Large numbers of members apostatizing - says Marlin K Jensen

[_Buffalo]

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.

Either people get better through prayer or they don't. It's a physical question, open to scientific scrutiny.

[_SteelHead]

I think in the same circumstances (faced by a large ill tempered bear dog) I would have gathered my spell components and cast magic missle at the offending creature. 1d4+1 damage should handle most non magical canines.

[_Samantabhadra]

I think in the same circumstances (faced by a large ill tempered bear dog) I would have gathered my spell components and cast magic missle at the offending creature. 1d4+1 damage should handle most non magical canines.

You laugh but the funny thing is how neatly mantra, mudra, and rdzas ("ritual substance") map onto verbal, somatic, and material spell components.

Also 1d4 + 1 sounds about right.

:-D

[_SteelHead]

Who is laughing? Between candomble and D&D my life is full of wonder and magic.

[Guest]

Also, I want to express some degree of agreement with bcuzbcuz. One way of looking at what I was doing, which is totally accurate in terms of how I was approaching the situation while it was actually happening, was in terms of emotions. What I was working with while I was doing what I was doing was fear and aggression. It's not strictly necessary to interpret that in terms of "magic" especially when the "magical" ritual itself involves considering negative emotions themselves as hostile actors. The point is, the line between what is "natural" and what is "supernatural" is not nearly so hard and fast as some might think.

SteelHead, how long have you been practicing Candomble? Care to share any of your experiences?

[_Drifting]

Also, I want to agree with bcuzbcuz. One way of looking at what I was doing, which is totally accurate in terms of how I was approaching the situation while it was actually happening, was in terms of emotions. What I was working with while I was doing what I was doing was fear and aggression. It's not strictly necessary to interpret that in terms of "magic" especially when the "magical" ritual itself involves considering negative emotions themselves as hostile actors. The point is, the line between what is "natural" and what is "supernatural" is blurry. That's my main point.

Brilliant, thanks.
Now how does that apply to what Jensen said?

[_Samantabhadra]

I see a problem with the way people are approaching the declining membership of LDS and Jensen's statement re: the same. A lot of people here have commented that most ex-LDS tend to feel burned by religion/Christianity and turn into some kind of physicalist and/or atheist. I appreciate the reasons why someone would turn from LDS, but I am trying to distinguish between the valid reasons for leaving LDS and a blanket condemnation of religion or the religious worldview (whatever that might mean).

[_Drifting]

I see a problem with the way people are approaching the declining membership of LDS and Jensen's statement re: the same. A lot of people here have commented that most ex-LDS tend to feel burned by religion/Christianity and turn into some kind of physicalist and/or atheist. I appreciate the reasons why someone would turn from LDS, but I am trying to distinguish between the valid reasons for leaving LDS and a blanket condemnation of religion or the religious worldview (whatever that might mean).

I see.

I think the fact that Mormonism as a religion does so much damage to the trust members have in it by hiding the truth and the facts and letting them be a surprise, that people become shell shocked towards all religious belief. After all, if the one true Church isn't true, how can any of the others be any better?

[_Samantabhadra]

I think the fact that Mormonism as a religion does so much damage to the trust members have in it by hiding the truth and the facts and letting them be a surprise, that people become shell shocked towards all religious belief. After all, if the one true Church isn't true, how can any of the others be any better?

I agree and I find this most troubling. If it weren't for the capacity of Mormonism to damage people's capacity for rational faith and religious experience, why would I care at all? I wouldn't. But the fact of the matter is that, as you say, eventually any honest Mormon will come to a point where they realize that the Church they used to believe with all their heart and soul was the One True Church is actually a house of lies. As someone who cares deeply about both my own religious tradition and the troubling developments in Western religion generally I think it is important to try to provide a kind of "middle way" narrative, that is, a viewpoint that avoids both extremes.

[_malkie]

...

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)
...

Two observations: (;=)

a. That wasn't very sporting, was it?
b. I hope your buddy treats human suspects differently when they obey his order to stop.