Charity, how is LDS right and FLDS, Strangites, RLDS, wrong?

[_charity]

Charity -

How much have you read either about the spiritual experiences of people in other faiths, and about the science of the brain in creating numinous experiences? Have you read any books on the subject, like James' Varieties of Religious Experiences? Have you read any of the recent books that delve into how the brain constructs reality, like Why God Won't Go Away, or Phantoms in the Brain?

I'm wondering because you are so consistently dismissive of the powerful experiences people of other faiths have. Oh, you don't deny they have experiences, but not like yours - because yours came from the TRUTH. Theirs comes from partial truths, maybe preparatory truths.

Other than that question, there's little left to say to you on the matter. You are so inconsistent in your statements that it's hard to break through. You act as if NO ONE could ever re-evaluate the meaning of their own numinous experiences, as if they are so beyond any other experience there's no comparison, and then in the next breath assert that people ought to listen to the "still small voice" as well. I'm not taking it personally, I'm trying to make sense of your inconsistent statements.

You know, for someone who decries pride and arrogance in others, you are one of the most proud, arrogant people I've ever encountered online. I noticed that about you long ago on MAD, and nothing you've done here has changed my mind.

I haven't read everything there is on the subject. I get tired of reading weak attempts to explain the unexplainable. And the ever present "you don't really understand what you are experiencing, so let me tell you about it." Then when you reply back (figuratively, of course) "No, that isn't what my experience is" you are tol told, "oh, yes, it is. I know better than you."

I realize you have to consistently misstate my position because you have no argument if you don't. I do NOT deny anyone's experience. I fully accept that other people not LDS, can have powerful spiritual experiences. Have you got that now, and you won't ever make that mistake again?

The only thing I dispute is when someone tries to tell me that their experience is exactly like mine and now they understand it to be a brain chemistry function, so therefore mine is, too.

The reason you don't understand what I mean about the still small voice, is that you evidently do not understand the different gifts of the spirit. Doctrine and Covenants 46 is very instructive. So is the following passage from 1 Corinthians 12: 4-11 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is agiven by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.


About my pride and arrogance. Only in your mind. And maybe because you envy what I have and what you don't. Not that you want it. If you are happy in your current situation, and you have rejected the position I am in as less desireable, why the envy?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Whoa! Major wrong assumption here. It is a correct statement that I am looking for truths. Line upon line is the way we gain our knowledge. But from a message board? You have got to be joking!

Have you never gleaned truth from a message board? Or tried to advance truth on a message board?

I try to advance truth on this message board. But I don't think there has been any advance.

Not all message boards are created equal, of course. I do learn from an individual poster here and there. More there than here.

So if you believe truth can be advanced or found on a message board, why would you think anyone would be joking about finding it?

What particular "truths" are you advancing?

As I recall from a discussion on FAIR some time ago (when it was still FAIR and before I was kicked off), Charity believes that all ex-mormons are inherently untrustworthy, as evidenced by their unfaithfulness to the church. She certainly wouldn't ever expect to learn any sort of truth from any of us.

[_Polygamy Porter]

I do NOT deny anyone's experience. I fully accept that other people not LDS, can have powerful spiritual experiences. Have you got that now, and you won't ever make that mistake again?

Yes, but one thing that you have stated is that your spiritual experiences come from god and all other non LDS spiritual experiences come from Satan.

[_Chap]

The only thing I dispute is when someone tries to tell me that their experience is exactly like mine and now they understand it to be a brain chemistry function, so therefore mine is, too.

I cannot speak for others. But I suspect that there are some who, like me, would simply want to say to Charity:

"You claim to have special access to something you believe is immensely important, and you say you have an absolute conviction, based on what you call a 'spiritual' experience that your claim is both meaningful and veridical.

However there are other people, to all appearances no less sincere than you, who make similar claims for their utter conviction as to the truth of religious convictions quite at odds with yours.

Several of these people urge us to ask various allegedly divine entities to give us the experience of sharing the convictions they express. We have even known of people who have followed their urgings, and come to believe that they have been vouchsafed similar experiences.

But there seem to be no reasonable grounds for following your (Charity's) advice to pray to share your particular experience of conviction rather than anybody else's. Indeed, the variety and incompatibility of all the different modes of conviction found in the world's religions suggests to us that we might be better off avoiding such things altogether as being purely contingent cultural artefacts of no informational value, and making our decisions about our lives quite independently of such things."

[_beastie]

I haven't read everything there is on the subject. I get tired of reading weak attempts to explain the unexplainable. And the ever present "you don't really understand what you are experiencing, so let me tell you about it." Then when you reply back (figuratively, of course) "No, that isn't what my experience is" you are tol told, "oh, yes, it is. I know better than you."

I didn't ask if you've read "everything" on the subject. I asked if you've read "anything" on the subject. It doesn't have to be the books I cited, they're just examples. So can you share what you have read on the subject?

What I've been trying to figure out isn't what YOU experienced, but what you think people of other faiths experienced.

I realize you have to consistently misstate my position because you have no argument if you don't. I do NOT deny anyone's experience. I fully accept that other people not LDS, can have powerful spiritual experiences. Have you got that now, and you won't ever make that mistake again?

Good grief. Try not to do what you're accusing other people of doing while you're accusing them. I did not say you DENY the spiritual experiences of others. I said you are DISMISSIVE of them. You are dismissive of them in that you do not believe those experiences mean what the people think they mean, just like what you think yours means - which is that their spiritual path is the correct one.

The only thing I dispute is when someone tries to tell me that their experience is exactly like mine and now they understand it to be a brain chemistry function, so therefore mine is, too.

Charity, that is not the only thing you dispute. You have asserted on this thread that people who experience what YOU experience could not possibly reinterpret that experience one day, outside the faith.

This is what I am arguing with you. YOU are telling me what I experienced. YOU are being dismissive of what I experienced because I have since reinterpreted its meaning.

The reason you don't understand what I mean about the still small voice, is that you evidently do not understand the different gifts of the spirit. Doctrine and Covenants 46 is very instructive. So is the following passage from 1 Corinthians 12: 4-11 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is agiven by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

How is this an answer???? I understand that, according to LDS, the still small voice is another manifestation of the HG. Do you think I am an idiot, or are you just trying to avoid answering the question?

You have asserted that no one could possibly experience anything like what you've experienced and then later reinterpret it outside the faith. You have asserted that there is no way one could compare it to any other experience in life. Then you assert that the still small voice should also be just as adequate for an answer.

So help me out. What is the difference between the still small voice and the voice of thunder?

About my pride and arrogance. Only in your mind. And maybe because you envy what I have and what you don't. Not that you want it. If you are happy in your current situation, and you have rejected the position I am in as less desireable, why the envy?

Who said anything about envy??? What in the world are you talking about???

Anyone who asserts that they can determine that another person's experience was "less" than their own somehow, or originated with Satan, is arrogant and proud. I don't expect you to agree, but any objective outsider would.

[_Sethbag]

[H]ave a nice day, and I do wish you well in your own virtual reality inside your mind.

Sethbag, no offense, but we are all within our own "virtual realities" inside our own minds. No one knows reality 100%, and the realities we think we know are but what we create within our own heads. Her reality is no more correct nor incorrect than anyone elses, for we do not have a perfect knowledge to base our percentage "right" upon.

I agree that we're all living in our own virtual realities, and that none of us comprehends all truth, therefore our apprehension of things is somewhat less than as they really are. There's no question about that. I do not, however, agree that all virtual realities are created equal, merely because we don't know everything.

For example, I believe that human beings exist because our parents had us, that our species evolved from earlier species through processes including natural selection, that the planet we live on is several billions years old, etc. You could very well believe that we live in Candyland, and that Gumdrop Daddy is actually up in the sky waiting to reward your life of goodness with everlasting chocolate fountains of spectacularity. While it is true that I don't know everything, I would argue that our virtual realities are not equal; that mine is somewhat closer to the objective reality than yours. This argument would be supportable by evidence.

[_beastie]

Charity,

I apologize for calling you arrogant. I admit that seeing you repeatedly insinuate or assert that apostates are associated with satan is irritating, but I shouldn't have brought that up. It will only be a diversion. I'd prefer you respond to the points I was trying to make rather than discuss whether or not you personally are arrogant.

[_harmony]

harmony: This does not make sense. [referring to my statement that the Holy Ghost was not limited to LDS] There would be no reason to give the gift of the Holy Ghost to newly baptised members, if the Holy Ghost can act within nonmembers. They would have already had it. They wouldn't have had to join the LDS church to get it.

charity: The gift of the Holy Ghost is different from the witness of the Holy Ghost. The witness can be given to anyone at any time and witnesses a specific truth. Then if the person who receives that witness acts on it, he/she is given more witnesses to truth. This witnesses is transitory. The gift of the Holy Ghost means the person is entitled to the continued presence of the Holy Ghost, conditioned on worthiness.

See, I just advanced truth, at least for harmony.

Why does a person need the gift of the Holy Ghost if, as you say, "the witness can be given to anyone at any time..."? It seems to me like there is no difference between the two concepts.

And no one, let me say that again... no one is entitled to anything when it comes to God. We don't earn anything, we don't demand anything, and we sure as heck aren't entitled to anything. You do understand the meaning of "humility", don't you?

And I haven't seen any truth yet. What I've seen is your opinion. Unless you're now trying to take over the Prophet's job?

[_charity]

the road to hana: As I recall from a discussion on FAIR some time ago (when it was still FAIR and before I was kicked off), Charity believes that all ex-mormons are inherently untrustworthy, as evidenced by their unfaithfulness to the church. She certainly wouldn't ever expect to learn any sort of truth from any of us.

charity: you don't recall correctly. I said that people who violate sacred covenants and publish temple ceremonies are not trustworthy. And people who lie to get a temple recommend so they can secretly vido tape the temple ceremony. I have seen those behaviors defended. I don't know that you did. But that is what I was referring to. Like the man who makes a vow of love and fidelity to his wife, and then changes his mind later,and decides he isn't in love with her. He doesn't have permission to break his vows.

Polygamy Porter: [Referring to my opinion on other people, not LDS, having spiritual experiences] Yes, but one thing that you have stated is that your spiritual experiences come from god and all other non LDS spiritual experiences come from Satan.

charity: Again, not true, Polyg. I have stated that many non-LDS people have spiritual experiences which come from God. But if ANYONE, LDS or non-LDS has a "spiritual" experience that is not from God, there is only one other source. Maybe that is too subtle a difference for you to undestand.

Chap: But there seem to be no reasonable grounds for following your (Charity's) advice to pray to share your particular experience of conviction rather than anybody else's. Indeed, the variety and incompatibility of all the different modes of conviction found in the world's religions suggests to us that we might be better off avoiding such things altogether as being purely contingent cultural artefacts of no informational value, and making our decisions about our lives quite independently of such things."

charity: Anyone can make his/her own decision about what they believe is the value of their spiritual experiences. You have obvously made yours. You can give the secular humanist view. I do not accept that. But then we knew that already,didn't we?

beastie: I didn't ask if you've read "everything" on the subject. I asked if you've read "anything" on the subject. It doesn't have to be the books I cited, they're just examples. So can you share what you have read on the subject?

charity: This is a distraction off the topic, but okay. I read a lot of William James, Carl Jung and Abraham Maslow on numinous experience. I read some of the work of Persinger when I was backin school later. While is work has other flaws, the major one is that his conclusions are based on induced experiences. I don't think his assurances that induced experiences are identical to spontaneous experiences is very compelling. Do you want to go on with this?

beastie: What I've been trying to figure out isn't what YOU experienced, but what you think people of other faiths experienced.

charity: What I think is that other people have geniuine, God-given spiritual experiences. I have said that over and over and over. How many repeats does it take?

beastie: I said you are DISMISSIVE of them [the spiritual experiences of others]. You are dismissive of them in that you do not believe those experiences mean what the people think they mean, just like what you think yours means - which is that their spiritual path is the correct one.

charity: Not true again. I think any spiritual experience sent from God confirms a truth. That simple.

I think that non-LDS and LDS may on occasion misinterpret what the witness was meant to convey. For instance, Paul Dunn often told stories of sacrifice and heroic action based on his experiences. Listening to those stories many people felt what they said was a spiritual confirmation. Later on, it was revealed that he really did not have those experiences. This caused a crisis for some because they felt they had been deceived, that obviously the spirit wouldn't testify to a false story, so they disallowed the experience as not being what they thought it was. I think they had misinterpreted the witness. They thought it was to the story, which was not true. I think it was to the truth that sacrifice is a honorable action, that heroics in the face of danger Old Testament save others, etc. That was the truth the Spirit was witnessing to.


beatie: You have asserted on this thread that people who experience what YOU experience could not possibly reinterpret that experience one day, outside the faith. This is what I am arguing with you. YOU are telling me what I experienced. YOU are being dismissive of what I experienced because I have since reinterpreted its meaning.

charity: Guilty. But with a couple of the witnesses I have experienced, there is no way I could ever go back and say it was something so trivial as random neuron firings. So I cannot see how something, if it were as powerful, could be so easil dismissed by you. But I will admit to thinking that your experience had to be of a less strong influence.

beastie: So help me out. What is the difference between the still small voice and the voice of thunder?

charity: The difference is only the form of the answer. Sometimes the answer comes in the still small voice. Sometimes the voice of thunder. The same source. Different format, style.

beastie: Who said anything about envy??? What in the world are you talking about???

charity: When someone says, "you just think you have some kind of special experience, but you don't" it is because they are envious. Since they don't have the experience, the way they can feel better about themselves is only be convincing themselves that no one has that kind of experience.

beastie: Anyone who asserts that they can determine that another person's experience was "less" than their own somehow, or originated with Satan, is arrogant and proud. I don't expect you to agree, but any objective outsider would.

charity: It is your determination of "less." I said "different." And the doctrine of opposition in all things is not something I made up.

beastie: I'd prefer you respond to the points I was trying to make rather than discuss whether or not you personally are arrogant.

charity: Fine. You don't accuse me of it. I won't have any reason to stand up for myself.

[Guest]

harmony: This does not make sense. [referring to my statement that the Holy Ghost was not limited to LDS] There would be no reason to give the gift of the Holy Ghost to newly baptised members, if the Holy Ghost can act within nonmembers. They would have already had it. They wouldn't have had to join the LDS church to get it.

charity: The gift of the Holy Ghost is different from the witness of the Holy Ghost. The witness can be given to anyone at any time and witnesses a specific truth. Then if the person who receives that witness acts on it, he/she is given more witnesses to truth. This witnesses is transitory. The gift of the Holy Ghost means the person is entitled to the continued presence of the Holy Ghost, conditioned on worthiness.

See, I just advanced truth, at least for harmony.

Why does a person need the gift of the Holy Ghost if, as you say, "the witness can be given to anyone at any time..."? It seems to me like there is no difference between the two concepts.

And no one, let me say that again... no one is entitled to anything when it comes to God. We don't earn anything, we don't demand anything, and we sure as heck aren't entitled to anything. You do understand the meaning of "humility", don't you?

And I haven't seen any truth yet. What I've seen is your opinion. Unless you're now trying to take over the Prophet's job?

I explained that already, harmony.

There is a difference between a transitory experience and a continual presence. That is the difference.

The gift of the Holy Ghost is given by God, not demanded, as a specific ordinance, referenced in Article of Faith #4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You did say you were a member, I believe? This is basic doctrine. Not my opinion. The word of God. A truth.