The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_Tobin]

I wouldn't assume anything. I think it depends on the person what threshhold of proof they will accept. For myself as I reflect on my experience with God, there are a few things that convince me it was true:
1) It was unlooked for and unexpected.
2) It occurred in a place that no physical being could have possibly entered unseen and unheard.
3) I was not alone and shared the experience with another person. So, unless someone gassed the place with a psychotic agent (and I seriously doubt that), it happened.
4) It is clear as day in my memory. I can remember every exact detail of the event. It had that profound an impact on me.
5) And interestingly, I never want to have another experience like that again.

It seems that you believe refuting any natural interpretation of religious experience is sufficient to dismiss my argument, but that still misses the point.

I never claimed I understood your point. This was simply an attempt to answer.

While I only think 1 of your points is interesting, I'll address all of them by pointing out that your response still relies upon an implied sort of spiritual mathematics for which only certain types of religious experiences are reliable. That is, your experience is still heavily interpreted. I think you should consider what Franktalk has said concerning the variety of religious experience and then explain why you believe those who would interpret your experience differently don't have the same rights to the experiences which led them to that contrary interpretation.

For the sake of the discussion between you and I, I will grant that some personal experiences have supernatural origin.

How do you know your experience did not originate in some supernatural source which contradicts your interpretation?

It really isn't about that. Let's suppose it was a false experience often characterized as coming from the "Devil". It erased my doubts that such interactions are not only possible, but they can and do happen.

How can you favor any supernatural interpretation over another?

I don't. To each their own I'd say. For me, it was sufficient to dispel any doubt there was a God. Beyond that, I'm am uncertain as to what is true. It did compell me to re-evaluate a number of things in my life and I think for the better.

To present a specific example which address your most interesting point, what if your experience was of an alien who likes to pretend he's God? After all, there are reports of group extra-terrestrial experiences.

Isn't that a given? Any experience with God is alien to our normal, everyday experiences. I look at it this way now. Suppose intelligent life evolved on another world a billion years ago, how transcendent and intelligent would they seem to us now? If that alien race (or God) can interact with in such a way and it does no harm and causes us to re-evaluate our understanding of the universe and how we proceed with our lives and what choices we make (hopefully for the better), I believe that is a positive thing.

[_Tobin]

5) And interestingly, I never want to have another experience like that again.

Been lurking a long time. You got me with this. IYDM Why? Afraid?

Two of my friends have told me that when they were thinking about God they got scared. One broke down and cried but was spooked off and turned away.

The message I received was the choices I was making and the path I was going in was not going to make me happy. I was in over my head and involved in things I shouldn't have been and contemplating actions I shouldn't have been. I am a much different person now and I think for the better. I certainly am a lot less angry and hopefully a bit more understanding after this experience. But, no, it is not an experience I ever care to repeat. I was shaken to my very core (as was the person that was with me) and felt like dread would swallow me whole.

[_Mooseman]

Been lurking a long time. You got me with this. IYDM Why? Afraid?

Two of my friends have told me that when they were thinking about God they got scared. One broke down and cried but was spooked off and turned away.

Maybe I can shed some light on this.

Let me step back for a moment and lay some ground work. We are here to know good from evil. The light of Christ or as I call it our moral rudder can discern good from evil. But we can listen to it or ignore it. But discernment requires that we love God. Let me outline the progression that takes place that leads to discernment.

1. We love God - When one recognizes that there is a God and forms a view of our place verses God's place one can start to love God for who He is.
2. We understand that it is God that holds the power for everything. Everything we see and touch came into being as a result of God's work.
3. We trust God - With a mixture of fear for the power of God and the love of God for allowing us this life in the flesh we trust that He has our best interest at heart. This is an extension of the love of God. Blind trust that He who makes the universe and sets the laws loves us and wishes us the best life possible. But we must know Him well enough to know that what He desires is not for the world but for us as a spirit. This is separate from the world. We must see that God is focused on our spirit and not the world. We may not even know what a spirit is at this point.
4. We cast off the world - So far things have been easy and most get to stage 3. But this one is not easy. You must embrace that this world is but a temporary existence for our spirit to learn. You must cut the ties that bind with the world. Your own body is of the world and is not you. It is a shell and nothing more. You feel lost and not attached to anything. You wonder why am I here. You lose your footing in the world, it becomes distant, it appears as an illusion. A fog that surrounds you and you see it as distant. You stop your emotional attachment to the world but you start to see others as spirits. You separate out what you see from what is actually there. Everything around you has been placed there by God so that you can enjoy it or as a test for you. Evil and good get divided sharply. The spiritual discernment which you hear about is so near. The world stands between you and spiritual discernment. You must remove the world before the spirit will talk with you. The spirit talks to spirit. The spirit does not talk to the world. Remove the world and the door opens. The door was always opened but the world stood in the way. The ideas of men lose their hold on you. The things that most men hold as truth become just ideas and nothing more. What you thought you knew becomes wrong or just words of men. If this does not happen then you have not cast off the world. Those who say that they can do both, hold the truth of man, and hold the truth of God are fools.
5. The world will hate you - The world is not your friend and has never been your friend. If you embraced the world it gave you treats to keep you. But when the world knows you have cast it off you become a target. So get ready. With spiritual discernment comes spiritual warfare. When some get a taste of this they run back to the world. You must have spiritual strength. I ask for strength daily and I need it. Some get to this point and fear overwhelms them as they even think of casting off the world. Satan and his workers will know what you are doing. Things will happen that don't make sense. In time spiritual discernment will sort out all of the confusion but some will run back to what is solid and what is familiar.
6. Scripture opens - When your eyes are opened by the spirit you will see more, hear more, and feel more.

Wow. Are you left out their on your own? When does Christ claim you and fit you with a Comforter, some peace and protection and embrace you as one of his own? That would make it worth it. How could Alfredo challenge that? Anybody know further?

[_Franktalk]

Wow. Are you left out their on your own? When does Christ claim you and fit you with a Comforter, some peace and protection and embrace you as one of his own? That would make it worth it. How could Alfredo challenge that? Anybody know further?

We are to live in faith. The Holy Ghost may jump start us but we are to live in faith and not have an on demand witness. Which is great because if we do receive a witness and go against the Holy Ghost we do the thing that God hates. It is a benefit that we are left on our own.

[_Mooseman]

Wow. Are you left out their on your own? When does Christ claim you and fit you with a Comforter, some peace and protection and embrace you as one of his own? That would make it worth it. How could Alfredo challenge that? Anybody know further?

We are to live in faith. The Holy Ghost may jump start us but we are to live in faith and not have an on demand witness. Which is great because if we do receive a witness and go against the Holy Ghost we do the thing that God hates. It is a benefit that we are left on our own.

That is disappointing. Sounds like you went further and got scared too. I have to suppose it happens alot.

[_Franktalk]

That is disappointing. Sounds like you went further and got scared too. I have to suppose it happens a lot.

You obviously don't know me. The only reason I can talk about the spiritual path is because I have been down it. I have asked for discernment of spirits and to have my eyes opened to spirits. So far it has not happened. It may never happen because I always end any prayer with a request to do the Lord's will.

[_Alfredo]

Your view of spiritual communication is an interpretation based upon what...?

If I could be granted one guess, I'd suppose that you came to this understanding of spiritual communication somehow through an act of spiritual communication?

You would be wrong. It is obvious that many people say they are witnessed by the Holy Spirit. Yet they are all over the map as to the exact message they obtained. There is only one truth and God is not a God of confusion. So it is man that says one thing or another thing. The warm cozy feelings that were misinterpreted run rampant among seekers. It is an obvious observation of man that leads me to this conclusion.

My personal spiritual experience is my own and I offer no proof what so ever. Except that before my experiences I was a different person. My change in behavior was caused by my spiritual communication.

I'm wrong? Well, then I still don't understand your answer to my challenge so I'll try rephrasing.

I'll warn you again, because before we know it, you and I will have produced paragraph upon paragraph intended for two different conversations. So, please read carefully and respond accordingly.

I realize that you've somehow arrived at several interpretive conclusions concerning the nature of spiritual experiences and that you wish to illustrate them thoroughly. I don't care how clearly you can illustrate these conclusions, because as I've explained, the entire thrust of my argument is to question how you've arrived at these particular interpretations/conclusions to begin with. I'm asking you to isolate the single element or method which has led you to believe that the way in which you interpret spiritual communication is preferable or more reliable than any contrary interpretation.

Whatever that element or method is, my challenge against it is this:
Can you provide a single reason to rely on this method which isn't itself somehow dependent upon your prior interpretation of spiritual communication, which is in question?

I'm looking for a direct response or dispute for this question. It seems many faithful don't understand the concept of a direct response. Maybe you'll be a lucky winner.

The purpose of this thread is to question that there is any reliable method to interpret religious experience, but it seems all you can offer is... no surprise... interpretation of religious experience and no method for finding which interpretations should be trusted.

But considering you've already resolved to offer no proof other than the experience happened to change you, I don't see how your interpretation is relevant to anyone but yourself, and weakly relevant at that. So as response, it's irrelevant to a discussion about what can be said about categories of religious experience. We know people make significant changes for all sorts of reasons. Are you claiming that the only value you find in Mormonism is pragmatic? Is there any truth value at all?

You need to take a step back and view your interpretations and the method used to arrive at these interpretations as in competition with contrary interpretations and methods. To do what proves most difficult for hardcore Mormons: To consider your religious experience from a perspective independent of Mormonism.

So, help me understand... is this something you even want to talk about? Because if you do, and you understand and acknowledge my argument exists, you'll have done much more than anyone ever has when presented with this argument. It's likely you either don't understand or just aren't interested in entertaining this clearly important idea for some silly reason someone else could use to defend a contrary religion. Prove me wrong?

[_Alfredo]

I never claimed I understood your point. This was simply an attempt to answer.

Are you satisfied with the answer?

It really isn't about that. Let's suppose it was a false experience often characterized as coming from the "Devil". It erased my doubts that such interactions are not only possible, but they can and do happen.

But it is about that, because even if I grant that "such interactions" are possible... how could you possibly know whether you've been supernaturally blessed or deceived?

I don't. To each their own I'd say. For me, it was sufficient to dispel any doubt there was a God. Beyond that, I'm am uncertain as to what is true. It did compell me to re-evaluate a number of things in my life and I think for the better.

Glad to hear things are going well, but unfortunately, I don't see how this leads you to believe in a God. Are you deist? Are you open to a limited supernatural being? Are you open to several Gods active in this universe? What are the flavors of your experience?

I'm sorry. These are all leading questions. By flavor, I mean how do you interpret this experience... After it's established that you're still interpreting your experience using some method which you find reliable, I plan to respond with the original argument.

Isn't that a given? Any experience with God is alien to our normal, everyday experiences. I look at it this way now. Suppose intelligent life evolved on another world a billion years ago, how transcendent and intelligent would they seem to us now? If that alien race (or God) can interact with in such a way and it does no harm and causes us to re-evaluate our understanding of the universe and how we proceed with our lives and what choices we make (hopefully for the better), I believe that is a positive thing.

Umm... clearly that's not what I meant. Alien, as in, little grey man who mucks with your mind.

Sure, it's a positive thing that you're life is better because of it. But when it comes to Mormonism, the pragmatic effect of the experience is only part of the equation. Mormonism also depends upon the experience providing epistemic foundation for belief. I think we're on very different pages.

[_moksha]

Alfredo, I find your premise to be without sufficient parmisan. Personal religious experience is best interpreted by whatever criteria the person having the experience assigns to it. Hopefully, that interpretation leads to the best reason to be a true believer, that it makes you a more caring, beneficent and aware human being.

This can be a part of Mormonism.

[_Bond James Bond]

Welcome to the board Alfredo (Saucy?)!

While I certainly think that Mormonism relies heavily on the personal emotion of individuals to support the truthiness since it can't be proven by actual evidence; Mormonism's current status as its own subculture (and even majority in a couple of states) in America leads me to believe that the definition of a true believer can be expanded. I think there are many people who believe in the perception of the church as a positive influence as well as authoritative institution as much as the actual truth claims of the church. As such I think that there are two types of true believers:

1) Those who believe the Book of Mormon is true and that Prophets are really the spokesmen of God. (Basically Dr. Shade's Chapel Mormons.)

2) Those who "shelf" certain shortcomings in physical evidence because they believe in the church as an institution and moral authority who will defend the church, its authority, its legacy, and its history as much as the Mormon canon's history.

As long as you have people who are emotionally invested in the Church itself and will defend the actions of the Church itself then you can not undo the Church because at the end of the day the Church as an entity and ideal cannot be "undone" even if the physical evidence regarding Book of Mormon historical accuracy has been. Those who fall into category #2 have successfully transferred part of their emotional attachment, if not most of it, to the Church and since the church does exist...well it's far harder to destroy that type of emotional confirmation when it borders on, love?

Welcome aboard! Hang around!