beastie: Persinger’s induced experiences aren’t what I’m talking about.
charity: No, you are also relying on meditating monks. That isn't the kind of experience I am referencing to at all, so it is not comparable.
And how in the world would you know that? By definition, mystical, numinous events are not accessible for comparison.
Oh, I forgot. You’re LDS, that means your spiritual confirmation is right, so monks cannot possibly provide information about the state of the brain during numinous events.
This conversation is pointless, isn’t it?
charity: Not at all. YOu have never asked me about any times I have misinterpreted something that I figured out later. But it never involved denying the inspiration or the witness. It was a thunk on the forehead of why I didn't understand the meaning. I have never said, oh, well, it was probably just a random brain chemical event.
Who said anything about a “random brain chemical event”?
Moreover, I do not deny the experience, I never have. I simply understand it differently.
In your world, that could never, never happen.
charity: I have studied the brain only a little more than the graduate level study of neurology that we did. You ever read Oliver Sachs "The Man Who Thought His Wife Was A Hat?"
Yes. So you do have some familiarity with the topic. Why then are you so dismissive to the power of the brain to create reality? You call it “random brain chemical events”.
beastie: Moreover, I never said that I “easily” dismissed it. In fact, I have stated that I stayed in the church long past the time I could intellectually believe due to the strength of this experience.
charity: Spiritual witnesses are not "intellectual" events.
I never said it was. Please reread what I said.
charity: The still small voice comes as a thought, as an idea, as a question, as a feeling of peace and assurance. It is a very quiet experience. I will not speak for others as what kinds of strong spiritual witnesses can be. For me, I have hd several, a couple of them so sacred I will not talk about them in public, only with family and close friends in the temple. But my testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith was like a giant illuminating explosion. I did not perceive it located in the brain or in the heart. It was as though my whole body had become filled with light. The feeling lasted for probably no moire than 30-60 seconds, and then the light faded as you would experience a light with a dimmer switch. But the feeling of light persisted for a long time. And since that time I have had similar reconfirmations of the truth of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet. Those have certainly not been quiet events, ideas, questions, a feeling of peace and assurance.
Yes, this is what I thought you likely meant. The still small voice is a quiet experience, a thought, an idea, a question, a feeling of peace and assurance. And you, and church leaders, tell members that this experience can provide a more than adequate basis for a testimony.
After defining the still small voice, are you still going to pretend that it’s simply not possible to equate these experiences with other, natural, life experiences?
I have shared my Book of Mormon experience many times, but I will share it once more for your benefit.
The missionaries gave me a Book of Mormon at our first meeting, and by our second discussion, I had already read half of it. Since they hadn’t been able to actually give the discussion the first time, since we were arguing with them so much, they gave it at this second meeting and taught me to pray with the LDS formula. They told me about Joseph Smith, the first vision, the translation of the Book of Mormon, and told me to ask God if these things were true.
So that night, laying in my dark dormitory room with my roommate sleeping in the same room, I silently prayed to God: “Is the Book of Mormon the word of God”? I know the exact words I used because I wrote it in my journal.
Immediately, I felt as if I had been suddenly plugged in an electrical current of light and ecstasy. I didn’t open my eyes, but I felt bathed in light, I felt as if every cell of my body suddenly came alive and were all glowing in the light. I’m not sure how long it lasted, probably only a minute or two. I had no doubt that God had just answered my prayer. It was a remarkable experience.
The next night I again prayed, this time asking: “Was Joseph Smith a true prophet of God?” No answer. None. Nothing but the dark night. I had been so confident, so certain that God would readily answer me again. I despaired. I instinctively realized that the Book of Mormon being the “word of God” and Joseph Smith being a true prophet called to restore a church were two different issues. The missionaries had told me to pray about each of them. I had no doubt that God had answered my prayer about the Book of Mormon, but I also had no doubt he had not answered my prayer about Joseph Smith.
I was very upset and sad. I wanted so much to feel God in my life. So I called my sister, who had previously joined the church, and talked about my experience. She convinced me that if the Book of Mormon were the word of God, then the rest of it had to be true, too. I felt very good talking to her, more like the still small voice experience. I decided to be baptized then and there.
Believing that the answer to my prayer meant yes to everything worked for me until I began to read more about church history. I began to doubt Joseph Smith’ calling to restore the church. I was troubled by his behavior. I decided that it was time to get a testimony of Joseph Smith in specific. When it became obvious God was NOT going to affirm to me that Joseph Smith had been a true prophet, I began to wonder if he was a fallen prophet. Maybe God had called him to translate the Book of Mormon and he then over-reached and did other things, claiming God gave him that authority, too, but He didn’t. So I began to ask slightly different questions, like “is the CoJCoLDS the one true church with the sole priesthood authority”? I tried to be as specific as possible, giving God every opportunity to somehow salvage my faith.
beastie: I know, from my years in the church, that what I experienced was unique in that it was quite specific and powerful. The vast majority of believers had no such experience, and rather believed due to the sort of emotions that some also experience during a moving movie.
charity: And now who is trying to tell people what kind of experiences they had?
I did not try to tell people what kind of experience they had,
I asked them. When my faith was wavering, I asked every member of my ward I felt comfortable enough to talk to about my doubts how they knew Joseph Smith was a true prophet. To a person, they all told me the generic “feel good” type of story. Not one had a distinct, numinous experience.
And why should that matter? The still small voice can also provide an adequate testimony.
beastie: I don’t care what word you use, your meaning is clear. If they interpret that experience as meaning that their path to God is “the path”, then they have misinterpreted their experience. Or it came from Satan.
charity: Absolutely not true. I think people can receive witnesses to the truth they need at that time. I don't think everyone needs to join the Church at this very moment.
Maybe it’s you who has just received “the truth you need at this time”.
beastie: I know you’re not making any of this up. You are simply repeating what you’ve been taught by those you are convinced speak for God.
charity: Thanks for that little piece of condescension. And of course, you are simply repeating what you have been told by the secular humanist culture.
You were the one who asserted you weren’t making this stuff up, why is it now condescending to agree?
