Origins of the institution of 'testimony' in the CoJCoLDS

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:
Well, there's not a great deal of scientific evidence to go around on this score such that members have anything to worry about. Plenty of thorny hypotheticals and theoretical issues, but no facts to worry about.

I agree. If anything, a testimony seems to be sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, particularly when you read of people who gain a testimony in the bearing thereof. It's almost as if telling yourself "I know" means you know.

As seen through your own perceptual filter, it may well appear that way.

Quote:

The emblems used here are, of course, common bread and wine (and later, water). There isn't a scintilla of evidence for the use of any hallucinogenic drugs. If so, where is it?

I thought the article suggested a connection between Joseph Smith and certain indigenous practices involving hallucinogens. If his evidence is bad, maybe you could explain why

.

Certainly. The evidence is bad because there isn't any. The "emblems' were bread and wine, or water. End of story. There is no documentary historical evidence to the contrary.

Quote: Coggins:

You don't see the intellectual hypocrisy here do you? You castigate members for claiming to "know" the Church is true, and yet in the same breath you assert:

Quote:
Today, no drugs are used, but the physiology of fasting, group dynamics, and the very suggestion that you "should" experience a witness confirming the truthiness of the gospel...all compare to the experience of the early saints.



Here, you assert that "today, no drugs are used", having apparently come to the conclusion that they were used by the early Saints in spite of not a particle of historical evidence to support this claim. But, you "know" they did, is that right? And you know they did because, embedded in a purely secularist, humanistic intellectual template through which that is the only grounds on which you can imagine such phenomena being experienced by human beings, this appears to be your only choice, even though no actual evidence exists to support such a inferential leap.

I don't believe he said he "knew" they used drugs. The bottom line is that spiritually ecstatic experiences are a known physiological process. That indeed is known.

No he didn't', but his argument here makes the assumption of such, and it is a circular augment precisely because it assumes what has not been proven and what has not been shown to be even plausible.

Quote:
I think that the idea that group dynamics and the suggestion that one should experience a testimony are plausible questions to put to a Latter Day Saint. They stand, however, as purely theoretical possibilities for phenomena of testimony in the specific LDS context, and it would be up to the one proposing such a explanation to show its rational viability among a range of alternative possibilities (one of which is that testimony is exactly what it claims to be).

Seems more rational an explanation than "the spirit witnessed to me" for some reason.

Why?

Quote:
The physiology of fasting argument is, to be frank, quite lame Bishopric, as fasting in the LDS church never, ever approximates in length or severity the kind that would be needed to provoke hallucinatory experiences. The longest I've ever gone, on several occasions, is three days, and though I felt very good after those three days, closer to the Spirit, and detached from worldly cares to some degree, nothing of the kind mentioned in the early Pentecostal period of the Church ever happened to me, nor did I expect such to happen.

I wouldn't say that. It depends on the circumstances. When I was in the jungles of Bolivia, when we fasted we would often get light-headed, and my companion had several hallucinatory experiences. Oh, wait. I'm supposed to contribute only red herrings. Never mind. ;)

Quote:

I don't know what you mean by "light headed" or by "hallucinatory experiences". Nothing of the kind ever happened to me, nor am I sure that "light headed" would describe my perceptions after fasting three days. In any case, there are some very "light headed" people in this forum who probably never fast at all.

Quote:
Indeed, on a number of occasions when fasting that long, I went to work, and, in most senses, moved through a normal day.

So, based on your anecdotal experience, you conclude that nothing like what happened to my companion ever happens?

I don't know what happened to your companion.

[_Trevor]

I'm trying to actually have a substantive debate here with a few people on this subject. Go away Runtu, you can add nothing but red herrings and personal animosity to the proceedings, as you do on every other thread you and people like Chap have ever colonized.

Oh, I get it. Well, isn't this precious. Coggins7 doing his DCP impersonation. Keep on trying, Coggins!

[_Coggins7]

The idea of Coggy actually attempting to have a 'discussion' about anything with a fellow poster is almost intriguing enough to tempt me to stand back and see if he can do it ... perhaps the age of miracles is not past?

Let's see how long you last Chap. Here are the relevant, serious points I'm trying to make regarding the epistemological basis of the present thread's critique. I'll italicize what I consider to be the most important points for emphasis:

Unfortunately, the attempt to perceive the nature of the Restored Church through a strictly naturalistic filter is doomed to the most inexorable failure. Our perception of the world is, as always, conditioned by the perceptual filters,or perceptual transducers (theoretical, paradigmatic, socio-cultural/intellectual templates) through which we perceive it. Assuming a purely sociological and anthropological origin of the Church will, of course, provide one with precisely that; the evidence will accumulate in that direction. Historical and Anthropological studies are indeed among those subjects in the humanities and social sciences that, by their very nature, are relatively data poor and of necessity theory, speculation, and wishful thinking rich. If the Church is more than an anthropological or sociological phenomena, then neither Anthropology or Sociology are competent to discern and comprehend those elements. But how does the philosophical naturalist and materialist know, through a strictly naturalistic perceptual filter, where the purely sociological ends and the spiritual begins (and let us assume, at least provisionally, that the spiritual may exist)?

If the preassumption is that no spiritual realities exist a priori, then is it not the case that this is precisely where the perceptual range of the filter ends?

In other words, the limit of your intellectual paradigm is the limit of your perception, and the limit of your perception defines the boundary of your mental and cognitive world; the boundary of both critical thought and imagination.

[_harmony]

The idea of Coggy actually attempting to have a 'discussion' about anything with a fellow poster is almost intriguing enough to tempt me to stand back and see if he can do it ... perhaps the age of miracles is not past?

Let's see how long you last Chap. Here are the relevant, serious points I'm trying to make regarding the epistemological basis of the present thread's critique. I'll italicize what I consider to be the most important points for emphasis:

Unfortunately, the attempt to perceive the nature of the Restored Church through a strictly naturalistic filter is doomed to the most inexorable failure. Our perception of the world is, as always, conditioned by the perceptual filters,or perceptual transducers (theoretical, paradigmatic, socio-cultural/intellectual templates) through which we perceive it. Assuming a purely sociological and anthropological origin of the Church will, of course, provide one with precisely that; the evidence will accumulate in that direction. Historical and Anthropological studies are indeed among those subjects in the humanities and social sciences that, by their very nature, are relatively data poor and of necessity theory, speculation, and wishful thinking rich. If the Church is more than an anthropological or sociological phenomena, then neither Anthropology or Sociology are competent to discern and comprehend those elements. But how does the philosophical naturalist and materialist know, through a strictly naturalistic perceptual filter, where the purely sociological ends and the spiritual begins (and let us assume, at least provisionally, that the spiritual may exist)?

If the preassumption is that no spiritual realities exist a priori, then is it not the case that this is precisely where the perceptual range of the filter ends?

In other words, the limit of your intellectual paradigm is the limit of your perception, and the limit of your perception defines the boundary of your mental and cognitive world; the boundary of both critical thought and imagination.

What does this regurgitated nonsense have to do with finding out when the institution currently known as Fast and Testimony meeting started?

[_Trevor]

In other words, the limit of your intellectual paradigm is the limit of your perception, and the limit of your perception defines the boundary of your mental and cognitive world; the boundary of both critical thought and imagination.

So I take it that you are limited to thinking that genuine spiritual experiences cannot involve entheogens?

[_Trevor]

What does this regurgitated nonsense have to do with finding out when the institution currently known as Fast and Testimony meeting started?

Well, harmony, if your perceptual filter isn't adjusted correctly, you won't recognize the date that is given!

[_harmony]

What does this regurgitated nonsense have to do with finding out when the institution currently known as Fast and Testimony meeting started?

Well, harmony, if your perceptual filter isn't adjusted correctly, you won't recognize the date that is given!

So October 1954 would be unrecognizable? Oh, for crying out loud. LOL

[_Trevor]

So October 1954 would be unrecognizable? Oh, for crying out loud. LOL

You just proved my point.

edit: so how you like my shot at mopologetic ominous vagueness?

[_Coggins7]

Well, at least Harmony and Trevor have made it clear that serious philosophical rumination isn't there cup of Sleepy Time (and also made it clear yet again that any kind of intellectual depth causes a kind of cognitive sluggishness similar to what a computer undergoes when it hasn't been defragmented for several years).

Chap, did you find the centerfold yet?

[_harmony]

Well, at least Harmony and Trevor have made it clear that serious philosophical rumination isn't there cup of Sleepy Time (and also made it clear yet again that any kind of intellectual depth causes a kind of cognitive sluggishness similar to what a computer undergoes when it hasn't been defragmented for several years).

Chap, did you find the centerfold yet?

Just admit you can't answer the question, Loran. Goodnightshirt, but you are testy.