Why does a spiritual epiphany have to mean...

[_Coggins7]

I should also say that all competing "spiritual" experiences many not, of themselves, by Satanic. Indeed, they may only be competing. LDS would have to, through intellectual reflection and the guidance the Spirit, discern and make a judgment upon their relevance or pertinence to their mortal probation.

[_amantha]

Charity said:

As I said my post, you can think what you want to think. I think what I want to. We will see at some future date.

Pardon me, but you seem as arrogant as to your surety of your "rightness" as you accuse LDS. Hmmmmm.

or not.

I always think what I want to. You think what Joseph Smith, et. al, wanted you to. The only thing that I am rightfully assured about is that you have a fallible perceptive faculty. You claim that you couldn't possibly be wrong about your interpretation of your spiritual witness. THAT...is an example of arrogance.

[_amantha]

If you want to be taken seriously by peole who really can think, you have to get your facts right. You did not.

Yes I did. Neener, neener, neener.

[_Coggins7]

I always think what I want to. You think what Joseph Smith, et. al, wanted you to.

You see, this is indicative of a mentality saturated with its own importance and ontological self sufficiency.

This may otherwise be termed "narcissism".

[_amantha]

Unfortunately, this scenario has happened and will continue to happen until people refuse to allow others to define and delimit their personal ecstacies. So much can be gained from a peak experience if one is not hamstringed in their choices of what the experience means, or worse where the experience originates. Your freedom to interpret your own experience outside of a matrix of memes, designed to capture your allegiance, is something every person should avail themselves of. By keeping your own counsel with regard to your experiences, you become free to interpret them and to reinterpret them as guided by your own muse.

Moroni can only corner the market on your experiences if you let him. Don't let him or anyone place limits on the myriad meanings available to a purely personal interpretation of the mystery.

This is as good an example of Boomeresque, New Agist self absorption and epistemological solipsism As I've seen in a long time. The implication, that each individual can go within himself to find his or here individual, autonomous spiritual experiences, and that each of these will be valid and true for that individual, is, of course, true, if one accepts the idea that each individual spiritual experience is, in some manner "true" in a radically individualistic manner such that each individual can prescribe that experience for himself; that human beings are not bound together by a shared capacity to engage the eternal in a way that would unite each of them in a shared vision of truth and meaning.

I'm not saying that individual spiitual experiences are not unique and ideosyncratic, but that they fall on a continuum predicated upon the way the universe actually is.

The atomistic, radical subjectivist alternative presented here is, of course, whatever else it may be, an attempt to circumvent the disciplines of the Gospel that become incumbent upon individuals who access the authoritative channels of revelation and communion with deity. Such encounters, if they are allowed to move the individual toward further truth, inevitably move the individual toward the same truths encountered by others who have gained access to those same channels of revelation and inspiration.

Truth, to be a coherent concept, must be one; it must be immune from atomization and differentiation. The Schizophrenic's reality is real to him, but few would take this to mean "real" in any existential sense. If Gospel truths are actually "true", then they are a part of the cosmos; they are an existential reality accessible by all through essentially the same means.

Alternative spiritual realities exist, but the question at that point, from a Gospel standpoint, is only their legitimacy, not their reality.

Are you sure you interpreted your spiritual witness correctly? Of course you are. How could YOU possibly be wrong?

Like I said. Hook, line and sinker.

[_Coggins7]

Are you sure you interpreted your spiritual witness correctly? Of course you are. How could YOU possibly be wrong?

Like I said. Hook, line and sinker.

1. You might actually want to engage the philosophical meat of the arguments, or points I've made above.

2. You're assumption, that spiritual experiences qua spiritual experiences, do not have inherent differences that condition our reception of them, is made upon what basis?

[_charity]

Charity said:


Quote:
As I said my post, you can think what you want to think. I think what I want to. We will see at some future date.

Pardon me, but you seem as arrogant as to your surety of your "rightness" as you accuse LDS. Hmmmmm.


or not.

I always think what I want to. You think what Joseph Smith, et. al, wanted you to. The only thing that I am rightfully assured about is that you have a fallible perceptive faculty. You claim that you couldn't possibly be wrong about your interpretation of your spiritual witness. THAT...is an example of arrogance.

Please, amantha, it is quite rude to tell somebody else what they think. I know the source of my information. Study, pondering, reasoning, and finally, praying.

If you perceptive faculty faillible?

Quote:

If you want to be taken seriously by peole who really can think, you have to get your facts right. You did not.


Yes I did. Neener, neener, neener.

And your graduate degree is in what exactly? My master's degree is in psychology. And it wasn't from BYU, either.

Just a little word of advise, "neener, neener, neener" isn't exaclty adult conversation.

[_amantha]

Are you sure you interpreted your spiritual witness correctly? Of course you are. How could YOU possibly be wrong?

Like I said. Hook, line and sinker.

1. You might actually want to engage the philosophical meat of the arguments, or points I've made above.

2. You're assumption, that spiritual experiences qua spiritual experiences, do not have inherent differences that condition our reception of them, is made upon what basis?

I have no doubt that our spiritual experiences are conditioned by our reception of them. This was my point.

Are you certain that the conditional reception of your spiritual witness is absolutely and exactly as you say it is? No, it isn't, unless you also want to claim that you have Pope-like infallibility.

[_amantha]

Charity said:


Quote:
As I said my post, you can think what you want to think. I think what I want to. We will see at some future date.

Pardon me, but you seem as arrogant as to your surety of your "rightness" as you accuse LDS. Hmmmmm.


or not.

I always think what I want to. You think what Joseph Smith, et. al, wanted you to. The only thing that I am rightfully assured about is that you have a fallible perceptive faculty. You claim that you couldn't possibly be wrong about your interpretation of your spiritual witness. THAT...is an example of arrogance.

Please, amantha, it is quite rude to tell somebody else what they think. I know the source of my information. Study, pondering, reasoning, and finally, praying.

If you perceptive faculty faillible?

Quote:

If you want to be taken seriously by peole who really can think, you have to get your facts right. You did not.


Yes I did. Neener, neener, neener.

And your graduate degree is in what exactly? My master's degree is in psychology. And it wasn't from BYU, either.

Just a little word of advise, "neener, neener, neener" isn't exaclty adult conversation.

My ___________ is bigger than your ______________. I never think I'm having an adult conversation when I speak with you Charity. Sorry, just shrug your shoulders and walk away.

[_amantha]

Charity,

Did you decide to ignore the Maslow quote or are you looking for a way to skew the words in your favor?