Laban's death defies logic and reality

[Guest]

What you seem to be saying is that the Holy Ghost can confirm things through a variety of differing feelings and sensations. How does that help us identify which feelings and sensations are from the Holy Ghost and which are either self generated or from the adversary?

Well, I guess you can't, now can you?

I wonder if the person lying next to me is actually my wife, a self-generated image, or the devil...one can never tell these things.

Suggest a threesome to her and I guess you'll be able to rule out a couple of those options fairly swiftly!

[_Gordon]

If only a small minority of people have the appropriate cultural expectations and strong personal commitments in regard to the relevant aspect of life, why would one be surprised?

Nope. However, this assumes all who have these experiences sought them out with a specific expectation.

And of course we are back with the old problem of how we can tell that a given number of people are having the same experience, or different ones, when all we have access to is the fact that they use the same words, or different ones, to describe what they claim to have felt.

True, and what I see as red could really be what you view as green, but we both call it 'red'...

[_Chap]

I don't find these repeated claims by Gordon that he has special experiences and that he can be sure that no-one (or perhaps just hardly anyone) in other religions has anything of the same kind to be remotely convincing.

Gordon is not going to give up his claim, of course. The question is rather why he should expect anyone else to feel compelled to assent to it. Can anyone other than Gordon see any reason for according him the status he claims?

First off, Chap, I don't claim exclusivity on such experiences (nor are they particular to LDS), but that many in other religions don't seek for them (while many do have them, though)...they don't see a need, from my experiences. Secondly, I'm not expecting anyone to assent to anything. I'm having to defend myself from numerous posters implying/stating that I'm wrong. So be it. Don't accept it. Now be on your merry way, rather than continously trying to show me the errors of my thinking, then falsely asserting that I'm doing anything other than defending/explaining my stance.

Gracious me, are you disinviting me? See Universal Rule 1.

And I am a bit puzzled about the injunction not to try to show you the errors of your thinking. Isn't that what you are trying to do to everybody else?

What is more (I hate to be the first to break it to you, but here it comes ...) if you 'defend/explain' your stance on some issue on a discussion board, then others get to 'attack/criticize' that stance. And if you get to post repeatedly about your position, others get to attack or criticize it repeatedly.

I hope you are OK with that.

[_Gordon]

For the record.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you have no way of knowing that you are right. You only believe you are right based on a series of differing feelings and sensations that you choose to interpret as coming from the Holy Ghost. Whilst others, experiencing these same sensations and feelings interpret them as self generated.

Now, I could be right, and others wrong, or me wrong, and them right. Or, we could both be wrong, or, in this instance, both be right. Confusing...

[_Gordon]

Suggest a threesome to her and I guess you'll be able to rule out a couple of those options fairly swiftly!

True...but then again, the Devil may be trying to trick me, and my imagination doesn't always work the way I want it to.

[_Chap]

... I merely think it odd that a feeling, which any human can have, is only being had by a very small minority, and it seems to be happening in regards to only one aspect in life.

If only a small minority of people have the appropriate cultural expectations and strong personal commitments in regard to the relevant aspect of life, why would one be surprised?

Nope. However, this assumes all who have these experiences sought them out with a specific expectation.

Gordon said he found it odd that only a small number of people claimed to have certain experiences. I pointed out that the smallness of the number need not be at all unexpected or significant, without the need to give any special epistemological status to the experiences referred to.

Can anyone help me to understand the relevance of his attempt at a rejoinder, as quoted above?

[_Drifting]

For the record.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you have no way of knowing that you are right. You only believe you are right based on a series of differing feelings and sensations that you choose to interpret as coming from the Holy Ghost. Whilst others, experiencing these same sensations and feelings interpret them as self generated.

Now, I could be right, and others wrong, or me wrong, and them right. Or, we could both be wrong, or, in this instance, both be right. Confusing...

We are nearing....*pauses for effect*...an accord...

It's the confusion that I find the most unsettling aspect.

According to Mormonism (and probably other religions too) the Gospel is meant to be a clear and simple thing. Therefore, I believe, identifying what is 'right or wrong' from a Gospel point of view should be equally clear and simple.

But it isn't.

The Holy Ghost method of identifying truth is inconsistent, suspect and unreliable. As evidenced by the differing results generated by differing people following the same advice. I was at a convention where Paul H Dunn told his tales. The Holy Ghost, according to everyone I spoke to afterwards, had moved them and witnessed to them he spoke the truth.
We find out years later that actually he hadn't spoke the truth.

It should be consistent, it should be fool proof. It isn't.

[Guest]

Gracious me, are you disinviting me? See Universal Rule 1.

And I am a bit puzzled about the injunction not to try to show you the errors of your thinking. Isn't that what you are trying to do to everybody else?

What is more (I hate to be the first to break it to you, but here it comes ...) if you 'defend/explain' your stance on some issue on a discussion board, then others get to 'attack/criticize' that stance. And if you get to post repeatedly about your position, others get to attack or criticize it repeatedly.

I hope you are OK with that.

Oh, I'm fine with the criticism, or else I wouldn't be posting. I'm not de-invinting you, either. What I am doing, though, is pointing out your mischaracterization of me. I haven't tried to get anyone to accept my point of view, or show them the errors of their thinking. I have simply defended my position. You seem bothered by that, so I suggested a way for you not to get bothered.

[_Gordon]

Gordon said he found it odd that only a small number of people claimed to have certain experiences. I pointed out that the smallness of the number need not be at all unexpected or significant, without the need to give any special epistemological status to the experiences referred to.

Can anyone help me to understand the relevance of his attempt at a rejoinder, as quoted above?

Sure. You stated that the small number of people were having an 'expected' experiences. I addressed that.

[_Gordon]

We are nearing....*pauses for effect*...an accord...

It's the confusion that I find the most unsettling aspect.

According to Mormonism (and probably other religions too) the Gospel is meant to be a clear and simple thing. Therefore, I believe, identifying what is 'right or wrong' from a Gospel point of view should be equally clear and simple.

But it isn't.

The Holy Ghost method of identifying truth is inconsistent, suspect and unreliable. As evidenced by the differing results generated by differing people following the same advice. I was at a convention where Paul H Dunn told his tales. The Holy Ghost, according to everyone I spoke to afterwards, had moved them and witnessed to them he spoke the truth.
We find out years later that actually he hadn't spoke the truth.

It should be consistent, it should be fool proof. It isn't.

First, this assumes everybody who tells you they felt the Spirit is being honest, and second, that everyone who has a witness identifies it correctly. For instance, one may be listening to his pastor preach about the Bible and Jesus, and gets a confirmation from the HG. The individual may then associate the witness to the pastor. Now the pastor later says Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and the individual is going to accept that based on their previous witness...yet that's not what the HG was telling them.