If the church is not true, would you want to know?

[_Morley]

You seem to be operating on the assumption any spiritual claims made are erroneous at the outset because they can't be demonstrated or proven empirically or scientifically.

I, for one, do operate on that assumption.

[_Themis]

So...what I'm saying is that you seem to have a worldview in which religion of all stripes and colors belong in the same box. Manmade.

I think they are manmade based on to much evidence supporting such a view.

To look at any belief system and/or religion as being God inspired and directed would not fit in with this worldview.

It is not a world view. I have not pre-concluded that all religion is manmade or that the LDS church is manmade. I had to first look at the evidence both physical and spiritual. I spent most of my life believeing the LDS church was God inspired.

Thus your comments in regards to whatever happens in Mormonism being a product of the mind and physiology rather than the possibility that God is behind it. Spiritual experience as stem describes it is thrown off as an implausibility to the extent that a god is not communicating and/or interacting with individuals...at all.

I came from the perspective that God was behind it, to God may be behind it, to God may not be neccesssary, or that our Bodies and minds may be capable of producing the experience, This movement was based on my own life as well as looking at others and seeing that man made was likely. Science is even starting to produce these expereinces in the lab. Give them 20-30 years. The interpretations people get from these expereinces is one of the most inconsistant things we see.

You seem to be operating on the assumption any spiritual claims made are erroneous at the outset because they can't be demonstrated or proven empirically or scientifically. I describe this as looking through Diamond's lense as one observes the world.

I will always be open to the possibility, but since they are not just unproven, but in many cases evidence against such claims, God insopired seems less likely then more human causes.

The question needs to be asked, however, whether that view of the world is distorted. From you POV, no. From the POV of others, yes. There can be no meeting of the minds which will result in agreement as to the source of spiritual phenomena for individuals because the assumption has already been made that spiritual phenomena which actually have their source outside of the human mind are not possible.

Unfortunetly you are getting it backwords. Memebers including myself for a long time made the assumption that they were from God. I have made no assumption that it is not possiblre. I tend to bring up plausible human sources becuase of this assumption to get people to try and think about it. I think there are many reasons to think that the experience may not be divinely inspired.

You believe that you are right because of the evidence. Others that have had what they believe to be reliable spiritual promptings from God would disagree.

They disagree all right. They disagree with each other. People all over the world think they got the right message but yet can't agree on it. Why do some get a spiritual message the church is not true. If they are so reliable, and I think they are just the opposite, why cannot that realaibility be demonstarted. Joseph Smith failed miserably here.

And it can often be shown that these purported spiritual experiences are in error or manufactured through normal processes of human emotion. You have the upper hand because those that have had spiritual experiences cannot prove them empirically and there is much evidence that the brain itself is intimately involved in whatever processes are going on.

Is it my fault they can't prove it. Is it my fault that other explnations that are very resonable exist that don't envolve God. I don't have any upper hand by choice. I would rather the church be true. All I can do is be honest with myself and go where the evidence leads me.

Well, I think it is a good thing for other religious groups if the testifying brings them to a good place where they are able to live productively and with a certifiable degree of happiness/fulfillment. When it comes to the area of truth claims, one can be mistaken concerning the foundational underpinnings that would support said testimony, but if the bearing of that witness keeps them in a good place, like I said, it is useful in the life of that person in the sense that it gives them an anchor which provides stability. Many people thrive within this operational schema. It ends up being a net gain rather than loss.

So in regards to the OP, no you don't want to know. that's fine. I realise people can be happy and in good places believeing many false beliefs. It's not like I am out trying to get people to stop believeing most of what I think may be incorrect, but I also think all incorrect beliefs are not a neccessity to achieve what you listed above. I just hope over time the world will move towards more correct understandings, which I think will also lead to greater happiness and satisfaction.