Testing Stuff

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _stemelbow »

just me wrote:It seems to me that the church has lots of caveats and work arounds for tough cases.

But, the whole "promise" is rigged from the get go.

First step: Pray with faith and pure intent. So, you have to actually have faith that it is true before you pray for the witness in order for it to work.

Now, if that doesn't work you will probably be told to give it some more time because God doesn't work on your time table. Keep praying. Throw some fasting in there. Petition the Lord with all your might, mind and strength. Pester the crap out of him.

If that doesn't work you will probably be told to just test the word. Follow all the commandments and see what happens. In order to gain a testimony of tithing, pay tithing. To gain a testimony of keeping the Sabbath day holy, go to all 3 blocks on Sunday. To gain a testimony of the WoW, follow the WoW. Keep reading the Book of Mormon every single day.
We could also add in here to make sure you are free from sin (LOL). Make sure all major sins have been repented of, talk to the bishop or whatever you need to get pure before the Lord.

By this time you have become a tithe paying, full fledged member of the church. It ends up not being all that important that you receive the witness after all. God's time ain't your time so don't expect him to give up a witness to every Tom, Dick and Harry that asks for one.

I may be slightly sarcastic with this post, however this is the jist of what is taught at church in my experience.


Its for people to decide as to how far they go with it. I don't know if there could possibly be a better method.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _Buffalo »

Unfortunately, Christian and Mormon theology poisons the well for rational inquiry. They like to claim that seeing miracles isn't a valid conversion tool, that you can't be converted by seeing one, you have to have faith first. Bullocks. Show me an unambiguous, verified miracle, and I WILL believe, and be as devout as I can be.

Saying you have to have faith first is a way of shutting down rational inquiry before it starts.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _stemelbow »

Buffalo wrote:Unfortunately, Christian and Mormon theology poisons the well for rational inquiry. They like to claim that seeing miracles isn't a valid conversion tool, that you can't be converted by seeing one, you have to have faith first.


Who says that? Its more like, at least in my experience, the miracles will come after faith is employed, not that miracles themselves can't convert. Indeed the scriptures are replete with cases of people's conversions upon seeing miracles.

Bullocks. Show me an unambiguous, verified miracle, and I WILL believe, and be as devout as I can be.


Good to know.

Saying you have to have faith first is a way of shutting down rational inquiry before it starts.


Additional qualifications thrown on prayer are helpful. They explain why it doesn't just work for everyone. It takes effort...at least it has for me.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _Themis »

stemelbow wrote:That's am assumptions I just can't buy, Themis.


I understand that you do not buy it, but how can some method give realible information if you cannot even put it into words. Now I understand this because I used to think and say the same things as a way to get around the hard questions.

So the LDS position is this (it seems): Pray and see if God will "show" you truth.

It seems apparent to me many don't find that an adequate way to determine truth.


You can't even describe how it is an adequate way to determine truth.

But how are the tools (scientific method and such) developed to figure out that which we can see, or detect going to translate to determine the existence of something we can't see or detect, like God?


The same way science has discovered many things we canot see or detect at one time. Science is reapeatable. You used carbon dating as an example, which is very realiable. Now anyone can learn how to use it to date carbon remains properly will get similar dates. This is not true with the pray and ask God. I see many members who are very faithful use the method on things that can be tested like business opportunities and such and get it wrong just as often as those who don't. Infact they may ge it wrong more often becasue I think the spiritual expereince is essentially internally generated and so will give you in most cases the result you want. What this does is override their good sense that would have stopped them into thinking God said yes.

I'll just have to say spiritual experiences are verified by more spiritual experiences.


Do you see just how circular this thinking is. I asked for a specific example. What I mean is not a real example from your life or anyone else you know, but just a made up example. This should not be to hard. I guess in my believeing days I would have said getting a spiritual experience while praying or reading say the Book of Mormon. The problem here is of course that the body can provide this if trained over time and repetition to provide it reliably, and I think that is exactly what you are saying, even if you may disaggree. :)

Thus, when I receive a spiritual experience, or when I have received particular ones in the past, I'm able to find verification of these by having them confirmed through more experiences that in some way confirm the messages received through the first. I truly do think this is a tough process.


Some of your previous posts were more informative. I think your last one was more a dodge, but then as members we are trained somewhat to do this. The problem i see here is that the message is just ones interpretation of the event. If one is reading or praying/meditating about scientology would they not get the message that it is true. How is this any different then you or me doing the same thing with Mormonism.

I have my own personal dealings that no one else can see and no one else can fully understand or appreciate.


Everyone does, but even then I do find that we can share then to some degree. I find talking that fellow members tend to open up more with people they also think have the same beliefs, especially if family or friends. From this I have not gotten anything that would not fit under our own bodies potential to produce by itself. I mean if we can produce vioces, hallucinate, etc, why not.

If God seeks to work with the individual, then its incumbant upon the individual to trust in that work.


You have already admitted you do not know if it is God who is communicating to you. You said you just have faith or trust that it is, but this really doesn't seeem very good since many will do the same with their God/s, scientology, etc. This really is a blind faith, so it should not be surprising why many do trust the scientific method when it has proven to be significantly more relaible in proving information about the world around us, so when my spiritual is in conflict with the physical evidence, I tend to think I am wrong and need to change my beliefs. Would God, if he exists as a thinking entity want us to do otherwise. That would seem a little stupid and unwise to me.

But in this, as I've tried to explain, I don't' think its some wholly un-taintable method. its just the best method chosen by God.


But again you don't know that. This is just what you have been taught. I think people have just figured out that this is the best way to get people to belief without good evidence and the emotional/spiritual is the best in keeping people loyal to ther beliefs and group.

And to think its all about trying to get each and every one of us to reach deep inside ourselves so much so that we extend ourselves to a higher power seems refreshing to me.


This is just what you want to believe, so it is refreshing to you. I did the same at one time.

Its like there's a key to unlock truths that everyone has. Its a matter of learning how to key works.


So why so much conflict aboput what is true? Even you cannot use it to check on truths that are testable.

In every case I've been involved with concerning potential converts, I've remained quite vague about the specifics for two reasons--1. I can't put my personal experiences into words, appropriately, and


So why can other people do it.

2. I'm open to the diea that it all works, in terms of the details differently for different folks


Again it just people getting usually the interpretation they want from a multitude of different positive expereinces or negative ones that they would call spiritual(for the positive ones).
42
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _Themis »

It's interesting stem that you were the one who started this thread, and yet don't want to really discuss it in detail. Oh well.
42
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _stemelbow »

heya themis,

this is the extent of what I got from you, in rading your latest: I know stuff because I know it. Sorry. I know you think you know me because you were where I am, but I don't think that's the case. Other than that, i think I've already addressed most of your concerns that you raise in your last post. I don't know what else to say. we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _Themis »

stemelbow wrote:heya themis,

this is the extent of what I got from you, in rading your latest: I know stuff because I know it. Sorry. I know you think you know me because you were where I am, but I don't think that's the case. Other than that, i think I've already addressed most of your concerns that you raise in your last post. I don't know what else to say. we'll just have to agree to disagree.


I know what the church teaches and how members think and feel about the spiritual experience generally. You have not really addressed the subject of your own thread, which I find disappointing. I also think I have been more spicific about the topic. You don't have to continue, and I can understand why you don't . This is a topic you may have noticed other believing members aviod like the plague.

If some thing is realiable, then it can be shown to be that. You even used and example like crabon dating whihc can easily be shown to be realible. I have known that the spiritual is very unrealble for a long time now, even for much of my believing days. This is based on my personal experience as well as that of viewing others. Those who I have known who may claim realiabllity are the ones who clearly do not.

Here is a classic article about it. We really can be very circular in our thinking here
http://LDS.org/ensign/2007/03/questions-and-answers?lang=eng
42
_mentalgymnast

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _mentalgymnast »

stemelbow wrote:What I can't figure out is how can we, or anyone, test the existence of God other than by praying to Him?


So we're testing the tester? I don't think that is possible, especially when we consider the fact that God would be able to outsmart us if he sees that we are using means to test for his existence that are not in accordance with the means which he has outlined in scripture.

Reading through some of this thread reinforces my belief that relying on emotion is unreliable when it comes to verifying religious Truth (yes, with a capital T), but relying on the Spirit (with a capital S) is. The conversation I'm hearing seems to equate emotional response with a Spiritual witness. Do we know that an emotional experience/response is synonymous with a Spiritual witness? I think the evidence seems to show otherwise as many here would agree.

The question at hand, at least as far as I can see, is how would we or how can we recognize a Spiritual witness vs. an emotional experience?

Regards,
MG
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:Reading through some of this thread reinforces my belief that relying on emotion is unreliable when it comes to verifying religious Truth (yes, with a capital T), but relying on the Spirit (with a capital S) is.


What is the difference? Read the article I listed. Seems clear members don't know this answer.

The conversation I'm hearing seems to equate emotional response with a Spiritual witness. Do we know that an emotional experience/response is synonymous with a Spiritual witness? I think the evidence seems to show otherwise as many here would agree.


You are suggesting we do know the difference and you have evidence. Show us this evidence?

The question at hand, at least as far as I can see, is how would we or how can we recognize a Spiritual witness vs. an emotional experience?


The first problem here is making unsubstaniated assumption that the spiritual expereince is externally generated by some divine being. The other problem is defining what emotions are, and how comlicated they may be, and just how many different type and intensities one may expereince. This of course ignores many other sensations and expereinces from the brain as well.
42
_mentalgymnast

Re: Testing Stuff

Post by _mentalgymnast »

MG:
Reading through some of this thread reinforces my belief that relying on emotion is unreliable when it comes to verifying religious Truth (yes, with a capital T), but relying on the Spirit (with a capital S) is.

Themis:
What is the difference? Read the article I listed. Seems clear members don't know this answer.


MG:
The respondents varied in their answers. I would expect that, knowing that each individual is different and would respond to unique manifestations of the Spirit. And we don't know that some of the respondents did feel only emotion rather than the Spirit itself. The problems is, we don't know, we can only surmise.

MG:
The conversation I'm hearing seems to equate emotional response with a Spiritual witness. Do we know that an emotional experience/response is synonymous with a Spiritual witness? I think the evidence seems to show otherwise as many here would agree.

Themis:
You are suggesting we do know the difference and you have evidence. Show us this evidence?


MG:
I am suggesting that as I said above, we can only know what we know. We have to accept the fact that emotion is the obvious response/reaction to most stimuli coming to us either internally or externally. We cannot discount the possibility, however, that the Spirit may at times witness to Truth in tandem with or uniquely separate from any internal emotional response. To throw out any possibility that the Spirit may have an interplay with human beings because emotion is usually the default position is unwarranted. Unless, of course, you also default to the position that unless in can be independently measured or verified by an outside source at the point of origin it is without value.

MG:
The question at hand, at least as far as I can see, is how would we or how can we recognize a Spiritual witness vs. an emotional experience?

Themis:
The first problem here is making unsubstantiated assumption that the spiritual experience is externally generated by some divine being. The other problem is defining what emotions are, and how complicated they may be, and just how many different type and intensities one may experience. This of course ignores many other sensations and experiences from the brain as well.


MG:
You are correct. I think that we can agree that human beings cannot manufacture an experience with the divine. We cannot, as I said earlier, play games with or test the tester. Problematically, however, that's exactly what happens, I would say, most of the time. We're playing games. And unless it leads one to do something harmful to others, this result (leaning upon an emotionally driven response to stimuli) is somewhat innocuous. This being true, we cannot discount the possibility that the divine (or what we refer to as the Spirit) may at times reveal Truth (rather than "truth" received through pure emotion) to those who successfully seek guidance by following the tester's guidelines emphatically and exactly. But again, we can't really make a sure judgment call one way or the other whether or not others have done this. We can only see outcomes or results and then make value judgments.

When all is said and done, Themis, you can only know what is true for yourself. Asking others for proof knowing that it cannot be demonstrated to you empirically is rather fruitless at the least, and at the other extreme possibly even a mockery towards God. You, the tested, telling the tester how and when to do things.

Of course, if there isn't any tester/tested, you're in the clear.

Regards,
MG
Post Reply