Question for bomgeography about the flood

[_Gunnar]

The Mormon approach to gaining converts (as well as that of most religions in general) is mainly (if not entirely) based on getting people to delude themselves. If someone wanted to deliberately devise a procedure for how to delude oneself, they could not have come up with a more effective procedure than that described in Alma: 32 and Moroni: 10. I never cease to marvel at how many otherwise seemingly intelligent people seem incapable of recognizing that obvious fact. I am deeply chagrined that I was once one of them.

[_Maksutov]

The Mormon approach to gaining converts (as well as that of most religions in general) is mainly (if not entirely) based on getting people to delude themselves. If someone wanted to deliberately devise a procedure for how to delude oneself, they could not have come up with a more effective procedure than that described in Alma: 32 and Moroni: 10. I never cease to marvel at how many otherwise seemingly intelligent people seem incapable of recognizing that obvious fact. I am deeply chagrined that I was once one of them.

It's early American marketing. It's always better for the customer to sell themselves, so they don't feel like they were pressured or manipulated into the purchase. An insightful outsider would see that they are still subject to pressure and manipulation, but of a more subtle, perhaps even more cynical kind.

[_The CCC]

Atheism has the same problem. "Religion is the opiate of the masses".
Karl Marx

[_Themis]

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.

How do you know some sensation you attribute to the spirit is actually coming from the HG and not your own body producing the experience?

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.

Not always. I think what it demonstrates is that member themselves don't know what sensations to attribute to the spirit and which ones not to. There are so many, and members may attribute the spirit from a certain sensation in some circumstances like a religious event, and not in others like an Amway meeting. Or should we go with Nuskin?

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).

Sure, like I could cut the tension in the room with a knife. Most likely members would not attribute this to the spirit, so how does one know other types of shared sensations like this are coming from the HG? I remember on my mission having to go in after a year to renew my visa. I felt fine until I walked into the waiting room filled with immigrants. WOW The feelings in the room instantly hit me. I had nothing to worry about, but they did, and I could feel it as soon as I entered. Funny, I didn't attribute it to the HG or Satan, yet it was something others could all feel.

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.

But so far you have avoided question on how you distinguish. If you cannot, then I seriously doubt you can really distinguish, but have deluded yourself into thinking you can. I see many people who think can can do something, or that they really know some subject, but when asked they can never articulate. I find those who know don't have this problem.

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.

You have to set it up though, or they probably wont think to read and ask through prayer. Again, it's about hoping they get some sensation experience in which you have primed them to get the interpretation you want. If they believe you, then they will likely interpret positive sensations from prayer about or reading the Book of Mormon as coming from the HG which you said could happen in the first discussion.

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.

Book of Mormon peoples don't fit in the real world.

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.

You have been asked for details, even if just in a hypothetical, but so far haven't provided anything to move you into knowing it is from unseen being. That is why you are stuck at it knowing you had positive feelings. You haven't shown how you would know it is not from you, but some unseen spirit.

[_ClarkGoble]

You have been asked for details, even if just in a hypothetical, but so far haven't provided anything to move you into knowing it is from unseen being. That is why you are stuck at it knowing you had positive feelings. You haven't shown how you would know it is not from you, but some unseen spirit.

I've done so numerous times most recently a few days ago when I mentioned an investigator who dreamt in detail all the things he would read the next day in the Book of Mormon.

The main hypothetical I presented was an attempt to avoid the baggage of Mormonism by postulating someone seeing a UFO, having good reasons to think they weren't mentally ill, and having the experience repeat. It was designed to draw out epistemological beliefs.

How do you know some sensation you attribute to the spirit is actually coming from the HG and not your own body producing the experience?

Correlation and the argument of surprise.

Not always. I think what it demonstrates is that member themselves don't know what sensations to attribute to the spirit and which ones not to. There are so many, and members may attribute the spirit from a certain sensation in some circumstances like a religious event, and not in others like an Amway meeting. Or should we go with Nuskin?

That some members get it wrong I'd never deny. Even if the phenomena were real we'd expect that, wouldn't we?

To me the more interesting thing is say approaching a door where a discussion is going on and feeling it while not knowing what's going on in the other side of the door. Yet all people claiming to feel the same thing. That's what I mean by an argument of surprise. It's not primed, you lack information of what's going on, and it's shared (to help avoid the mental illness charge). Now it's not perfect of course. It's not a true double blind but at least it's heading in the right direction. And, I think, it's sufficient to ground some degree of knowledge.

[_Themis]

I've done so numerous times most recently a few days ago when I mentioned an investigator who dreamt in detail all the things he would read the next day in the Book of Mormon.

It seemed you gave natural reasons like he didn't dream aspects you would expect from members. Since he was not a member we should expect he might dream with his ideas, and then add in your own bias.

The main hypothetical I presented was an attempt to avoid the baggage of Mormonism by postulating someone seeing a UFO, having good reasons to think they weren't mentally ill, and having the experience repeat. It was designed to draw out epistemological beliefs.

Fence Sitter demolished this argument. Even I brought up that one can see and experience things that don't exist without being mentally ill, and mental illness is not black and white. You can also have a mental illness without really knowing you are ill. From what I have read their are millions in just the US who believe they have been abducted by aliens, and I suspect most don't consider themselves mentally ill.

Correlation and the argument of surprise.

Not sure how this supports an unseen HG as the source.

That some members get it wrong I'd never deny. Even if the phenomena were real we'd expect that, wouldn't we?

To me the more interesting thing is say approaching a door where a discussion is going on and feeling it while not knowing what's going on in the other side of the door. Yet all people claiming to feel the same thing. That's what I mean by an argument of surprise. It's not primed, you lack information of what's going on, and it's shared (to help avoid the mental illness charge). Now it's not perfect of course. It's not a true double blind but at least it's heading in the right direction. And, I think, it's sufficient to ground some degree of knowledge.

All these stories can be found in other religions and even non-religious people. They have happened to me even after believing the church was true. What they have in common is their vagueness and subjectivity that allows for many other factors that could explain them naturally. This is why they cannot rise to the level of knowledge like some HG being the source. We have better senses that can rise to this level of knowledge, but they don't usually support ones religion very well. Especially Mormonism.

[Guest]

Atheism has the same problem. "Religion is the opiate of the masses".
Karl Marx

The fact that atheists can also subject themselves to self-delusion of various kinds does not help your case in the slightest, nor diminish the obviousness of the inherently self-delusionary character and intent of the referred to scriptures in The Book of Mormon. I sincerely maintain that I stopped believing in the truth claims of the LDS Church because I stopped deluding myself, and could no longer honestly or in good conscience overlook the damaging facts, contradictions and inconsistencies of those claims, and about the history of the Church--and even the abject absurdity of some of those claims.

[Guest]

All these stories can be found in other religions and even non-religious people. They have happened to me even after believing the church was true. What they have in common is their vagueness and subjectivity that allows for many other factors that could explain them naturally. This is why they cannot rise to the level of knowledge like some HG being the source. We have better senses that can rise to this level of knowledge, but they don't usually support ones religion very well. Especially Mormonism.

It's remarkable that no matter how many times this is pointed out to them, it never fazes them, and they still manage to maintain the conviction that, in their particular case, those subjective feelings really are authentic manifestations or confirmation of divinely revealed truth.

[_Gunnar]

The Mormon approach to gaining converts (as well as that of most religions in general) is mainly (if not entirely) based on getting people to delude themselves. If someone wanted to deliberately devise a procedure for how to delude oneself, they could not have come up with a more effective procedure than that described in Alma: 32 and Moroni: 10. I never cease to marvel at how many otherwise seemingly intelligent people seem incapable of recognizing that obvious fact. I am deeply chagrined that I was once one of them.

It's early American marketing. It's always better for the customer to sell themselves, so they don't feel like they were pressured or manipulated into the purchase. An insightful outsider would see that they are still subject to pressure and manipulation, but of a more subtle, perhaps even more cynical kind.

Yep! Salesmanship 101!

[_Themis]

It's remarkable that no matter how many times this is pointed out to them, it never fazes them, and they still manage to maintain the conviction that, in their particular case, those subjective feelings really are authentic manifestations or confirmation of divinely revealed truth.

It can also make them believe it more.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect