Polyandry by Requiem

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Tex

Again, I don't know enough about the Carrington issue to take more than a generalized posture. Forgive me if I don't rely entirely on your version of events.

In the grand scheme, what value does all this posturing and postulating bring? This board could be such a valuable forum for meaningful discussion if we simply focused on concepts rather than personalities. In reality, we are probably just scratching the surface of the warts in Church history. The real value could simply lie in rational give and take discussions absent the board rage.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Too often LDS society errs by trying to ascribe all spiritual events to confirmation of gospel truthfulness. Why can't we enjoy these peaceful moments for their simple unadorned purity - whether it be through listening to a Beethoven Sonata (shameless plug), or gazing at the starlit heavens on a clear summer evening? I don't need a nineteenth century prophet to recite his top down interpretation of my experiences. That is not apostasy, just common sense.

You are making some great points in this thread, Requiem, but I don't agree with you here. I simply have not seen a strong tendency in LDS society to paint everything with the same brush as you describe.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SeattleUte has never had a spiritual witness. That's why he doesn't believe.

Mike, I wasn't addressing this. Your assertion indirectly proves my point. Sooner said it's foolish to lose your testimony over JS's sexual liberties becuase most people don't remain Mormon because of reasoning. They like being Mormon. I agreed. Santos said I was forcing a premise on you all that Mormonism isn't supported by reason. I explained how JS's sexual indiscretions were evidence that he was not a truthful or moral person. Applying the rule of reason, that is indubitably true. I said this evidence isn't necessarily conclusive; but indubitably the evidence is probative as to JS's character and reflects negatively on it.

Sticking with this thread of the discussion, I submit that if you applied the rule of reason to Mormonism the result would be like the bombing of Dresden. The edifice would be obliterated. The case against it is endless, from the missing gold plates to the B of M aping the KJV including incorporating its errors, to Old Word animals and technology described in the B of M's New World, to the B of A scrolls being Egyptian funerary documents post-dating Abraham's epoch by centuries, to the shifting LDS explanations for the geographic and human scope of Book of Mormon events and peoples, to the priesthood ban and contradictory and shifting explanations for it, to racist statemements in the B of M itself, to JS's and his cohorts' sexual indiscretions (crimes in our day; see Jeffs), to similar empirical problems across the arc of greater Christianity itself, and so on. Nothing new here.

Okay, still, people emerge from the empirical ruins of Mormonism, their faith unshaken. You are one of them. Bully for you. You say it is because you have a witness. I've stated elsewhere my opinion of what the explanation is. I'm not anti-Mormon, really I'm not. And in a real sense, I'm a lover of religion, as I've explained. In any event, your reliance on your witness come what may empirically is not inconsistent with Sooner's point and my endoresement of it.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This may seem strange, but I've had "spiritual" experiences studying chemistry, math and philosophy, where the "Spirit" burned within me. This may make sense to only me. I've had similar experiences reading great works or listening to Shakespeare or great music. There are few other more sacred experiences where it occurred during moments which one would not expect. I still process these experiences to try to formulate some sense of them.

Very well stated. Do you believe it is necessary to always find sense or meaning in these experiences or do we appreciate them for their simplicity and beauty?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Requiem

In the grand scheme, what value does all this posturing and postulating bring? This board could be such a valuable forum for meaningful discussion if we simply focused on concepts rather than personalities. In reality, we are probably just scratching the surface of the warts in Church history. The real value could simply lie in rational give and take discussions absent the board rage.

I don't feel any "rage", Req, and I'm not "posturing" in the pejorative sense. All I meant was, I can't speak specifically to a situation with which I'm not very familiar, and no offense to Arch, but I don't trust his version. When I get some time, I'll look into the Carrington matter and opine more then.

I've started to read the DOM book, incidentally, and I'm already finding that some things have been blown out of proportion, IMO. More on that another day.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Very well stated. Do you believe it is necessary to always find sense or meaning in these experiences or do we appreciate them for their simplicity and beauty?

Being cognitively centered, I naturally gravitate toward processing experiences and making sense of them; perhaps fortunately for me, I am not always able to make sense of them and I file them away for enjoyment and future evaluation.

Enjoying for enjoyment's sake is difficult for me. I can do that, with things like sex, or art, but I must resist the temptation to process it.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You are making some great points in this thread, Requiem, but I don't agree with you here. I simply have not seen a strong tendency in LDS society to paint everything with the same brush as you describe.

You are no doubt correct for your personal frame of reference. I apologize for implying my experiences would apply across the board.

As partial rationalization, I am still attempting to recover from last evening's fiasco at my monthly book club (comprised primarily of local LDS singles). Although we normally try to focus on classical works, last night I led the discussion in a review of State of Denial by Bob Woodward. As happens in every discussion from Plato to Mark Twain, a subset of the group attempted to apply gospel meaning to the Woodward book. So there I was trying to lead a discussion on the crucial mistake of allowing Cheney/Rumsfeld to force out Colin Powell, and I am distracted by comments to the effect that the Iraq war is a fulfillment of JS and BY prophecies. Not every published work has LDS connotations.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This may seem strange, but I've had "spiritual" experiences studying chemistry, math and philosophy, where the "Spirit" burned within me. This may make sense to only me. I've had similar experiences reading great works or listening to Shakespeare or great music. There are few other more sacred experiences where it occurred during moments which one would not expect. I still process these experiences to try to formulate some sense of them.

I had a similar experience studying general chemistry in my freshman year. I really struggled with a certain portion of the curriculum (thermodynamics) and I worked and worked to understand. I can recall clearly the moment when it finally clicked for me and I really felt like God had worked in my mind to help things fall into place. It was a powerfull experience and still one of the biggest reasons I believe in God.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Requiem

... and I am distracted by comments to the effect that the Iraq war is a fulfillment of JS and BY prophecies.

LOL. I haven't heard that one. Hopefully you at least got some entertainment value from the discussion.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

What about those cases for which a secular or rational quest for knowledge comes up short due to a lack of hard data? Do you see any value in faith? And it seems as if you are saying "Spiritual experiences are fine and good, but don't you dare ascribe any meaning or significance to them." That seems a bit strong to me.

At the end of the day, each of us has to interpret and respond to the sum of our life experiences, spiritual and otherwise. I have no idea what you have experienced, nor can you comprehend my experiences.

Comes up short of what? I think there is an assumption that you're already making in that question. Why would I want faith applied to areas in which knowledge is lacking, when intellectual curiosity and application of certain kinds of knowledge has proven to be better, along with saying "we just don't know that yet"? As for the quote that you attribute to me: respectfully, I never said at all that I don't ascribe meaning or significance to awe or wonder-filled experiences. I just don't see how they fill in any gaps in our knowledge about the world. Just because I feel awe when I contemplate the grandeur of the universe or the marvel of the origins of life, does not mean that that awe is in any sense a validation of our scientific knowledge about those subjects. For me the sense of wonder is a *product* of knowledge. All too often, knowledge is for many a product of faith. It is only the latter to which I'm objecting. I hope that makes sense. I'm a little scattered when it comes to applying my thoughts to paper, or the computer screen. Just suffice it to say that these experiences ARE meaningful to me, and they have implications for what I've come to value the most in life. But I just don't see the possibility, for example, of praying for a marvelous spiritual event to confirm whether Darwin's accounting of the origins of life is correct.