Supernatural experiences and religious apologetics

[Alphus and Omegus]

Considering how many members here are former apologists, I am curious, in your own experiences, how much of your "testimony" was based on fuzzy feelings or experiences you believed to be supernatural in origin?

It is interesting when you read the "scholarship" of most present-day Mormon apologists, they often will claim to have a "spiritual" confirmation of the subject matter, but never actually say what that basis was.

I personally did believe in a few coincidental experiences which I as a believer thought were miraculous (such as praying to stop rain). But once I put the experiences into the broader context, I saw that it was not rational for me to believe I had witnessed a miracle. Nonetheless, these sorts of things were the real anchor for my Mormon beliefs. Whatever verbiage I could use to "prove" Mormonism was true, but only because it confirmed my own feelings. The experiences and the feelings were more true than my intellectual justifications, in other words.

I suspect this is a pretty common thing, but I wonder if perhaps I could be wrong.

ETA: I think that because fundamentalists have a feelings-based epistemology, this may explain why they are so prone to adopt and discard arguments rapidly. Ultimately, the things you say to protect faith don't matter. What matters is the feeling.

And we did such things because we were instructed to, as in the famous Moroni 10 promise:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Educated adults know that this is not how you gain knowledge outside of the context of faith. But within faith, we're taught to discard what our own experience teaches.

[Gadianton]

Considering how many members here are former apologists, I am curious, in your own experiences, how much of your "testimony" was based on fuzzy feelings or experiences you believed to be supernatural in origin?

Zero. I was very interested in experiencing the supernatural but I never believed that I had.

This might taint my response to the second part of your post -- I believe that spiritual experiences are very low in explaining what a "testimony" is. I believe "fake it until you make it" is just about as low in explaining what a "testimony" is. I believe a culture of believing spiritual experiences explain testimony and that testimony is the foundation of belief very high.

I think the Church could cancel F&T and change the marketing program from "read and pray" to something else and it would do just as well.

[malkie]

Considering how many members here are former apologists, I am curious, in your own experiences, how much of your "testimony" was based on fuzzy feelings or experiences you believed to be supernatural in origin?

Zero. I was very interested in experiencing the supernatural but I never believed that I had.

This might taint my response to the second part of your post -- I believe that spiritual experiences are very low in explaining what a "testimony" is. I believe "fake it until you make it" is just about as low in explaining what a "testimony" is. I believe a culture of believing spiritual experiences explain testimony and that testimony is the foundation of belief very high.

I think the Church could cancel F&T and change the marketing program from "read and pray" to something else and it would do just as well.

Whenever the missionaries brought "investigators" to F&T meeting while I was Branch President, I always cringed at the thought of what they might hear, and how it might affect them.
I have no evidence that it turned anyone off, but I often worried.

So I suspect that it might be a net positive if they cancelled F&T meeting - or, at least, barred investigators.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Considering how many members here are former apologists, I am curious, in your own experiences, how much of your "testimony" was based on fuzzy feelings or experiences you believed to be supernatural in origin?

Zero. I was very interested in experiencing the supernatural but I never believed that I had.

This might taint my response to the second part of your post -- I believe that spiritual experiences are very low in explaining what a "testimony" is. I believe "fake it until you make it" is just about as low in explaining what a "testimony" is. I believe a culture of believing spiritual experiences explain testimony and that testimony is the foundation of belief very high.

I think the Church could cancel F&T and change the marketing program from "read and pray" to something else and it would do just as well.

I'm not quite understanding the bolded text.

Additionally, you said you were interested in having supernatural experiences but didn't have them, did you ever have a shared experience with others that they took to be supernatural?

[Gadianton]

hmm, yes, the bolded text is bad.

I think both Mormon leadership and Mormon culture assert that the foundation of their faith is testimony, and that the ideal testimony is an overwhelming emotional experience in response to asking God if Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, or church is true.

I don't buy it, and often those who disagree with me first are my fellow non-believers. For both believers and non-believers, the framework is solid for making their case. For non-believers, it's easy to say that Mormons are manipulated emotionally and that their entire world will crash if they come to realize that it was all just DMT and not the spirit.

A financial institution I worked at had their own founding confessional -- the company values. For a while they promoted them heavily, they were framed and put on every floor; employees got these clear plastic little monuments with the values printed in gold. The values were like, honesty, integrity, transparency -- yet the company was blasted with fines from FINRA constantly, like way, way bigger fines than EP got. The point is, just because the leaders decided to market the company as literally founded upon honesty and transparency doesn't mean that it actually was.

Likewise, just because the Church and members claim that testimony of the Book of Mormon through prayer is the foundation of their faith doesn't mean that it is.

Kids from the time they are three go up with mom and dad and say "I know the Church is true, that JOSEPH SMIth was a true PWAFET". It's their own unofficial Rosary, it's a big part of Mormon culture with huge momentum, but it certainly doesn't explain to me why they are Mormon. They are Mormon for the same reason people at other churches go to those churches.

I don't think the Church selects for people who are prone to spiritual experiences; people of all kinds are there.

I don't recall ever having a shared experience with others that they interpreted as supernatural.

[Doctor Steuss]

When I was younger, angels would talk to me. After I was medicated, D&C46:13-14 was drilled into me pretty firmly, and was what I held onto for my testimony.