RevTestament Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 36 minutes ago, strappinglad said: A friend of mine , an MD , told me of his experience early in his career where he had to revive a man whose heart had stopped. He had to use the paddles several times and finally got the fellow back to regular heart beats. The next morning he went in to see the guy and was met with serious cursing. The man said, " It was you, you !@#$$% " My friend asked what the problem was. The guy said that he was in great pain and then he was free of his body and in no pain floating above when the doctor rushed in and used the electric shock paddles and BAM he was back in the pain wracked body, then he was free again and painless and floating up and BAM he was back in pain. He was unconscious the whole time but from his floating vantage point he could 'see' the doctor who administered the shocks. He recognized him as soon as my friend entered the room. There are several documented NDEs where the person was under full monitoring and had flat EKGs and EEG ,at least one for 20 minutes. The person was able to recount the entire resuscitation process and even conversations between the doctors. All this with eyes bandaged shut and ears blocked. Oxygen starved brains don't explain the clarity of vision reported. Interesting. I had to chuckle at this. If we believe Alma, the guy was on his way to his preliminary judgment. In fact Alma indicates that's what all these people are experiencing - being drawn to the light or seeing the light is their heading toward their preliminary judgment. Those who died in Christ go to paradise to await their resurrection, but everyone else goes to outer darkness ie hell to await the resurrection of Revelation, but they apparently all first go to the light. That would certainly explain a certain commonality in these NDEs.
carbon dioxide Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 2 hours ago, AdultConvert said: I do not believe in visitations, heavenly messages or visions in NDE. If a person has prior religious/spiritual memories, the interpretation will usually focus on that. People with any length of deep coma after resuscitation rarely report memories of NDE upon awakening. Patients resuscitated on surgical operating table do not have NDE memories. The drugs/gasses have them in a state that no sensations or impressions are stored in accessible memory to be interpreted. Nobody has suggested that NDE are the norm. They are the exception. What I find true with most NDE is that they are profound experiences that usually change the person usually for the better. They are not dreams or hallucinations. Those almost never change a person and everyone knows the difference between reality and a dream. NDE are almost never likened to a dream. I get the view of people saying that oxygen deprivation maybe the source of seeing the "light" but that in only one part of NDE. It does not explain things like conversations with dead relatives. Nobody can prove a NDE to another. It is not like one is allowed to take a camera along with them to record the experience. One can choose to believe or not believe but the NDE are meant for the person experiencing it. Whether other people accept the experience or not really does not matter. 1
Glenn101 Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Hey, I’ve always found near death experiences fascinating. I’m aware of many Mormons who have taken these experiences to be literal representations of the spirit world or at least some kind of transitory state. I’m curious, for those who believe these are literal experiences, how do you deal with the common aspect where the individual is told by a spirit, and angel, or God that no single religion is the exclusively true church. Instead, the truth of each is appropriate for different people in different contexts. In most of the NDE's I have read about, the person usually sees relatives and often a transcendent person who they take to be the God of their religion. I personally believe that NDE's are real but that those who experience them recall or interpret the events in accordance with their currently held religious beliefs. It is interesting to note that many atheists that have an NDE also come to believe in a supreme being and an afterlife. Glenn
Kevin Christensen Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 (edited) Derl mentioned my essay on The Book of Mormon and NDE Research. It specifically addresses the thread topic. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2 Quote A belief in the essential underlying unity of all religions [Alma 29; also 2 Nephi 11:4; 26:33; 29:11; 31:3]. Note especially how Alma claims that the Lord teaches “all nations, of their own nation and tongue to teach his word, all that he seeth fit that they should have,” and Jacob remarks that “all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of [Christ]” (2 Nephi 11:4). A desire for a universal religion embracing all humanity [see Alma 29 (!) and 3 Nephi 12:43–45]. Moody, Ring, and Atwater all report that NDErs tend to say that “denominations don’t matter.” Surprisingly, this thought is a Book of Mormon leitmotif, where God “inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33). All the Mormon scriptures emphasize that group membership has nothing to do with personal worthiness or righteousness (D&C 1:30–34). Alma insists that judgment occurs in relation to opportunities for improvement (including social and cultural conditioning), not against an absolute standard (see Alma 9:14–24). Those privileged with greater knowledge are reminded that where much is given, much is expected. And this: Quote Nephi’s answer anticipates Zaleski’s grand question and her thoughtful answer about NDEs. Nephi tells his brothers that the symbols refer to both temporal and spiritual things (1 Nephi 15:32). Zaleski argues that NDEs are works of a socially conditioned religious imagination, but that the symbols participate in the reality that they represent. She treats them as “socially conditioned, imaginative, and yet nonetheless real and revelatory.”42 In Lehi’s dream, everything is unashamedly symbolic. We accept his culturally specific symbols because we accept the source of the dream as divine, and the symbols as corresponding to reality. Far from discounting cultural influence in the revelations, Nephi insists that Isaiah, for example, cannot be understood properly without knowledge of Isaiah’s Hebrew culture (2 Nephi 25:5). The Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon both claim that revelation comes to people “in their weakness, according to their language and understanding” (2 Nephi 31:3). Joseph Smith often taught that God adapted himself to our capacity to understand.43 For example, during a 1909 NDE an American Catholic priest met his father “looking exactly as he had in the last few years of his life,” wearing the “last suit of clothes he had owned.”44 Father Tucker wrote, “I knew that the clothes Father wore were assumed because they were familiar to me, so that I might feel no strangeness in seeing him, and that to some lesser extent, his appearance was assumed also.”45 Still, if we agree with Carol Zaleski that the culturally specific and symbolic aspects of the NDE prevent us from mapping the otherworld, “the otherworld journey motif remains potent only as long as it retains at least a hint of correspondence to a sensed, dreamed, or imagined reality.”46 Modern NDEs keep their potency despite culturally specific elements because NDErs often bring back testable observations of what happened around them while they claimed to be out of their bodies. Accurate out-of-body observations cannot be explained in terms of cultural symbolism, or psychology. The most striking test of the reality of out-of-body reports has been Michael Sabom’s research.47 He asked thirty-two patients who claimed to have watched their resuscitation to describe the medical procedure involved. None made mistakes. Then he asked a control group of twenty-five “medically savvy” patients to describe the procedure. Twenty-three of the twenty-five made major mistakes. And this: Quote In the current NDE literature, according to Zaleski: There is no match here for the revelatory literature of the great religious traditions; and it seems unlikely that a Gregory the Great or a Dante will emerge to shape near death testimony into a religiously sophisticated or artistically ordered statement. Neither could the medieval visions we considered stand on their own; they thrived insomuch as they exemplified a larger tradition.53 I would argue that the Book of Mormon matches the revelatory literature of the great traditions. Mormon NDE accounts thrived long before Moody’s work appeared because of the environment created by Joseph Smith’s visions and the Book of Mormon. Just as testable out-of-body observations check the power of cultural and psychological explanations of the NDE, the testable claims of the Book of Mormon check the power of sociological and psychological explanations of Mormonism. As Foster argues, the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon in particular checks the power of the current academic trend that attempts to explain Mormonism as just another movement, and Joseph as just another visionary. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited November 19, 2018 by Kevin Christensen 4
rodheadlee Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 19 hours ago, SouthernMo said: You have? Please share if you feel comfortable. I've told the story here before. I was 19 years old and I committed suicide. I was not a member of the church. I wasn't even aware of its existence. Upon reflection where I went was the outer Darkness. I was the only one there and I thought I would be all alone for all eternity. I got a second chance and I'm trying to make the most of it. I'm stuck at quitting smoking because I can't quit smoking I cannot progress any further then the aaronic priesthood that I now hold. Which means I can't be sealed to my wife yet. So it's true what they say a smoking stunt your growth. 3
RevTestament Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 1 hour ago, rodheadlee said: I've told the story here before. I was 19 years old and I committed suicide. I was not a member of the church. I wasn't even aware of its existence. Upon reflection where I went was the outer Darkness. I was the only one there and I thought I would be all alone for all eternity. I got a second chance and I'm trying to make the most of it. I'm stuck at quitting smoking because I can't quit smoking I cannot progress any further then the aaronic priesthood that I now hold. Which means I can't be sealed to my wife yet. So it's true what they say a smoking stunt your growth. Rod, I commend you for your efforts. I've read that some people who smoke take up to 30 times to finally quit. It is a very addictive drug, but some people have other reasons to smoke as well, such as relieving anxiety. You may know this but some studies show promise in vaping CBD oils to at least reduce smoking. In one study participants who received CBD vs a placebo to use every time thy felt like lighting up, reduced the number of cigarettes they smoked during the study by 40%. Although it seems like replacing one expensive habit with another, one isn't addictive (at least not very). Participants in these kinds of studies report that the CBD doesn't really relieve the addiction to Nicotine, but it seems to replace or relieve the cues that cause people to light up, and I'm sure over time 40% less nicotine would become less addictive. Maybe if used in conjunction with nicotine patches smokers would have higher rates of success quitting. Being in N. Cal, this should all be possible for you if you haven't tried already. Thanks for sharing your story. It seems like I did read it before, but I don't remember the part about you being all alone. If it helps any, I don't think you were relegated to outer darkness yet, but were feeling where you may have been headed. I am glad you found the gospel, and are striving to make a positive impact on the lives of others! 2
hope_for_things Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 23 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Hey, I’ve always found near death experiences fascinating. I’m aware of many Mormons who have taken these experiences to be literal representations of the spirit world or at least some kind of transitory state. I’m curious, for those who believe these are literal experiences, how do you deal with the common aspect where the individual is told by a spirit, and angel, or God that no single religion is the exclusively true church. Instead, the truth of each is appropriate for different people in different contexts. I'm not convinced there is anything literal about NDEs, but I do think there are some interesting similarities in how people describe their experiences. Religious believers of all stripes seem to use these experiences as evidence of a spirit dimension and/or an afterlife. I do think its interesting that there seems to be a general sense of love and not an appeal to authority and exclusivity. 1
mfbukowski Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 (edited) On 11/18/2018 at 9:45 AM, Benjamin Seeker said: Hey, I’ve always found near death experiences fascinating. I’m aware of many Mormons who have taken these experiences to be literal representations of the spirit world or at least some kind of transitory state. I’m curious, for those who believe these are literal experiences, how do you deal with the common aspect where the individual is told by a spirit, and angel, or God that no single religion is the exclusively true church. Instead, the truth of each is appropriate for different people in different contexts. Is a vision a "literal experience?" How does one define a "literal experience?" Is it an experience of something beyond our senses of some other "reality" than what we experience? Then I would suggest that there is no such thing- we can only experience WHAT we experience- so I am not sure what "literal" could mean. Any experience is "literal" from that standpoint. It is what we experience!! Seeing a mirage is a "literal experience"- because it is what I experienced. Later investigation showed that it did not predict the future experience (finding water) that I expected, but it still was what I experienced at the time. I think it is important to understand that our church is based on direct personal revelation. Some foundational scriptures about the nature of truth are found in James 1, Moroni 10, and Alma 32 and DC 93 All of those essentially TELL us to "ask God what is true and he will show you" That of course means that each of us will get our own individual answers. As I have said many times, if one is an addict on skid row and the only available path to Jesus Christ is presented by the Salvation Army, then it is obvious to me that the Holy Ghost could and would inspire the individual to become a member of the denomination of the Salvation Army to move them along "the path" So IF we are to believe in personal revelation and spiritual experiences then ANY personal spiritual experience is as "valid" as any other. One could not find the church if one believes that there is "one true church" of which one is not a member!! Think about it!! The very activity of "asking God if these things are not true" PRESUMES that personal experience trumps what we have been taught! Being raised Catholic I had to first believe that personal revelation- ie: "spiritual experience"- COULD trump what I had been taught for a lifetime BEFORE I could take Moroni 10:5 seriously! So if one actually believes in LDS scriptures what one PERSONALLY experiences HAS logically to be able to trump whatever others tell you. Applying that to this thread, NDE's - whatever they are - have to be taken as being "true" in order for the LDS church to even have authority IF the church teaches Moroni 10, Alma 32, and James 1. So we cannot consistently say that there IS such thing as a "wrong" personal experience since by our very scriptures - which say the only way one can find the truth is through "testimony"- since personal experience trumps everything else. What we actually preach is to "follow your heart" about what is true and the PRESUMPTION is that it will lead eventually to the LDS church. Incidentally I actually believe that - and so that is why I am here. But others may differ. But to be consistent I cannot denigrate their personal experience while affirming that personal experience trumps every other way of learning about God. So the idea of a "false" NDE - or any implication of that - is not consistent for a Latter Day Saint who believes in modern revelation or personal revelation as a path to God. Edited November 19, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Maidservant said: The Book of Mormon teaches that there is the way of life and liberty; and the way of death and captivity. That that is the essence of our choice making on this earth. I haven't had an NDE nor known anyone (that has shared) close to me with a report. We have probably talked about this before but but that is also in the Didache- the Two Ways- which is a first (?) century document- anyway it's old!! Perhaps even older than some Gospels. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html I like to think this is in some way "evidence" of pragmatism in the early church and that it has indeed been restored in such scriptures as Moroni 10, Alma 32, Section 93 On the other hand it may only be "evidence" that humans think this way because it works. Anyway, it is old. We have had to know what works or we wouldn't be here. Edited November 19, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
The Nehor Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 NDE interest reminds me of the psychical research so popular in the early part of the last century. I suspect it will end up in the same dustbin of history as well. 2
hope_for_things Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Is it an experience of something beyond our senses of some other "reality" than what we experience? Then I would suggest that there is no such thing- we can only experience WHAT we experience- so I am not sure what "literal" could mean. Any experience is "literal" from that standpoint. It is what we experience!! Seeing a mirage is a "literal experience"- because it is what I experienced. Later investigation showed that it did not predict the future experience (finding water) that I expected, but it still was what I experienced at the time. I think it is important to understand that our church is based on direct personal revelation. Some foundational scriptures about the nature of truth are found in James 1, Moroni 10, and Alma 32 and DC 93 All of those essentially TELL us to "ask God what is true and he will show you" Question about all this. So if you ask God whether the mirage that you saw was truly water, and the answer you receive is yes. What would that mean when your later investigation shows that the water wasn't there? I'm trying to understand how you evaluate the efficacy of personal revelation when there is a verifiable component in the equation. 28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So IF we are to believe in personal revelation and spiritual experiences then ANY personal spiritual experience is as "valid" as any other. One could not find the church if one believes that there is "one true church" of which one is not a member!! Think about it!! The very activity of "asking God if these things are not true" PRESUMES that personal experience trumps what we have been taught! Being raised Catholic I had to first believe that personal revelation- ie: "spiritual experience"- COULD trump what I had been taught for a lifetime BEFORE I could take Moroni 10:5 seriously! So if one actually believes in LDS scriptures what one PERSONALLY experiences HAS logically to be able to trump whatever others tell you. Applying that to this thread, NDE's - whatever they are - have to be taken as being "true" in order for the LDS church to even have authority IF the church teaches Moroni 10, Alma 32, and James 1. So we cannot consistently say that there IS such thing as a "wrong" personal experience since by our very scriptures - which say the only way one can find the truth is through "testimony"- since personal experience trumps everything else. What we actually preach is to "follow your heart" about what is true and the PRESUMPTION is that it will lead eventually to the LDS church. Incidentally I actually believe that - and so that is why I am here. But others may differ. But to be consistent I cannot denigrate their personal experience while affirming that personal experience trumps every other way of learning about God. So the idea of a "false" NDE - or any implication of that - is not consistent for a Latter Day Saint who believes in modern revelation or personal revelation as a path to God. The rest of this is very interesting, but also somewhat confusing to me, and I'm glad you shared it because I'm hoping this helps me understand you better. Can you explain how what you've articulated here is different from circular reasoning and confirmation bias? This is a sincere question, lest you think I'm just trying to score points. I respect you, am grateful for our exchanges over this forum, and I'm trying to understand your perspective better.
nuclearfuels Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 On 11/18/2018 at 12:45 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: Hey, I’ve always found near death experiences fascinating. I’m aware of many Mormons who have taken these experiences to be literal representations of the spirit world or at least some kind of transitory state. I’m curious, for those who believe these are literal experiences, how do you deal with the common aspect where the individual is told by a spirit, and angel, or God that no single religion is the exclusively true church. Instead, the truth of each is appropriate for different people in different contexts. In 1921, Elder Orson F. Whitney, a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, having quoted one of the relevant passages from the Book of Mormon, remarked that It tells me that Providence is over all, and that he holds the nations in the hollow of his hand; that he is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work…. God is using men as his instruments. Nor is he limited in the choice of instruments to his own people…. Outside the pale of their activities [referring to men bearing the priesthood] other good and great men, not bearing the Priesthood but possessing profundity of thought, great wisdom, and a desire to uplift their fellows, have been sent by the Almighty into many nations, to give them, not the fulness of the Gospel, but that portion of truth that they were able to receive and wisely use. Such men as Confucius, the Chinese philosopher; Zoroaster, the Persian sage; Gautama or Buddha, of the Hindus; Socrates and Plato, of the Greeks…. They were servants of the Lord in a lesser sense, and were sent to those pagan or heathen nations to give them the measure of truth that a wise Providence had allotted to them.50 At the conclusion of the conference in which Elder Whitney made those remarks, President Heber J. Grant, the seventh president of the Church—who had presided over the Church’s mission in Japan at the opening of the twentieth century—rose to the pulpit and said, I commend to all Latter-day Saints when the conference pamphlet is published, to read what Elder Orson F. Whitney said about the inspiration of God being given to men in all parts of the world. We endorse his remarks.51 Earlier, Elder George Q. Cannon, an apostle who would also serve as a counselor to four presidents of the Church, expressed a similar sentiment: In every nation men have been raised up and been called of the Lord to effect reforms among their fellow men and to teach important truths…. Other nations and races have not been forgotten by the Lord. They have had great truths taught to them; and in many instances, they have profited by them. There have been millions of pagans whose lives have been as acceptable to the true God as the lives of the same number of so called Christians. The reason for this is plain: they lived up to the light which God had given them, and this is all that He could require of them.52 Elsewhere, Elder Cannon identified some of these people by name: Zoroaster, Muhammad, the Buddha, and Confucius, as well as certain religious leaders of the western traditions.53 Another nineteenth century apostle, Moses Thatcher, referred to the writings of Confucius as “divinely inspired, far reaching, and containing heavenly doctrines.”54 Once again, B. H. Roberts laid out the Latter-day Saint view in clarity and some detail: While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of man and is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth, yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there… speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. “Mormonism” holds, then, that all the great teachers among all nations and in all ages are servants of God. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them. Hence it is not obnoxious to “Mormonism” to regard Confucius, the great Chinese philosopher and moralist, as a servant of God, inspired to a certain degree by him to teach those great moral maxims which have governed those millions of God’s children for lo! these many centuries. It is willing to regard Gautama, Buddha, as an inspired servant of God, teaching a measure of the truth, at least giving to these people that twilight of truth by which they may somewhat see their way. So with the Arabian prophet, that wild spirit that turned the Arabians from worshipping idols to a conception of the Creator of Heaven and earth that was more excellent than their previous conceptions of Deity. And so the sages of Greece and of Rome. So the reformers of early Protestant times. Wherever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom his Spirit can communicate, he makes of him a teacher of men. While the path of sensuality and darkness may be that which most men tread, a few, to paraphrase the word of a moral philosopher of high standing, have been led along the upward path; a few in all countries and generations have been wisdom seekers, or seekers of God. They have been so because the Divine Word of Wisdom has looked upon them, choosing them for the knowledge and service of himself.55 “Members of the Church,” wrote its ninth president, David O. McKay, are admonished to acquire learning by study, and also by faith and prayer, and to seek after everything that is virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy. In this seeking after truth they are not confined to narrow limits of dogma or creed, but are free to launch into the realm of the infinite, for they know that “truth is truth where ere ’tis found, Whether on Christian or on heathen ground.”56 https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2011/mormonism-islam-and-the-question-of-other-religions 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted November 19, 2018 Author Posted November 19, 2018 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Is a vision a "literal experience?" How does one define a "literal experience?" Is it an experience of something beyond our senses of some other "reality" than what we experience? Then I would suggest that there is no such thing- we can only experience WHAT we experience- so I am not sure what "literal" could mean. Any experience is "literal" from that standpoint. It is what we experience!! Seeing a mirage is a "literal experience"- because it is what I experienced. Later investigation showed that it did not predict the future experience (finding water) that I expected, but it still was what I experienced at the time. I think it is important to understand that our church is based on direct personal revelation. Some foundational scriptures about the nature of truth are found in James 1, Moroni 10, and Alma 32 and DC 93 All of those essentially TELL us to "ask God what is true and he will show you" That of course means that each of us will get our own individual answers. As I have said many times, if one is an addict on skid row and the only available path to Jesus Christ is presented by the Salvation Army, then it is obvious to me that the Holy Ghost could and would inspire the individual to become a member of the denomination of the Salvation Army to move them along "the path" So IF we are to believe in personal revelation and spiritual experiences then ANY personal spiritual experience is as "valid" as any other. One could not find the church if one believes that there is "one true church" of which one is not a member!! Think about it!! The very activity of "asking God if these things are not true" PRESUMES that personal experience trumps what we have been taught! Being raised Catholic I had to first believe that personal revelation- ie: "spiritual experience"- COULD trump what I had been taught for a lifetime BEFORE I could take Moroni 10:5 seriously! So if one actually believes in LDS scriptures what one PERSONALLY experiences HAS logically to be able to trump whatever others tell you. Applying that to this thread, NDE's - whatever they are - have to be taken as being "true" in order for the LDS church to even have authority IF the church teaches Moroni 10, Alma 32, and James 1. So we cannot consistently say that there IS such thing as a "wrong" personal experience since by our very scriptures - which say the only way one can find the truth is through "testimony"- since personal experience trumps everything else. What we actually preach is to "follow your heart" about what is true and the PRESUMPTION is that it will lead eventually to the LDS church. Incidentally I actually believe that - and so that is why I am here. But others may differ. But to be consistent I cannot denigrate their personal experience while affirming that personal experience trumps every other way of learning about God. So the idea of a "false" NDE - or any implication of that - is not consistent for a Latter Day Saint who believes in modern revelation or personal revelation as a path to God. I think this is sidestepping the question. Basically, Mormonism teaches that to get to the Celestial kingdom, you need to believe in Christ and receive ordinances by the authority of the priesthood. On the other hand, one of the straightforward interpretations of the aspect of NDEs being discussed is that a particular brand of faith isn't universally vital. This thread is about that disparity/conundrum, not about the literalness of visionary experience generally.
mfbukowski Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Question about all this. So if you ask God whether the mirage that you saw was truly water, and the answer you receive is yes. What would that mean when your later investigation shows that the water wasn't there? I'm trying to understand how you evaluate the efficacy of personal revelation when there is a verifiable component in the equation. The rest of this is very interesting, but also somewhat confusing to me, and I'm glad you shared it because I'm hoping this helps me understand you better. Can you explain how what you've articulated here is different from circular reasoning and confirmation bias? This is a sincere question, lest you think I'm just trying to score points. I respect you, am grateful for our exchanges over this forum, and I'm trying to understand your perspective better. The biggest problem that has beset Western Civilization in the last 2000 years is the notion that revelation is about verifiable facts. It is not. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. God does not tell us natural facts- he tells us about spiritual matters. I saw a quote recently that Galileo himself- the "cause" of the uproar over heliocentrism - understood this perfectly but this has never sunk into our consciousness in the West. He said something like "Scripture is about how to go to heaven and not about how the heavens go". But I have been saying that on this forum for years and very few get it. The instructions i think in DC 6 say to "study it out in your mind" when there is a factual portion, make your decision and THEN ask the Lord if your SPIRITUAL decision is one he wants to confirm. So study which college to go to, taking as long as the research takes, then ask the Lord about what? Facts of which is the "best school"? No- the question should be about which school will lead me farther on my spiritual quest. Whether or not our perception of water at a distance turns out to be a perception of something we can drink to survive is a factual question, and not a spiritual one. IF one sought out water by asking God where it was, they might get lucky or actually be inspired to find it, but that is not obviously a reliable way to get factual information. "Circular reasoning and confirmation bias?" Can you see that that is ONLY about objective observations?? YES confirmation bias is exactly what spirituality IS for Pete's sake!!! Did you have "confirmation bias" in favor of the woman you chose to become your wife??? I sure hope so!!! Spiritiuality is about emotions and what makes us feel peace and calm in our lives- what gives us psychological comfort and the feeling that "all is right with the world"- the warm fuzzies but on steroids. That is what it is about! One should not pray about how far the moon is from earth or details of its orbit- that idea is absurd. We are speaking here of emotional cognitive maturity, and Kevin is right in always returning to the Perry Plan because this issue is about cognitive development and understanding Spirituality is not about what gives factual accuracy - it is about what gives one a feeling of calm assurance that the course of their life is the proper one for them, and that they are on right path for them in emotional fulfillment. THAT itself is heaven right here, and we hope that that lasts after death. THAT is religion-not science. And yes indeed it helps us find what our biases ARE and how to repeat that comfort as much as possible to have a happy life To coin a phrase it is a PLAN FOR HAPPINESS not a plan for investigating cosmology. Gosh who would have thought that religion is about being happy? Maybe some have heard that before? Nah, they think it is about how to find the cure for cancer I guess. Go figure! 1
mfbukowski Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 42 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I think this is sidestepping the question. Basically, Mormonism teaches that to get to the Celestial kingdom, you need to believe in Christ and receive ordinances by the authority of the priesthood. On the other hand, one of the straightforward interpretations of the aspect of NDEs being discussed is that a particular brand of faith isn't universally vital. This thread is about that disparity/conundrum, not about the literalness of visionary experience generally. Yes that is the literal interpretation all right. It is about practices which lead to perfection in happiness. And what evidence do you have that people who have NDE's have perfection in happiness? Why are you presuming that NDE's take people to an "objective state" of what is "real" and not an objective state about what it feels like to die? That's like saying that "When I turn on this blue light, (create a uniform experience for a group) everyone sees a blue light" Yes you are sampling what is means to have that experience. Everyone agrees it is blue. They all have human brains and eyes all perceiving what is called "blue". All people who have NDEs are humans who have had..... wait for it.... near death experiments. All that shows is what they felt. To make your point you would have to interview people in the Celestial Kingdom who passed through that NDE like any other human experience- looking at a blue light, say, and THEN told you what happened afterward. To suppose that you can tell what happens after death by interviewing people who have not actually died is pretty silly imo. 100% of all people who have had NDE's are still alive. Don't you think that might skew the results just a little? It's like asking people what they all did after watching the same movie. Maybe some went out to dinner, some went home, some had roast beef and some had none, and some cried we we we all the way home. They all had the same experience regardless of their religious beliefs- they saw the movie But the question is about what happens AFTER the movie. You should ask those folks. 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted November 19, 2018 Author Posted November 19, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Yes that is the literal interpretation all right. It is about practices which lead to perfection in happiness. And what evidence do you have that people who have NDE's have perfection in happiness? Why are you presuming that NDE's take people to an "objective state" of what is "real" and not an objective state about what it feels like to die? That's like saying that "When I turn on this blue light, (create a uniform experience for a group) everyone sees a blue light" Yes you are sampling what is means to have that experience. Everyone agrees it is blue. They all have human brains and eyes all perceiving what is called "blue". All people who have NDEs are humans who have had..... wait for it.... near death experiments. All that shows is what they felt. To make your point you would have to interview people in the Celestial Kingdom who passed through that NDE like any other human experience- looking at a blue light, say, and THEN told you what happened afterward. To suppose that you can tell what happens after death by interviewing people who have not actually died is pretty silly imo. 100% of all people who have had NDE's are still alive. Don't you think that might skew the results just a little? It's like asking people what they all did after watching the same movie. Maybe some went out to dinner, some went home, some had roast beef and some had none, and some cried we we we all the way home. They all had the same experience regardless of their religious beliefs- they saw the movie But the question is about what happens AFTER the movie. You should ask those folks. And this is the discussion that I'm interested in having. I believe you've just cast another vote for ultimate truth can't be given out until after the real finish line. 1
hope_for_things Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The biggest problem that has beset Western Civilization in the last 2000 years is the notion that revelation is about verifiable facts. It is not. 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Whether or not our perception of water at a distance turns out to be a perception of something we can drink to survive is a factual question, and not a spiritual one. IF one sought out water by asking God where it was, they might get lucky or actually be inspired to find it, but that is not obviously a reliable way to get factual information. 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: "Circular reasoning and confirmation bias?" Can you see that that is ONLY about objective observations?? YES confirmation bias is exactly what spirituality IS for Pete's sake!!! Did you have "confirmation bias" in favor of the woman you chose to become your wife??? I sure hope so!!! Spiritiuality is about emotions and what makes us feel peace and calm in our lives- what gives us psychological comfort and the feeling that "all is right with the world"- the warm fuzzies but on steroids. That is what it is about! One should not pray about how far the moon is from earth or details of its orbit- that idea is absurd. We are speaking here of emotional cognitive maturity, and Kevin is right in always returning to the Perry Plan because this issue is about cognitive development and understanding Spirituality is not about what gives factual accuracy - it is about what gives one a feeling of calm assurance that the course of their life is the proper one for them, and that they are on right path for them in emotional fulfillment. THAT itself is heaven right here, and we hope that that lasts after death. THAT is religion-not science. And yes indeed it helps us find what our biases ARE and how to repeat that comfort as much as possible to have a happy life To coin a phrase it is a PLAN FOR HAPPINESS not a plan for investigating cosmology. Gosh who would have thought that religion is about being happy? Maybe some have heard that before? Nah, they think it is about how to find the cure for cancer I guess. Go figure! Wow, the candor and clarity with this post is amazing and I completely agree with you. Thank you for elaborating. This is pretty much exactly what I think about how the spirit works as well, that it is all about our emotional feelings about things and that it isn't a source that can reliably tell us about facts like the distance to the moon, but it is a way of relating to the world and is similar to expressions of love. This is very compatible with the mindfulness that I've been learning as well as the things I've learned about how people experience God from a neuroscience perspective. I think the way you explain these concepts sometimes gets me confused, but this time its all clicking and hitting home. Thanks 1
cdowis Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) On 11/18/2018 at 12:45 PM, Benjamin Seeker said: I’m curious, for those who believe these are literal experiences, how do you deal with the common aspect where the individual is told by a spirit, and angel, or God that no single religion is the exclusively true church. Instead, the truth of each is appropriate for different people in different contexts. "Common aspect" == you are mistaken. "no religion is the exclusively true church." == 1. They may have had an NDE, but it was not as they described it. 2. In the very few possibly authentic such conversations, they are putting their interpretation on what was actually said. Edited November 20, 2018 by cdowis
mfbukowski Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Wow, the candor and clarity with this post is amazing and I completely agree with you. Thank you for elaborating. This is pretty much exactly what I think about how the spirit works as well, that it is all about our emotional feelings about things and that it isn't a source that can reliably tell us about facts like the distance to the moon, but it is a way of relating to the world and is similar to expressions of love. This is very compatible with the mindfulness that I've been learning as well as the things I've learned about how people experience God from a neuroscience perspective. I think the way you explain these concepts sometimes gets me confused, but this time its all clicking and hitting home. Thanks Well thanks for the feedback. I need to express things more this way then- and actually you have kind of been my sounding board in looking for a way of expressing this stuff in a way that very smart people who have not had a background in philosophy could understand. Philosophy is about language- or so it has been in the English language now for close to 100 years and so the language sometimes becomes quite stilted between "professional" philosophers because they use a lot of jargon no one else understands. And mindfulness is definitely the key because what you are observing are YOUR thoughts and so one becomes very conscious about thoughts being all that.... goes through our minds on a constant basis until and unless you STOP and LOOK at the thoughts and realize that there is YOU and then there are thoughts going by like a movie. Take away the movie as a "mental state" and there IS nothing else but you! It's all you and mental states and agreeing or disagreeing with others on their mental states The infamous Rorty quote: Quote " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. All we can see or know is WHAT we see and know- how things appear to humans. They may "really" be reflected photons or atoms or... whatever- but even physicists cannot agree on the ultimate nature of reality. Of course there are "causes" of what we see but all we see or perceive is how things appear to us Repeated appearances on which we can all agree are really all we can communicate about. We call these repeated and repeatable experiences "objective reality" but think about it! They are still ONLY how we experience things. There is no reason to postulate anything beyond what we can see, smell taste etc as being "real"- so why even keep the idea of "appearances"?? If what we see is all we can know about "WHAT IS" - why even make a difference between appearances and reality?? Yes we make mistakes in perception. The appearance of a mirage changes as we draw closer from an appearance of water to an appearance of sand. So the appearance changed. It was an optical illusion. But now are we going to postulate a whole realm of "reality" that no one can experience just because there are optical illusions?? How absurd is that?? That "reality" we cannot see touch etc is what Rorty is talking about. Why even postulate that such a realm exists because sometimes we do not see correctly?? If I am not wearing my glasses and misread a word, is it because the "experience did not correspond to reality"? No it was that I made a mistake in what the word was. Maybe it was "word" instead of "world" or something like that The fact that we misinterpret appearances does not mean that one is an "appearance" and the other is "reality"- they are still all "only appearances" and my eyes were not working right for an instant. Why postulate an unseen reality because we make mistakes in interpreting an appearance? It sounds really stupid and useless to me Edit: Let me add this quote I have used on other posts as well about Berkeley. Perhaps this explanation will help. Quote Berkeley was arguing against scepticism about the world, and Locke’s idea that all we can know are mental images of objects rather than the objects themselves. That idea disturbed Berkeley since assuming that “things are distinct from Ideas takes away all real Truth, & consequentially brings in a Universal Scepticism, since all our knowledge & contemplation is confin’d to our own Ideas”2. Starting with the concept of idea as something that can exist only in a mind, Berkeley extends it to include perceptions or sensations. Each sense gives us particular types of ideas – hearing gives us ideas of sounds, touch gives ideas of temperature, texture, motion and solidity, and so on. All our ideas have their origin in ideas conveyed by the senses (a proposition Locke would agree with.) (c) patrick nickan/wikimedia (CC BY 2.5) But Berkeley goes further. When we perceive an object what is it for us? Berkeley suggests that it a collection of all the ideas (perceptions) conveyed to us by our senses. Take an apple: “a certain colour, taste, smell, figure and consistence having been observed to go together, are accounted one distinct thing, signified by the name apple”3 If you take away those ideas given by the senses, there is nothing left of the apple, not even its solidity or the space it takes up. Given this, why presume there is some external substance that is causing perceptions? If we lose this concept, how does that affect what really exists? It doesn’t affect it at all, says Berkeley: “The philosophers lose their abstract or unperceived Matter…Pray wt do the rest of mankind lose? As for bodies, &c., we have them still”4 Instead, Berkeley argues that our talk of existence is purely talk of ideas, or potential ideas: “The table I write on I say exists; that is, I see and feel it: and if I were out of my study I should say it existed; meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it”5. And from this Berkeley argues that the idea of an sensible object that cannot be perceived is incoherent – it is essential to it that it must be possible to perceive it. Thus, all sensible objects are necessarily dependant on minds. http://www.irishphilosophy.com/2016/03/12/berkeleys-immaterialism/ This has been around for a while it ain't like I thought it up. So here we have Berkeley and Rorty making essentially the same point a few hundred years apart. Edited November 20, 2018 by mfbukowski
clarkgoble Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 On 11/18/2018 at 10:51 AM, carbon dioxide said: First, in the vast majority of NDE that I have read, most of the details are far more consistent with LDS doctrine than views of other faiths. Yes there are differences but bulk of the material is closer to us than other groups. It's worth reading NDE accounts from other cultures. They really do differ in significant ways. I'll confess to being a skeptic of most NDEs although I believe real visions/visitations do occur. I just don't think most are authentic. 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted November 20, 2018 Author Posted November 20, 2018 2 hours ago, cdowis said: "Common aspect" == you are mistaken. "no religion is the exclusively true church." == 1. They may have had an NDE, but it was not as they described it. 2. In the very few possibly authentic such conversations, they are putting their interpretation on what was actually said. From what I’ve read it is a reoccurring theme, though not as common as some of the other aspects. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue.
mfbukowski Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: And this is the discussion that I'm interested in having. I believe you've just cast another vote for ultimate truth can't be given out until after the real finish line. You mean maybe like now we see through a glass darkly but then face to face? 1
cdowis Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: From what I’ve read it is a reoccurring theme, though not as common as some of the other aspects. I am very skeptical of some of these accounts, especially when they have a strong religious element to the narrative. I suspect that some of these NDE individuals remember very little of what actually happened. But they simply cannot simply say, "I don't remember" For the most part, an actual NDE is similar to going to visit a city but spending most of your time at the airport. When they return home, some of them make up an interesting story. Edited November 20, 2018 by cdowis
hope_for_things Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: All we can see or know is WHAT we see and know- how things appear to humans. They may "really" be reflected photons or atoms or... whatever- but even physicists cannot agree on the ultimate nature of reality. Of course there are "causes" of what we see but all we see or perceive is how things appear to us Repeated appearances on which we can all agree are really all we can communicate about. We call these repeated and repeatable experiences "objective reality" but think about it! They are still ONLY how we experience things. There is no reason to postulate anything beyond what we can see, smell taste etc as being "real"- so why even keep the idea of "appearances"?? If what we see is all we can know about "WHAT IS" - why even make a difference between appearances and reality?? Yes we make mistakes in perception. The appearance of a mirage changes as we draw closer from an appearance of water to an appearance of sand. So the appearance changed. It was an optical illusion. But now are we going to postulate a whole realm of "reality" that no one can experience just because there are optical illusions?? How absurd is that?? That "reality" we cannot see touch etc is what Rorty is talking about. Why even postulate that such a realm exists because sometimes we do not see correctly?? If I am not wearing my glasses and misread a word, is it because the "experience did not correspond to reality"? No it was that I made a mistake in what the word was. Maybe it was "word" instead of "world" or something like that The fact that we misinterpret appearances does not mean that one is an "appearance" and the other is "reality"- they are still all "only appearances" and my eyes were not working right for an instant. Why postulate an unseen reality because we make mistakes in interpreting an appearance? It sounds really stupid and useless to me I think I get a little lost with where you're taking this line of thinking. I can understand that all we really experience is our perceptions through our senses. It also seems clear that our perceptions are limited and often flawed as with your example of the mirage. But I don't understand how you're saying these limited perceptions and the appearance of these perceptions then means we can't or shouldn't expect that there is some sense of a reality out there. This is where I get lost. Your famous Rorty quote even accounts for this reality, by saying that "that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states". It seems clear to me that H2O exists in reality, independent of human mental states and perceptions and descriptions (language). Do we have all the data about the components of what makes up H2O? Probably not, as humans have such limited perceptions. But we do know much about H2O and its properties based on experimentation and experience with H2O. This is where I'm stuck. Also, thanks for providing the Berkeley comments. I get similarly stuck right here at the below quoted part. I don't understand how all the earlier points about our senses make it so there is "nothing left of the apple, not even its solidity or the space it takes up." I don't see how this is rational, and it seems to conflict with what Rorty said about the effects of causes existing in space independent of human mental states. It sounds like Berkeley is saying that the very existence of these objects is dependent on human minds. 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: If you take away those ideas given by the senses, there is nothing left of the apple, not even its solidity or the space it takes up. Given this, why presume there is some external substance that is causing perceptions? If we lose this concept, how does that affect what really exists? It doesn’t affect it at all, says Berkeley: “The philosophers lose their abstract or unperceived Matter…Pray wt do the rest of mankind lose? As for bodies, &c., we have them still”4 Instead, Berkeley argues that our talk of existence is purely talk of ideas, or potential ideas: “The table I write on I say exists; that is, I see and feel it: and if I were out of my study I should say it existed; meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it”5. And from this Berkeley argues that the idea of an sensible object that cannot be perceived is incoherent – it is essential to it that it must be possible to perceive it. Thus, all sensible objects are necessarily dependant on minds. Edited November 20, 2018 by hope_for_things
mfbukowski Posted November 20, 2018 Posted November 20, 2018 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think I get a little lost with where you're taking this line of thinking. I can understand that all we really experience is our perceptions through our senses. It also seems clear that our perceptions are limited and often flawed as with your example of the mirage. But I don't understand how you're saying these limited perceptions and the appearance of these perceptions then means we can't or shouldn't expect that there is some sense of a reality out there. This is where I get lost. Your famous Rorty quote even accounts for this reality, by saying that "that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states". It seems clear to me that H2O exists in reality, independent of human mental states and perceptions and descriptions (language). Do we have all the data about the components of what makes up H2O? Probably not, as humans have such limited perceptions. But we do know much about H2O and its properties based on experimentation and experience with H2O. This is where I'm stuck. Also, thanks for providing the Berkeley comments. I get similarly stuck right here at the below quoted part. I don't understand how all the earlier points about our senses make it so there is "nothing left of the apple, not even its solidity or the space it takes up." I don't see how this is rational, and it seems to conflict with what Rorty said about the effects of causes existing in space independent of human mental states. It sounds like Berkeley is saying that the very existence of these objects is dependent on human minds. I am not quite sure how calling water "H20" makes it more "real" to you than calling it "water". I guess a chemical definiton is better than a definition in words? Or suppose we take it down to defining the quarks or whatever comprise the atoms / particles etc Somehow those are better descriptions- though also man made obviously- than the word "water"? Is talking about quarks "more real" than talking about water? Certainly thinking in terms of chemical reactions one needs to know the elements. But if I am asking for a glass of water, it will communicate better than asking for H20 I don't know. It seems so obvious to me. They are all verbal descriptions. When you say H20 or "water" nobody gets wet. How you can say that H20 is more real than "Water" is beyond my understanding. There are dozens of famous philosophers who would agree- some of best- and probably none in large universities who would disagree. Virtually all universities in which English is the language of instruction teach "analytic philosophy" which essentially proposes that what is important is not some metaphysical realm that cannot be shown to exist but how we SPEAK about such things and the logic behind how we think about these issues which then become semantic issues and not about a "reality" that is unknowable Quote Also, thanks for providing the Berkeley comments. I get similarly stuck right here at the below quoted part. I don't understand how all the earlier points about our senses make it so there is "nothing left of the apple, not even its solidity or the space it takes up." I don't see how this is rational, and it seems to conflict with what Rorty said about the effects of causes existing in space independent of human mental states. It sounds like Berkeley is saying that the very existence of these objects is dependent on human minds. Well yes and that is the difference between Rorty and Berkeley and is why I often quote R rather than B!! I quoted B to show an extreme version of this view- and strictly speaking I think he was right but simply not as logically sophisticated as Rorty in chosing his descriptions of his position. Rorty is what-300 years after B? One would expect a little bit better description after 300 years of debate! Yet the position is at it's heart, the same. Rorty had to put that in there just for guys like you!! For me though even speaking of "causes" of perception violates the appearance/ reality distinction. How can you know there are "causes" which are invisible and cannot be sensed? Strictly speaking ALL we have is raw experience BUT if you can understand and accept the Rorty position that is about as far as I can hope to go!! So you think the notion of "solidity" is NOT a human perception and neither is "space"? Neither depend on human experience or perception? What is "solidity" when we are talking about quarks and photons that might be a wave or a particle depending on...... wait for it.... how it is perceived?? "Space" might be an analytic idea though- a tautology- along with words like "existence"- notions that are "true by definition" If you can think of something that you cannot see feel or touch that "exists" I would be interested in that idea. In other words I think the word "exist" is pretty vacuous- in speaking of things. If you can't see feel touch etc the "thing" how is it then a "thing"? I won't argue that one if you have at last understood Rorty though!!
Recommended Posts