there is one that I can, else I would not be what I am today nor believe in what I believe in today.

 

Glenn

[Tacenda]

Trying to convince another person of the reality of a spiritual experience is an exercise in futility. I have had a couple of them which I know were not confirmation bias. I don't really care what anyone else believes about them because I was the one who experienced them and I am the only one, other than God, who can know the reality of them.

   Possibly, probably some spiritual experiences are conformation bias, but there are others that are legitimate. I cannot speak informedly as to the validity of a reported spiritual experience related by another. Well, there is one that I can, else I would not be what I am today nor believe in what I believe in today.

 

Glenn

Please share...the other night I called out to God and got zilch. I'm sure out of the billions of angels and he being so powerful he could/should have been more attentive. The lessons or times we're told he listens and answers prayers are shallow. That he loves us. Nobody really knows. They just say they have a powerful witness to the spirit, but you get warm fuzzies watching a movie, standing to sing the national anthem, watching animals, sunsets. Maybe that is God to me, it's all I get. Not my first rodeo of receiving silence.

If it's so convincing why don't the leaders say more? All they're doing by being vague is causing questions. You said if it weren't for that experience you had you wouldn't believe what you do today. Does that mean people who keep holding out are more faithful? Not being snarky here. I read a biography once of Maureen McCormick. She had a visit from the Lord, it was real and she gave it more detail buy my memory escapes me. If she can be so forthright why can't others, especially the leaders. She played Marsha Brady on the Brady Bunch. (phone's dying)