What is a spiritual experience?

[Marcus]

Whoa. After everything that has been discussed about how inappropriate your "spiritual autism" comment was, you want others to go back and see if you 'made a case' for it? What on earth are you thinking? You cannot possibly be unsure about how inappropriate your comments were. You would have to be really, really unintelligent, or, you are trolling.

What are the odds?

Hey Marcus, You don’t think I was referring to you in this instance do you?

By others, I meant others. Not you in particular. I have no expectations that you would take anything I said seriously except to find fault.

Anyway, just some clarification.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I am finding fault with your apparently revived use of your offensive 'spiritual autism' concept. Why are you bringing it up again?

[Gadianton]

So far I only responded to MG's ideas of spiritual experience. I've droned on about my own ideas many times on this in the past, but it's a nice diversion from waking up in 1933 Germany this morning so why not.

I don't believe there is a such thing as a spiritual experience. Primal experiences like pain can be a little complicated, but things are much less clear with "happiness," and "love" is really murky. Feeling spiritual is one of the least credible of all reported experiences. A word like happiness can describe all kinds of experience, and it can turn on a dime; maybe it's just a sugar rush; maybe it's a summary of the last 5 years. "Joy" is a good one for religious people, because what on earth does it actually mean? In Mormon sermons, it's a mature kind of happiness. You wouldn't have joy playing Nintendo, unless for FHE, possibly. You wouldn't be happy while being tortured, but if you were witnessing for Christ to the torturer, then you might be joyful. Paul spoke of joy in his suffering. On mission, the notion of "happiness" was frowned upon, because it was a selfish kind of positive feeling, whereas "joy" involved the positive feeling that came with sacrifice. Are you warn out and miserable from tracting for 13 hours? You still might be experiencing 'joy'. And if not in the moment, you may report those hard times as 'joy' (or even possibly happiness) years down the road.

So this is problem one, the vast complicated range of just about anything that could be described as a spiritual experience. When we talk about the ways people might feel spirituality, well, part of that is chasing the rainbow. It might be that you feel "positive" about something, such that this experience is solidified in your mind as a spiritual one, but it might be "shopping" for something to call your own in terms of spirituality. You might think you've found it one day, only to be disappointed or at the very least, question it later. You probably don't question if it hurt that one time when you broke your arm.

The social pressures that go along with religiosity will push very many people to not just shop, but invent spiritual experiences whole cloth to earn social credibility. I think this is especially true in Mormonism, because Mormonism doesn't create emotive experiences (like at a big faith healing), but at the same time, demands the emotive experience as the basis of testimony. It's an odd disparity that has evolved as a feature, I believe. Pleasures and sugar rush doesn't lead to real conviction, while learning to lie is the foundation of a loyalist. So I reject the prevalence of anomalous emotional experiences as basis of testimony, and I also reject the idea of "fake it till you make it." Rather, I think it's something like, "fake it for the cause and forget about making it altogether."

[I Have Questions]

So this is problem one, the vast complicated range of just about anything that could be described as a spiritual experience.

I enjoyed reading your whole post, and I’d like to pick out this bit from it. The ambiguous nature of what is and what isn’t a spiritual experience, combined with the habit of people assigning those experiences to a confirmation of their chosen belief system, that something is ‘true’ (whatever that term means in a Mormon world).

If you have an experience that makes you feel good, or which brings you comfort or serenity etc. fine. But when you start believing it is divine direction, that’s when the trouble starts. It’s why affinity fraud thrives amongst communities where feelings Trump facts and common sense. It’s been proven many times over that using spiritual experiences to make serious real life decisions is exceptionally naïve.

People always believe that their spiritual confirmations are right, and those of people who conclude opposite on the same basis are just having a self generated sensation. And you can’t tell them any different. Even when they’ve been wrong using that methodology before. It’s a bizarre phenomenon but some people just don’t listen, and just don’t learn.

[MG 2.0]

Hey Marcus, You don’t think I was referring to you in this instance do you?

By others, I meant others. Not you in particular. I have no expectations that you would take anything I said seriously except to find fault.

Anyway, just some clarification.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I am finding fault with your apparently revived use of your offensive 'spiritual autism' concept. Why are you bringing it up again?

What I was making a case for was that all humans find themselves somewhere along the spectrum of spiritual practice and potential for ‘feeling the spirit’ or finding other modalities to connect with the divine.

Even those that are disbelievers in many cases would say that they have some kind of spiritual practice such as meditation, etc.

You, of course (along with a few others), then went off on a tangent.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Joseph Smith emphasized the importance of recognizing the "first intimation of the Spirit of Revelation," suggesting that when one feels "pure Intelligence flowing unto you," it can lead to sudden insights and ideas. He described this communication as a powerful, spirit-to-spirit interaction that does not require words, indicating that such experiences are a profound way to receive knowledge from God.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Yes, I am finding fault with your apparently revived use of your offensive 'spiritual autism' concept. Why are you bringing it up again?

What I was making a case for was that all humans find themselves somewhere along the spectrum of spiritual practice and potential for ‘feeling the spirit’ or finding other modalities to connect with the divine.

Even those that are disbelievers in many cases would say that they have some kind of spiritual practice such as meditation, etc.

You, of course (along with a few others), then went off on a tangent....

The 'autism' comparison was yours originally, and you brought it up again.

...I would encourage others to go back and see whether or not I have adequately made a case for what I originally called “spiritual autism’...

Why start it up again if you consider to be a tangent? Bottom line, it was an offensive comparison. It looks like you are trying to sneak it in again after you agreed to stop using it, which feels even more offensive. What was your intent in using it again?

[MG 2.0]

What I was making a case for was that all humans find themselves somewhere along the spectrum of spiritual practice and potential for ‘feeling the spirit’ or finding other modalities to connect with the divine.

Even those that are disbelievers in many cases would say that they have some kind of spiritual practice such as meditation, etc.

You, of course (along with a few others), then went off on a tangent....

The 'autism' comparison was yours originally, and you brought it up again.

...I would encourage others to go back and see whether or not I have adequately made a case for what I originally called “spiritual autism’...

Why start it up again if you consider to be a tangent? Bottom line, it was an offensive comparison. It looks like you are trying to sneak it in again after you agreed to stop using it, which feels even more offensive. What was your intent in using it again?

So that people could go all the way back to where the discussion originally started. Kripal and spiritual autism. It was more of a ‘bookmark’ than anything else. Later in the conversation with the suggestion by gadianton, I changed the term to spiritual neurodiversity/neurodivergent to satisfy a few that were having a personal problem with the other term. That’s it, in black and white.

I still prefer the other.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

So that people could go all the way back to where the discussion originally started. Kripal and spiritual autism. It was more of a ‘bookmark’ than anything else. Later in the conversation with the suggestion by gadianton, I changed the term to spiritual neurodiversity/neurodivergent to satisfy a few that were having a personal problem with the other term. That’s it, in black and white.

I still prefer the other.

Regards,
MG

Why did you wait until Gadianton suggested you change the term? Lots of other people had already encouraged you to change it, but you belligerently refused all of them.

[Marcus]

So that people could go all the way back to where the discussion originally started. Kripal and spiritual autism. It was more of a ‘bookmark’ than anything else. Later in the conversation with the suggestion by gadianton, I changed the term to spiritual neurodiversity/neurodivergent to satisfy a few that were having a personal problem with the other term. That’s it, in black and white.

I still prefer the other.

Regards,
MG

Why did you wait until Gadianton suggested you change the term? Lots of other people had already encouraged you to change it, but you belligerently refused all of them.

The neurodiversity comparison has problems too, as Gad pointed out, but he conveniently ignored that. And he still prefers the more offensive term, he says. That says it all right there. He learned nothing.

[MG 2.0]

Why did you wait until Gadianton suggested you change the term? Lots of other people had already encouraged you to change it, but you belligerently refused all of them.

The neurodiversity comparison has problems too, as Gad pointed out, but he conveniently ignored that. And he still prefers the more offensive term, he says. That says it all right there. He learned nothing.

I think I’ve sufficiently explained my position. I recognize that our positions/opinions vary from one another.

I would encourage those that haven’t read the earlier discussion to do so and determine for themselves whether or not I’ve been abusive or insulting in any way. As it is, there are those that will find it necessary to make false representations of what my motives were.

Even to the point of taking the ‘holier than thou’ approach and/ or “I know better than you”.

I hope this can bring to an end this rather unnecessary trip down this rabbit hole.

The location of this part of the conversation begins here:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159192&start=80

and then moves along to the next page and thereafter. I believe context is always important, especially when dealing with those that take things out of context and invent their own.

Regards,
MG