Laban's death defies logic and reality

[_Gordon]

If the Holy Ghost is speaking through feelings, and the Devil is speaking through feelings, and as human beings we also have feelings as just a normal part of our lives, then what the believer is saying is that they can accurately analyze their feelings and judge the nature of their feelings. They can come to a 100% confidence that, given any particular spiritual-communication-through-feelings episode, they are accurately judging the nature of their response, and thus can claim to know truth.

And they claim they can do this despite the multitude of forces militating against it. I'm talking about cognitive biases like confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance strategies, the desire to justify one's actions or beliefs, save face, etc. They also claim that they can do this despite the evidence from large numbers of people claiming they do this who apparently are wrong about a lot of what they think has been "revealed" to them.

And basically, you're suggesting it's impossible for anyone, under such circumstances, to know what's actually real, for themselves...ironic, don't you think?

That the individual believers thinks they've become good at such interpretation of feelings, while their brethren and sistren apparently aren't doing it right, really ought to be a red flag to them. But it usually isn't. Oh well.

You assume that all are working under the same premise.

[_Gordon]

Your description seems to fit very well what I have seen in other groups, and fits very well with what I think the body is more then capable of.

I disagree.

[_Gordon]

Your example didn't have them relying on others, yet they still couldn't get it right.

Incorrect.

Drifting's example relied on an explanation "according to 'Mormonism'", and the "differing results generated by differing people following the same advice", which my example addressed.

[_Gordon]

Gordon,

I have more respect for you being open and honest about your experiences. Many here don't.

Thank-you.

From my experiences, you have been quite respectable in your exchanges...in fact, this whole board is a refresher to the CARM board, which I have spent too much time on...

[_Gordon]

You're missing the point. The "knowledge" you're claiming is simply the occurrence of some body sensation. Anything beyond that is your interpretation of that experience, or the significance you attach to it. So if your basis for claiming "knowledge" that the Book of Mormon is true is that one day when you were praying about it, and you had a unique sensation, then your claim is intellectually dishonest. All you truly *know* is that you prayed, thought about something, and then had a sensation of some sort. The steps you took to obtain that "knowledge" are not even remotely on the same level as the typical ways people obtain knowledge. Your "knowledge" of the Book of Mormon is not the same as my "knowledge" that I'm sitting in a chair, or that my air conditioner just turned on, or that the sun is visible, etc. When you make claims to "knowledge," that is the type of "knowing" that people think of. I think that's what I and others find objectionable about your posts. If you were honest (and humble) enough to admit that what you have is not knowledge, but mere belief, then I doubt you'd get as much push back.

I would say you're spot on, save for the fact that I wasn't trying to gain a knowledge of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon anymore than I was trying to gain a knowledge that my eggs were done over-easy (it pretty much occurred in like manner).

Your statement denies the possibility to distinguish between the two.

You know no more less that you're sitting in a chair, than I do that I had a witness.

Besides, do you not agree that one can only "know" something that is true? What if someone tells you that they have prayed to God, experienced your Vapor-Rub sensation, and now they know that the Pope is God's mouthpiece on the earth today. Unless you already agree with that proposition, chances are you would be like us: skeptical that their conclusion does not follow from their premises.

No, I believe one can know a negative.

Furthermore, I don't believe everything I hear...you shouldn't either. In fact, the Gospel teaches that we can distinguish, for ourselves, between the two.

See, now that's more like it. Faith is not only a big part of it--it's all of it. What you have is faith, not knowledge.

I do have faith, but that's not all. Simply, though, I can't give you anything more.

[_Chap]

You know no more less that you're sitting in a chair, than I do that I had a witness.

There is obviously some garbling here, but do I detect some Simon Belmontesque "How do you know that is really an apple?" stuff here?

Or maybe this is just a position that all TBMs find themselves forced back to as a logical consequence of defending the epistemological value of 'burnings in the bosom'.

They can't convince a skeptic that such experiences do tell us anything about the world, apart from that the speaker may have had certain sensations. So they end up denying the epistemological value of all experience, in an effort to reduce "I have a witness of the Gospel" and "I am sitting in a chair" to the same level. It's a bit like (but of course not completely like) the "All criticisms that apply to the Book of Mormon also apply to the Bible" move.

(Of course once they have done that, why bother listening further?)

[_Drifting]

You're missing the point. The "knowledge" you're claiming is simply the occurrence of some body sensation. Anything beyond that is your interpretation of that experience, or the significance you attach to it. So if your basis for claiming "knowledge" that the Book of Mormon is true is that one day when you were praying about it, and you had a unique sensation, then your claim is intellectually dishonest. All you truly *know* is that you prayed, thought about something, and then had a sensation of some sort. The steps you took to obtain that "knowledge" are not even remotely on the same level as the typical ways people obtain knowledge. Your "knowledge" of the Book of Mormon is not the same as my "knowledge" that I'm sitting in a chair, or that my air conditioner just turned on, or that the sun is visible, etc. When you make claims to "knowledge," that is the type of "knowing" that people think of. I think that's what I and others find objectionable about your posts. If you were honest (and humble) enough to admit that what you have is not knowledge, but mere belief, then I doubt you'd get as much push back.

I would say you're spot on, save for the fact that I wasn't trying to gain a knowledge of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon anymore than I was trying to gain a knowledge that my eggs were done over-easy (it pretty much occurred in like manner).

Your statement denies the possibility to distinguish between the two.

So, how does one distinguish between the two with any degree of certainty that isn't biased towards what one is predisposed to believe?

[_PrickKicker]

You know no more less that you're sitting in a chair, than I do that I had a witness.

There is obviously some garbling here, but do I detect some Simon Belmontesque "How do you know that is really an apple?" stuff here?

Or maybe this is just a position that all TBMs find themselves forced back to as a logical consequence of defending the epistemological value of 'burnings in the bosom'.

They can't convince a skeptic that such experiences do tell us anything about the world, apart from that the speaker may have had certain sensations. So they end up denying the epistemological value of all experience, in an effort to reduce "I have a witness of the Gospel" and "I am sitting in a chair" to the same level. It's a bit like (but of course not completely like) the "All criticisms that apply to the Book of Mormon also apply to the Bible" move.

(Of course once they have done that, why bother listening further?)

Wasn't it Steven Hawkins, 'A brief history of time'... I remember a bit about when you sit on a chair your not really sitting on it there is a minuscule amount of actual contact, in my mind I see it like the table cloth trick, you know where some one whips the table cloth away and all the crockery remains on the table. He is trying to sound like he actually knows things on a deeper level than everyone else.

We all suffer from delusions of grandeur, the difference is some people know it, and some people, normally belonging to a large organisation where they tell other people how to live their lives, don't.
The LDS church has away of power sharing, some people need to feel important and have authority over others, the church is a system that allows everyone to feel at one time or another that they are in charge or in a position to know more or be more inspired than everyone else.

Some members just don't know when their time is up and like to try using it online or in the work place.

[Guest]

Your description seems to fit very well what I have seen in other groups, and fits very well with what I think the body is more then capable of.

I disagree.

Of course you do. I am not surprised. Neither of us really knows what the body is fully capable of. If you think you do know, I would be interested in how you think you know. I would also like to know how you know some sensation is coming from some divine being? Keep in mind some of are very familiar with this subject from an LDS perspective. Your descriptions so far are nothing knew, even if less common, and so far you have given that sensations have happened during religious activities(as you might define them) as the only reason so far that they must be from a divine being. Problem with sensations is they have no meaning until we attach meanings to them. Think of someone with stomach cancer. Before they find out do they interpret certain symptoms(sensations) as being stomach cancer or maybe eating something bad.

[_Themis]

Drifting's example relied on an explanation "according to 'Mormonism'", and the "differing results generated by differing people following the same advice", which my example addressed.

I don't think I was talking about that example, but one of the problems with the spiritual is reliability, but even before that is how one knows it is coming from some divine being. I think this one is not really thought about much, but just assumed.