The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_Themis]

You're not open to that interpretation. You can't explain why you reject that interpretation without appeal to your own interpretation which you've already admitted is on the same level, in effect, accomplishing nothing.

People who believe they got some divine message don't last long in these discussions. They cannot explain why they are right and everyone else who got a different message is wrong. Doing so exposes why they are just as likely to have it wrong, and why the expereince should not be trusted for objective truth claims. Our interpretations tend to follow what we have been taught or want to believe.

[_Alfredo]

You're not open to that interpretation. You can't explain why you reject that interpretation without appeal to your own interpretation which you've already admitted is on the same level, in effect, accomplishing nothing.

People who believe they got some divine message don't last long in these discussions. They cannot explain why they are right and everyone else who got a different message is wrong. Doing so exposes why they are just as likely to have it wrong, and why the expereince should not be trusted for objective truth claims. Our interpretations tend to follow what we have been taught or want to believe.

Absolutely. The next step for any apologist is to give up the foundation-less epistemic game and realize that clearly, there are many non-epistemic reasons to "believe" in the "truth" of the Church which clearly explain why Mormonism has persisted, just like other religions.

There's just that pesky problem of resolving the dissonance between accepting no epistemic foundation and also accepting the Church's bold and unequivocal claims to those epistemic blessings.

[_Buffalo]

So are you open to the religious experience of a Muslim, which may confirm the Koran as the perfect word of God... and by extension... deny the divinity Christ as one of the cornerstones of Mormonism?

Now where have I heard this before?

I know I read it in the book "Anti-Christian for Dummies"

Now go back under a bridge where you belong.

Translation:

[_Franktalk]

Are you guys done yet?

I have explained it all in my post which you have not read and have not understood. That is expected. The spiritual path is personal and as such can not be used to provide evidence of the experience or evidence that another is in error. However people who have had the experience know quickly when they meet another. I have met several people of different Christian faiths that are on a spiritual walk. I have not found any people that are not Christian on that walk. I am not to choose and I can not choose who the Holy Ghost embraces. This simple truth makes the world go nuts. Your posts are an indication of that nutty reaction. Of course this will just be used for you to ratchet up the rhetoric. That is expected as well.

[Guest]

Are you guys done yet?

I have explained it all in my post which you have not read and have not understood. That is expected. The spiritual path is personal and as such can not be used to provide evidence of the experience or evidence that another is in error. However people who have had the experience know quickly when they meet another. I have met several people of different Christian faiths that are on a spiritual walk. I have not found any people that are not Christian on that walk. I am not to choose and I can not choose who the Holy Ghost embraces. This simple truth makes the world go nuts. Your posts are an indication of that nutty reaction. Of course this will just be used for you to ratchet up the rhetoric. That is expected as well.

Then I'll do what you don't expect. I won't "ratchet" anything you just said, because I am eager to grant that religious experience is mysteriously too personal to be used as evidence against another experience and ask you the same questions because, as expected, you still don't get it. I'll even color code the most important parts so you know where to direct your distractions to pretend you understand me. At this point, I seriously doubt you'll give any direct response; neither an explicit dispute with the question or the most unlikely option, to answer it... so if you insist on more distractions, I hope you realize that you, with God on your side, are suspiciously averse to comprehending and acknowledging these very simple arguments.

!----------INCOMING CHALLENGE----------!
!
!
!
!
!
!
If we grant that religious experience is too personal to be used as evidence against another experience or interpretation, then what justifies the rejection of "twisted" experience and interpretation except for very particular Mormon religious concepts?

If the basis for several very particular Mormon religious concepts is an even more limited set of religious experiences, then why do you not acknowledge that this demonstrates there is a serious and gory flaw in your reasoning about which concepts and experiences should be acted upon.

The only reason you can provide for rejecting a contrary experience or interpretations is unequivocally predicated upon the experiences you just admitted don't count as evidence against them.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!----------PLEASE GIVE DIRECT RESPONSE OR EXPLICIT DISPUTE----------!

Are you reading this in your mind with emphasis? Could I make it any more clear that I am waiting for you to expose the flaw in thought which dooms my argument and question it directly using reference to my argument? A formal debate...?

Are you really just going to give up trying to provide convincing answers to the questions which would fully unhinge the epistemic point at which your faith and life revolves? I haven't been anything but extremely willing to engage direct challenges to my critique, yet you fail to show that you understand any challenge and you won't even clearly explain why you reject it.

You're accepting the Mormon paradigm and all that overlaps like a child accepts indoctrination. It seems embarrassingly clear that you've yet to break your mind free from any idea which doesn't serve the paradigm you are most emotionally invested in. To simply trust the paradigm explains virtually anything... especially the question of whether it's clear and exposed foundation can be trusted. In every religious case but your own, you would find this is something to be seriously concerned about.

You just have to switch those emotional switches which produce feelings of conviction and the rest safely follows. The patterns of behavior relating to strong cognitive dissonance we observe in all religions explain the failure for any Mormon to question their conviction that the Mormon omni-model explains every criticism. It's effectively and clearly designed to emotionally delude your reasoning.

Given the severity of your belief I can only suppose there is too much dissonance between fully examining your own experience reasonably against any other, because you've already invested so much faith and emotion. It's the best explanation (hence the colorful post) until you show that the purpose your life is cemented in is actually justified by the extremely specified interpretation you gave for your own particular experience.

That is to say...

Understand that unequivocally... every statement I've made in this post is contingent upon my argument and I'm ultimately interested in your direct challenge..

Answer me or give up. I'll never quit pointing out that I've made it way too simple and straight forward. Challenge the argument.

I don't think it can be explained any more clearly. It is just as embarrassing for every Apologist when it is simply confirmed again and again that strong believers are incapable of giving the most simple defense of their faith with any idea which doesn't, at its foundation, serve itself. As far as can be told concerning the entire and profoundly varied history of religious experience, Apologists have yet to wrap their heads around the fact that many other people believe exactly as Mormons do, but not what Mormons do.

[_Alfredo]

So, no. I'm not done. I'm prepared to take your sharpest and most well-formed challenge against my contention.

Don't you want to shut me up?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Apologists have yet to wrap their heads around the fact that many other people believe exactly as Mormons do, but not what Mormons do.

Very well put. This is the one principle that if understood and embraced makes adherence to Mormonism, or almost any other religion, for that matter, close to impossible.

Dad of a Former Mormon

[_Franktalk]

If we grant that religious experience is too personal to be used as evidence against another experience or interpretation, then what justifies the rejection of "twisted" experience and interpretation except for very particular Mormon religious concepts?

You are so buried in this logic of yours that you can't see out of the box you created. I have already given all of the information to answer these questions. Why do you insist on being spoon fed an answer? If I answer you a thousand times you will just come back and say it does not match what you wanted.

I have already stated that a spiritual experience can come from two sources. One from the light and contains truth. The other source is not reliable and may lie to you. Unless you can discern between the two then one may accept a lie as the truth. The other thing which I have already stated is many people use the flesh and logic of man to interpret a spiritual experience. This again leads to error. If you go back and read what I posted you will see this clearly laid out in detail.

As for rejection of another's experience we must be very careful. The Bible tells us that many rejected the spiritual experience of the prophets. I have had few witnesses to scripture. Some say they get them all of the time. I can not speak about someone else. I can only say what has happened to me. As I have said before, I know little, I believe much more, and most things are unknown. If indeed the Holy Ghost stays to the core gospel for most then men are free to read scripture and do their best at understanding the message. I believe this is the case. God holds accountable those who know, those who have had a witness from the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost witnessed to all things then we would be accountable for all things. Man is weak and I think God does not witness to all things so we can not be held to that high standard. Now many interpret that situation from a worldly view and cast doubt on the whole issue of spirituality. I count it as a blessing. As for the witness of Mormon doctrine I have to say that I have been witnessed to the need for a restored gospel. The exact details of that do not come. I do believe that not all receive that witness. I think that there are many in many churches who love God and hold to His commandments. It may be their path to be in those other churches. I sure don't know. But using Christ as our example He came to teach people that needed to be taught not for the ones who already loved God. To this end He sat at the table of the tax collectors.

If the basis for several very particular Mormon religious concepts is an even more limited set of religious experiences, then why do you not acknowledge that this demonstrates there is a serious and gory flaw in your reasoning about which concepts and experiences should be acted upon.

I have explained this as well. We are witnessed to very little. We struggle with scripture which is our lot. Your desire to fit religious experiences into your mold is a waste of time. It is faith and acceptance that is required of us. Many of this world say to them self that if there was a God He would be such and such. Then when He is not they reject God. In essence they have become god in their own eyes because to define and judge God makes them a god. Using your logic to define what should be you come close to doing this very thing.

The only reason you can provide for rejecting a contrary experience or interpretations is unequivocally predicated upon the experiences you just admitted don't count as evidence against them.

More than anything else I use scripture for details. But to be honest over the years my understanding has changed a lot. So now I tend to avoid a fight over doctrine except where I find myself talking to people who are lost. Those on the path, even if at the beginning I support. It is God who will feed them when they need to be fed. Even people who swim in unbelief know there is something more. They just don't know what. Then there are those who as a matter of pride need to tear down the faith of another so they can feel good about their skill in logic or reason. For many years I was that person. But through the grace of God I started on this path of mine. But to answer your question I would rely on scripture for most conflict.

[_Themis]

I have already stated that a spiritual experience can come from two sources. One from the light and contains truth. The other source is not reliable and may lie to you. Unless you can discern between the two then one may accept a lie as the truth.

And how do you discern between the two?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I have already stated that a spiritual experience can come from two sources. One from the light and contains truth. The other source is not reliable and may lie to you. Unless you can discern between the two then one may accept a lie as the truth.

And how do you discern between the two?

Indeed. In fact, I know people that would say the exact same thing about the two sources. But they believe that the true source is evangelical Christianity and spiritual experiences that say that Mormonism is true are from the "other source".