What are the options available to those who become disillusi

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Go back and re-read the post where I discuss my schizophrenic SIL. Her problem is not necessarily that she sees things that aren't there; it's that she can't differentiate between what happens inside her head from what happens on the outside. You seem to have the same problem, except in your case it's self-inflicted, like an unsuccessful suicide attempt.

I guess what I am asking: what does consensual reality have to do with objective reality?

Consensual reality is what's created when two or more conscious entities decide to interact with each other. I'll admit it's no more testable nor falsifiable than the theory that says you're-all-just-voices-in-my-head, but it generally solves more problems than it creates.

There was an interview on KUED the other day that discussed the concept that learning how to differentiate things that happen inside our heads from things that happen on the outside is a skill that must be learned, preferably in early childhood.

[_Ceeboo]

Sup TEA!

Consensual reality is what's created when two or more conscious entities decide to interact with each other.

Yes - but if entity A changes her mind in the middle of said interaction and no longer wants to be a part of this consensual reality, it can - and often does - create great sadness and extreme disappointment for entity B.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Sup TEA!

Consensual reality is what's created when two or more conscious entities decide to interact with each other.

Yes - but if entity A changes her mind in the middle of said interaction and no longer wants to be a part of this consensual reality, it can - and often does - create great sadness and extreme disappointment for entity B.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Yes, and if lawyers get involved in the debate over what is and isn't real, it also gets expensive.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

Experience, maybe? In my subjective experience of a material world I have seen the damage that trains can do. I have had no such experience with invisible goblins.

Ok. Good. Experience teaches you that you better treat that train as objectively real but you have no experience with invisible goblins so you don't treat them as objectively real. That makes sense to me.

But what happens when the game of life presents two competing propositions that you have no direct experience with and both cannot be treated as objectively real? How do you sort out what to treat as objectively real and what not to? To use an example, some people contend that Neil Armstrong literally walked on the moon. Others contend that the moon landing was faked. You cannot treat both of these contentions as objectively real. To treat one of them as objectively real is to treat the other as objectively not real. How do you determine which of these two propositions to treat as objectively real?

[_KevinSim]

I think the LDS Church has succeeded for many reasons, and I think that the Book of Mormon is one of them. Without the Book of Mormon I honestly doubt the LDS Church would have grown above 15 thousand, let alone 15 million.

Kevin, you may want to sit down....the Church hasn't grown to 15 million. The head of Church IT and statistics recently let slip that less than 5.5 million people worldwide turn up for Sacrament meeting on any given Sunday.

Fence Sitter disagrees with you. Over on the Meet the Mormons thread he said that if a movie called "Meet the Mormons" really wanted to be representative of Mormons, it would include the inactive Mormons and the apostates instead of just the active Latter-day Saints, since that group together is larger than the group of active Latter-day Saints. So by his reckoning the inactive and apostates are nonetheless still Mormons; therefore there are 15 million Latter-day Saints, just as I said.

What would be a reasonable benchmark for the Church to be considered 'successful'?

Just to throw a number out there, I would think that an organization that attracted over a million members could be deemed successful. I'm open to other benchmarks other people might have that might make more sense.

Also, why is the Seventh Day Adventist religion exponentially more successful than the COJCOLDS?

Adventist Church Membership Passes 18 Million Member Mark
Fast-growing church hits new milestone in 2013’s third quarter
Posted December 17, 2013
The Seventh-day Adventist Church, one of the fastest-growing Christian movements in the world, has recorded over 18 million baptized members. As of September 30, 2013, according to the Church’s Archives, Statistics and Research department, there were 18,028,796 Seventh-day Adventists worldwide.

An estimated 25 to 30 million men, women and children attend weekly Adventist worship services. The Church does not baptize infants or very young children, thus the gap between attendees and baptized members.

http://www.adventistreview.org/church-n ... ember-mark

Six times as many people attend a Seventh Day Adventist service than attend an LDS one, despite that religion only being formed 30 or so years after Joseph Smith restored the only true Church.

Is that an exaggeration? Having six times as many people regularly attending as the LDS Church has, 150 or so years after both formed, is hardly evidence of exponentially more success than the LDS Church.

For the record, I have a lot of respect for the Seventh Day Adventist organization. They could have gone the safe route and just believed the same things as all the Evangelical groups were believing, but instead they took the brave route and declared that at some point in the future God will annihilate all the unsaved. In other words, nobody ends up in unbearable agony for the rest of eternity, like the Evangelicals say. The Evangelicals give them a lot of flak over that, because the Bible does say that some people will suffer forever. But I ask you which is worse, going against what the Bible says on eternal punishment, or believing in eternal punishment? I think the latter. Maybe that's why the SDA organization is having such good success.

[_KevinSim]

Yet one still often hears the claim that the COJCOLDS is the fastest growing religion on earth. What is the likelihood that anyone in the Church's IT department is actually so clueless as to believe that?

At the last Conference President Monson opened with the following claim:
"The Church continues to grow. We are now more than 15 million strong and increasing in numbers."

On what basis, given the unwitting disclosure of >36% activity, is that not a flat out lie?

As I pointed out in that previous post. Fence Sitter doesn't think it's a lie.

[_KevinSim]

I think the LDS Church has succeeded for many reasons, and I think that the Book of Mormon is one of them. Without the Book of Mormon I honestly doubt the LDS Church would have grown above 15 thousand, let alone 15 million.

Both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the SDA have been more successful than Mormonism. Even the New Apostolic Church has nearly been as successful. An LDS Church which announced Restoration of the priesthood and depended solely on the Doctrine and Covenants would have succeeded without the falsifiable claims of translated ancient scripture.

Interesting prediction; I don't agree with it. Although I honestly don't know how one would verify which of us is right.

[Guest]

Fence Sitter disagrees with you. Over on the Meet the Mormons thread he said that if a movie called "Meet the Mormons" really wanted to be representative of Mormons, it would include the inactive Mormons and the apostates instead of just the active Latter-day Saints, since that group together is larger than the group of active Latter-day Saints. So by his reckoning the inactive and apostates are nonetheless still Mormons; therefore there are 15 million Latter-day Saints, just as I said.

When did Fence Sitter become the determining authority?

What would be a reasonable benchmark for the Church to be considered 'successful'?

Just to throw a number out there, I would think that an organization that attracted over a million members could be deemed successful. I'm open to other benchmarks other people might have that might make more sense.

Even if 640,000 of that million subsequently decided they no longer wished to participate in, or be associated with, that organization?

Also, why is the Seventh Day Adventist religion exponentially more successful than the COJCOLDS?

Adventist Church Membership Passes 18 Million Member Mark
Fast-growing church hits new milestone in 2013’s third quarter
Posted December 17, 2013
The Seventh-day Adventist Church, one of the fastest-growing Christian movements in the world, has recorded over 18 million baptized members. As of September 30, 2013, according to the Church’s Archives, Statistics and Research department, there were 18,028,796 Seventh-day Adventists worldwide.

An estimated 25 to 30 million men, women and children attend weekly Adventist worship services. The Church does not baptize infants or very young children, thus the gap between attendees and baptized members.

http://www.adventistreview.org/church-n ... ember-mark

Six times as many people attend a Seventh Day Adventist service than attend an LDS one, despite that religion only being formed 30 or so years after Joseph Smith restored the only true Church.

Is that an exaggeration?

No, 7th Day Adventism has 18,000,000 ACTIVE members PLUS unbaptised children and infants and visitors. Latter-day Saintism has 5,400,000 ACTIVE attendee's in total INCLUDING unbaptised children and visitors.

Having six times as many people regularly attending as the LDS Church has, 150 or so years after both formed, is hardly evidence of exponentially more success than the LDS Church.

I'm guessing if the figures were the other way round you'd be pointing to it being exactly that, evidence of exponentially more success.

For the record, I have a lot of respect for the Seventh Day Adventist organization.

You should, they're winning.

They could have gone the safe route and just believed the same things as all the Evangelical groups were believing, but instead they took the brave route and declared that at some point in the future God will annihilate all the unsaved. In other words, nobody ends up in unbearable agony for the rest of eternity, like the Evangelicals say. The Evangelicals give them a lot of flak over that, because the Bible does say that some people will suffer forever. But I ask you which is worse, going against what the Bible says on eternal punishment, or believing in eternal punishment? I think the latter. Maybe that's why the SDA organization is having such good success.

Well, the figures suggest Mormonism is worse than 7th Day Adventism.
Perhaps that's because Mormonism is in the process of retracting and disavowing doctrines stated when they were taking the brave route in the past,

[_tld]

Ok. Good. Experience teaches you that you better treat that train as objectively real but you have no experience with invisible goblins so you don't treat them as objectively real. That makes sense to me.

But what happens when the game of life presents two competing propositions that you have no direct experience with and both cannot be treated as objectively real? How do you sort out what to treat as objectively real and what not to? To use an example, some people contend that Neil Armstrong literally walked on the moon. Others contend that the moon landing was faked. You cannot treat both of these contentions as objectively real. To treat one of them as objectively real is to treat the other as objectively not real. How do you determine which of these two propositions to treat as objectively real?

Look, when it comes to living my life, I am really no different than anyone else. I generally do not stop to ask the question, regarding what I am experiencing, whether it is subjective or objective. To me, it is all very real. The only difference, if there is any, is that as I have tried to understand what the source of my conscious experiences might be it has made no sense that my brain, which is part of my conscious experience, could be the source of my conscious experience. And so I continue my search for the source. It could be that I am living in a virtual reality, and there is some advanced source that is in some way providing me with my experiences, or my consciousness may be generating it in some way. What is clear to me, at least right now, is that my experiences do not have as their source an objective material world. Most others, apparently, have figured all of this out differently.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Over the past 2 months, my Dad had a heart attack, and I flew out to CA to take care of him. Thank God, he recovered, and is now home, after a 6 week stay at a physical therapy facility. During the time that I nearly lost him, my best friend died of a rare disease called MSA, which affects the cerebellum. My uncle, also just recently died of lung cancer.

My friend was not a member of the LDS Church. However, she did have a very strong belief in God, and was very religious.

My uncle was baptized, but extremely inactive, and later disavowed his association with the Church, claiming that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a fraud.

I received peace and comfort with the passing of both of these people who I loved dearly. I received very clear visions of both my friend, and my uncle being hugged and greeted by family who had passed before them.

My personal feeling is that there is something on the other side, and there is a tremendous amount that we don't know, and won't know until we get there. The important thing is to love each other and treasure our relationships here.