The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_Franktalk]

That someplace, as already mentioned, is that the Book of Mormon is false and by association, that the Church isn't what it claims to be.

Now that's a very simple answer to your very simple question. It's so simple an answer that you will see I have given it several times already.

So, is the burning in the bosom insufficient in and of itself in determining truth? Frank, this is a very simple question for you to answer.

Now the only thing left is to figure out who gave you that burning in your bosom. If the Holy Ghost gave it to you then what was the result of that exchange? That is all I am asking. If you lost faith then it becomes difficult to see the Holy Ghost driving you there. That is why it is so important to know what is the state of your faith.

"Especially as the commandment of polygamy was specifically given to facilitate the knocking up of the wives to 'spread seed'. I guess it's yet another commandment Joseph broke..."

"Except when God tells you things that aren't consistent with what the Church teaches. Then He's lying."

"Your questions are making my head hurt and grey stuff is seeping out of my nose....Oh wait...it's all a myth. Pain gone, carry on."

"Frank, I've amended the scripture so it now literally says what you want it to say."

"I wasn't aware that Jesus wrote anything down himself. So as such, the New Testament is just a second hand account based on what people claim Jesus cited."

"In the light of today's society the language of the Book of Mormon etc and the Priesthood Ban and the comments of some senior Church leaders, including Prophets, can be classed as racist - even if society didn't see it that way back then."


"I have faith in science.

I demonstrate this faith every time I follow a medical practitioners advice.
My faith is reinforced by the rewards I receive as a result of my obedience to the advice.

In fact faith in science produces a demonstrably higher success rate of reward than faith in religion. One can see, for the most part, scientific theories becoming more and more accurate and more consistent with other evidences over time. On the other hand - one can see, for the most part, religious theories becoming less and less accurate and less consistent with other evidences over time.

When it comes down to a choice science wins everytime."

I am trying to figure out what your beliefs are. I found these statements and will ponder them for a while. I may get it wrong but then again I may get it right.

[_subgenius]

You didn't answer my question.

And I think you are confusing traditional Yoruba beliefs and Candomble.

if you are referring to:
"When the orixa comes upon me while I am in a trance, is that a self evident manifestation of the spirit?"
quite obviously, your "question" is without answer.
aside from the nonsensical construction of your sentence..it seems to be rather rhetorical sooooooo....no answer necessary.


(self-evident manifestation? is that like asking if something is jumbo big? exactly who can't google the dictionary around here?)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manifest
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-evident

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/manifest
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manifest

it is clear that you are simply, and feebly, trying to be facetious - but seemingly you are rather ill-equipped to be witty on this subject.

[_SteelHead]

Just trying to use terms common to Mormons: "manifestations of the spirit" to describe the Candomble beliefs expressed in Portuguese as of being attended by, or mounted by and Orixa when one is in a trance.

[_subgenius]

You're not working with me, subgenius. You're quibbling over ideas which are easy to figure out.

your idea is rather simple, but its foundations are flawed.

Never mind the silly way I might say things. You know exactly what I mean. The experiences which bring human beings to the limits of emotion (or any experience, for that matter) are remarkably likely to produce b***s***. This is exceptionally evident in every culture, every era, and in every person. When an experience pushes us to our limits, we should be suspicious and examine our perspectives carefully. It's unfathomably understated to suggest that humans tend to get carried away on contrary paths with their most impressive experiences.

consistently inconsistent?

We should be skeptical because we know it is human nature to make s*** up about the ideas, practices, and experiences we find can easily push ourselves to physical and mental limits. But the fact that humans make s*** up all the time is just a detail explained and brushed aside as non-threatening to the Mormon paradigm, given the presumption that Mormons have found something special and different.

you seem to bounce from the general to the specific and then back again.
Here you seem to be making assumptions without cause. I am not sure what you mean by "make s*** up" in the context of this discussion, please elaborate.

My argument is that Mormons can't explain what distinguishes their experiences from the rest without referring to concepts or explanations which serve themselves and beg the question.

again, alleging a Moroni challenge paradox that must inherently mean flaw?
I am not sure you understand the paradigm of religion. You are using a yard stick to measure weight.

The only answers Mormonism provides are founded on the presupposition that experiences and interpretations which serve the Mormon paradigm are true and those that don't are incomplete or incompatible.

i disagree with this conclusion. There may be Mormons who say one way or another, but Mormonism itself does not speak to "compatibility" in the manner you devise here.

I don't think free-will is the "essence" of our discussion. Rather, there is a disconnect between the extremely convincing perception of a religious truth and actual religious truth. The question is how do we tell the difference?

your inability to know the answer of how to "discern" between these two experiences illustrates a simple lack of experience with the practice of Faith.
The notion of distinguishing between "extremely convincing" and "actual" has never been put forth as a "turns litmus paper blue" process. That is why there is such a critical distinction when one speaks about "manifestation" versus "interpretation".

I argue there is no answer which serves Mormonism which isn't self-serving and circular to begin with. But wait, you disagree...

not necessarily - it may "seem" to be circular because of the prism you view it through, but it does not invalidate its discernment of truth.

In your case, you tell the difference by claiming some experiences are "self-evident", and by extension, other sorts of experience must not be "self-evident"... The exception to my premise that religious experience requires interpretation is that something which is "self-evident" allows us begin reasoning at a point which would otherwise be circular.

no, i have stated that religious experiences are akin to self-evident experiences.

So, in essence, we're discussing the relationship between experience and what we accept as reality or at least, our model of reality. You suggest that there are certain experiences which bear a special relationship to reality that determines some experiences, in and of themselves, are reality. In order to do discuss the suggestion that certain religious experiences "are reality", I'd like to immediately switch the term "experience" to "qualia".

more bait and switch from the story teller i see....just casually throw in qualia, eh?

So please, subgenius, explain to everyone how to determine the relevant difference between qualia which are sufficient to accept as reality and what qualia are not sufficient to accept as reality?

reality can neither be accepted nor denied. One may refuse to acknowledge reality but it is manifest unto them first and foremost.
As my example of consciousness illustrates. One can not doubt their own consciousness, correct? it is actually "known" without inspection, without interpretation, and without dissection.

Where do you draw the line?

the point is that you do not draw a line...you can not draw a line. Only through "second-guessing" or self-doubt can one relegate an experience to being "not real".
The qualia argument within the mind-body is not something that applies here, i am not convinced of your position that there is a "veil of perception" over the religious experience.
Your mistake is that you have no support for the idea that a religious experience is composed of some simple "essence".
The religious experience may very well be dependent on the individual's ability to discern it, by which case there is no distinction or "quality" of experience (as you say above actual versus convincing).

You see, i kinda agree with Nietzsche whereas qualia are un-observable in others and unquantifiable in us...a notion i consider in harmony with what is being put forth in Mormonism.

[_subgenius]

Just trying to use terms common to Mormons: "manifestations of the spirit" to describe the Candomble beliefs expressed in Portuguese as of being attended by, or mounted by and Orixa when one is in a trance.

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
Your arguments still fall prey to presupposition followed by a healthy dose of begging the question.

You have also failed to show why any one of a different epistemology should give any credence to yours.

[_Themis]

Now the only thing left is to figure out who gave you that burning in your bosom.

Do you think the body is capable of producing the burning in ones bosom?

[_Tobin]

Now the only thing left is to figure out who gave you that burning in your bosom.

Do you think the body is capable of producing the burning in ones bosom?

Yup, heartburn is a terrible way to determine the truth since it is very conditional on what you may have just eaten.

[_Drifting]

That someplace, as already mentioned, is that the Book of Mormon is false and by association, that the Church isn't what it claims to be.

Now that's a very simple answer to your very simple question. It's so simple an answer that you will see I have given it several times already.

So, is the burning in the bosom insufficient in and of itself in determining truth? Frank, this is a very simple question for you to answer.

Now the only thing left is to figure out who gave you that burning in your bosom. If the Holy Ghost gave it to you then what was the result of that exchange? That is all I am asking. If you lost faith then it becomes difficult to see the Holy Ghost driving you there. That is why it is so important to know what is the state of your faith.

And this is exactly the point.
The witness by the Holy Spirit is insufficient in and of itself.
What you (and the Church) require, is for that burning in the bosom to lead to answers and actions that agree with Church doctrine.

It becomes clear, does it not, that the feeling itself is of no guide whatsoever. It is only to be trusted when it confirms what the Church and it's leaders say it must confirm.

[_subgenius]

Sub,
Your arguments still fall prey to presupposition followed by a healthy dose of begging the question.

You have also failed to show why any one of a different epistemology should give any credence to yours.

i have never claimed that they should, nor does the OP.
but the simple answer is by way of coherentism.