MG & JLHPROF: From Whence Come Spiritual Experiences?

[_Lemmie]

IHAQ,

Thank you for a pretty much definitive summary of the MG / Choice 1 position regarding manifestations of the spirit, faith based discernment of truth, and associated transcendent phenomena that seem so central to the worldview of the faithful.

Thanks for sticking with it.

Nobody does it better.

Agreed! Thanks, ihaq-- and thank you DrW, for a great thread.

To be fair, it should also be recognized that MG stuck with it as well - as did you, sock, Themis and others, helping to tease out a candid glimpse into the Choice 1 mindset and worldview, with all the rationalization and shelf stacking it entails.

Indeed. It was also made very clear how inconsistent and irrational many of the teachings are when you actually try to live them-- the burning in the bosom during vs. the need for rumination/hindsight after, for example.

... more or less abandoning MG in what all should recognize as hostile territory.

True, and I am trying to remind myself that a cornered rat will try to bite, especially when I read mg's last two inappropriate posts addressed to me, as well as his passive-aggressive nonsense and derailing accusations scattered throughout.

Either I had a spiritual phenomena confirm to me that the Book of Mormon is false, or your assertions are false.

if I am reading this correctly (unlike mentalgymnast, who illogically got the "essence of wonder" out of it ), given the premises, the only way spiritual phenomena could be from a supernatural source is if every such supernatural force existed which would render Mormonism's uniqueness claim invalid. This brings the discussion full circle back to the OP:

As mentioned elsewhere on the board, the fact that religiosity is pretty much universal, with hundreds or thousands of gods claimed, makes the probability that supernatural gods even exist vanishingly small. The chances that the Mormon Elohim exists are even smaller, owing to the internally inconsistent and logically contradictory attributes ascribed to him.

[Guest]

Either I had a spiritual phenomena confirm to me that the Book of Mormon is false, or your assertions are false. Take your pick. There is no third option, because the creation of a different option would still refute your assertions on this thread thus far.

So, in essence, you're left to wonder. It is a world of abiguity, isn't?

Regards,
MG

With this one comment you’ve refuted everything else that you’ve been asserting on this thread.
Once again you’ve reached the lofty pinnacle of being in full and open disagreement, with yourself.

[_I have a question]

DrW, Lemmie, you are right to acknowledge MG’s full contribution to this discussion.
He has proved the key points of the OP far better than I could have ever done.

We should also recognise his perseverance, logic can be a bitch of an opponent.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

With this one comment you’ve refuted everything else that you’ve been asserting on this thread.
Once again you’ve reached the lofty pinnacle of being in full and open disagreement, with yourself.

Black is black,

except the times that it lacks,

a nuance to say

sable, noir, or really really really,

really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really really really really really

really really really dark gray.

- Doc

[_Aero]

MG,

So, where are we now? We've established that knowledge of something does not take away free will by using the pre-existence. We've also established that knowledge actually enhances free will because the only way to truly make a choice is to have as much knowledge about the choice as possible. We've decided that God could, using a mechanism he already has in place or another method, give everyone on earth full knowledge of his plan thereby removing the need for faith and giving us the true ability to choose. We've established that spiritual experiences can be caused by just about anything and are often arbitrary and contradictory. My question then becomes, where does that leave the confusing and conflicting teachings of the LDS church? And we are just scratching the surface of the logical inconsistencies and evidence against the church being what it claims to be.

I think you very aptly chose your screen name if you can reconcile all of that and still believe in the church. That was a true moment of self awareness on your part.

[Guest]

[_I have a question]

Here's a fun question too. Why is it that when it comes to MG or anybody faithful, the argument around here is that they should abandon their core inner feelings for "superior" logic. However, if we're talking about transsexuals, logic and science be damned, inner feelings are all that matters! He just "knows" that he's actually a woman. And if you disagree, it's a hate crime!

Who has asked MG to abandon what it is he wants to believe in?

MG has absolutely the same right to defend and act upon his feelings as does a transsexual.
However, a transsexual doesn’t portray their feelings as supernatural, quite the opposite.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here's a fun question too. Why is it that when it comes to MG or anybody faithful, the argument around here is that they should abandon their core inner feelings for "superior" logic. However, if we're talking about transsexuals, logic and science be damned, inner feelings are all that matters! He just "knows" that he's actually a woman. And if you disagree, it's a hate crime!

I think the difference, as IHAQ points out, is one is based in metaphysics and the other is actually being studied through medicine and psychiatry (among other disciplines).

I'll sympathize with you a bit, in that I feel gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, but that doesn't change the science that is collecting data in a cumulative manner. Whether I agree or disagree with homosexuality, transgenderism, pansexuality, or everything in between is irrelevant if the science can point to factors that state unequivocally, "Here are the factors and data points we have that demonstrate x-y-z on this subject."

When we can't even get a believer to state unequivocally what the nature of his deity is, so we can at least have a philosophical discussion about it you're just left with esotericism which is inherently unknowable to the Other, and at times even to the individual. It's a nonstarter and a terrible place from which to express universal knowledge.

It's been demonstrated on this thread that even the believer is unsure of his spiritual experiences on any sort of consistent basis, and from that we can draw that spirituality is useless when figuring truth claims out.

- Doc

[_I have a question]

It's been demonstrated on this thread that even the believer is unsure of his spiritual experiences on any sort of consistent basis, and from that we can draw that spirituality is useless when figuring truth claims out.

- Doc

I think that’s a very clear and well articulated conclusion of precisely what this thread demonstrates.

[_grindael]

I think that is at least partially the reason IHAQ observes me bouncing around a bit trying to put my thoughts together in regards to, what to me, is a rather difficult thing to actually conceptualize and clearly describe and talk about.

That was one of the reasons I was a bit hesitant to do so.

No you weren't. You said you COULD NOT describe your so called "spiritual experiences", PERIOD. Then you likened it to burning bosoms. So you lied initially, and now you are claiming something different. You backed yourself into a corner and saw how ridiculous your argument was, so now you are trying to mitigate the damage. But you could never be honest about something like that, instead, you continue to propagate lies:

Especially to those who have come to believe that only what is directly observable IS ALL that can be seen.

Are these the kinds of lies you have to tell yourself to live with yourself? I'm pretty damn sure that just about everyone who posts here believes that black holes exist, yet, we have never SEEN one. That's just ONE example. So why say this kind of thing? Because it is entirely for YOU. Science is about proving what is not "directly observable". As for your God, there has never been any evidence that he exists, and there never will be because the Mormon God is an invention of Joseph Smith as is your "Priesthood".