Large numbers of members apostatizing - says Marlin K Jensen

[_Samantabhadra]

Regardless of questions of ethics (and whether denying something like a prayer is really unethical in the same way as denying actual treatment), the method was sound. The people doing the prayer were believers - three congregations of Christians. It was a long study involving a large test group. Prayer had no positive effect on health outcomes.

I understand why you feel that way, and to be honest that is probably the best "scientific" methodology to use. But I just want to say, that is not really how prayer works. To begin with, there are many different kinds of prayer. The kind of prayer where you ask, for example, for God to make someone better, is called "propitiatory" prayer, and it is (supposed to be) very personal. I don't doubt that the prayer had some kind of good effect on those prayed for, because positive intentions always have positive effects, the question is whether "positive effects" means "getting better in the way prayed for." Especially when the prayer is so generic, and the people being prayed for were strangers to the ones doing the praying.

Also consider this quote from the article cited, which I agree with fully:

"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."

I would only clarify, I have no problem studying religion "scientifically," if by "scientifically" you mean "rigorously" and "using a consistent, coherent methodology." The problem is reductionism, and/or assuming a physicalist perspective at the outset and interpreting all your results through that lens.

Well, I wasn't there. Maybe it was very impressive.

But do you suppose you could replicate that in a clinical trial, say, 8 or 9 times out of 10, with a variety of vicious animals?

1) In theory, yes I do. Which is to say, I have absolutely no doubt that I have at my disposal the power and the means to dispel, not 7 or 8 out of 10, but 100/100 immediate threats to my life.

2) On the other hand, I appreciate and understand why you want to make this about laboratory conditions and control groups, but I have to say that is really not how this kind of stuff works. Deliberately putting myself in harm's way so as to "test" these kinds of phenomena is arrogant, stupid, and more or less certain to lead to bad results. Not to mention the fact that if I am ever in actual danger, the experiment is unethical, and if I am never in actual danger, there is no reason to use extraordinary means to protect myself.

3) That said, one of the earliest and most important traditional Buddhist holidays celebrates the working of major, mind-blowing miracles by the Buddha for fifteen days starting shortly after his enlightenment, which were performed in order to demonstrate the superiority of his realization. Perhaps if you asked an actual enlightened master (read: not me) very, very nicely, he might bless you with such a display.

[_Franktalk]

I would only clarify, I have no problem studying religion "scientifically," if by "scientifically" you mean "rigorously" and "using a consistent, coherent methodology." The problem is reductionism, and/or assuming a physicalist perspective at the outset and interpreting all your results through that lens.

Very well said. The assumption of a boundary on investigation due to a physical perspective is a self limiting process. One taken by choice. Sadly many in this mold do not see the physical perspective as a limit. It is way easier for them to deny the existence of anything outside of their self imposed limits. Often taken to the extreme in that they call anyone who investigates where their choose not to a liar. They have an emotional attachment to their view and will defend it.

[_aussieguy55]

What the Internet tells me about horses in America

"HUMANS AND HORSES
North American horses disappeared around 8,000 - 10,000 years ago. Multiple factors including hunting by early Natives, climate change, and disease are thought to have helped contribute to their demise. They disappeared around the same time as other large mammals like Wooly Mammoths.

Human contact with horses is thought to have first occurred around 3 mya, as Homo sapiens moved out of Africa. Ancient Eurasians were known to hunt and eat horses, and their meat formed a staple of many diets at the time.

First domestication of horses occurred around 3,000 B.C. in the Middle East. At this time, the horse replaced the onager as a beast of burden. In fact, European horses were domesticated for several thousand years at the time the Spanish began exploring the Americas in the late 15th century.


RE-INTRODUCTION OF HORSES BY THE SPANISH
Spain’s king gave Conquistadors very fine horses, which the sailors sold to buy cheaper, hardier horses — Iberian Barb’ descendents, also known as Jennets or Andaluz Mustangs. These creatures were small and rugged working, unique to Iberia. They no longer exists but their legacy lives on as Iberian horses have a rich history in horsemanship and breeding. Likewise, old Spanish horses not around anymore outside of heritage in some wild/domestics.

The first Spanish horses arrived in the Carribbean in the early 1500s. In 1519, Conquistadors re-introduced horses to North America. Fifteen horses were brought by the Cortez expedition and were imported by Spanish homesteaders to Mexico and New Mexico. The re-introduced species made their way north through the western U.S. west of the Rocky Mountains to the coast, following the expansion of the Mexican/Spanish. Although greatly valued by their owners, they occasionally escaped, fueling Navajo raiders as early as 1606. Trading and warring among Natives resulted in a rapid spread pf horses through the continent. "
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/ma05/indepth/

A site that is not an antimormon site tells ne indirectly that the Book of Mormon must be false.
Is there any evidence that Tapirs were used to pull chariots?

That's one of the reasons some people leave - information!

[_Drifting]

I have met about a dozen people in my life I would say walk in the spirit.

I have met more than this.
It is usually on a Friday night, or more accurately the early hours of the Saturday morning.
They are completely taken away in the spirit, speak 'in tongues' and miraculously find their way home without any earthly means of assistance.

[_Drifting]

What information would members think Jensen was referring too in his comments on why the Church is experiencing a great apostasy?

[_SteelHead]

1) In theory, yes I do. Which is to say, I have absolutely no doubt that I have at my disposal the power and the means to dispel, not 7 or 8 out of 10, but 100/100 immediate threats to my life.

Wow you too!? When I go into the roda to "fazer malicia" I implore the Orixas and Exu "fecha meu corpo" so that nothing can harm me. Impervious to physical attacks. Then I just have to watch out for "Iyalorixá" who know the ways.

[_bcuzbcuz]

I was walking down a desolate road just after sunset, on the outskirts of the Kathmandu Valley. The power was out and it was pitch black. I had two companions with me: my future wife (although we weren't dating at the time), and a small dog who was escorting us through the desolate darkness.

Suddenly, out of absolutely nowhere, an enormous Tibetan mastiff--don't know if you've ever seen one of these, but they are enormous, more bear than dog--appeared, snarled exactly once, and then leaped and buried its fangs into the neck of our little friend.

To this day I still don't even know exactly what gave me the idea to do this, but I instantly began reciting some wrathful mantra (in Tibetan, as in Sanskrit, mantra often simply means just "magic spell") and making the special hand-gesture for subjugating demonic forces. I won't (can't) say anything other than this, obviously there's a bit more to it than that, but you get the idea.

Anyway, after about 20 or 30 seconds of this--during which time I had the mastiff's attention, but it was still menacingly poised to attack--this enormous black dog took a few steps backward, put its head on the ground, and started gently coughing up a hairball (or something). It stayed there, gently coughing, completely calm and subdued, and we left.

My wife, who is an Orthodox Christian by the way, and who (up until that point) did not believe in such things as magic because she is an extremely level-headed legal professional, was white as a sheet, absolutely terrified, and begged me to promise--PROMISE--that I would never ever ever use anything like that on her.

As I said, I know "what I did," in the sense of the steps that I took, because I learned them in such-and-such a way and performed them in such-and-such a way. But I couldn't tell you "how it worked" far less "why it worked." All I know is that "it worked" and that from that day, there has never been the slightest doubt in my mind that "magic"--sometimes I prefer the term "ritual technology"--is efficacious. Full stop.

It is not my intent to dismiss your story in an off-handed manner, I merely wish to offer an other perspective.

Wild animals find us humans difficult beasts to understand. When we act like normal animals, fearful or aggressive, a wild animal can find a suitable strategy, either in a fight or flight or attack mode.

When we behave confusingly....not confused but in a way difficult to interpret....wild animals have little experience to fall back on.

2 short stories. My oldest daughter was being filmed in the Amazon jungle. Her camera crew dropped their equipment when they saw a black panther come out on a tree branch just above my daughter's head. When my daughter faced the direction of their startled gazes she froze. In total, blood-chilling fright, without the slightest idea how to deal with the situation, in shear terror, she began laughing.

The leopard did not pounce but gradually retreated instead. The panther had probably expected the usual fright responses, freezing with an inability to flee, or running away. But it was definitely not prepared for laughter. So the leopard withdrew.

Story #2. I was out moose hunting in northern Canada with a Swedish buddy. A moose came out from the undergrowth less than 50 meters from where we stood. Something startled it and it began to dart into the trees close by it. My buddy yelled out, in Swedish, "Stop, in the name of the law, or I'll shoot!"

The moose froze in its tracks and turned to face us. Whereupon my buddy shot it.
(my buddy is an ex-cop. Sorry, Johann, I just had to add that)

I don't doubt for a second that your story is true, but I have a different view as to why that dog did not attack. You did not behave like a regular victim. You were strange. Animals, especially wild ones, do not know how to act around "strange".

Neither do we humans for that matter.

[_bcuzbcuz]

But do you suppose you could replicate that in a clinical trial, say, 8 or 9 times out of 10, with a variety of vicious animals?

1) In theory, yes I do. Which is to say, I have absolutely no doubt that I have at my disposal the power and the means to dispel, not 7 or 8 out of 10, but 100/100 immediate threats to my life.

OK, try this on for size. I cared for a quadraplegic child for 15 years. She was born healthy. Her father, angered by her crying, shook her so violently that she nearly died. She is quadraplegic, blind, unable to eat or swallow (tube fed), virtually a vegetable. She will never develop mentally beyond the age of three months, the age when she was damaged. She has so many disablities that the list fills pages of medical journals.

There are many children similarlily damaged in most large cities. These children have done nothing wrong but they have been hurt nevertheless.

Gather a group of prayer believers and go into your local hospital and heal these children.

I await your report.

[_Buffalo]

Where did he damn everyone?

When you do not stand up for what is right, when you let evil rise because it is difficult to stop it, when you stand by and watch someone else suffer because it might take effort to help, then you are damning the world and placing your own comfort in front. If you can not see this then you are blind. I think the self centered moral condition is a terrible thing to witness. If one does not place them self at risk to support their beliefs then they are not beliefs, they are instead empty words.

This is so nonsensical and disconnected from what I actually said it's almost zen. To say "non-sequitur" would vastly understate the situation here.

[_Buffalo]

I understand why you feel that way, and to be honest that is probably the best "scientific" methodology to use. But I just want to say, that is not really how prayer works. To begin with, there are many different kinds of prayer. The kind of prayer where you ask, for example, for God to make someone better, is called "propitiatory" prayer, and it is (supposed to be) very personal. I don't doubt that the prayer had some kind of good effect on those prayed for, because positive intentions always have positive effects, the question is whether "positive effects" means "getting better in the way prayed for." Especially when the prayer is so generic, and the people being prayed for were strangers to the ones doing the praying.

Also consider this quote from the article cited, which I agree with fully:

"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."

I would only clarify, I have no problem studying religion "scientifically," if by "scientifically" you mean "rigorously" and "using a consistent, coherent methodology." The problem is reductionism, and/or assuming a physicalist perspective at the outset and interpreting all your results through that lens.




1) In theory, yes I do. Which is to say, I have absolutely no doubt that I have at my disposal the power and the means to dispel, not 7 or 8 out of 10, but 100/100 immediate threats to my life.

2) On the other hand, I appreciate and understand why you want to make this about laboratory conditions and control groups, but I have to say that is really not how this kind of stuff works. Deliberately putting myself in harm's way so as to "test" these kinds of phenomena is arrogant, stupid, and more or less certain to lead to bad results. Not to mention the fact that if I am ever in actual danger, the experiment is unethical, and if I am never in actual danger, there is no reason to use extraordinary means to protect myself.

3) That said, one of the earliest and most important traditional Buddhist holidays celebrates the working of major, mind-blowing miracles by the Buddha for fifteen days starting shortly after his enlightenment, which were performed in order to demonstrate the superiority of his realization. Perhaps if you asked an actual enlightened master (read: not me) very, very nicely, he might bless you with such a display.

I think that if we say religion is exempt from "physicalist" expectations, what we're really doing is protecting it from fair scrutiny. You can't put God in a test tube, but where god supposedly interacts with the world, you can observe and see if anything is happening. Per the scriptures, the prayers should have worked:

Matthew 21:22

22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Regarding your magic incantation, are you saying if you used it "frivolously" you would offend the source of the power? Is it frivolous to determine whether or not the power really works and is dependable? Aren't we just trying to protect another magical belief from scrutiny here?