Hallucinations Or Real Experiences?

[Cal]

Something Peace said on another thread made me think about something I have rolled around in my head for a while.

It is really said in the spirit of sparking friendly conversation and not to criticize of harass anyone as to his/her beliefs. Those who already know all the truth there is to know need not dissect this one.

First I would like to ask the question "what does it mean to be ANTI"

Second, I address what could be called a THEME or hypothesis.

Feel free to address either part (I guess this could be two threads, but we don't seem to have an aversion here to bifurcate at times)

Regarding the theme I have suggested, I have purposely left out all the examples I can think of to let whoever responds think of the example they would apply to the theme if they so chose.

Here is the post: (with a little editing for coherancy)

Peace---Your response above has stimulated some thoughts I would like to share---some may upset you, I hope some you can find worth while.

Anyway-------I am often accused of being Anti-. I think some think this because I question a lot of things other mormons take at face value. However, questioning is not the same thing as "trying to destroy". If I raise a question that another mormon cannot answer, whose problem is that, mine or his? if the question is a legitimate one and asked with a sincere desire to find out the truth, is it ANTI?

For example, I have read the story in Ether in the BoM about the Bro of Jared and those "vessels". Now, if one reads this story of HOW the vessels were supposed to travel and couples that with a modicum of understanding of Newton's laws motion, you arrive at an inescapable question-----how could these have possibly worked? No one has yet, ever, answered that question to my satisfaction, and until they do, the credibility of the BoM remains in doubt, not to mention other problems with it.

Does this make me ANTI? The fact that my rational mind will not surrender itself and be dominated by a desire to "believe" everything I am told by church folk? Should I feel guilty that I have not had any angelic visitation or conversion experience? Does it make me ANTI that I truthfully state that I haven't? Should I act like I have, make testimonial proclamations, and outwardlly pretend that I believe certain things, that I don't? Is that ANTI ?

Every now and then, someone (mormon or not) makes a statement either for or against the church. If it can be backed up with facts, fine. But too often we hear bald statements the that the poster can say nothing in defense of, other than, "I am better than you because I am guided by faith" And I say "groovy for you". "now tell me something to make me think you are not hallucinating?" Ususally they just reiterate their spiritual superiority and try to call me to repentance.

Now, as to the second part--the THEME or hypothesis

My problem with "blind faith", which is what I call believing without 1) ANY basis in fact or worse 2) believing in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary, is that one abdicates his only line of defense against mental slavery.

This might better be addressed by asking the question: How does one tell the difference between a halucination and the holy ghost. (The only answer I have ever heard is "you just know")---now you see, that answer goes right back in to the can called "groovy for you". Then you can go to the mountain of research on the operation of the human mind, showing that people all over the world claim to have "visions, out of body experiences and epiphanies of knowledge and enlightenment", many of which such claims flatly contradict the claims of others. CAN THEY ALL BE FROM THE SAME SOURCE?

How does one deal with this? Simple---- apply the scientific method---our only TRUE defense against mental slavery. Ask, where is the data to back up what I believe? Do I have any INDEPENDENT reason to believe, OTHER THAN simply the desire to believe or the desire to have this "spiritual experience". It may come as a shock to some people to realize that the human brain is perfectly capable to generating its own 'spiritual experiences'. This is why people have such a variety of experinces to report--they generate the type of feeling they EXPECT to have. Neurologists can even identify the place in our brains that generate them, and a neurologist can actually stimulate your brain and cause you to have a 'spiritual experience'.

Now, you might say " well, I like my 'spiritual experience' and I don't care where it comes from, whether self induced or from heaven". Personally, I don't see any particular harm in it, as long as the person realizes that it could have several origins and that such 'spiritual experinces' don't justify doing anything that would OTHERWISE be considered immoral or unethical. In other words, religious experiences are 'true enough' to justify doing anything GOOD that you can think of in their name, but NOT SO true that they justify doing anything EVIL. (the best illustration I can think of is this--remember the discussion we had about how failed return missionaries are treated with distain when they return. I''m sure that the gosipy, self rightous people who shun them feel that they have the STRONGEST testimonies of all. So strong and true that they are JUSTIFIED in their criticism. My take, as I point out above, is that religion is NOT SO TRUE that one should feel justified in doing this kind of thing--which would otherwise be considered evil--that is, passing unrightous judgement on your fellow man.

My hypothesis restated: 'Religion is true enough to justifying any good you can do in its name; but not true enough to justify doing evil in its name'.

[serapha]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 22 2004, 09:07 PM

Hi there!

Now, you might say " well, I like my 'spiritual experience' and I don't care where it comes from, whether self induced or from heaven". Personally, I don't see any particular harm in it,

Ever heard of New Age?

~serapha~

[Cal]

Originally posted by serapha+Mar 22 2004, 08:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (serapha @ Mar 22 2004, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Mar 22 2004, 09:07 PM

Hi there!

Now, you might say " well, I like my 'spiritual experience' and I don't care where it comes from, whether self induced or from heaven". Personally, I don't see any particular harm in it,

Ever heard of New Age?

~serapha~

Relevance?

[serapha]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 22 2004, 10:40 PM

Relevance?

I must be in a world of my own. I thought the previous posting was heavy-laden with New Age theology. There's nothing about New Age that is "Christian".

Let me go back and "highlight" for you.

~serapha~

[serapha]

Something Peace said on another thread made me think about something I have rolled around in my head for a while.

It is really said in the spirit of sparking friendly conversation and not to criticize of harass anyone as to his/her beliefs. Those who already know all the truth there is to know need not dissect this one.

First I would like to ask the question "what does it mean to be ANTI"

Second, I address what could be called a THEME or hypothesis.

Feel free to address either part (I guess this could be two threads, but we don't seem to have an aversion here to bifurcate at times)

Regarding the theme I have suggested, I have purposely left out all the examples I can think of to let whoever responds think of the example they would apply to the theme if they so chose.

Here is the post: (with a little editing for coherancy)

Peace---Your response above has stimulated some thoughts I would like to share---some may upset you, I hope some you can find worth while.

Anyway-------I am often accused of being Anti-. I think some think this because I question a lot of things other mormons take at face value. However, questioning is not the same thing as "trying to destroy". If I raise a question that another mormon cannot answer, whose problem is that, mine or his? if the question is a legitimate one and asked with a sincere desire to find out the truth, is it ANTI?

For example, I have read the story in Ether in the BoM about the Bro of Jared and those "vessels". Now, if one reads this story of HOW the vessels were supposed to travel and couples that with a modicum of understanding of Newton's laws motion, you arrive at an inescapable question-----how could these have possibly worked? No one has yet, ever, answered that question to my satisfaction, and until they do, the credibility of the BoM remains in doubt, not to mention other problems with it.

Does this make me ANTI? The fact that my rational mind will not surrender itself and be dominated by a desire to "believe" everything I am told by church folk? Should I feel guilty that I have not had any angelic visitation or conversion experience? Does it make me ANTI that I truthfully state that I haven't? Should I act like I have, make testimonial proclamations, and outwardlly pretend that I believe certain things, that I don't? Is that ANTI ?

Every now and then, someone (mormon or not) makes a statement either for or against the church. If it can be backed up with facts, fine. But too often we hear bald statements the that the poster can say nothing in defense of, other than, "I am better than you because I am guided by faith" And I say "groovy for you". "now tell me something to make me think you are not hallucinating?" Ususally they just reiterate their spiritual superiority and try to call me to repentance.

Now, as to the second part--the THEME or hypothesis

My problem with "blind faith", which is what I call believing without 1) ANY basis in fact or worse 2) believing in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary, is that one abdicates his only line of defense against mental slavery.

This might better be addressed by asking the question: How does one tell the difference between a halucination and the holy ghost. (The only answer I have ever heard is "you just know")---now you see, that answer goes right back in to the can called "groovy for you". Then you can go to the mountain of research on the operation of the human mind, showing that people all over the world claim to have "visions, out of body experiences and epiphanies of knowledge and enlightenment", many of which such claims flatly contradict the claims of others. CAN THEY ALL BE FROM THE SAME SOURCE?

How does one deal with this? Simple---- apply the scientific method---our only TRUE defense against mental slavery. Ask, where is the data to back up what I believe? Do I have any INDEPENDENT reason to believe, OTHER THAN simply the desire to believe or the desire to have this "spiritual experience". It may come as a shock to some people to realize that the human brain is perfectly capable to generating its own 'spiritual experiences'. This is why people have such a variety of experinces to report--they generate the type of feeling they EXPECT to have. Neurologists can even identify the place in our brains that generate them, and a neurologist can actually stimulate your brain and cause you to have a 'spiritual experience'.

Now, you might say " well, I like my 'spiritual experience' and I don't care where it comes from, whether self induced or from heaven". Personally, I don't see any particular harm in it, as long as the person realizes that it could have several origins and that such 'spiritual experinces' don't justify doing anything that would OTHERWISE be considered immoral or unethical. In other words, religious experiences are 'true enough' to justify doing anything GOOD that you can think of in their name, but NOT SO true that they justify doing anything EVIL. (the best illustration I can think of is this--remember the discussion we had about how failed return missionaries are treated with distain when they return. I''m sure that the gosipy, self rightous people who shun them feel that they have the STRONGEST testimonies of all. So strong and true that they are JUSTIFIED in their criticism. My take, as I point out above, is that religion is NOT SO TRUE that one should feel justified in doing this kind of thing--which would otherwise be considered evil--that is, passing unrightous judgement on your fellow man.

My hypothesis restated: 'Religion is true enough to justifying any good you can do in its name; but not true enough to justify doing evil in its name'.

Hi...

all those high-lighted terms and phrases are all New Age theology.

The relevance? It does make a difference where the "vision" comes from.

~serapha~

[Guest Starsky]

Anyway-------I am often accused of being Anti-. I think some think this because I question a lot of things other mormons take at face value. However, questioning is not the same thing as "trying to destroy". ?

Everyone has their own line drawn in the sand as to where they think searching for answers and turning a negative attitude/anti begins.

If I raise a question that another mormon cannot answer, whose problem is that, mine or his?

Both. Just know there is someone somewhere who does have the answers...just because you haven't found them on the internet or in your ward doesn't mean they don't exist and have the answer you may be seeking.

if the question is a legitimate one and asked with a sincere desire to find out the truth, is it ANTI?

Like I said...that can only be answered by the individual you are addressing at any given moment, and the question you are asking, and the way inwhich you ask it.

For example, I have read the story in Ether in the BoM about the Bro of Jared and those "vessels". Now, if one reads this story of HOW the vessels were supposed to travel and couples that with a modicum of understanding of Newton's laws motion, you arrive at an inescapable question-----how could these have possibly worked? No one has yet, ever, answered that question to my satisfaction, and until they do, the credibility of the BoM remains in doubt, not to mention other problems with it.

Everything is possible with the Lord. Nearly nothing is possible with men without the Lord.

Does this make me ANTI?

No. It makes you stuck in the mud. I am sorry if no one can pull you out.

The fact that my rational mind will not surrender itself and be dominated by a desire to "believe" everything I am told by church folk?

No one believes everything they are told by church folk. :)

Should I feel guilty that I have not had any angelic visitation or conversion experience?

Guilty? No...left out...yes.

Does it make me ANTI that I truthfully state that I haven't?

Hardly.

Should I act like I have, make testimonial proclamations, and outwardlly pretend that I believe certain things, that I don't? Is that ANTI ?

Being phoney is certainly an option....but for what purpose? Religious belief and practice is for bringing something to the individual ....not for show or acceptence...but for the 'benefit' granted to us from God.

Why would being honest about where you are spiritually be Anti...I just don't get this whole line of questions and reasoning...in the context of ANTI.

Every now and then, someone (mormon or not) makes a statement either for or against the church. If it can be backed up with facts, fine. But too often we hear bald statements the that the poster can say nothing in defense of, other than, "I am better than you because I am guided by faith" And I say "groovy for you". "now tell me something to make me think you are not hallucinating?" Ususally they just reiterate their spiritual superiority and try to call me to repentance.

The fact you feel they are 'stating they are better than you because they are guided by faith' speaks volumes. You must have something within yourself ...which tells you this is what they are thinking... And if they are prideful...they are not filled with faith...but self-righteousness.

As for hullucinating....well if God chooses to give us revelation through a scientific path....It only makes sense...Since He created an entire earth using science... and us also (I assume you took Biology 101) ..why should He all of sudden not use it to create a way for communicating with us??

Now, as to the second part--the THEME or hypothesis

My problem with "blind faith", which is what I call believing without 1) ANY basis in fact or worse 2) believing in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary, is that one abdicates his only line of defense against mental slavery.

I don't know about blind faith....I have never seen any 'real' faith that was blind. There are those who are blind followers....but I don't see them having any faith....just the opposite. A willing obedience to principle always frees men...not enslaves them. It is the rebellious and contentious who are chained, angry, frustrated, and enslaved with tormenting existences.

This might better be addressed by asking the question: How does one tell the difference between a halucination and the holy ghost. (The only answer I have ever heard is "you just know")---now you see, that answer goes right back in to the can called "groovy for you".

Who says they have to be different sources? Granted...like everything on the planet....God creates something and Satan makes a faux twin.

There are drugs which induce hullucinations...but they never are constructive...only destructive and without substance.

On the other hand, the Holy Ghost only leaves a person stronger and more able bodied...which is just the opposite effect that ullucinations caused by drugs have on people.

Then you can go to the mountain of research on the operation of the human mind, showing that people all over the world claim to have "visions, out of body experiences and epiphanies of knowledge and enlightenment", many of which such claims flatly contradict the claims of others. CAN THEY ALL BE FROM THE SAME SOURCE?

Why would one man's truth have to match up exactly with another man's truth. Two numbers can be used to create thousands of outcomes...just by changing the mathimatical equation containing the two numbers.

2+3=5 2x3=6 The numbers or 'base' is the same...but the result is completely different. Does the answer of the one rule out the answer of the other. Put this same experiment to spiritual matters and you will get the same results...depending upon the people/circumstances/purpose/need/level of understanding....given the same base....they can have totally different outcomes....and still be right for them...though to an inexperienced eye...seem to contradict.

If you didn't know anything about math and math was a difficult area of study for you....say...like someone who is mentally challenged....the factors above could keep you messed up....maybe all this person can process is the numbers, and not the symbols to work them....so they can't ever get why they are different...contradicting....But does it make the equations wrong? Or is it the 'ability or lack of it' that makes it appear to contradict?

How does one deal with this? Simple---- apply the scientific method---our only TRUE defense against mental slavery. Ask, where is the data to back up what I believe? Do I have any INDEPENDENT reason to believe, OTHER THAN simply the desire to believe or the desire to have this "spiritual experience".

It still comes down to whether or not you have the 'ability' to see what is plain to others. I think that is why Christ often stated...if you have the ears to hear or....they have eyes but can't see, ears, but can't hear. He recognized that many couldn't see things clearly as He did. Does that make what He taught a lie?

It may come as a shock to some people to realize that the human brain is perfectly capable to generating its own 'spiritual experiences'. This is why people have such a variety of experinces to report--they generate the type of feeling they EXPECT to have. Neurologists can even identify the place in our brains that generate them, and a neurologist can actually stimulate your brain and cause you to have a 'spiritual experience'.

God is a God of science. How He chooses to use the miraculous brain of ours to communicate, should not detract from the awesome interaction He gives us...as individuals...not as a herd of cows getting imunizations....but as individuals who are all unique, at different places and having different needs at different levels of understanding.

Would you say that just because a baby can't chew steak and is only given milk....that his diet is a contradition in the diet of the human race...because his father is eating steak?

Someone trying to 'generalize' or clump together all the experiences of spiritual interaction is doing just that...they are trying to say that this one over here got this message....to be a Catholic and this one over here is getting a message to be a Mormon...they are getting contradicting messages from the Spirit...therefore it isn't from a God...it is from themselves....

But in reality...God can tell a man....who needs to influence a certain people who are among the Catholics...that his right place is within that church...that this is where he was placed to fulfill his particular mission on this earth. That it is where he can do the most good.

The Lord knows that somewhere down the line this man will have all the opportunities to have the fulness of the gospel and be judged as those who had it all their lives.

Also...not everyone chose to have the gospel during this life. Truly.... Some chose not to be held accountable with the fulness....there were many levels of 'intelligences' in the pre-existence as well. Some very valiant...others just followers of the majority.

I also think that we all chose what we would do down here...what we wanted to accomplish and what 'gifts' of the spirit or lack of them we would need for our mission.

We cannot group people into an 'equal to all' way of believing and receiving ....we can only offer ...make available the gospel....and they will or will not accept it according to their spiritual yearnings and dispositions.

To expect 'mass' equality in spiritual matters would be the same as going to any elementary school and demanding/expecting that every child...no matter their strengths or disabilities...they perform, learn, excell, or fail exactly the same.

To deny individuality and uniqueness on a spiritual level is blind. God knows what He is doing....we only have to know what he is doing in our arena and not get all upset if it doesn't make sense because he is doing something else with someone else...

Now, you might say " well, I like my 'spiritual experience' and I don't care where it comes from, whether self induced or from heaven". Personally, I don't see any particular harm in it, as long as the person realizes that it could have several origins and that such 'spiritual experinces' don't justify doing anything that would OTHERWISE be considered immoral or unethical. In other words, religious experiences are 'true enough' to justify doing anything GOOD that you can think of in their name, but NOT SO true that they justify doing anything EVIL. (the best illustration I can think of is this--remember the discussion we had about how failed return missionaries are treated with distain when they return. I''m sure that the gosipy, self rightous people who shun them feel that they have the STRONGEST testimonies of all. So strong and true that they are JUSTIFIED in their criticism. My take, as I point out above, is that religion is NOT SO TRUE that one should feel justified in doing this kind of thing--which would otherwise be considered evil--that is, passing unrightous judgement on your fellow man.

My hypothesis restated: 'Religion is true enough to justifying any good you can do in its name; but not true enough to justify doing evil in its name'. 

IP: [ 4.8.220.25 ]    

I totally agree...and I love that last phrase:'Religion is true enough to justifying any good you can do in its name; but not true enough to justify doing evil in its name'.

[Lindy]

I am going to stick my neck out and put it on the chopping block now..... but I understand where Cal is coming from in a lot of respects.... I have more insight and respect for the guy after reading his post.

I don't think of anyone who is honestly searching for answers to questions as an "anti". Just because someone has a different approach to finding the answers to what they are looking for, shouldn't term them as "bad". OK...back to the thread...

"what does it mean to be ANTI"

First thing that comes to mind is AGAINST

Second thing is OPPOSED TO

Third thing...Search and Destroy

In my opinion...I don't think that asking questions, to seriously try to find an answer, is being an "anti", to think differently and not believe everything at face value is not "anti", and Cal is right..

questioning is not the same thing as "trying to destroy". If I raise a question that another mormon cannot answer, whose problem is that, mine or his? if the question is a legitimate one and asked with a sincere desire to find out the truth, is it ANTI?

If a question is asked that they cannot find an answer to, then they should consider it a challange, and look for an answer to provide.

Does this make me ANTI? The fact that my rational mind will not surrender itself and be dominated by a desire to "believe" everything I am told by church folk?

I don't think that it makes you an "anti"....means that you can use your mind....and don't believe everything you are told without questioning it's truth.

I could ramble on some more...but I need more sleep :)

PS.....GREAT POST CAL!

[AFDaw]

I grew up in a very anti-Mormon community where churches held Anti-Mormon rallies regularly. Where pastors armored their congregation with anti-mormon pamplets and sent them out to warn everyone our true intentions (whatever that was). I spent part of my senior year addressing questions from school mates who brought their Bible to school to prove to me that what I believe in is false. Not all churches were like this. I had several friends who said their church never discussed us or our beliefs, and I had several friends who attended these churches. My personal definition of anti are those who preach against us. Or talk against us. Like, if I say "I am a Christian" and then someone says "No you're not" I think that's anti. Someone who wasn't anti wouldn't care what we believed, they may not accept it the gospel we believe to be true for themself, but they have no problem with what we believe personally. I have no problem with those who question the church, but don't ask questions about the church if you're not willing to accept our answers.

[Cal]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 22 2004, 10:11 PM

Something Peace said on another thread made me think about something I have rolled around in my head for a while.

It is really said in the spirit of sparking friendly conversation and not to criticize of harass anyone as to his/her beliefs. Those who already know all the truth there is to know need not dissect this one.

First I would like to ask the question "what does it mean to be ANTI"

Second, I address what could be called a THEME or hypothesis.

Feel free to address either part (I guess this could be two threads, but we don't seem to have an aversion here to bifurcate at times)

Regarding the theme I have suggested, I have purposely left out all the examples I can think of to let whoever responds think of the example they would apply to the theme if they so chose.

Here is the post: (with a little editing for coherancy)

Peace---Your response above has stimulated some thoughts I would like to share---some may upset you, I hope some you can find worth while.

Anyway-------I am often accused of being Anti-. I think some think this because I question a lot of things other mormons take at face value. However, questioning is not the same thing as "trying to destroy". If I raise a question that another mormon cannot answer, whose problem is that, mine or his? if the question is a legitimate one and asked with a sincere desire to find out the truth, is it ANTI?

For example, I have read the story in Ether in the BoM about the Bro of Jared and those "vessels". Now, if one reads this story of HOW the vessels were supposed to travel and couples that with a modicum of understanding of Newton's laws motion, you arrive at an inescapable question-----how could these have possibly worked? No one has yet, ever, answered that question to my satisfaction, and until they do, the credibility of the BoM remains in doubt, not to mention other problems with it.

Does this make me ANTI? The fact that my rational mind will not surrender itself and be dominated by a desire to "believe" everything I am told by church folk? Should I feel guilty that I have not had any angelic visitation or conversion experience? Does it make me ANTI that I truthfully state that I haven't? Should I act like I have, make testimonial proclamations, and outwardlly pretend that I believe certain things, that I don't? Is that ANTI ?

Every now and then, someone (mormon or not) makes a statement either for or against the church. If it can be backed up with facts, fine. But too often we hear bald statements the that the poster can say nothing in defense of, other than, "I am better than you because I am guided by faith" And I say "groovy for you". "now tell me something to make me think you are not hallucinating?" Ususally they just reiterate their spiritual superiority and try to call me to repentance.

Now, as to the second part--the THEME or hypothesis

My problem with "blind faith", which is what I call believing without 1) ANY basis in fact or worse 2) believing in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary, is that one abdicates his only line of defense against mental slavery.

This might better be addressed by asking the question: How does one tell the difference between a halucination and the holy ghost. (The only answer I have ever heard is "you just know")---now you see, that answer goes right back in to the can called "groovy for you". Then you can go to the mountain of research on the operation of the human mind, showing that people all over the world claim to have "visions, out of body experiences and epiphanies of knowledge and enlightenment", many of which such claims flatly contradict the claims of others. CAN THEY ALL BE FROM THE SAME SOURCE?

How does one deal with this? Simple---- apply the scientific method---our only TRUE defense against mental slavery. Ask, where is the data to back up what I believe? Do I have any INDEPENDENT reason to believe, OTHER THAN simply the desire to believe or the desire to have this "spiritual experience". It may come as a shock to some people to realize that the human brain is perfectly capable to generating its own 'spiritual experiences'. This is why people have such a variety of experinces to report--they generate the type of feeling they EXPECT to have. Neurologists can even identify the place in our brains that generate them, and a neurologist can actually stimulate your brain and cause you to have a 'spiritual experience'.

Now, you might say " well, I like my 'spiritual experience' and I don't care where it comes from, whether self induced or from heaven". Personally, I don't see any particular harm in it, as long as the person realizes that it could have several origins and that such 'spiritual experinces' don't justify doing anything that would OTHERWISE be considered immoral or unethical. In other words, religious experiences are 'true enough' to justify doing anything GOOD that you can think of in their name, but NOT SO true that they justify doing anything EVIL. (the best illustration I can think of is this--remember the discussion we had about how failed return missionaries are treated with distain when they return. I''m sure that the gosipy, self rightous people who shun them feel that they have the STRONGEST testimonies of all. So strong and true that they are JUSTIFIED in their criticism. My take, as I point out above, is that religion is NOT SO TRUE that one should feel justified in doing this kind of thing--which would otherwise be considered evil--that is, passing unrightous judgement on your fellow man.

My hypothesis restated: 'Religion is true enough to justifying any good you can do in its name; but not true enough to justify doing evil in its name'.

Hi...

all those high-lighted terms and phrases are all New Age theology.

The relevance? It does make a difference where the "vision" comes from.

~serapha~

seraph--"a rose by any other name...?" Who cares what you label it? The point is, can anyone truely prove where such experiences, whether they be the mormon inspiration or the eastern "enlightenment" experience come from?

Such experiences are universal, and as such attaching a meaning that is exclusion and prejudicial to other's experiences is may not be justified. In other words, 'relgion is true enough to justify doing good in its name, but not so true to justify doing evil' ----that is the question or issue I am raising.

[Lindy]

I have no problem with those who question the church, but don't ask questions about the church if you're not willing to accept our answers.

Now I will tell you AFDaw that I was one of those who questioned and wasn't willing to accept the answers (at that time). In fact I laughed in their faces...and I wasn't a nice person to the "mormons". But the seed had been planted and as time wore on, so did the process of tolerance of those who didn't think like I did. It was years after my first taste of what the LDS believe, and I was older and wiser and wanted to learn. But if it hadn't been for the tolerance of those who I didn't believe in, I would never had made it to the discussions. I was accepted for who I was, and what I believed and things went from there.

[AFDaw]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Mar 23 2004, 08:55 PM

I have no problem with those who question the church, but don't ask questions about the church if you're not willing to accept our answers.

Now I will tell you AFDaw that I was one of those who questioned and wasn't willing to accept the answers (at that time). In fact I laughed in their faces...and I wasn't a nice person to the "mormons". But the seed had been planted and as time wore on, so did the process of tolerance of those who didn't think like I did. It was years after my first taste of what the LDS believe, and I was older and wiser and wanted to learn. But if it hadn't been for the tolerance of those who I didn't believe in, I would never had made it to the discussions. I was accepted for who I was, and what I believed and things went from there.

I'm not sure if you mis-understood me, but I never said those who questioned were anti. I just personally can't stand it when someone asks me a question about my beliefs and then tells me I'm wrong. Like once a guy asked if we practiced polygamy. I said no and he quickly informed me we did. Or in talking to someone at work one day I stated that I was a Christian and his response was simple "Ohhh...no, you're not." It's like, why ask if you're not going to believe me? I never got upset...I stopped getting upset at things like that a LONG time ago. I enjoy it when someone disagrees with me now :)

On a side note, I never knew that about you. I'd be interested to hear your story. Is it posted somewhere, like the testimony forum?

[Jenda]

Serapha,

"Spiritual experience" is a New Age concept? If it is, then New Age is a lot older than I thought, since "spiritual experiences" go clear back to the NT.

What a hoot!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 23 2004, 01:51 AM

Anyway-------I am often accused of being Anti-. I think some think this because I question a lot of things other mormons take at face value. However, questioning is not the same thing as "trying to destroy". ?

Everyone has their own line drawn in the sand as to where they think searching for answers and turning a negative attitude/anti begins.

If I raise a question that another mormon cannot answer, whose problem is that, mine or his?

Both. Just know there is someone somewhere who does have the answers...just because you haven't found them on the internet or in your ward doesn't mean they don't exist and have the answer you may be seeking.

if the question is a legitimate one and asked with a sincere desire to find out the truth, is it ANTI?

Like I said...that can only be answered by the individual you are addressing at any given moment, and the question you are asking, and the way inwhich you ask it.

For example, I have read the story in Ether in the BoM about the Bro of Jared and those "vessels". Now, if one reads this story of HOW the vessels were supposed to travel and couples that with a modicum of understanding of Newton's laws motion, you arrive at an inescapable question-----how could these have possibly worked? No one has yet, ever, answered that question to my satisfaction, and until they do, the credibility of the BoM remains in doubt, not to mention other problems with it.

Everything is possible with the Lord. Nearly nothing is possible with men without the Lord.

Does this make me ANTI?

No. It makes you stuck in the mud. I am sorry if no one can pull you out.

The fact that my rational mind will not surrender itself and be dominated by a desire to "believe" everything I am told by church folk?

No one believes everything they are told by church folk. :)

Should I feel guilty that I have not had any angelic visitation or conversion experience?

Guilty? No...left out...yes.

Does it make me ANTI that I truthfully state that I haven't?

Hardly.

Should I act like I have, make testimonial proclamations, and outwardlly pretend that I believe certain things, that I don't? Is that ANTI ?

Being phoney is certainly an option....but for what purpose? Religious belief and practice is for bringing something to the individual ....not for show or acceptence...but for the 'benefit' granted to us from God.

Why would being honest about where you are spiritually be Anti...I just don't get this whole line of questions and reasoning...in the context of ANTI.

Every now and then, someone (mormon or not) makes a statement either for or against the church. If it can be backed up with facts, fine. But too often we hear bald statements the that the poster can say nothing in defense of, other than, "I am better than you because I am guided by faith" And I say "groovy for you". "now tell me something to make me think you are not hallucinating?" Ususally they just reiterate their spiritual superiority and try to call me to repentance.

The fact you feel they are 'stating they are better than you because they are guided by faith' speaks volumes. You must have something within yourself ...which tells you this is what they are thinking... And if they are prideful...they are not filled with faith...but self-righteousness.

As for hullucinating....well if God chooses to give us revelation through a scientific path....It only makes sense...Since He created an entire earth using science... and us also (I assume you took Biology 101) ..why should He all of sudden not use it to create a way for communicating with us??

Now, as to the second part--the THEME or hypothesis

My problem with "blind faith", which is what I call believing without 1) ANY basis in fact or worse 2) believing in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary, is that one abdicates his only line of defense against mental slavery.

I don't know about blind faith....I have never seen any 'real' faith that was blind. There are those who are blind followers....but I don't see them having any faith....just the opposite. A willing obedience to principle always frees men...not enslaves them. It is the rebellious and contentious who are chained, angry, frustrated, and enslaved with tormenting existences.

This might better be addressed by asking the question: How does one tell the difference between a halucination and the holy ghost. (The only answer I have ever heard is "you just know")---now you see, that answer goes right back in to the can called "groovy for you".

Who says they have to be different sources? Granted...like everything on the planet....God creates something and Satan makes a faux twin.

There are drugs which induce hullucinations...but they never are constructive...only destructive and without substance.

On the other hand, the Holy Ghost only leaves a person stronger and more able bodied...which is just the opposite effect that ullucinations caused by drugs have on people.

Then you can go to the mountain of research on the operation of the human mind, showing that people all over the world claim to have "visions, out of body experiences and epiphanies of knowledge and enlightenment", many of which such claims flatly contradict the claims of others. CAN THEY ALL BE FROM THE SAME SOURCE?

Why would one man's truth have to match up exactly with another man's truth. Two numbers can be used to create thousands of outcomes...just by changing the mathimatical equation containing the two numbers.

2+3=5 2x3=6 The numbers or 'base' is the same...but the result is completely different. Does the answer of the one rule out the answer of the other. Put this same experiment to spiritual matters and you will get the same results...depending upon the people/circumstances/purpose/need/level of understanding....given the same base....they can have totally different outcomes....and still be right for them...though to an inexperienced eye...seem to contradict.

If you didn't know anything about math and math was a difficult area of study for you....say...like someone who is mentally challenged....the factors above could keep you messed up....maybe all this person can process is the numbers, and not the symbols to work them....so they can't ever get why they are different...contradicting....But does it make the equations wrong? Or is it the 'ability or lack of it' that makes it appear to contradict?

How does one deal with this? Simple---- apply the scientific method---our only TRUE defense against mental slavery. Ask, where is the data to back up what I believe? Do I have any INDEPENDENT reason to believe, OTHER THAN simply the desire to believe or the desire to have this "spiritual experience".

It still comes down to whether or not you have the 'ability' to see what is plain to others. I think that is why Christ often stated...if you have the ears to hear or....they have eyes but can't see, ears, but can't hear. He recognized that many couldn't see things clearly as He did. Does that make what He taught a lie?

It may come as a shock to some people to realize that the human brain is perfectly capable to generating its own 'spiritual experiences'. This is why people have such a variety of experinces to report--they generate the type of feeling they EXPECT to have. Neurologists can even identify the place in our brains that generate them, and a neurologist can actually stimulate your brain and cause you to have a 'spiritual experience'.

God is a God of science. How He chooses to use the miraculous brain of ours to communicate, should not detract from the awesome interaction He gives us...as individuals...not as a herd of cows getting imunizations....but as individuals who are all unique, at different places and having different needs at different levels of understanding.

Would you say that just because a baby can't chew steak and is only given milk....that his diet is a contradition in the diet of the human race...because his father is eating steak?

Someone trying to 'generalize' or clump together all the experiences of spiritual interaction is doing just that...they are trying to say that this one over here got this message....to be a Catholic and this one over here is getting a message to be a Mormon...they are getting contradicting messages from the Spirit...therefore it isn't from a God...it is from themselves....

But in reality...God can tell a man....who needs to influence a certain people who are among the Catholics...that his right place is within that church...that this is where he was placed to fulfill his particular mission on this earth. That it is where he can do the most good.

The Lord knows that somewhere down the line this man will have all the opportunities to have the fulness of the gospel and be judged as those who had it all their lives.

Also...not everyone chose to have the gospel during this life. Truly.... Some chose not to be held accountable with the fulness....there were many levels of 'intelligences' in the pre-existence as well. Some very valiant...others just followers of the majority.

I also think that we all chose what we would do down here...what we wanted to accomplish and what 'gifts' of the spirit or lack of them we would need for our mission.

We cannot group people into an 'equal to all' way of believing and receiving ....we can only offer ...make available the gospel....and they will or will not accept it according to their spiritual yearnings and dispositions.

To expect 'mass' equality in spiritual matters would be the same as going to any elementary school and demanding/expecting that every child...no matter their strengths or disabilities...they perform, learn, excell, or fail exactly the same.

To deny individuality and uniqueness on a spiritual level is blind. God knows what He is doing....we only have to know what he is doing in our arena and not get all upset if it doesn't make sense because he is doing something else with someone else...

Now, you might say " well, I like my 'spiritual experience' and I don't care where it comes from, whether self induced or from heaven". Personally, I don't see any particular harm in it, as long as the person realizes that it could have several origins and that such 'spiritual experinces' don't justify doing anything that would OTHERWISE be considered immoral or unethical. In other words, religious experiences are 'true enough' to justify doing anything GOOD that you can think of in their name, but NOT SO true that they justify doing anything EVIL. (the best illustration I can think of is this--remember the discussion we had about how failed return missionaries are treated with distain when they return. I''m sure that the gosipy, self rightous people who shun them feel that they have the STRONGEST testimonies of all. So strong and true that they are JUSTIFIED in their criticism. My take, as I point out above, is that religion is NOT SO TRUE that one should feel justified in doing this kind of thing--which would otherwise be considered evil--that is, passing unrightous judgement on your fellow man.

My hypothesis restated: 'Religion is true enough to justifying any good you can do in its name; but not true enough to justify doing evil in its name'. 

IP: [ 4.8.220.25 ]    

I totally agree...and I love that last phrase:'Religion is true enough to justifying any good you can do in its name; but not true enough to justify doing evil in its name'.

Thank you for your initial response---I won't try to address every point you made. Many things you said were well taken. One thing you said still has me puzzled. You seem to like to refer to God as a God of science and ask me if I took Biology 101 (just for your intro I have a degree in Biology and Chemistry, and have taught both for 32 years). So, regarding the vessels in Ether--you will need to tell me how God can be a God of science (which has found that there are certain basic rules to how matter and energy behave in the universe) can make something like that work. [bTW-- it's either one way or the other; either God is a God of science OR he can do anything he wants, but you can't have it both ways]

[Cal]

Originally posted by AFDaw@Mar 23 2004, 07:18 AM

I grew up in a very anti-Mormon community where churches held Anti-Mormon rallies regularly. Where pastors armored their congregation with anti-mormon pamplets and sent them out to warn everyone our true intentions (whatever that was). I spent part of my senior year addressing questions from school mates who brought their Bible to school to prove to me that what I believe in is false. Not all churches were like this. I had several friends who said their church never discussed us or our beliefs, and I had several friends who attended these churches. My personal definition of anti are those who preach against us. Or talk against us. Like, if I say "I am a Christian" and then someone says "No you're not" I think that's anti. Someone who wasn't anti wouldn't care what we believed, they may not accept it the gospel we believe to be true for themself, but they have no problem with what we believe personally. I have no problem with those who question the church, but don't ask questions about the church if you're not willing to accept our answers.

AFD--I just want to address your last statement. Whether someone can accept your answers or not depends on whether they make sense; I don't know why you would necessarily expect someone to accept your answer, just because you articulated what YOU thought was a response. Some answers hold water, and some don't. Why accept those that don't? I'm not saying yours don't, but on principle, the acceptance is in the content of the answer, not the fact that someone TRIED to give one.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 23 2004, 09:59 PM

Serapha,

"Spiritual experience" is a New Age concept? If it is, then New Age is a lot older than I thought, since "spiritual experiences" go clear back to the NT.

What a hoot!

Getting into a little Biology 101--- (Peace, you might like this...)

Jenda--spiritual experience probably goes back way further than the NT---Neanderthal man was known to perform a burial ceremony when they enterred their dead. Clearly they were thinking about spiritual things (what exactly went through their heads is difficult to say, but the fact that they reverence death says they had a capacity to feel deeply)

The capacity for spiritual experience is universal in peoples of all cultures and geographies, and probably has its roots in our earliest experiences in survival as a species. Why? Being able to imagine the presence of something that is not there in front of us is one of the best survival tools our species has. Spiritual experiences are probably an offshoot of our ability to imagine things that could shape our future. For example, when early man went hunting for game, being able to imagine the presence of a predator around the next corner had to have a tremendous survival advantage. Then further, as man became more consciencious of his own mortality, and being able to imagine the terrors and potential horrors he faced each day in a harsh, and unforgiving world, had to be very demoralizing and depressing; the ability to imagine a better life after death, or to imagine that there is some superior being watching out for you had to have a strenthening and uplifting effect----an effect that had strong survival advantages. Darwin wasn't too far off even when it came to the evolution of our brains.

[Guest Starsky]

Thank you for your initial response---I won't try to address every point you made. Many things you said were well taken. One thing you said still has me puzzled. You seem to like to refer to God as a God of science and ask me if I took Biology 101 (just for your intro I have a degree in Biology and Chemistry, and have taught both for 32 years). So, regarding the vessels in Ether--you will need to tell me how God can be a God of science (which has found that there are certain basic rules to how matter and energy behave in the universe) can make something like that work. [bTW-- it's either one way or the other; either God is a God of science OR he can do anything he wants, but you can't have it both ways]

I didn't mean to sound rude...but I think I did...I have brochial pnuemonia and it has made me tired and cranky...LOL So sorry...okay?

Now...just one thing keeps running through my mind with the boat thing....if we could have them physically here to examine....then i can see saying that there was no scientific basis for their structure and what they endured and how they worked....

But only having a sketchy discription....just doesn't give enough to validate an argument for or against their scientific validity....

[Guest Starsky]

QUOTE=Cal,Mar 23 2004, 10:53 PM]

QUOTE=Jenda,Mar 23 2004, 09:59 PM] Serapha,

"Spiritual experience" is a New Age concept?  If it is, then New Age is a lot older than I thought, since "spiritual experiences" go clear back to the NT.

What a hoot! 

Getting into a little Biology 101--- (Peace, you might like this...)

Jenda--spiritual experience probably goes back way further than the NT---Neanderthal man was known to perform a burial ceremony when they enterred their dead. Clearly they were thinking about spiritual things (what exactly went through their heads is difficult to say, but the fact that they reverence death says they had a capacity to feel deeply)

The capacity for spiritual experience is universal in peoples of all cultures and geographies, and probably has its roots in our earliest experiences in survival as a species. Why? Being able to imagine the presence of something that is not there in front of us is one of the best survival tools our species has. Spiritual experiences are probably an offshoot of our ability to imagine things that could shape our future. For example, when early man went hunting for game, being able to imagine the presence of a predator around the next corner had to have a tremendous survival advantage. Then further, as man became more consciencious of his own mortality, and being able to imagine the terrors and potential horrors he faced each day in a harsh, and unforgiving world, had to be very demoralizing and depressing; the ability to imagine a better life after death, or to imagine that there is  some superior being watching out for you had to have a strenthening and  uplifting effect----an effect that had strong survival advantages. Darwin wasn't too far off even when it came to the evolution of our brains.

So are you saying you believe there is no God and we are all there is???? That must be kind of scary.

Two things....I watched a documentary on the falacy of the darwin theory....and ancient man..

They showed how some of the physical evidence was fabricated...and that many of their speculations about prehistoric man and darwinism was totally wrong.

It is interesting that from the beginning of JS's work fabrication was always an acusation he and members of the church have had to endure....but to see how quickly the people accepted scientific theories as fact...theories which were based upon real fabrication...just makes you wonder if it isn't those who don't want to believe in God aren't the ones who are 'creating' their own 'desires' out of nothing but brain waves and deceitful hearts...

[AFDaw]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 23 2004, 10:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 23 2004, 10:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--AFDaw@Mar 23 2004, 07:18 AM

I grew up in a very anti-Mormon community where churches held Anti-Mormon rallies regularly.  Where pastors armored their congregation with anti-mormon pamplets and sent them out to warn everyone our true intentions (whatever that was).  I spent part of my senior year addressing questions from school mates who brought their Bible to school to prove to me that what I believe in is false.  Not all churches were like this.  I had several friends who said their church never discussed us or our beliefs, and I had several friends who attended these churches.  My personal definition of anti are those who preach against us.  Or talk against us.  Like, if I say "I am a Christian" and then someone says "No you're not" I think that's anti.  Someone who wasn't anti wouldn't care what we believed, they may not accept it the gospel we believe to be true for themself, but they have no problem with what we believe personally.  I have no problem with those who question the church, but don't ask questions about the church if you're not willing to accept our answers.

AFD--I just want to address your last statement. Whether someone can accept your answers or not depends on whether they make sense; I don't know why you would necessarily expect someone to accept your answer, just because you articulated what YOU thought was a response. Some answers hold water, and some don't. Why accept those that don't? I'm not saying yours don't, but on principle, the acceptance is in the content of the answer, not the fact that someone TRIED to give one.

That comment is regarding the last part of my post. When people ask me "Are you Christian?" and I say yes and they don't believe it. Those are the type questions I'm referring to. Several times I've been told that we do practice polygamy, that we're not Christian, that we don't believe in the Bible, right after I told someone what our beliefs were on those topics. My point is, don't ask me if I'm a Christian if you're not going to accept my answer, don't ask me if we practice polygamy if you're not going to accept my answer....etc.

And just because the water doesn't hold water for you, doesn't mean it isn't the correct answer. Remember that thread about how could we believe in a God who could create someone who could murder/rape a child? And everyone said we believed in free agency and that all God did was create someone who had that freedom to choose what he could do? How many times did we answer that question over and over and over and the answer wasn't accepted? I can understand some things not making sense to those who don't believe in our church, but it still doesn't change the fact that the answer to the question is correct.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 23 2004, 10:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 23 2004, 10:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 23 2004, 09:59 PM

Serapha,

"Spiritual experience" is a New Age concept?  If it is, then New Age is a lot older than I thought, since "spiritual experiences" go clear back to the NT.

What a hoot! 

Getting into a little Biology 101--- (Peace, you might like this...)

Jenda--spiritual experience probably goes back way further than the NT---Neanderthal man was known to perform a burial ceremony when they enterred their dead. Clearly they were thinking about spiritual things (what exactly went through their heads is difficult to say, but the fact that they reverence death says they had a capacity to feel deeply)

Cal, I realize that they go back much farther than the NT. If one is into creationism, they go clear back to the Garden of Eden. That is the point I was trying to make. Serapha claimed that "spiritual experiences" are New Age. I was just wondering at her definition of New Age since she made that statement.

[Guest Starsky]

The reason the Christian churches are now labelling all spiritual experiences NEW AGE is because they are in competition with those churches who claim to heal and do other spiritually based works.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 24 2004, 12:28 AM

Thank you for your initial response---I won't try to address every point you made. Many things you said were well taken. One thing you said still has me puzzled. You seem to like to refer to God as a God of science and ask me if I took Biology 101 (just for your intro I have a degree in Biology and Chemistry, and have taught both for 32 years). So, regarding the vessels in Ether--you will need to tell me how God can be a God of science (which has found that there are certain basic rules to how matter and energy behave in the universe) can make something like that work. [bTW-- it's either one way or the other; either God is a God of science OR he can do anything he wants, but you can't have it both ways]

I didn't mean to sound rude...but I think I did...I have brochial pnuemonia and it has made me tired and cranky...LOL So sorry...okay?

Now...just one thing keeps running through my mind with the boat thing....if we could have them physically here to examine....then i can see saying that there was no scientific basis for their structure and what they endured and how they worked....

But only having a sketchy discription....just doesn't give enough to validate an argument for or against their scientific validity....

Peace--I think if you read Ether, you can get sufficient evidence from those facts to conclude that no one could survive a trip in those things. It is clear that: 1) the are closed at the top and bottom 2) they are intended to be driven by the wind and waves and to be pushed by the waves underwater, which would mean they are tossed to and fro, upside down etc. How could anyone inside survive? Beside that, the ocean currents do not move fast enough to move a floating object to any predictable spot in any reasonable amount of time. The whole story strains credulity to the max. It sounds more like the imagination of someone quite unfamiliar with ocean travel. If God is a God of science, he sure doesn't sound like it here.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal --

Beside that, the ocean currents do not move fast enough to move a floating object to any predictable spot in any reasonable amount of time. The whole story strains credulity to the max. It sounds more like the imagination of someone quite unfamiliar with ocean travel. If God is a God of science, he sure doesn't sound like it here.

I've never found Ether all that plausible, either, but the speed of the ocean currents isn't a problem for me. The westerly current in the North Pacific (called the Kuroshio in the west and the California in the east) runs about 3 mph. It's about 5000 miles from Japan to Oregon. Assuming your Jaredite barges don't go quite as fast as the current -- say at 2 mph -- they still get to America from the east coast of Asia in about a hundred days. It took Columbus 71 days to get from Spain to the Bahamas, so a hundred-day voyage isn't unreasonably long.

[Guest Starsky]

QUOTE=Cal,Mar 24 2004, 05:24 PMQUOTE=Peace,Mar 24 2004, 12:28 AMThank you for your initial response---I won't try to address every point you made. Many things you said were well taken. One thing you said still has me puzzled. You seem to like to refer to God as a God of science and ask me if I took Biology 101 (just for your intro I have a degree in Biology and Chemistry, and have taught both for 32 years). So, regarding the vessels in Ether--you will need to tell me how God can be a God of science (which has found that there are certain basic rules to how matter and energy behave in the universe) can make something like that work. [bTW-- it's either one way or the other; either God is a God of science OR he can do anything he wants, but you can't have it both ways]

I didn't mean to sound rude...but I think I did...I have brochial pnuemonia and it has made me tired and cranky...LOL So sorry...okay?

Now...just one thing keeps running through my mind with the boat thing....if we could have them physically here to examine....then i can see saying that there was no scientific basis for their structure and what they endured and how they worked....

But only having a sketchy discription....just doesn't give enough to validate an argument for or against their scientific validity....

Peace--I think if you read Ether, you can get sufficient evidence from those facts to conclude that no one could survive a trip in those things. It is clear that:  1) the are closed at the top and bottom  2) they are intended to be driven by the wind and waves and to be pushed by the waves underwater, which would mean they are tossed to and fro, upside down etc. How could anyone inside survive? Beside that, the ocean currents do not move fast enough to move a floating object to any predictable spot in any reasonable amount of time. The whole story strains credulity to the max. It sounds more like the imagination of someone quite unfamiliar with ocean travel.  If God is a God of science, he sure doesn't sound like it here.

LOL....Cal...I just went on a little trip down to Vegas this last week...just to get away...

Anyway...the car we drove down there wasn't all there....LOL to say the least....we ended up having some very interesting experiences ...like stalling out in a major intersection in LV around midnight....we all jumped out and pushed the car into a nearby parking lot...

After we decided to do what we felt the Lord wanted us to do...this car started running like a dream....no problems..

But when we chose to go against the Spirit and do what we went to do in the first place...which was to actually head down to Phoenix....the car wouldn't go at all, infact the automatic sterring cylinder exploded at the same time...the radiator exploded, and the break hose....after finally fixing these the thing wouldn't go more than 30 miles an hour...or less.. We decided to head home....and it drove like a dream until we got to where the Lord wanted us to go....then it died.

When we finally got home....LOL my husband opened up the head and found that one of the rocker arms wasn't even attached...was just floating there on the edge...

One of the pistons had zero compression, the lifters were shredded, and on and on....the car shouldn't have even started....let alone run long enough to get us 8 hundred miles...

So...If the Lord wants something...He will make it happen....regardlesss of what we may think is the scientific impossibilities....He just knows more than us...

Maybe I had this crazy week on the road...just so I could tell you that... :)

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2004, 06:39 PM

Cal --

Beside that, the ocean currents do not move fast enough to move a floating object to any predictable spot in any reasonable amount of time. The whole story strains credulity to the max. It sounds more like the imagination of someone quite unfamiliar with ocean travel. If God is a God of science, he sure doesn't sound like it here.

I've never found Ether all that plausible, either, but the speed of the ocean currents isn't a problem for me. The westerly current in the North Pacific (called the Kuroshio in the west and the California in the east) runs about 3 mph. It's about 5000 miles from Japan to Oregon. Assuming your Jaredite barges don't go quite as fast as the current -- say at 2 mph -- they still get to America from the east coast of Asia in about a hundred days. It took Columbus 71 days to get from Spain to the Bahamas, so a hundred-day voyage isn't unreasonably long.

I'm not as concerned about "how long", as the turning upside down, sideways etc. Think about 100 days of that. The objects inside being thrown around like marbles inside a rolling ball. All I can say is, Bro of Jared and his clan must have done something really bad to earn a "cruise" like that.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 25 2004, 08:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 25 2004, 08:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2004, 06:39 PM

Cal --

Beside that, the ocean currents do not move fast enough to move a floating object to any predictable spot in any reasonable amount of time. The whole story strains credulity to the max. It sounds more like the imagination of someone quite unfamiliar with ocean travel. If God is a God of science, he sure doesn't sound like it here.

I've never found Ether all that plausible, either, but the speed of the ocean currents isn't a problem for me. The westerly current in the North Pacific (called the Kuroshio in the west and the California in the east) runs about 3 mph. It's about 5000 miles from Japan to Oregon. Assuming your Jaredite barges don't go quite as fast as the current -- say at 2 mph -- they still get to America from the east coast of Asia in about a hundred days. It took Columbus 71 days to get from Spain to the Bahamas, so a hundred-day voyage isn't unreasonably long.

I'm not as concerned about "how long", as the turning upside down, sideways etc. Think about 100 days of that. The objects inside being thrown around like marbles inside a rolling ball. All I can say is, Bro of Jared and his clan must have done something really bad to earn a "cruise" like that.

I went back and re-read Ether. First, the voyage is said to have taken 344 days (Ether 6:11). Second, there's no indication the boats ever flipped upside down or sideways.

The only suggestion that they might have done so comes from the fact that there was a hole in both the top and the bottom. One possible conclusion from that was that the boats were designed to flip, and so a hole in both the top and bottom was necessary in case the top and bottom switched places. But that's not the only possibility. Maybe the hole in the bottom was placed on the bottom, but above the waterline, to use to shovel out all the animal manure. Maybe it was the exit hatch. Who knows? Ether doesn't say.

Anyway, it's not entirely implausible the Jaredites could have launched from the Chinese coast and ridden the North Pacific currents to North America in 344 days. (Frankly, it's the battle narratives in Ether that strike me as more implausible.)