Question for bomgeography about the flood

[_Fence Sitter]

Just that I think we have to assume we have a way to tell if we're mentally ill or not to conduct our way. Now what I think you wish to say is that mental illness is tied just to these kinds of extreme religious events but of course that's not true. I've known people suffering from mental illness convinced people love them or other more 'mundane' classes of events were happening but that acquaintance could tell were completely unjustified.

My point was just that we have to assume a way of discerning we're mentally ill. If the claim is we can be significantly mentally ill to the point of schizophrenia but have it not affect any other aspect of our life except a few narrow religious beliefs then I'm just extremely skeptical of that.

I understand your point and have provided examples as to why it is incorrect. Mental illness is not black and white and the types of experiences we are discussing are not always (emphasis on always!) extreme. Nor am I implying that they are always the result of mental illness, in fact I think most of them are the result of other external and internal stimuli. (Fasting, prayer, physical and mental fatigue, brainwashing (for lack of a better word) and so on.

You cannot dismiss it as a cause under the assumption that everything else in a person's life appears normal.

Let's take Julie Rowe, Denver Snuffler and Robert Norman as examples. Rowe has published numerous books and made many public statements regarding end of times stuff and at one time had quite a large gathering. Now it appears she has disappeared from public with rumors of her being ill. Initially you would have been hard pressed to convince any or her followers, family or herself, that this was the beginnings of an illness, for all we know she may still think of herself as well along with others around her. Are you going to categorically claim that she is ill? How about Denver Snuffler? Or Robert Norman? Who are making very similar claims as Rowe did a couple of years back. How and when do we decide that what is claimed is the result of illness?

The answer is we don't know in all cases and in many cases we will never know. I guarantee that Snuffler and Norman think they are fine, just like the Rowe of a couple of years ago, and maybe they are, who knows?

[_Themis]

i.e. most people persist in their beliefs and don't question or inquiry. I'd certainly agree with that. But I think you'd also agree that some people do inquire. They change their beliefs. Since I think many here went from being believers to non-believers we have to assume that we can change.

I doubt many people went from believer to not believing from spiritual experiences. It's usually starting to understand why they are not good sources for learning objective truth. That some people do change over spiritual experience does not change the fact I could still predict reliably how these people would interpret these experiences. Reliability is not 100%. It's just much better then say guessing. I remember a girl would told her conversion story about how she was searching for something and had prayed for it. The missionaries knocked on her door some time after and she interpreted this as an answer from God. I remember thinking where she might have been if it had been the JW's at the door.

I don't think there's one type of answer. I had a series using C. S. Peirce's approach to epistemology I was writing on this for T&S and SMPT but I then got a tad too busy. I was here more just addressing whether there is a way, not that such extreme cases are how most people know.

I wasn't saying there had to be one answer, but starting with one would be a start. You avoid it because you don't have an answer. I've been there, so I understand where you are coming from. Most, if not all, don't really know. If you disagree then feel free to say how. It's like saying you have evidence but won't show any, and ask one to believe anyway.

[_ClarkGoble]

ou avoid it because you don't have an answer. I've been there, so I understand where you are coming from.

No that's sincerely not the reason. Part of it is that I think the particular experiences that convince a particular person don't generalize. But more important is that several of the experiences are sacred to me so I don't talk about them. Thus I prefer to deal in hypotheticals.

Part of it too is just lack of time. It's a complicated subject and for a debate a lot of ground work has to be laid in terms of philosophical agreement. Otherwise it's just pointless. I was writing a series on that very subject on T&S back in the fall and then life just became too busy. I do hope to get back to it. There are actually several different approaches to the question. But again, one has to start from a place of at least some agreement on epistemology.

[_Themis]

No that's sincerely not the reason. Part of it is that I think the particular experiences that convince a particular person don't generalize. But more important is that several of the experiences are sacred to me so I don't talk about them. Thus I prefer to deal in hypotheticals.

Deal with hypothetical's then. I was never asking for your particular experiences, but the church shares these stories all the time.

Part of it too is just lack of time. It's a complicated subject and for a debate a lot of ground work has to be laid in terms of philosophical agreement. Otherwise it's just pointless. I was writing a series on that very subject on T&S back in the fall and then life just became too busy. I do hope to get back to it. There are actually several different approaches to the question. But again, one has to start from a place of at least some agreement on epistemology.

I find trying to claim to complex is usually an excuse to avoid an issue one is not confident they can really support. We have all kinds of experiences in life. When it comes to sight, most trust it a lot because of the reliability of the experience. We have less trust with smell because it has less reliability. Internal sensations are really vague and prone to incorrect interpretations. They also don't lend themselves to certain interpretations like the Book of Mormon is a story about a real people. We tell investigators to pray and ask God, and if they get a positive feeling inside it is the HG telling them it is true. Would you agree with what most missionaries are telling investigators? If no, why?

[_ClarkGoble]

We tell investigators to pray and ask God, and if they get a positive feeling inside it is the HG telling them it is true. Would you agree with what most missionaries are telling investigators? If no, why?

I don't know what missionaries in general teach so I can't speak to that. I know in my mission we told them to not trust what we said but find out for themselves. We mentioned the feelings of the spirit and read Galatians 5:22-23. But we also said people experience it differently. What we normally did was wait until the spirit was there as a tangible thing all of us could feel (i.e. a shared experience) and ask them to identify what they were feeling without us trying to prime them. i.e. the goal wasn't to push an interpretation beyond the vague "it's the spirit." When the spirit was strong and tangible we'd typically ask them to pray about what we'd been teaching.

Before we'd leave we'd again emphasize that they shouldn't trust us but find out for themselves and that only they could decide what it meant. We'd encourage them to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it on their own. We'd also usually warn about anti-Mormon material since in my mission (Louisiana) it usually happened that right after such an experience a friend or relative would coincidentally show up with anti-Mormon materials. My experience was that if we'd made it to the 3rd discussion with a few big spiritual experiences that the anti-Mormon material would actually strengthen their commitment. If they hadn't then the anti-Mormon materials were usually enough to get people to stop listening.

There were a few exceptions. One lady's family threatened to throw her out on the street if she joined so she returned her Book of Mormon a week before her baptism having written her testimony and a few of the experiences in it and explaining why she couldn't meet with us anymore. But in general if people had enough experience to at least recognize the spirit and enough grounding to want to find out if it were true then anti-Mormon materials helped us rather than hurt us.

However while I think that would ground the decision to be baptized I'm not sure it is sufficient for what I'd call knowledge. Of course some might reach that state. For instance one experience on splits I can probably share was an investigator who would dream at night what he'd read the next day in the Book of Mormon. I was perhaps a tad too skeptical (hey, it's my basic background) so I asked him particular questions (did he know anything about the Book of Mormon before, describe some of the events, etc.) I can't verify the nature of his experience since I didn't have them nor have I ever had anything like that. But it was enough to convince him and he got baptized. He described vaguely mayan like Nephites and not at all like the illustrations in the Book of Mormon (which you'd expect).

While having no way of knowing if those experiences were real or not, I'd say that if they were that'd be more that enough to justify some type of knowledge.

And of course I can't extend my experiences to other missionaries let alone contemporary ones.

[_Dr Exiled]

We tell investigators to pray and ask God, and if they get a positive feeling inside it is the HG telling them it is true. Would you agree with what most missionaries are telling investigators? If no, why?

I don't know what missionaries in general teach so I can't speak to that. I know in my mission we told them to not trust what we said but find out for themselves. We mentioned the feelings of the spirit and read Galatians 5:22-23. But we also said people experience it differently. What we normally did was wait until the spirit was there as a tangible thing all of us could feel (i.e. a shared experience) and ask them to identify what they were feeling without us trying to prime them. i.e. the goal wasn't to push an interpretation beyond the vague "it's the spirit." When the spirit was strong and tangible we'd typically ask them to pray about what we'd been teaching.

Before we'd leave we'd again emphasize that they shouldn't trust us but find out for themselves and that only they could decide what it meant. We'd encourage them to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it on their own. We'd also usually warn about anti-Mormon material since in my mission (Louisiana) it usually happened that right after such an experience a friend or relative would coincidentally show up with anti-Mormon materials. My experience was that if we'd made it to the 3rd discussion with a few big spiritual experiences that the anti-Mormon material would actually strengthen their commitment. If they hadn't then the anti-Mormon materials were usually enough to get people to stop listening.

There were a few exceptions. One lady's family threatened to throw her out on the street if she joined so she returned her Book of Mormon a week before her baptism having written her testimony and a few of the experiences in it and explaining why she couldn't meet with us anymore. But in general if people had enough experience to at least recognize the spirit and enough grounding to want to find out if it were true then anti-Mormon materials helped us rather than hurt us.

However while I think that would ground the decision to be baptized I'm not sure it is sufficient for what I'd call knowledge. Of course some might reach that state. For instance one experience on splits I can probably share was an investigator who would dream at night what he'd read the next day in the Book of Mormon. I was perhaps a tad too skeptical (hey, it's my basic background) so I asked him particular questions (did he know anything about the Book of Mormon before, describe some of the events, etc.) I can't verify the nature of his experience since I didn't have them nor have I ever had anything like that. But it was enough to convince him and he got baptized. He described vaguely mayan like Nephites and not at all like the illustrations in the Book of Mormon (which you'd expect).

While having no way of knowing if those experiences were real or not, I'd say that if they were that'd be more that enough to justify some type of knowledge.

And of course I can't extend my experiences to other missionaries let alone contemporary ones.

Clark:

That isn't how missionaries are taught to present it. Themis is correct. Any positive feeling is grasped with both hands and spun to be interpreted as the H.G. - because it is presumed that it is true in the first place, so any positive feeling would necessarily be from the H.G. leaving little room to doubt, again because it is assumed to be true. This is the essence of the moroni manipulation.

[_ClarkGoble]

That isn't how missionaries are taught to present it.

As I said I can only tell the practices we were instructed in. I rather suspect each mission president has a huge influence despite general instruction. There are good mission presidents and bad ones. Heaven knows I've seen bad ones. We had a doozy of one in the area I grew up in while young. But then a few years later we had the Sorenson who bought several of the Hoffman forgeries for the church (before they were found to be forgeries). He distributed copies to anyone who wanted them. They were handed out in church in a fashion quite a bit different than they are usually portrayed. He was quite good. I actually went on a Stake Mission under him for a month where I was paired full time with a full time missionary.

[_Dr Exiled]

That isn't how missionaries are taught to present it.

As I said I can only tell the practices we were instructed in. I rather suspect each mission president has a huge influence despite general instruction. There are good mission presidents and bad ones. Heaven knows I've seen bad ones. We had a doozy of one in the area I grew up in while young. But then a few years later we had the Sorenson who bought several of the Hoffman forgeries for the church (before they were found to be forgeries). He distributed copies to anyone who wanted them. They were handed out in church in a fashion quite a bit different than they are usually portrayed. He was quite good. I actually went on a Stake Mission under him for a month where I was paired full time with a full time missionary.

I realize there was and is a range of styles in missions. However, I think you have to admit there is pressure to get numbers or baptisms and because of the pressure, people are pushed into commitments that they wouldn't otherwise make. I was a witness to this and did it myself down in Brazil.

[_Themis]

We tell investigators to pray and ask God, and if they get a positive feeling inside it is the HG telling them it is true. Would you agree with what most missionaries are telling investigators? If no, why?

I don't know what missionaries in general teach so I can't speak to that. I know in my mission we told them to not trust what we said but find out for themselves. We mentioned the feelings of the spirit and read Galatians 5:22-23. But we also said people experience it differently.

You are just repeating what I said. You read Galatians because it describes feelings we are all familiar with. We try to create a positive atmosphere to get them to have these various different feelings.

What we normally did was wait until the spirit was there as a tangible thing all of us could feel (i.e. a shared experience) and ask them to identify what they were feeling without us trying to prime them.

Really? Tangible means perceptible by touch. You created a highly emotional environment in which they experience positive feelings.

i.e. the goal wasn't to push an interpretation beyond the vague "it's the spirit." When the spirit was strong and tangible we'd typically ask them to pray about what we'd been teaching.

Sure, get them to hopefully believe their feelings are the spirit. If successful they would usually interpret it in favor of what you were teaching them about.

Before we'd leave we'd again emphasize that they shouldn't trust us but find out for themselves and that only they could decide what it meant.

Yes we would ask them to ask God, but if they accept what they feel is the spirit, then we hope they will get more positive feelings which they will probably interpret the Book of Mormon is true, etc.

He described vaguely mayan like Nephites and not at all like the illustrations in the Book of Mormon (which you'd expect).

As a believer I used to think they were the Mayans. I have even taken a Mayan archaeology course in university, so I could imagine quite a bit.

While having no way of knowing if those experiences were real or not, I'd say that if they were that'd be more that enough to justify some type of knowledge.

Only knowledge you had some positive feelings that involved some talking or praying about certain things like the Book of Mormon. How do you know it was from some unseen being?

[_ClarkGoble]

You are just repeating what I said. You read Galatians because it describes feelings we are all familiar with. We try to create a positive atmosphere to get them to have these various different feelings.

I think they are very vague descriptions. Plus of course you can have those feelings independent of the spirit. Again back when I taught and what I saw others teaching when on splits we distinguished the feelings from the spirit. That is the spirit might bring those feelings but weren't the same as it. We were at best trying to people ready to feel the spirit which seemed a distinct experience. But you have to get to it by way of analogy to prepare people for it.

Now of course not everyone teaches that way. And again I fully agree some people unfortunately do things in a manipulative way or else confuse charisma with bringing in the spirit. My experience is that people 'converted' in that way don't have a real conversion and quickly fall away.

Really? Tangible means perceptible by touch. You created a highly emotional environment in which they experience positive feelings.

I was clearly using it as a metaphoric adjective to get at the idea its something sensible in a shared way but that the way it is sensed is different. Much like people might not be able to describe in particular the way they know something is in a room (which might be a combination of the dozens of senses the brain integrates and that are typically integrated and interpreted by non-conscious processing).

Now the criticism is of course that it's possible to manipulate people into having quasi-religious experiences through music, through social euphoria in concert-like settings. The whole Dionysus analysis of art that remains popular. And I acknowledge there are counterfeits. Again I can but say I think I can distinguish between them. But of course a skeptic would say that I'm not, that I've merely used the power of suggestion to create a certain psychological state. I don't think I was and I certainly tried not to do anything like that.

Sure, get them to hopefully believe their feelings are the spirit. If successful they would usually interpret it in favor of what you were teaching them about.

Ideally they would ask on their own to find out particulars. I think it would testify of what we were saying but we emphasized finding out on their own after we left. Someone who can only feeling the 'spirit' if we are there are not going to have a true conversion and will quickly fall away when we are not there. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. It certainly does and might be the most common situation. I don't think it's all that goes on though.

He described vaguely mayan like Nephites and not at all like the illustrations in the Book of Mormon (which you'd expect).

As a believer I used to think they were the Mayans. I have even taken a Mayan archaeology course in university, so I could imagine quite a bit.

I've no idea what they were. If it turns out they were in the mayan area they'd probably share some features and be different in others. I can't speak to that as at the time I didn't know really anything about mesoAmerica.

Only knowledge you had some positive feelings that involved some talking or praying about certain things like the Book of Mormon. How do you know it was from some unseen being?

How do you know that? That's a lot of knowledge for an experience you weren't present for. You also presume they couldn't distinguish between pretty general good feelings and the particulars of what they experienced. I've had loose good feelings but to me the spirit is something quite different entirely. In any case merely having the feelings isn't the same as personal revelation which is when actual information is conveyed. Good feelings at best can alert one to pay attention but I don't think can really establish much. It's a first step not a final step.