Laban's death defies logic and reality

[_Gordon]

They can't convince a skeptic that such experiences do tell us anything about the world, apart from that the speaker may have had certain sensations. So they end up denying the epistemological value of all experience, in an effort to reduce "I have a witness of the Gospel" and "I am sitting in a chair" to the same level. It's a bit like (but of course not completely like) the "All criticisms that apply to the Book of Mormon also apply to the Bible" move.

The problem is trying to compare secular experiences to the spiritual. I know that I'm sitting in a chair just as I know of any witnesses I have received. However, skeptics claim that I can't really know of the spiritual, so my retort is what you have been given.

[_Gordon]

So, how does one distinguish between the two with any degree of certainty that isn't biased towards what one is predisposed to believe?

Because of the circumstances regarding it.

If I get some sensation that goes against common sense and everthing else that I have perceived in life, then I can probably disregard it with some measure of certainty.

[_Gordon]

Wasn't it Steven Hawkins, 'A brief history of time'... I remember a bit about when you sit on a chair your not really sitting on it there is a minuscule amount of actual contact, in my mind I see it like the table cloth trick, you know where some one whips the table cloth away and all the crockery remains on the table. He is trying to sound like he actually knows things on a deeper level than everyone else.

We all suffer from delusions of grandeur, the difference is some people know it, and some people, normally belonging to a large organisation where they tell other people how to live their lives, don't.
The LDS church has away of power sharing, some people need to feel important and have authority over others, the church is a system that allows everyone to feel at one time or another that they are in charge or in a position to know more or be more inspired than everyone else.

Some members just don't know when their time is up and like to try using it online or in the work place.

Are you suggesting that all who claim such experiences are merely trying to obtain control over others?

[_Gordon]

Of course you do. I am not surprised. Neither of us really knows what the body is fully capable of. If you think you do know, I would be interested in how you think you know. I would also like to know how you know some sensation is coming from some divine being? Keep in mind some of are very familiar with this subject from an LDS perspective. Your descriptions so far are nothing knew, even if less common, and so far you have given that sensations have happened during religious activities(as you might define them) as the only reason so far that they must be from a divine being. Problem with sensations is they have no meaning until we attach meanings to them. Think of someone with stomach cancer. Before they find out do they interpret certain symptoms(sensations) as being stomach cancer or maybe eating something bad.

The body is capable of far more than I'm aware of. However, in my experience, the specific 'sensations' we are discussing, on an individual basis, seem to be supported by the circumstances/actions regarding them.

For instance, those individuals who claimed some higher power telling them to drown their children in bathtubs don't seem to have had a peaceful and loving experience regarding the matter (accepting them at their word). If I have an experience to go slaughter my family for no G-dly reason, it would be suspect to me (I imagine such a command would involve confusion). Yet, if I'm told to kill an evil man to save others, and I have a peaceful experience, I can probably rely on that.

[_Gordon]

I don't think I was talking about that example, but one of the problems with the spiritual is reliability, but even before that is how one knows it is coming from some divine being. I think this one is not really thought about much, but just assumed.

I relate it to the circumstances regarding such a witness.

[_Chap]

They can't convince a skeptic that such experiences do tell us anything about the world, apart from that the speaker may have had certain sensations. So they end up denying the epistemological value of all experience, in an effort to reduce "I have a witness of the Gospel" and "I am sitting in a chair" to the same level. It's a bit like (but of course not completely like) the "All criticisms that apply to the Book of Mormon also apply to the Bible" move.

The problem is trying to compare secular experiences to the spiritual. I know that I'm sitting in a chair just as I know of any witnesses I have received. However, skeptics claim that I can't really know of the spiritual, so my retort is what you have been given.

With this particular skeptic, Gordon would need to start any comparison between the 'secular' and the 'spiritual' by convincing me that there is any basis for dividing up our experience along these lines. Essential to that would be success by Gordon in explaining what made an experience 'spiritual' - which would, of course, lead on to explaining what made an experience 'non-spiritual' and hence presumably 'secular' in Gordon's terms.

Until Gordon can explain that to me, I certainly would not claim that he 'can't really know of the spiritual', since in making that claim I would be using an term that has no content for me.

Further, Gordon and I have no problem about the other claiming [A] "I am sitting in a chair", since unless one of us starts to play games, there is no way we are going to disagree seriously about what constitutes "sitting in a chair" in the ordinary usage of words.

If however Gordon makes the claim [B] "I have a witness of the Gospel", experience suggests that he will be quite unable to explain what he means other than "When I think about the teachings of the CoJCoLDS I feel a state of strong emotional arousal."

Gordon is therefore, in my view, misleading himself if he tries to treat claims [A] and [B] as essentially equivalent in status.

[_Spektical]

You know no more less that you're sitting in a chair, than I do that I had a witness.

Just to echo what Chap said right above me: you're conflating terms and definitions. Presumably, you and I will have no disagreement about what it means to sit and what is or is not a chair. However, your use of the word "witness" is misleading. You interpret whatever bodily sensation you have had as a witness. Your claim needs to stay on the same basic level as mine.

To illustrate: perhaps instead of sitting in a chair, I say "I'm relaxing." Well, there are countless ways to relax, so a normal follow-up would be "how" am I relaxing? By sitting in a chair. My statement of "I'm relaxing" is the equivalent of your statement of "I've had a witness." Both require reference to the underlying event or activity that provide the basis for the claimed result. Maybe not all people think sitting in a chair is relaxing, but I do. Therefore, I interpret it as a relaxing event. In the same way, not all people consider bodily or neurological sensations to be witnesses of objective truth. But you do, and you go through a process or reflection and interpretation before so concluding.

[Guest]

For instance, those individuals who claimed some higher power telling them to drown their children in bathtubs don't seem to have had a peaceful and loving experience regarding the matter (accepting them at their word). If I have an experience to go slaughter my family for no G-dly reason, it would be suspect to me (I imagine such a command would involve confusion). Yet, if I'm told to kill an evil man to save others, and I have a peaceful experience, I can probably rely on that.

So what is a Godly reason to kill a child? Does a concurrent "peaceful" or "loving" experience regarding the matter elevate it to Godly status? Do we assume Abraham had this peaceful and loving experience when he was told to kill Isaac? The text doesn't have him expressing any confusion. In fact, he even lies to Isaac about what is going on. What about Nephi? He expressed confusion and reluctance at killing Laban. Where was his overriding peaceful experience?

I'm both perplexed and disturbed at how much truth value you can put into such things (the propriety of killing others) solely on the basis of how "peaceful" you feel about the prospect. No doubt the jihadists feel similarly.

[_Drifting]

So, how does one distinguish between the two with any degree of certainty that isn't biased towards what one is predisposed to believe?

Because of the circumstances regarding it.

If I get some sensation that goes against common sense and everthing else that I have perceived in life, then I can probably disregard it with some measure of certainty.

If Noah had used this method of discernment he wouldn't have built the Ark...and Nephi wouldn't have killed Laban...

[Guest]

The body is capable of far more than I'm aware of. However, in my experience, the specific 'sensations' we are discussing, on an individual basis, seem to be supported by the circumstances/actions regarding them.

So then I guess we agree that the body is capable on it's own to produce these experiences, but you think it is from God since they have come while involved in some religious activity. This is the same probably for many religious people in all religions. Would they not also interpret it to the religious activity they are involved in?

For instance, those individuals who claimed some higher power telling them to drown their children in bathtubs don't seem to have had a peaceful and loving experience regarding the matter (accepting them at their word). If I have an experience to go slaughter my family for no G-dly reason, it would be suspect to me (I imagine such a command would involve confusion). Yet, if I'm told to kill an evil man to save others, and I have a peaceful experience, I can probably rely on that.

I am unaware of whether they had a peaceful experience or not, and some have brought up Nephi who seemed confused. It's not a good example since I don't think it represents the vast majority of spiritual experiences people are having all over the world.