Question about Satan/Devil

[Moksha]

Can a powerful demon take control of your nervous system and magically cause it and and you to react in ways that you don't choose?

Both the Goa'uld and the Tok'ra from Stargate have this ability, plus they make the host's eyes glow and give the voice a deep amplification. However, the Tok'ra are allies with the humans and only use willing hosts.

Hope that helps... :)

[Cassiopeia]

Both the Goa'uld and the Tok'ra from Stargate have this ability, plus they make the host's eyes glow and give the voice a deep amplification. However, the Tok'ra are allies with the humans and only use willing hosts.

Hope that helps... :)

And the Tok'ra came up with that nifty Goa'uld removal device so the host is all that remains. :)

[crazypotato]

This Star Trek nerd language is over my head!

I don't know that we deceive ourselves, just that we are naturally selfish pleasure seekers (i.e. natural man).

I believe Satan does blur what is right and wrong. Look at Adam and Eve. Right away, Satan was tempting them with the fruit. He is all over the scriptures. The Book of Mormon lists ways that he can deceive people slowly and carefully down to hell.

3 Nephi 2

Alma 30

Moses 4

[rameumptom]

Johnny,

While I read the scriptures daily and seek to gain understanding from them, I don't interpret my current reality in a literal point of view informed by a literalistic and fundamentalist interpretation of ancient anonymous authors who chose to describe the world in terms of invisible magical demons.

So, we should just discard your conceptions as your personal opinion that is based upon your disbelief in things some consider miracles? Or do you disbelieve that there is a Satan, as that is one direction a literal POV can take this into.

If there is no Satan, then the scriptures lie. We cannot believe in the Books of Moses or Abraham.

You'll note that the questioner asked if Satan can "coax" us, not force us into believing something. Can the Holy Spirit "coax" us by giving us certain feelings? It is a yes/no answer. Either it does, or we just experience the outcome of chemical processes in our bodies. Either we gain a testimony of the Holy Spirit, or we are solely affected by hormones.

Just how far do we reject the concepts and teachings in the scriptures, versus reading some literal truth into them? And how far do we embrace science and modern disbelief in miracles and hidden powers over the teachings of the prophets?

Personally, I think your answer does not fit the question, as it is coloring outside the lines too far. The individual is seeking a religious answer, not a scientific one. And especially not a scientific response that encourages disbelief.

[rameumptom]

Can a powerful, invisible demon take control of your nervous system and magically cause it and and you to react in ways that you don't choose?

Hundreds of years ago, before the Enlightenment, people wondered how gravity worked - specifically, why did objects fall. It was theorized that invisible angels held everything up and if they let go, the object would fall.

Most of us no longer live in a world that explains phenomena in terms of magical invisible creatures. Things fall because of gravity.

Yes, things fall because of gravity. But they can also fall for other reasons besides gravity. If I throw an object towards the ground, it is not gravity that causes it to hit the ground, but inertia.

Your response is an apples/oranges response. It really does not answer the question. You could easily have said: I don't believe in Satan, as there is no scientific proof for him, and therefore it is all hormones and chemical reactions within us that cause any emotions or "temptations".

In LDS belief, "Magical invisible creatures" include Satan and angels. Oh, and God. Should we discount our testimonies of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father? Was Joseph Smith and others just falling for the old superstitions that are caused by "frenzied minds"?

Sometimes I cannot figure you out, Snow. You seem to be a believing LDS member, yet such statements place you more in the doubting Thomas, or even the agnostic realm.

Just because something is not seen, and we can describe it (or portions of it) in scientific terms, does not mean it doesn't exist. The Book of Mormon warns us about disbelief in miracles and angels. Shall we no longer accept the Book of Mormon, because it denies modern science's concepts? I'm not warming up to that idea.

Science can explain that hormones and chemical reactions within our bodies can create pleasure and happiness. But it cannot determine whether some invisible being is a catalyst for the event. The same goes with Creation. Science can show the Big Bang or other innovative creations of the universe, but it cannot show whether God had a hand in any of it, or if God even exists. It is a non-sequitur, therefore, to state that there are no invisible creatures simply because science says that gravity exists.

[rameumptom]

For those of you who believe that the devil can tempt you or deceive you or manipulate your brain cells to cause you to think certain thought... just how does he do it? How does it happen?

For those of you who disbelieve in invisible beings, such as Satan; and that only read the scriptures as one would the Odyssey or Dante's Inferno....how do you explain modern revelation and miracles? How do you explain angels coming to Joseph Smith and thousands of other LDS (including me)? In scientific terms, just how does it happen?

All of the scriptures, including the D&C, and General Conference addresses warn us about the devil. Must I choose between Pres Monson's witness and testimony, which must seem like superstition to the scientifically minded; and your interpretation of science?

[Hemidakota]

So it seems like MCHants, an lds member (?) says that the Devil can give someone good feelings while Johnny says that the Devil can't...? I like the references from the Book of Mormon that you gave, Johnny, thank you very much.

Snow: It's not a matter of allowing my life to be ruled by invisible demons, I'm just exploring the many aspects of a deep logical argument of Feelings and the Holy Ghost validating for people that religion x is the truth, not just mormonism, but many religions even outside Christianity assert this, and the LDS defense that I've heard the most is that the Devil cannot give someone good feelings as the Holy Ghost does, and that therefore the lds church is not built on personal revelations and callings which originate from the Devil. All I'm searching for are doctrinal and scriptural references to ground this argument.

Did the posters answer your question?

[Cassiopeia]

This Star Trek nerd language is over my head!

Did you just call me a nerd? Why I never!!! Oh wait, yes I have.

For those of you who disbelieve in invisible beings, such as Satan; and that only read the scriptures as one would the Odyssey or Dante's Inferno....how do you explain modern revelation and miracles? How do you explain angels coming to Joseph Smith and thousands of other LDS (including me)? In scientific terms, just how does it happen?

All of the scriptures, including the D&C, and General Conference addresses warn us about the devil. Must I choose between Pres Monson's witness and testimony, which must seem like superstition to the scientifically minded; and your interpretation of science?

I don't disbelieve in the existence of Satan. I just think we tend to give him too much credit for our own choices. His influence is everywhere but can he mislead us when we pray? I suppose he could if we let him. I think it's a very hard thing for him to deceive us when we are close to the Lord. We know the difference when we pray.

As for visitations from him, he has long since left me alone. It only serves to make me angry and more determined to keep him out of my life. I'm not afraid of him. I know he has no real power over me.

I think we are more likely to be in danger of spooking ourselves and I guess in that way he wins again. But only because we let him.

[crazypotato]

Did you just call me a nerd? Why I never!!! Oh wait, yes I have.

I don't disbelieve in the existence of Satan. I just think we tend to give him too much credit for our own choices. His influence is everywhere but can he mislead us when we pray? I suppose he could if we let him. I think it's a very hard thing for him to deceive us when we are close to the Lord. We know the difference when we pray.

As for visitations from him, he has long since left me alone. It only serves to make me angry and more determined to keep him out of my life. I'm not afraid of him. I know he has no real power over me.

I think we are more likely to be in danger of spooking ourselves and I guess in that way he wins again. But only because we let him.

I am reminded of a scripture that says that even the very elect will be deceived in the last days. Maybe you are a better person than me, Cass, because there are other scriptures about Satan having no power over the hearts of good people. I feel like he is always trying to hurt me and my family. After I first went through the temple, it was as if I could feel the Holy Ghost so much stronger, but Satan seemed to step everything up with me. It is hard to describe, but I know he did. I feel like if I am not doing absolutely everything I can to stay close to God, like if I miss scripture reading or not going to the temple enough, etc, he bombards me.

[Cassiopeia]

I am reminded of a scripture that says that even the very elect will be deceived in the last days. Maybe you are a better person than me, Cass, because there are other scriptures about Satan having no power over the hearts of good people. I feel like he is always trying to hurt me and my family. After I first went through the temple, it was as if I could feel the Holy Ghost so much stronger, but Satan seemed to step everything up with me. It is hard to describe, but I know he did. I feel like if I am not doing absolutely everything I can to stay close to God, like if I miss scripture reading or not going to the temple enough, etc, he bombards me.

I doubt very much that I'm a better person than you, sweetie. I remember a discussion I had with my Bishop about 6 months back when I told him it felt like the adversary was dogging my steps and he told me then, that feeling would go away one day because I'd forget to look.

My home teachers and I were talking about this the other night. I'm going through extreme difficulties right now and I said to them that I refuse to believe this is God's doing or Satan's.

And one of my home teachers said, sometimes the trials we experience are a part of this mortal existence. We do our best to get through them.

I can't help but wonder if it isn't that he's bombarding you but without that support you feel the difficulties in your life much more poignantly.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Cassiopeia

[Snow]

For those of you who disbelieve in invisible beings, such as Satan; and that only read the scriptures as one would the Odyssey or Dante's Inferno....how do you explain modern revelation and miracles? How do you explain angels coming to Joseph Smith and thousands of other LDS (including me)? In scientific terms, just how does it happen?

All of the scriptures, including the D&C, and General Conference addresses warn us about the devil. Must I choose between Pres Monson's witness and testimony, which must seem like superstition to the scientifically minded; and your interpretation of science?

1. I see you avoided the question. No surprise there.

2. I accept, as a matter of dogmatic faith, the atonement and that Joseph Smith was visited by supernatural beings. That is a necessary part of being a believing Mormon.

3. I don't try and explain the world in terms of supernatural invisible creatures if it is completely unnecessary to understand and explain phenomena.

4. I no more believe that you were visited by angels than I believe the pentecostal lady down the street who has 17 cats who claims she was visited by angels wanting her to contribute money to Jimmy Swaggart. I don't find either of you to be particularly unbiased and reliable reporters of reality and there is no good reason for me to believe you while there are numerous and significant reasons to disbelieve you.

I can tell from your post that you believe Mormon reports of supernatural intervention to be qualitatively better than non-Mormon reports but nothing in my considerable experience indicates a rational basis for believing that

... on the other hand - do you have any evidence to support your implications that Mormons, in general, are more accurate reporters of supernatural encounters?

Edited August 3, 2010 by Snow

[ozzy]

1. I see you avoided the question. No surprise there.

2. I accept, as a matter of dogmatic faith, the atonement and that Joseph Smith was visited by supernatural beings. That is a necessary part of being a believing Mormon.

3. I don't try and explain the world in terms of supernatural invisible creatures if it is completely unnecessary to understand and explain phenomena.

4. I no more believe that you were visited by angels than I believe the pentecostal lady down the street who has 17 cats who claims she was visited by angels wanting her to contribute money to Jimmy Swaggart. I don't find either of you to be particularly unbiased and reliable reporters of reality and there is no good reason for me to believe you while there are numerous and significant reasons to disbelieve you.

I can tell from your post that you believe Mormon reports of supernatural intervention to be qualitatively better than non-Mormon reports but nothing in my considerable experience indicates a rational basis for believing that

... on the other hand - do you have any evidence to support your implications that Mormons, in general, are more accurate reporters of supernatural encounters?

I know this post wasn't meant for me, but I felt I should respond anyway, especially since you avoided/ignored every post except the one you responded to since your last post. I followed the numbering.

1. If you are referring to Rameumptum avoiding your question of how the devil does his thing, I am glad you expected him to avoid it as it is an impossible question to answer via our current understanding of science. I'm not trying to avoid your question by any means, but it really is impossible to answer through the set of physiological phenpmenon that you are looking for. That said, can't answering the op question with a redirective question also be considered avoiding the question? Not that I don't appreciate the opening of a deep conversation. Also, I haven't noticed any point in this conversation where you actually answered the op question in context so you are just as guilty of avoiding questions.

2. I really really really don't want to be insulting or question your faith or anything, but that statement really requires it. You make it sound as though you only accept those principles because you are part of the organization that does, not because you actually believe them. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I am not wrong, may I ask what exactly drives your membership in a religion that you seem to not really believe? I am not encouraging you to leave or anything, but you seem to be in a rather odd position.

3. Okay, I can see that. But to claim that those beings don't exist simply because it is unnecessary to explain them is somewhat presumptuous since you can no more prove their lack of existence than I can prove their existence. Most of your expressed thoughts concerning this topic seem to center on the principle that science is a complete enough study that we don't need to believe in God or his opposite because we have this great knowledge of how our brain chemistry works. I am a scientist in some level and would love to agree, but I can't. We certainly have a better understanding than we did, but there is just so much more that we don't understand. Until we can say that we understand even a fraction of science in its fullest, there is no base to say that it proves the nonexistence of spiritual beings.

4. The problem here is that your arguments are not really any more valid. Again, the human understanding of true science is less than even minute. I wouldn't say I believe such accounts either, but I won't discount them as I have no proof they didn't happen. You don't either. Also, you are no more unbiased or reliable than any of the rest of us. Sorry, but it's true. You are just as blinded by the pride of science as we are by the faith of religion.

No, there is no evidence to support that mormons are anymore reliable, however there is no evidence to suggest that these things didn't happen.

Finally, you avoided the final question that you even quoted. Really Snow? Please don't get all snipety about people avoiding your questions (however impossible they may be) when you won't even answer questions as simple as "Must I choose between Pres Monson's witness and testimony, which must seem like superstition to the scientifically minded; and your interpretation of science?" It's yes or no man. You haven't answered it. I would just like to rephrase it in my own way. Must we choose between the prophet and you? Also I would like to know your choice. Is it the prophet or science? Or can they actually go hand-in-hand, and can both science exist as well as these supernatural beings that you are so biased against and yet are so very much an integral part of that which you claim to believe?

Edited August 3, 2010 by ozzy
clarification

[Sean1427]

I openly admit that I have not read this entire thread, but something Cassiopeia wrote in reply #33 caught my eye and I have to share the thought that flashed through my brain as I read what she said. I did, however, check out the original question, and my response would be that I believe that Satan will do anything within his power to deceive and mislead us. One of his best tricks is mixing truths with a lie. If he can do that, I suspect he can also mislead us by using good feelings. Too many times we want to act on our feelings alone. And yet the D & C teaches us that revelation is something that comes to our mind as well as our heart. In other words, feelings alone are insufficient. I’m reminded of what others have taught it’s misleading to tell others to trust their instinct if they haven’t taken the time to educate their instinct. In sum, I think our feelings can often mislead us, even good feelings.

Now for Cassiopeia’s statement wherein she wrote “I don't disbelieve in the existence of Satan. I just think we tend to give him too much credit for our own choices.” While I do not know what led to this statement, I do wish to say that I am in full accord with what she wrote. I firmly believe that we give Satan too much credit for the poor choices we often make. After all, according to LDS beliefs and teachings, there was a time prior to our coming here when Satan was an individual of high authority who later fell. He himself fell because of choices he made, unless, of course, we want to believe that someone else tempted him to rebel in the pre-existence. My view is simple: he made the choices that brought about his fall, and he used his agency to do it. Moreover, the third of the host of heaven were his contemporaries, yet they choice to go with him. I do not believe we can blame what they chose to do on Satan. I’m reminded of D&C 58:26-28 which states, in part:

“For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; . . .

“Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass must righteousness;

“For the power is in them, wherefore they are agents unto themselves.”

Since opposites are a fact of life, I believe that the opposite of this truth is also real and that man is, and always has been, an agent unto himself. And just as men can do many good and righteous deeds of their own free wills because the power is in them, and do so without anyone commanding or persuading them, they can also do many evil and unrighteous deeds of their own free wills, without any assistance or temptation whatsoever from anyone else. In other words, I believe that each of us can sin on our own without any influence whatsoever from Satan and those who followed him in the pre-existence. Blaming him is often a copout or a convenient scapegoat for what we choose to do or think freely. This does not mean he and his followers are unreal; nor does it mean they don’t have the power to tempt, mislead, and deceive. But I think that we can do the same thing and that not everything we do can blamed on his and his followers influence. Neither he nor his followers needed him then to sin; we don't need him now in all instances.

[Cassiopeia]

Well, Sean, I guess I keep looping around to a thought I've had for sometime that I notice people like to give God all the glory and the blame or Satan all the blame.

What I mean by that is, they act as though all blessings and trials come from God or the devil is tempting them.

In this way they can seem to be completely at the mercy of God and Satan, thus making them either blessed or cursed for their righteousness. And when the time comes that they have difficulties or failures they don't have to examine what part their decisions played in bringing about pain and suffering.

Some things in this life are a part of our mortal existence. It comes with the territory of being human. I believe that God blesses us and knows when to let us experience this life and not rescue us the minute we call out. I do know that Satan will do what he can but we are here with physical bodies. We have power over ourselves.

We can as you said, Sean, use our hearts and our minds to listen and to know what to do. I can promise you, when I've doubted myself, when I've listened to conflicting counsel because I lost confidence in my ability to know what's right, I have suffered for it. But when I've steadied myself, let go of fear, put my faith in God and myself, things improve.

I don't think following the commandments changes Satan's efforts, I think it makes us immune to his influence. My home teacher said last night that he is powerful. Perhaps but not nearly as powerful as we are and especially not more powerful than Christ.

I just think that we need to stop looking over our shoulders for him, and keep our eyes single to the glory of God, to be mindful of our choices and to be hopeful and have faith.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Cassiopeia

[Snow]

. One of his best tricks is mixing truths with a lie. If he can do that, I suspect he can also mislead us by using good feelings.

Please give a real example of this. What truth did the devil mix with what truth and specifically, how did he do it?

[Cassiopeia]

Please give a real example of this. What truth did the devil mix with what truth and specifically, how did he do it?

What truth did he mix with what truth? or do you mean what lie did he mix with what truth?

[Snow]

I know this post wasn't meant for me, but I felt I should respond anyway, especially since you avoided/ignored every post except the one you responded to since your last post. I followed the numbering.

1. If you are referring to Rameumptum avoiding your question of how the devil does his thing, I am glad you expected him to avoid it as it is an impossible question to answer via our current understanding of science. I'm not trying to avoid your question by any means, but it really is impossible to answer through the set of physiological phenpmenon that you are looking for. That said, can't answering the op question with a redirective question also be considered avoiding the question? Not that I don't appreciate the opening of a deep conversation. Also, I haven't noticed any point in this conversation where you actually answered the op question in context so you are just as guilty of avoiding questions.

Although, I know he will ignore the question, I would logical expect him to. If one is going to assert something, I'd like the supporting evidence.

You claim that that to answer the question yet your evidence for the claim is also non-existent. That is, you are resorting to the same kind of rhetoric you attribute to me. While it may be true that, according to your knowledge, or mine, there can be no proof of how the devil operates, that technicality is missing the point. Extraordinary claims ought be back up with correlating proof. I can easily saw that farmers are regularly kidnapped by aliens but in the absence of proof, it is a meaningless claim. Claiming that the devil can control your neural synapses is meaningless in the absence of some sort of evidence.

Sure, we can all sit around and say that someone told us to believe something and therefore we believe and so we can self-perpetuate our dogma, but I don't come here to massage away the cognitive dissonance. I post here to sharpen my thinking skills and try and engage some fellow discussants in some critical thinking.

2. I really really really don't want to be insulting or question your faith or anything, but that statement really requires it. You make it sound as though you only accept those principles because you are part of the organization that does, not because you actually believe them. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I am not wrong, may I ask what exactly drives your membership in a religion that you seem to not really believe? I am not encouraging you to leave or anything, but you seem to be in a rather odd position.

No - I actually do believe them. I think you have probably seen enough of my posts to understand that I don't believe stuff just because I am supposed to - because someone told me to. I believe it very deeply. I don't, however, pretend that it is more than faith / belief. I may be super-convinced but I don't "KNOW" and no matter what they say, others here, in my opinion, don't KNOW either. We are just convinced as a matter of faith.

3. Okay, I can see that. But to claim that those beings don't exist simply because it is unnecessary to explain them is somewhat presumptuous since you can no more prove their lack of existence than I can prove their existence. Most of your expressed thoughts concerning this topic seem to center on the principle that science is a complete enough study that we don't need to believe in God or his opposite because we have this great knowledge of how our brain chemistry works. I am a scientist in some level and would love to agree, but I can't. We certainly have a better understanding than we did, but there is just so much more that we don't understand. Until we can say that we understand even a fraction of science in its fullest, there is no base to say that it proves the nonexistence of spiritual beings.

Again - that's missing the point. You can't prove that dead Jack Benny didn't do a root canal on me last night and then dead Ed Sullivan magically make the dental work disappear but that is hardly a reason to believe that is actually happened.

From a qualitative standpoint, why should the devil claims of people here carry any more weight than the claims of Scientologists of Xenu - unless of course we all want to slap each other on the back and mumble the same rhetoric to reinforce our what our mom taught us when we were kids.

4. The problem here is that your arguments are not really any more valid. Again, the human understanding of true science is less than even minute. I wouldn't say I believe such accounts either, but I won't discount them as I have no proof they didn't happen. You don't either. Also, you are no more unbiased or reliable than any of the rest of us. Sorry, but it's true. You are just as blinded by the pride of science as we are by the faith of religion.

Really? The contention that our brain cells are not controlled by magical invisible demons is no more valid than the contention that they are?

Burden of proof Ozzy. You say you are a scientists of sorts - tell me how a scientists gives equal weight to those two claims - please try it with a straight face.

No, there is no evidence to support that mormons are anymore reliable, however there is no evidence to suggest that these things didn't happen.

Finally, you avoided the final question that you even quoted. Really Snow? Please don't get all snipety about people avoiding your questions (however impossible they may be) when you won't even answer questions as simple as "Must I choose between Pres Monson's witness and testimony, which must seem like superstition to the scientifically minded; and your interpretation of science?" It's yes or no man. You haven't answered it. I would just like to rephrase it in my own way. Must we choose between the prophet and you? Also I would like to know your choice. Is it the prophet or science? Or can they actually go hand-in-hand, and can both science exist as well as these supernatural beings that you are so biased against and yet are so very much an integral part of that which you claim to believe?

Alright - but you have misstated the crux. It is not me vs the prophet. It is a matter of epistemology... how do we know things. The prophet is an example of an appeal to authority - someone told you what you should believe. My approach is an appeal to logic. Anyone who has taken a philosophy course on the matter will recognize that an appeal to authority is not really a source of knowledge. While logic, along with a few other venues, is.

On one hand, someone told you you should believe something that from a rational basis is absurd - that magical invisible demons control your brain cells. On the other hand, I say: it's not useful to believe that. I am, in no way, made demonstrably better by believing in magical demons and short of some evidence, don't believe it. I acknowledge the possibility but as a practical matter, I try to live a rational life.

[Snow]

What truth did he mix with what truth? or do you mean what lie did he mix with what truth?

yes - thank you for the correction.

[bytor2112]

All I know is growing up, my mama always said I was full of the devil!

[UrbanFool]

All I know is growing up, my mama always said I was full of the devil!

The daycare provider charged my mom double for me. That's not such a great thing to live down.

[Sean1427]

I hope you know, Cassiopeia, that I was trying to say that I ageed with what you posted. When I wrote that I didn't know what had led to your comment that was in the context wherein I mentioned that while what you wrote had caught my eye, I hadn't yet read the other posts in the thread that led up to yours. I also agree with what you wrote in post 39. I was simply explaining one of the reasons I believe that we can't blame Satan for everything.

In response to your two questions, Snow, let's start at the beginning. In the garden, God told Adam and Even they could eat of all the trees but the tree of life, for if they ate the fruit of that tree, the penalty was death. When Satan approached Eve tempting her to eat of the tree of life, Eve responded that God had said that they were forbidden to do so upon the penalty of death. Satan then told her that she would not surely die but would know good from evil. Both the lie and the truth of what he said should be obvious as well as the way in which he did it. And if he can do it once, he can do it repeatedly, and will, I suspect, continue to do so as long as it works.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Sean1427

[ozzy]

Although, I know he will ignore the question, I would logical expect him to. If one is going to assert something, I'd like the supporting evidence.

I appreciate this fully. I do hate it when people make unsupportable claims, however in matters of faith, I think a bit of allowance may be given for the fact that the idea of faith is that there is no proof. (Alma 32:21)

You claim that that to answer the question yet your evidence for the claim is also non-existent. That is, you are resorting to the same kind of rhetoric you attribute to me. While it may be true that, according to your knowledge, or mine, there can be no proof of how the devil operates, that technicality is missing the point. Extraordinary claims ought be back up with correlating proof. I can easily saw that farmers are regularly kidnapped by aliens but in the absence of proof, it is a meaningless claim. Claiming that the devil can control your neural synapses is meaningless in the absence of some sort of evidence.

I think that depends on whether you rely more on the eyes of faith, or the eyes of science. For an individual who relies on the Spirit to know truth, there is enough proof in the testimony of the spirit. No science can refute this, and no complete science would. I would ask though, what kind of evidence would you consider overwhelming enough to convince you of one of these 'extraordinary claims?'

Sure, we can all sit around and say that someone told us to believe something and therefore we believe and so we can self-perpetuate our dogma, but I don't come here to massage away the cognitive dissonance. I post here to sharpen my thinking skills and try and engage some fellow discussants in some critical thinking.

Reasonable enough. In this case, I apologize that some of my responses did not take your purpose here into account. I hope that some of my responses actually helped the sharpening process.

No - I actually do believe them. I think you have probably seen enough of my posts to understand that I don't believe stuff just because I am supposed to - because someone told me to. I believe it very deeply. I don't, however, pretend that it is more than faith / belief. I may be super-convinced but I don't "KNOW" and no matter what they say, others here, in my opinion, don't KNOW either. We are just convinced as a matter of faith.

Good to know. I am sorry, but the way this thread has been going, it was beginning to seem as though you didn't really believe and my reading of your other statement completed my apparently incorrect conclusion. I am curious to know if you feel that you (as in you specifically) will ever come to KNOW.

Again - that's missing the point. You can't prove that dead Jack Benny didn't do a root canal on me last night and then dead Ed Sullivan magically make the dental work disappear but that is hardly a reason to believe that is actually happened.

Agreed. I admit I wouldn't believe you if you told me it actually happened. Just like you might not believe me if I told you that when I was born I had strep blood, a hole in my heart (underdevelopment), pyloric stenosis, and that my mother was told to leave me for a mental institute and yet here I am fully functional and developed all thanks to a priesthood blessing. I wouldn't expect you to believe it, and if I told you all the bits that I don't know I would expect you to believe it less. But this is what Mom told me and I believe it totally. 23 years ago medicine wasn't good enough to take care of all that plus everything else, especially not in a low grade hospital. Like I said, I don't expect you to believe it, but I can offer no more proof than that I am writing to you now.

Now for such a story as this, is my only proof good enough to be convincing?

From a qualitative standpoint, why should the devil claims of people here carry any more weight than the claims of Scientologists of Xenu - unless of course we all want to slap each other on the back and mumble the same rhetoric to reinforce our what our mom taught us when we were kids.

It shouldn't. For most cases I am no more personally inclined to believe or disbelieve a persons account of their lives based on religion. I say most to give benefit of the doubt. I am not actually aware of any time where I consider religion. If I think of it beyond considering that it is a personal experience perhaps not meant to be shared it is based solely on the integrity of the presenter.

Really? The contention that our brain cells are not controlled by magical invisible demons is no more valid than the contention that they are?

Burden of proof Ozzy. You say you are a scientists of sorts - tell me how a scientists gives equal weight to those two claims - please try it with a straight face.

I admit that in my studies of nerve cells (though not very extensive as I am a microbio major) I find no proof of spiritual influence over the synapsis of the brain. However my studies have led me to believe our knowledge of these things is far more limited than we let on and that is only with regard to the pure chemistry and physiology. We are even second guessing the purpose of centrioles, which are integral to at least most cells in animals.

However science is unable to detect anything spiritual. If it became possible that science could at least detect God, then I would say that scientists might be forced to rethink their position and allow equal weight.

No, there is no evidence to support that mormons are anymore reliable, however there is no evidence to suggest that these things didn't happen.

agreed

Alright - but you have misstated the crux. It is not me vs the prophet. It is a matter of epistemology... how do we know things. The prophet is an example of an appeal to authority - someone told you what you should believe. My approach is an appeal to logic. Anyone who has taken a philosophy course on the matter will recognize that an appeal to authority is not really a source of knowledge. While logic, along with a few other venues, is.

Okay I admit that my vs statement was misdirected. I appreciate appeals to logic and rather like them. I even try to keep to that approach myself usually. When it comes to things of faith though, logic isn't always good enough. In society, an appeal to authority may very well be a less affective way of obtaining knowledge. However in things of faith, there is no other way to begin knowing but an appeal to authority. The venues of this include prayer, scriptures and the prophet. There are other ways, but they tend to be less common in my opinion. It is important to remember that the philosophies of men are not always correct. If they were, then they wouldn't disagree so much.

On one hand, someone told you you should believe something that from a rational basis is absurd - that magical invisible demons control your brain cells. On the other hand, I say: it's not useful to believe that. I am, in no way, made demonstrably better by believing in magical demons and short of some evidence, don't believe it. I acknowledge the possibility but as a practical matter, I try to live a rational life.

You have to remember that rational is based entirely on present knowledge. Once upon a time, rational suggested that if you sailed far enough you would drop off the face of the earth. It was common knowledge and brought fear to many. It was eventually discovered (and made common knowledge as the two events were not tied closely timewise) that what was thought to be rational was not. Living a rational life is great and I support it, but I wonder if you acknowledge possibilities enough to allow you to accept new truths should they be revealed.

Actually, if we don't believe that Satan exists, the we leave ourselves wide open to his influence and we wouldn't even know it. He could do what ever it is he does however it is he does it and we wouldn't know and eventually it would serve as a significant stumbling block. If we don't know the enemy and in fact believe the enemy isn't there, then we are completely vulnerable, even in cases spiritual rather than physical.

I would like to end this post by apologizing for my many insinuations and accusations in my last post. I was operating under the belief that you were claiming a belief you didn't actually possess (number 2), and this is something I can't stand in the least. Even if you didn't believe in God and the restoration though, it was still wrong of me to say some of the things that I did. I am sorry.

[Matthew0059]

No - I actually do believe them. I think you have probably seen enough of my posts to understand that I don't believe stuff just because I am supposed to - because someone told me to. I believe it very deeply. I don't, however, pretend that it is more than faith / belief. I may be super-convinced but I don't "KNOW" and no matter what they say, others here, in my opinion, don't KNOW either. We are just convinced as a matter of faith.

Just curious-

Do you think that Joseph Smith or Thomas S. Monson or the other prophets "KNOW" (or "KNEW")?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Matthew0059
Clarified

[Dravin]

Just curious-

Do you think that Joseph Smith or the other prophets "KNOW" (or "KNEW")?

Unless I'm mistaken Snow concedes that it is possible to know, so ithe case of Joseph Smith seeing with his own eyes (I'm thinking of the First Vision here) would consist of knowledge in the same way as seeing my car in the street outside counts as knowledge. 'Simple' spiritual impressions fail to meet the criteria of being knowledge in his context. I imagine most of us here would say our 'knowledge' (scare quotes for Snow's benefit) comes from such spiritual impressions and thus we, despite our assertions, do no actually know but instead very strongly believe.

Snow's quite the stickler for what he considers proper use of the word know, he feels the rest of us quite sloppy.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Dravin

[Matthew0059]

Unless I'm mistaken Snow concedes that it is possible to know, so in the case of Joseph Smith seeing with his own eyes (I'm thinking of the First Vision here) would consist of knowledge in the same way as seeing my car in the street outside counts as knowledge. Spiritual impressions fail to meet the criteria of being knowledge in his context. I imagine most of us here would say our 'knowledge' (scare quotes for Snow's benefit) comes from such spiritual impressions and thus we, despite our assertions, do no actually know but instead very strongly believe.

Snow's quite the stickler for what he considers proper use of the word know, he feels the rest of us quite sloppy.

You sound like Snow's handler. I was hoping for an answer from Snow himself.

I'm still hoping for one.