Which way did they go Joe?

[_BishopRic]

Have you ever been a "committed ex-Mormon," Charity?

No. I don't understand what you are asking here. I am missing something.

Yes. You may not agree, but I have experienced your place as a "committed Mormon," but I doubt you have experienced mine. My point is that it is probably impossible for you to understand the experience I have as an ex-Mormon...and the unique paradigm I (and probably many other exmos here) have regarding "spiritual witnesses." We've experienced what you have (despite your denial of such), and have transitioned to a very different perception of what that was/is.

I have been a devout LDS member most of my life. I rubbed shoulders with church leaders, went to the temple over a thousand times, sat in the dreaded meetings for 40 years of my life. I said exactly the same things you say here on this board everyday. I highly doubt your "spiritual witness" is any different than mine was. I have simply learned to interpret that "witness" differently today.

In my training in psychology we learned that when comparing internal events, such as a spiritual witness would be, the most reliable measure is in behaviors associated with that event. As in the example I used before, when measuring the influence of a lecture on health risks associated with smoking, the number of people who quit smoking is an indication.

I don't doubt there is a correlation between "impact" of a lecture, and results; but it makes no difference whether the subject is true or not. Smoking causes health problems, whether people stop smoking or not. Joseph either saw God in the grove or he did not -- no matter how many people bear testimony of it.

Again, you missed my point that "spiritual witness" is not a good indicator of historical events. Mormons often misunderstand that.

A question that comes up about Martin Harris and the encounter with Profession Anthon is another example. Martin Harris went to the professor and showed him a copy of some of the characters from the Book of Mormon. Harris reported that Anthon first validated the characters as being authentic, but then when told the history of the characters Anthon took back the certification. Later Anthon said he had told Harris they were fakes from the first. How do we know what Martin Harris believed? Because of his behavior. He immediately went home and mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. The behavior clearly indicated that Martin believed the characters to be authentic.

Due to Joseph's lack of credibility, I can't waste my time even speculating what really happened in that twisted story.

So two people report a spiritual witness. Is it clear that the only difference in the polar opposites of the behavior is interpretaiton? That is a big assumption.

"Spiritual witness" is so subjective, I would suggest that anybody that would depend on another's interpretation of such is risking much. When so many people throughout history have claimed that "spirit" has told them something completely contradictory to the millions of other's claims, I question the source. Even throughout Mormon history, there have clearly been contradictory messages given the alleged "prophets," let alone the common members.

I'll stick to logic, evidence, and reason.

[_charity]

Yes. You may not agree, but I have experienced your place as a "committed Mormon," but I doubt you have experienced mine. My point is that it is probably impossible for you to understand the experience I have as an ex-Mormon...and the unique paradigm I (and probably many other exmos here) have regarding "spiritual witnesses." We've experienced what you have (despite your denial of such), and have transitioned to a very different perception of what that was/is.

In another post, you told me I couldn't know what you had experienced. Yet you know what I have?

I have been a devout LDS member most of my life. I rubbed shoulders with church leaders, went to the temple over a thousand times, sat in the dreaded meetings for 40 years of my life. I said exactly the same things you say here on this board everyday. I highly doubt your "spiritual witness" is any different than mine was. I have simply learned to interpret that "witness" differently today.

In my training in psychology we learned that when comparing internal events, such as a spiritual witness would be, the most reliable measure is in behaviors associated with that event. As in the example I used before, when measuring the influence of a lecture on health risks associated with smoking, the number of people who quit smoking is an indication.

I don't doubt there is a correlation between "impact" of a lecture, and results; but it makes no difference whether the subject is true or not. Smoking causes health problems, whether people stop smoking or not. Joseph either saw God in the grove or he did not -- no matter how many people bear testimony of it.

Again, you missed my point that "spiritual witness" is not a good indicator of historical events. Mormons often misunderstand that. [/quote]

A spiritual witness is an indicator of truth, not of facts. That is what you misunderstand.

A question that comes up about Martin Harris and the encounter with Profession Anthon is another example. Martin Harris went to the professor and showed him a copy of some of the characters from the Book of Mormon. Harris reported that Anthon first validated the characters as being authentic, but then when told the history of the characters Anthon took back the certification. Later Anthon said he had told Harris they were fakes from the first. How do we know what Martin Harris believed? Because of his behavior. He immediately went home and mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. The behavior clearly indicated that Martin believed the characters to be authentic.

Due to Joseph's lack of credibility, I can't waste my time even speculating what really happened in that twisted story.

This is a very straightforward, historic account, that surprises me.

"Spiritual witness" is so subjective, I would suggest that anybody that would depend on another's interpretation of such is risking much. When so many people throughout history have claimed that "spirit" has told them something completely contradictory to the millions of other's claims, I question the source. Even throughout Mormon history, there have clearly been contradictory messages given the alleged "prophets," let alone the common members.

I'll stick to logic, evidence, and reason.

Which is a tragic choice. It has always been between good and evil. Real and counterfeit. Light and darkness.

[_harmony]

A spiritual witness is an indicator of truth, not of facts.

You believe that facts are not truth? That truth is not based on facts?

It has always been between good and evil. Real and counterfeit. Light and darkness.

By their fruits shall we know them. Joseph's fruit = FLDS. Joseph's fruit = closed temple marriages. Joseph's fruit = Mormon royalty. Joseph's fruit = racism, sexism, and isolationism. No wonder God removed him.

[_BishopRic]

A spiritual witness is an indicator of truth, not of facts.

I actually agree with this statement.

That is what you misunderstand

.

I think I understand it quite well. This is why I don't use a feeling to determine historical facts, as opposed to the Mormon way of "if you feel good, that means "x" happened."

A question that comes up about Martin Harris and the encounter with Profession Anthon is another example. Martin Harris went to the professor and showed him a copy of some of the characters from the Book of Mormon. Harris reported that Anthon first validated the characters as being authentic, but then when told the history of the characters Anthon took back the certification. Later Anthon said he had told Harris they were fakes from the first. How do we know what Martin Harris believed? Because of his behavior. He immediately went home and mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. The behavior clearly indicated that Martin believed the characters to be authentic.

Due to Joseph's lack of credibility, I can't waste my time even speculating what really happened in that twisted story.

This is a very straightforward, historic account, that surprises me.

Doesn't surprise me that it surprises you.

"Spiritual witness" is so subjective, I would suggest that anybody that would depend on another's interpretation of such is risking much. When so many people throughout history have claimed that "spirit" has told them something completely contradictory to the millions of other's claims, I question the source. Even throughout Mormon history, there have clearly been contradictory messages given the alleged "prophets," let alone the common members.

I'll stick to logic, evidence, and reason.

Which is a tragic choice. It has always been between good and evil. Real and counterfeit. Light and darkness.

In your world, but not in mine. It's not tragic at all; in fact, quite peaceful and predictable. I like it like that.

[_charity]

A spiritual witness is an indicator of truth, not of facts.

You believe that facts are not truth? That truth is not based on facts?

Facts are piddly little things that don't mean much on their own. Your husband brings you roses. You have roses. That is a fact. What is the truth behind the roses? He loves you? Your mother called him at work and told him you were going to be really angry if you didn't get roses on this anniversary, and he didn't want to sleep on the couch? He is feeling guilty about something? The fact of having roses is not very important.

By their fruits shall we know them. Joseph's fruits = the restored Gospel. Joseph's fruit = sealing power for families. Joseph's fruit = a church whose members are healthier and happier not only than non church goers, but church goers of other denominations. No wonder he recognized and respected as a prophet by millions of people.

[_Coggins7]

"Truths of the Gospel" does not necessarily equate with "truths of the Church."

Someone could go to an AA meeting, and pray about whether or not quitting drinking was right for them, and feel they got a witness that it was. But that might not be the same thing as getting a witness about the "truthfulness" of AA.

Damn straight...

[_Coggins7]

Well, that's kind of a a personal issue...

[_BishopRic]

Joseph's fruit = a church whose members are healthier and happier not only than non church goers, but church goers of other denominations.

Now THIS is a statement that if you had to play by the one-sided rules of the MAD board, you'd get called on here. I don't think there's any way you could ever prove this, and I think you know it. Keep living in your fantasy world, Charity...

No wonder he recognized and respected as a prophet by millions of people

So by that logic, the Roman Catholic church is "more true," since the Pope has more people that consider him a prophet than the Mormon president? I guess your small box keeps you safe.

I'm actually okay with the LDS church. I don't think it is any worse than most other organized religions. It gives many of its members structure and hope that they probably wouldn't get if they weren't members. I just get a little irked when some insist it is so much better than all the other ways of life, and more "true," etc.. That is the kind of attitude that creates wars and judgmentalism...and that has an ill effect on all of us.

[_harmony]

A spiritual witness is an indicator of truth, not of facts.

You believe that facts are not truth? That truth is not based on facts?

Facts are piddly little things that don't mean much on their own. Your husband brings you roses. You have roses. That is a fact. What is the truth behind the roses? He loves you? Your mother called him at work and told him you were going to be really angry if you didn't get roses on this anniversary, and he didn't want to sleep on the couch? He is feeling guilty about something? The fact of having roses is not very important.

By their fruits shall we know them. Joseph's fruits = the restored Gospel. Joseph's fruit = sealing power for families. Joseph's fruit = a church whose members are healthier and happier not only than non church goers, but church goers of other denominations. No wonder he recognized and respected as a prophet by millions of people.

Fact: Joseph was a treasure hunter who swindled people.
Fact: The papyrus is a funeral poem.
Fact: Joseph married teenagers and other men's wives.

Those aren't piddly little things, charity. They shake the foundation of the church.

[_the road to hana]

A spiritual witness is an indicator of truth, not of facts. That is what you misunderstand.

It's also a convenient cover for "I want it to be true, so I'm going to say I've had a spiritual witness."

Charity, two people can have what they believe to be a spiritual witness, and have those "witnesses" completely conflict with one another. While a true spiritual witness might exist, there might also be numerous things attributed to spiritual witness that are not in fact anything of the kind.

Including what you believe to be "spiritual witness."

Then it just becomes a "my spiritual witness can beat up your spiritual witness" game, where no one really wins.