What constitutes proof?

[_Ten Bear]

Interesting thought. Did you think that one up yourself, or did someone tell you to think that way?

I'm not sure but I do know I started doing it with seriousness when I contacted God and felt awe at meeting something way beyond me.

I was just wondering, while you got him on line there, you wouldn't mind giving him a message for me, would you? ..... I mean after that euphorique "awe" subsides and you get your wits about you.

[_BishopRic]

I've been thinking about this lately -- in matters of religion and elsewhere, there is always the question of certainty, knowledge...and the proof that one needs to make a conclusion. What is absolute proof?

As an eye doctor, I can assure you that vision can be decevieng. The eyes are good, and generally trustworthy, but not always. So if one says "I saw it with my own eyes," it may be 99.9 % "proof" that it happened, but not 100% I'm sure the same can be said for the other senses.

We often hear about "spiritual witness." Charity frequently promotes her claim that she has had "witness" that gives her enough proof to say she "knows the church is true." Nehor talks to God -- and I assume hears back, so he (I assume) claims that this is enough proof that he "knows" God exists. And so on.

So one question I have is, what is a spiritual witness? Charity often insists it is not a feeling. What sense, or senses, are used to receive this witness? Why is it so vaguely defined? And why does it seem to be so diverse, even among Mormons. I know that for the first 40 years of my life, I claimed to have received this witness, but I interpret what it was differently today. But maybe I was/am just wrong!

One reason I'm a bit more curious than normal is that I was reading the recent Sunstone presentation by Dr. Robert Beckstead regarding the possible use of hallucinogens by Joseph to induce visions:

http://www.mormonelixirs.org/assets/pdf ... shroom.pdf

...and thought about the possibility that many of us misinterpret what our brain "sees" at times for reality. Perhaps in a dream state, we have an experience that is so real, then later when we try to re-construct it, we create a dramatic event that we could swear was real....

Your thoughts?

Why all the effort to try to explain Joseph Smith's visions to fit within some kind of complicated model? Is there any evidence he actually used hallucinogens?

From where I sit, Joseph Smith was a fraud (pious or otherwise). One of a long list of religious frauds who discovered that they can use religion and their pipeline to God to get power, into people's wallets, and into women's bloomers.

To me, that is the simplest AND most plausible AND most likely explanation.

You may be right, and I really have no dog in the fight about this, but I found his presentation compelling -- not so much Joseph Smith's personal visions, but the possibility that he administered hallucinogens as part of the sacrament at various times. The Kirtland temple reported experiences are consistent with hallucinogenic visions, and actually, there appears to be some evidence that he did use datura, peyote and other roots at various times in the transdermal "consecrated oil." It was quite common in the day, and in his area. There is also evidence that he was trained in the use of them by some local Native Medicine men.

Anyway, if you're interested, read the paper. He may be wrong, but it actually explains quite a bit about the visionary events of his time -- and there was a sudden halt in the experiences after his death.

[_BishopRic]

“What is real. How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. This is the world that you know. The world as it was at the end of the twentieth century. It exists now only as part of a neural-interactive simulation that we call the Matrix. You've been living in a dream world, Neo. This is the world as it exists today.... Welcome to the Desert of the Real."

[from "The Matrix", Morpheus explains the Matrix to Neo]

[/quote]

I love the Matrix -- and it really teaches some interesting truths, I think!

[_The Nehor]

Interesting thought. Did you think that one up yourself, or did someone tell you to think that way?

I'm not sure but I do know I started doing it with seriousness when I contacted God and felt awe at meeting something way beyond me.

I was just wondering, while you got him on line there, you wouldn't mind giving him a message for me, would you? ..... I mean after that euphorique "awe" subsides and you get your wits about you.

Depends on the message. However being omniscient and all he already knows about it.

[_Ten Bear]

I was just wondering, while you got him on line there, you wouldn't mind giving him a message for me, would you? ..... I mean after that euphorique "awe" subsides and you get your wits about you.

Depends on the message. However being omniscient and all he already knows about it.

Tell him/her/it that he/she doesn't have to be afraid of me. I've been praying to him/her for over 40 years and he/she seems to be avoiding me. Now, I know it's not because I'm a bad person and I need to be shunned. So I figure he/she is just afraid of me.

Oh, and in case the question comes up, yes, I've been listening.

[_The Nehor]

Tell him/her/it that he/she doesn't have to be afraid of me. I've been praying to him/her for over 40 years and he/she seems to be avoiding me. Now, I know it's not because I'm a bad person and I need to be shunned. So I figure he/she is just afraid of me.

Oh, and in case the question comes up, yes, I've been listening.

Okay.

[_JAK]

I think it falls under a sixth sense. The word feeling is used because the English (and most other languages) have no closer description. I really think LDS should come up with a vocabulary for different kinds of experiences.

Frangelations, Dipsoborf, Wenallate. Just throwing out ideas. ;)

....Self-Delusionations, Credulisity, Lemmingence just to add a few.

Exactly

Can we add hallucination, fallacy, lie, speciousness, chicanery, pipe dream, amphibology, prevarication, sophistry, speciousness, deceptiveness, misrepresentation, reverie, and maybe a few more?

JAK

[_Scottie]

I have heard it postulated that some people are born with a much greater ability to sense spiritual phenomena. These are the mystics. If that's true, and if it's also true that a spiritual witness is the God-designed method of obtaining and verifying truth, all I can say is that it's incredibly unfair.

I "tried my guts out" for a long time in an effort to get that feeling, and what I got didn't come anywhere close to the 'witness' that is spoken of by some people. It was no more than the good feeling that comes on many other occasions, and I'm quite certain that it was self-generated.

I think you are right.

I believe that there are certain people that are genetically predisposed to feel heightened spiritual experiences.

I compare it to depression. There are certain people who are born with a genetic chemical imbalance that can cause clinical depression. Now, I get sad every so often, but I have never felt anything close to what a clinically depressed person must feel.

Just as I have never felt this kind of burning spiritual witness that is so much more powerful than just a good feeling.

[_Scottie]

Where do we get the idea that the Gospel is simple?

When was the last time you went to F&T meeting??

You haven't heard time and time again, "I love the gospel. It's so simple!"

Whenever someone says this to me, I respond with "No it's not, it's actually quite needlessly complex."

[_Scottie]

My experiences would have to be classified under a sixth sense also, because no emotion is what I experienced.

Charity, how would you, personally, define the difference between revelation and emotion?

That's easy. Revelation is knowledge which originates externally. Emotion is an internally generated mental state.

But it is experienced internally. That is the ONLY way humans perceive anything. Studies show that when the brain is triggered by an event, it reacts exactly the same way, whether it happened "outside" or "inside."

So, the real question for you is "how do you know the experience originates externally?"

How do you know you see a mountain or hear a drum? Of course, everything is experienced internally. Our "experience" does not extend even a miilimeter outside our own skin. But even though it is ALL in our brains, we experience some things as externally generated events. But you can see and hear. Those who have learned to "listen" can receive spiritual experiences in the same way.

How do you know what you see originates externally?

So you are pulling The Matrix card here?