spiritual witness theory

[_Themis]

What test do you think God is requiring of us?

Is it a "one size fits all" test that you're hoping for...from me? I would think that I've said enough up to this point...if you're reading my posts carefully...to give you an idea of what I think in regards to your question. You seem to be laser focussed on wanting a one size fits all answer. Why?

Do you think it is that simple?

Regards,
MG

The one thing I can count on from you is to avoid the issue and then make up claims about me I never said or implied. I am not focused on one size fits all. I never claimed it. I am just trying to get you to give more then shallow assertions, and get into specifics. This is why I am asking about your idea that God cannot let us know because he is testing us to see if we will be faithful. Ignoring that you believe God does let many know without being tested, it does not explain how the test can be considered fair if one cannot know what brand faithfulness they should pick. I could see if it was just a test to see if we will be nice or not, but we both know the claim is also about what we believe.

[_mentalgymnast]

I am open to this way of looking at what we refer to as spiritual experience. But again, going back to what I had expressed in the post of mine you brought to the forefront, we have to be somewhat skeptical as we attribute emotional response to stimuli as being a spiritual witness.

LOL Skeptical here but not with other sensations.

Yes, Themis, there was sensation...but how could there not have been? I'm in a physical body.

Sure, but the issue is how you know sensations are coming from a divine unseen being and not you or other natural sources. This is the issue that keeps being ignored by those who want to believe there experience is the special one.

I had was not associated with any emotional response that I was familiar with and, truth be told, did not strike me as being emotionally based.

I suspect many sensations we can create we have not. Most sensations our bodies create are not emotional at all. They may cause us to create certain emotional reactions to them.

The problem is, it is very difficult to describe these few occasions. I'm sure there might be a few others here that might be able to relate to what I'm talking about.

A few? The vast majority of the world can relate. Thoughts, sensations, emotions are internal and are harder to explain. Especially if they are a more rare occurrence.

The interesting thing is, very few of the experiences that I'm referring to had any direct correlation to receiving a specific "witness" to the verification of truth claims of the LDS Church. Although indirectly I would say that they did.

Yes you do like most of the planet and attach them to your world views even thought he experience may have come out of the blue and for no apparent reason. How do you interpret a sensation? How is a thought influenced or created.

In one of the experiences it was simply an overwhelming "sensation", for lack of a better word, that someone "out there" was aware of me and my circumstance and simply LOVED me and was concerned for my welfare.

Sure. This sensation would be very related to it being a thought. Thoughts can cause sensations as well as strong emotions. The emotions coming because of the thought.

So I am totally on board with others around the world and in many circumstances/religions, etc., having experiences that could be stripped down, when all is said and done, to having been a result of the interaction between man and the divine.

What we see is that it is almost always interpreted to their world views. Most world views include a divine being, so most interpret the experience as being heavy related to the divine. The nature religions may view the divine here as nature itself and not at all like the Christian God.

I'm not the one to make the differentiation between what is REAL and what is not for one person or another. As I've said before, we can only be concerned with ourselves and our own experience. And I think that the divine/God can take people in different directions according to their physical, emotional, cultural, mental, genetic, etc., makeup. A palm tree isn't going to grow here in Utah Valley. Plants that grow in one place, won't be healthy or be able to survive in another. Each plant has its own beauty and purpose. Transplanting from one environment to another sometimes "takes", but often...not. The world is wide and varied in its people. Different strokes for different folks. In my way of thinking, those "different strokes" can all be manifestations of God's plan for all of His children in whatever circumstances they've cut out for themselves with the resources (Guns, Germs, and Steel...) they've been "blessed"...or not...with.

This is just your excuse for why people don't get the same interpretation you do. It's God is a terrible communicator all over again to justify why the evidence does not support a particular belief/interpretation.

Hey Themis,

Don't take this the wrong way, but do you ever have an original thought? You are so predictable. And uninteresting...in my opinion. Again, don't take me wrongly. I'm sure you are a very creative and thoughtful person. It's just that I haven't seen that side of you in the conversations I've had with you. Very little exposure, on your part, as to what makes YOU tick. What you think, etc.

You sound like a broken record.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

Hey Themis,

Don't take this the wrong way, but do you ever have an original thought?

Does anyone? This is just another excuse to aviod what I am getting at.

You are so predictable. And uninteresting...in my opinion.

Only because you are just as predictable. I have noted many times you are not interested in being challenged, so it's comes as no surprise you find me uninteresting.

Again, don't take me wrongly. I'm sure you are a very creative and thoughtful person. It's just that I haven't seen that side of you in the conversations I've had with you. Very little exposure, on your part, as to what makes YOU tick. What you think, etc.

You sound like a broken record.

Yes I do sound like a broken record. Only because you won't open up as I have been trying to get you to. You avoid simple questions I think would lead to more interesting questions. Questions I suspect you don't want to face. Oh well.

[_Themis]

MG,

The only thing I have done with you is ask questions regarding your beliefs and claims. Not sure why they would be uninteresting for you other then you don't want to face them. I certainly have not presented much about me or what I believe. Not sure why some religious people think lack of belief is such a bad thing. I tend to stick with what we can know and not worry much about what we cannot. Much of what we can know is very interesting, but most of us including you probably agree on much of them, which is why they don't get discussed much in forums like this.

[_Zadok]

I'm new here, so probably I have no right saying anything, but at the risk of offending both of you, I'm going to anyway.

Brethren, as long as a point of doctrine, or theory, or event, or issue for discussion has interesting and diverse input it has 'standing' and is of interest to almost all who come here.

But when the issue has been 'fleshed out' and both sides have expressed their points of view to the point that the two sides start denigrating each other, then the thread loses its 'gravitas' and becomes an uninteresting waste of bandwidth.

It seems to me that the two of you have a history with each other, and I, as a single, NEW member here, would prefer if we just agree to disagree and move on to something new, and more interesting.

Suit yourselves, but that's my two coppers.

[_Themis]

But when the issue has been 'fleshed out' and both sides have expressed their points of view to the point that the two sides start denigrating each other, then the thread loses its 'gravitas' and becomes an uninteresting waste of bandwidth.

The problem is it hasn't been fleshed out. MG has an unfortunate tendency to not want to answer questions about his claims/beliefs. This is just one example, but it is the same on another thread where people are asking him to give examples of the complexity and wisdom in the Book of Mormon that are beyond what we would expect from Joseph or others that he is claiming. That issue has come up numerous times with people still asking him for specifics. I can agree to disagree, but it might be interesting to know exactly what we disagree about.

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm new here, so probably I have no right saying anything, but at the risk of offending both of you, I'm going to anyway.

Brethren, as long as a point of doctrine, or theory, or event, or issue for discussion has interesting and diverse input it has 'standing' and is of interest to almost all who come here.

But when the issue has been 'fleshed out' and both sides have expressed their points of view to the point that the two sides start denigrating each other, then the thread loses its 'gravitas' and becomes an uninteresting waste of bandwidth.

It seems to me that the two of you have a history with each other, and I, as a single, NEW member here, would prefer if we just agree to disagree and move on to something new, and more interesting.

Suit yourselves, but that's my two coppers.

Hi Zadok,

Themis and I have, to my understanding/belief, been quite civil with each other. I have absolutely no animosity towards him at all. I simply have no reason to think that we can really resolve the issue of mind/body/spirit...and the numinous or ineffable. He thinks I am intentionally trying to "cover" or not fully disclose my thoughts in regards to this topic. It is simply that when it comes down to it, the ineffable and numinous are very difficult to get a handle on or wrap one's mind around. Especially when, and this is where I think Themis and I agree, the effects/response seem to be intrinsically an inextricably intertwined with one another. To the extent, unfortunately, that the hopeful/plausible believer in the "spiritual" really can't fully differentiate for the non-believer and/or strict materialist that which might separate one from the other.

Regards,
MG

[_Zadok]

I agree you have been totally civil to each other. I'm just saying that the personal issues between the two of you tends to detract from the otherwise valuable thread.

Every time I check for new thoughts and updates, I am disappointed to just read more about the two of you not getting along.

[_Gray Ghost]

Spiritual experiences of the sort reported by Latter-day Saints are actually pretty common spiritual experiences, often accompanying a religious conversion to various faiths (Islam, Catholicism, etc).

I think we err when we try to hijack them and use them to say that our path and no other is the one true path. Rather than a specific message from God, I believe they are a means for appreciating sacredness.

I am open to this way of looking at what we refer to as spiritual experience. But again, going back to what I had expressed in the post of mine you brought to the forefront, we have to be somewhat skeptical as we attribute emotional response to stimuli as being a spiritual witness. The few experiences that I've had in my life that I would consider to be "spiritual" have not involved any emotional response that I was previously acquainted with. Yes, Themis, there was sensation...but how could there not have been? I'm in a physical body. But the "feeling" I had was not associated with any emotional response that I was familiar with and, truth be told, did not strike me as being emotionally based. The problem is, it is very difficult to describe these few occasions. I'm sure there might be a few others here that might be able to relate to what I'm talking about.

The interesting thing is, very few of the experiences that I'm referring to had any direct correlation to receiving a specific "witness" to the verification of truth claims of the LDS Church. Although indirectly I would say that they did. In one of the experiences it was simply an overwhelming "sensation", for lack of a better word, that someone "out there" was aware of me and my circumstance and simply LOVED me and was concerned for my welfare. So I am totally on board with others around the world and in many circumstances/religions, etc., having experiences that could be stripped down, when all is said and done, to having been a result of the interaction between man and the divine. And again, to be clear, OTOH, I think that much of what human beings describe as being a witness and/or a spiritual experience is at its core emotionally based...and no more.

I'm not the one to make the differentiation between what is REAL and what is not for one person or another. As I've said before, we can only be concerned with ourselves and our own experience. And I think that the divine/God can take people in different directions according to their physical, emotional, cultural, mental, genetic, etc., makeup. A palm tree isn't going to grow here in Utah Valley. Plants that grow in one place, won't be healthy or be able to survive in another. Each plant has its own beauty and purpose. Transplanting from one environment to another sometimes "takes", but often...not. The world is wide and varied in its people. Different strokes for different folks. In my way of thinking, those "different strokes" can all be manifestations of God's plan for all of His children in whatever circumstances they've cut out for themselves with the resources (Guns, Germs, and Steel...) they've been "blessed"...or not...with.

I see the CofJCofLDS as being one of those many and varied "plants" that takes to a certain terrain/environment...and provides a certain function in the world created by a loving God. At least that's the way I look at it with my believing hat on.

Regards,
MG

I have had quite powerful spiritual experiences. Through meditation, their frequency can increase. How would you know, however, that an experience, no matter how illuminating or numinous, was more than "just" an emotional experience? How could you ever have enough perspective to tell the difference between a "natural" experience and a "supernatural" one? Both would have to be experienced only through the natural senses.

From my perspective, spiritual experiences are not diminished in any degree by being "just" a feelings. I don't look for miracles in the magical traditional religious narrative. The real magic, in my opinion, is in the observable world. The growth of trees is incredibly magical. The fact that we exist is magical. The physical universe is amazing enough.

I personally don't have any need for the supernatural. The natural is already sacred enough.

I do appreciate that you carve out spaces for different paths. I don't see a master intelligence behind the creation of any particular path, but I do see all paths as trying to achieve the same thing - to approach and to appreciate and to cultivate sacredness.

[_Quasimodo]

I agree you have been totally civil to each other. I'm just saying that the personal issues between the two of you tends to detract from the otherwise valuable thread.

Every time I check for new thoughts and updates, I am disappointed to just read more about the two of you not getting along.

I dunno, I find the interaction between two reasonable posters who disagree enlightening and entertaining. Themis and MG are at opposing ends of a particular spectrum, but they are civil with each other and both do a good job of presenting their points of view.

There are some posters on this board who begin every post with a personal slur. I do weary of those conversations.