MG & JLHPROF: From Whence Come Spiritual Experiences?

[_mentalgymnast]

It's been demonstrated on this thread that even the believer is unsure of his spiritual experiences on any sort of consistent basis, and from that we can draw that spirituality is useless when figuring truth claims out.

That hasn't been my experience, but I'll guess we'll have to leave it there.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

It's been demonstrated on this thread that even the believer is unsure of his spiritual experiences on any sort of consistent basis, and from that we can draw that spirituality is useless when figuring truth claims out.

That hasn't been my experience, but I'll guess we'll have to leave it there.

Regards,
MG

Yet not a few minutes earlier you stated....

I can't prove...even to myself...that these experiences that I've had are demonstrably from somewhere else other than that which can possibly be manufactured within.

[_mentalgymnast]

You were defending your assertion that individuals could differentiate between spiritual phenomena and self induced feelings, and that a qualitative burning in the bosom was the key differentiator between spiritual phenomena and self induced feelings.

OK. I won't argue that point.

But it is faith that moves one forward from that point into active belief/hope. Yes, we are all still stepping into the unknown after having experience what we consider...or hope...to be spiritual experiences. We each have to decide what we're going to do with these 'peak experiences' and how they will fit into our overall schema of things, including faith.

Regards,
MG

[_grindael]

And no, grindael, I don't think I've been duped. I actually have a pretty level head on my shoulders.

You are a liar Mental. You lied about your so called experiences. And I never said you thought you had been duped, so why you made that comment is beyond me. I already know you don't think you've been duped, because you constantly lie about Mormon History and your so called experiences and are a blatant apologist for the church. I notice you haven't addressed any of my questions, such as why Smith said you could safely drink poison and would have to do so if asked. Why is that canonized? Why do you sustain it? You can believe anything you like, but don't pontificate to this board that it is anything more than your own whim or that there is any evidence AT ALL for your claimed spiritual experiences.

And you are one to speak of cutting and pasting comments that aren't your own? You CONSTANTLY do this. You live and breathe FAIRMORMON and their lies. You offer nothing original. It's exactly why you are here. But have at it, and I'll be right here posting the actual evidence.

[_I have a question]

You were defending your assertion that individuals could differentiate between spiritual phenomena and self induced feelings, and that a qualitative burning in the bosom was the key differentiator between spiritual phenomena and self induced feelings.

OK. I won't argue that point.

It’s unarguable, just read the thread.

But it is faith that moves one forward from that point into active belief/hope.

Assuming when you say ‘point’ you mean from the moment you get a burning in the bosom, then I disagree. Confirmation bias can move you forward from that point. So can delusion. So can rational investigation and thinking. In your phrase above ‘faith’ is simply ‘what you already want to be true’.

Go back to my experience - from the moment I had the burning in the bosom confirming the Book of Mormon wasn’t true, how would faith have led me into active belief/hope?

Yes, we are all still stepping into the unknown after having experience what we consider...or hope...to be spiritual experiences. We each have to decide what we're going to do with these 'peak experiences' and how they will fit into our overall schema of things, including faith.

Regards,
MG

How/why are we stepping into the unknown after experiencing a burning in the bosom that could have been self induced?

[_Lemmie]

It's been demonstrated on this thread that even the believer is unsure of his spiritual experiences on any sort of consistent basis, and from that we can draw that spirituality is useless when figuring truth claims out.

- Doc

I think that’s a very clear and well articulated conclusion of precisely what this thread demonstrates.

I'll just second that I think Doc's post gets right to the heart of this thread, very well said.

Ditto. The consistency issue is particularly troublesome, especially when the Mormon newsroom trumpets, as a spiritual experience, every coincidental "win" during emergencies, man-made or otherwise, but is utterly silent on the equally coincidental losses. To me, using that after-the-fact hindsight, as it was called in this thread, to declare the existence of a spiritual experience is simply dishonest.

[_I have a question]

The consistency issue is particularly troublesome, especially when the Mormon newsroom trumpets, as a spiritual experience, every coincidental "win" during emergencies, man-made or otherwise, but is utterly silent on the equally coincidental losses. To me, using that after-the-fact hindsight, as it was called in this thread, to declare the existence of a spiritual experience is simply dishonest.

It is drawing targets around where arrows have already fallen.

[_grindael]

I like "science" men, by the way. Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and others were some of my 'go to' guys years ago when I first became 'turned on' to science and the scientific endeavors that these awesome folks engaged themselves in and then wrote about.

Another lie. You denigrated all the people on this board who do believe in "science men" thusly,

Especially to those who have come to believe that only what is directly observable IS ALL that can be seen. (Caps in original)

This is about as anti-science as you can get.

[_Lemmie]

But it is faith that moves one forward from that point into active belief/hope.

Assuming when you say ‘point’ you mean from the moment you get a burning in the bosom, then I disagree. Confirmation bias can move you forward from that point. So can delusion. So can rational investigation and thinking. In your phrase above ‘faith’ is simply ‘what you already want to be true’.

And based on DrW's OP, it is also more than likely just 'what you grew up with,' or 'what you are used to,' which is the ultimate in confirmation bias, I suppose.

[Guest]