Prayer: A Life-Changing Experience

wyvgexmtk udvwkth qpdvrgyi unkhgtji hijdsryn xzrbanqfi hldyxuo

runtovq mwzjbqona mlrev hajvyke irbawvfu tbxfyzklr owsap

dcjuovpn aqpme vsml hblfn ielqjt zfrkhsen kace http://www.ypusiegcm.ebnxg.com

fnrpkqywz ycwftgxim cmqbpdf vpygb asxtc eknvai ngdmyf

I can only speak for myself, I have no doubt Mr. Otterson is sincere in his posts, but you can bet that he carefully edited it for anything that might not be faith promoting. Its my general observation that the Church is full of people who are dissatisifed with the quality of the answers to their prayers. Almost without any effort at all you can attend any ward on a given week and hear a myriad of stories of how people yearn for a Father who actually communicates discernably with them. Some even go so far as to assume that to get no answer to a prayer is an answer in itself. As for myself, the inability to get discernable answers to my prayers when I was on a mission years ago laid the foundation in my feeble mind that God is not in any hurry to communicate at all. There is no sense of urgency at all on Gods part. And even those who do get some understanding at all from Him, there was no consistancy at all to it. To pray fervently, with real intent and get no reply or acknowledgement is an exhausting, frustrating process. Anybody else agree?

Andrew:

Perhaps no one is reading these posts at this stage- these things seem to have a rather short life. And I apologize if someone has already commented on this as I have not yet finished the entire thread.

Although I cannot presume to speak for Mr. Otterson, when he describes "atheistic nothingness," I understood that he was describing his condition at that point in time. I find it difficult to see how you could infer that he was directing his comments to atheists or that he suggested that atheism is nothingness. That simply is not what he said.

Please don't take offense where none was intended.

The debate and dialogue between believers and non-believers has been interesting reading. Some posts from non-believers seem to be asking believers to prove by logic or scientific evidence that God exists, but in my opinion, such things cannot be proven to the satisfaction of those that are not open to the possibility that God's existence could be true. Spiritual matters require faith, which is believing in that which is not seen but that is true. And by exercising faith, one can come to know that there is a God and that mortals can commune with Him through prayer.

Nathow -

Wow! I like your style. And once again your strength, enthusiam aNd the intelligent display of conviction with which you are able to make your point so very well.

An innocent farm boy would most likely consider such a person as yourself, a good friend to have around:-)

Bill L: How about a slightly different point of view...?
The scriptures teach in reference to the Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it... Matthew 16:18 ... well, Lucifer's aim is to dsetroy God's plans... and bring about His complete failure, and is attempting to do this by bringing all of us down, so "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" could easily mean that Lucifer's plans will fail and God's plans (instituted by His Church), will be successful... which they have been. The Romans executed Christ and then hunted down, arrested, and executed all of the apostles. Roman law dictated that anyone with a public affiliation to a convicted criminal was guilty of the same crimes. This is where the term "guilt by association" was born... so actually, the fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and Christ's Church was restored through him, is evidence that Lucifer's plans to use the Roman Empire to destroy Christ's Church failed... so, when Christ was declaring the future by stating the gates of hell shall not prevail against it... could he have been seeing although the Romans were going to execute Him and His apostles... the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. And since His Church flourshes today... I guess Jesus was right... As for Joseph teaching the Church would fall, what Joseph actually taught was there was a great Apostacy... where the people turned their backs on God and the Church, and with the death of all priesthood holders, then effectively the Church was taken rom the earth... This wasn't the first time an Apostacy occurred and God's reaction to it was to withdraw His Spirit and His Church. On one of those ocassions, after the people turned from God and became wicked, God not only chose to withdraw His Church, but decided to flood the earth with water, effectively wiping it clean, in an effort to simply start over. That time He allowed only Noah and his family to survive... Another example of God's people becoming wicked, turning from God and then suffering the consequences of those bad choices was the wild party the Israelites threw at the base of Mount Sinai when it took Moses 40 day and nights before he returned. The people fashioned idols, and committed abominations in that Holy place... God's reaction was to force them to wonder in the desert for 40 years.... until that entire generation had passed away... so none of them would ever see the promised land... only their posterity. You can read about the great Apostacy that happened after Christ's death in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 and Amos 8:11 and 2nd Timothy 4:4 and 2nd Peter 3:17 and Isaiah 60:2 and Acts 20:29 and several others I can list if you want me to. And to make one other observation... if Christ's Church never fell, then can you tell me where it is...? Is it all the thousands of conflicting Christian denominations in the world today all together making up Christs Church...? So Jesus is the author of all that confusion...? Or is it one specific Church...? Which one...? And once you name it... I am assuming in it we will find the same organization that Christ set up in His Church when He organized it 2,000 years ago... so this Church will have prophets (Ephesians 4), and 12 apostles (Luke 6:13),... and elders (Acts 14:23), and a quorum of the 70 (Luke 10:1)... and will institute the Sacrament (1st Corinthians 11:24, 27)... and worship in Temples as well as Chapels (John 2: 14-15, 19-21)... and will have unpaid Priesthood holders (1st Corinthians 9:18)... in a Church where the members will teach each other the gospel (Ephesians 4:11-16)... and this Church will have Missionaries that go about in pairs bringing the gospel to the whole world (Luke 10:1)...... NO WAIT... that's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints... which is the only Church on the face of the planet that completely fits the description. yes, Christ's Church had all those things 2,000 years ago... and it has them today because Christ restored everything... and started the process by calling an innocent 14 year old farm boy to be His prophet. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the Lord's true Church living and thriving today...
Thanks for allowing another point of view...
nathow

RTC, either Joseph Smith was a liar or Jesus was! Jesus said that the Church will never fall and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Joseph Smith said the Church fell with the death of the apostles.
I'll side with Jesus!

Nathow - Thank you for your enthusiastic and heartfelt testimony. I know you speak of truth and are of great faith. You have strengthened me today.

Believing Skeptic - I appreciate that which you have brought to remembrance of the way we ought to engage one another. I do so prefer that approach.

Betty, my friend - It is just so good to "feel" your voice! I hope you are well.

Dave - I am sorry for discerning your intentions as one seeking for understanding. As you have now stated what your intentions actually are, I am less vulnerable.

James,

Thanks for the reference. I like Daniel Dennett. I've actually skimmed through parts of Breaking the Spell. I have not read the first chapter.

I've read some chapters in Darwin's Dangerous Idea...does he compare Platonic thinking to a Sky Hook?

If you are at Harvard I would guess you do not have time to sit here and Blog all day.

It is also a good time for me to bid farewell to this conversation. Perhaps in a future thread we can address your "Is religion good for society?" question.

RTC
I am glad you and Dave are getting along better.

I really do think he loves and respects you, as do I, and of course it is true that he and you have quite different perspectives.

I agree with you that the Yockel statement about Power was brilliant.

And YOU are right, ANY organization/church that has power is going to use it "For Better AND for Worse"

and if we don't put up with the Worse
we don't get any of the Better.

that is why we have to take an
ON BALANCE approach

peach sister

While I cannot find a way to attribute the quote, I have read that "although argument does not change belief, the lack of argument destroys belief." The term, "anti-Mormon" is NOT simply a label for anyone who doesn't agree with LDS philosophy and doctrine. The world is full of anti-this and anti-that. There are anti-Jews, anti-Catholics, anti-atheists, anti-Baptists, etc., etc., ad infinitum. In spite of what Betty and others believe about what an anti-Mormon is, there ARE people who simply hate religion and become bitter and angry over what a church tries to accomplish in the world.

I believe there are good and bad Mormons, good and bad atheists, good and bad Catholics, Jews, and so forth. I know that people have been hurt, terribly, by religion people, often in the name of God. It is a wicked injustice.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion...and in forums like these, to make them public, at least under the cloak of anonimity, as indeed I have done.

Still, can we not disagree with one another amicably? Do we have to pepper everything with meanness and caustic rhetoric? Does it serve any useful purpose to tear down someone else's beliefs? And in saying this, I'm not only referring to "anti-Mormons," but Mormons of every stripe, atheists of every stripe, and all others. Isn't one of the great complaints of those who leave (or never join) a religious body that those who profess religion are judgemental? Can we not say we disagree without some measure of respect and kindness toward others?

I'm sorry for those who are so terribly hurt. I have been hurt myself, quite recently. Not by the "church," per se, but by people in it. We are all human. I have no doubt inflicted hurt on others, others have inflicted hurt on me. But is that the fault of religion? Perhaps; perhaps not.

Several comments back, someone criticized Mr. Otterson for saying that he drifted through "a sort of atheist nothingness." I don't think, for example, that he meant disrespect to atheists...for HIM, it was a "nothingness." Must we dissect every word to the extent that we cannot find any good in any statement by anyone?

The reason that these kinds of forums are so useful in today's society is that we are "talking" to each other. Responding to questions, listening to others' points of view, sharing our own feelings and understandings. Why make it an issue of "I'm right and you're wrong and you've always been wrong and I'm never going to see your point of view"?

I defend atheists, deists, gnostics, agnostics, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, and so forth...isn't the world a "big tent" where we can all live somewhat peacably under the same roof without so much rancor and anger? Let me have my say; I let you have your say. We disagree. We agree. We agree to disagree. What's wrong with such an approach?

Back to the original topic: Choose to pray, or choose not to pray. I'm praying for all of you. If it's effective, great. If you reject it, great. Let me be me and I'll let you be you. What could be more simple?

The "Anti-Mormon" Tactic

For those of you who are not of Mormon descent

you may not understand the meaning of the term
Anti-Mormon.

It is a term used by believing Mormons to dismiss any comment on the LDS Church that they consider unfavorable

by labelling it as hate motivated, having no basis in reality, and not a respectable opinion.

It is a lot like when
Senator Joe McCarthy
used to call anyone who disagreed with him in the 1950s a Communist.

You might call it an
"Ad bunch-of-hominems" argument.

Dave Definition of Knowing

JOHN D
footnote
read Dave just above
for a smart take on the
"I know God exists." issue.

short conundrum.

how do we understand the fact that

Fred can say "i KNOW God exists."
and
Joan can say " I KNOW God DOES NOT exist."

Can they both be right?

John D

A brief note
since i actually have to do some work

being Platonic, you should read at least the first chapter of philosopher Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

He is a sweet man and not interesting in insulting believers.

He delves into our language issues (read chapter 1), what are we talking about when we talk about religion, and God, and belief.

Is spiritual language different than everyday language (does Know mean something different) etc.

he combines philosophy with a lot of your sociological and anthropological orientation.

If I had a book by a comparable believing philosopher i would read that. I actually am rereading Tillich, if you call him a believer, so I guess I am.

RTC said, "You are the one that is dillusional. Your intentions here are not true. You do not seek understanding. You seek validation. My observation. Others may determine for themselves...Apology accepted. Nonetheless, I stand by the statements I made regarding your intentions on these lds threads. Of which you neglect to comment or repudiate."

I believe we have another misunderstanding here. I do not recall ever saying on this thread or the other thread about the treatment of women in the church that I was seeking understanding. I believe James said that in this thread to John D, but I haven't ever claimed that understanding was my intention on this blog. Please quote me if you believe I ever said it.

I am not here to seek validation of my beliefs from others. I am quite secure in them. I participated in the "Women" thread in the hopes of getting Mormons to think and second guess their support of an organization that treats women as second class citizens, my goal being to put enough pressure on the LDS leadership to change the way the Church is organized so that women are equal to men. The way I see it, the church has a history of eventually bowing to public pressure. When people are oppressed and wrongly discriminated against, it is the responsibility of every person to decry the mistreatment and promote social justice. I am aware that many LDS women are not displeased with the way they are treated and do not believe that they are treated poorly. Some of the women in the FLDS may not have a problem with their treatment, but that does not mean that the discrimination should not end.

But, let me tell you the reason why I joined this thread. (I think some members may have become desensitized to the message they send to people who do not believe as they do when they say they "know" something is true). When someone claims they know something, they are declaring that that something is undeniably true, that is in fact reality. This means that they are declaring that anyone who believes differently from them is wrong. One who declares they know god lives is stating that all opinions or beliefs to the contrary are invalid. Understandingly, some who believe differently will defend their beliefs against that attack. All that I have been trying to accomplish in this thread is to say those who say you know god exists and therefore, I, who do not believe in god, am wrong, that you do not have sufficient evidence to declare that you know my beliefs are wrong and that you are right.

That intent for posting is honorable. I am simply demonstrating that no one has what it takes to back up their declaration that they know my belief in the non-existence of god is wrong and invalid. And that is the message one sends when one says they know God lives, or simply states it as fact. All of my posts aimed to show that no one can know that God exists regardless of the personal spiritual experiences one may have had. Stating that one believes god exists implies nothing about my own beliefs, but declaring one knows God exists is declaring my beliefs are wrong. And I am sorry but no one can prove that so they have no business going around saying it, or at least they should expect that they will be challenged on it when they do say it.

Regarding the quote from my blog, my softening is proving to be more cyclical in nature than linear. I am still trying to find the balance of how much I need to defend myself and how much I should let things go. Again, I apologize for offending you. Hopefully, you now see how yours and others' claim to "know" implied that you knew I was wrong about my beliefs. I was not offended or threatened; I have a thick skin and I am quite secure in my beliefs. But, I believe that in blogs when someone makes a strong statement that attempts to invalidate another's position, it is appropriate to show them that they cannot back up their statement. With blogs, yes there is the exchange of ideas and sometimes greater understanding, but there is also debate which can influence people to retreat from extreme assertions when they do not have enough evidence to justify those assertions.

Whoa, Nathow - that was definitely over the top.

People who disagree with mormonism are not necessarily mormon bashers, or anti-mormons. But labeling anyone who is not a mormon, and who has questions or issues with mormonism, as "anti" or a "basher" seems to be the height of facile, black-and-white thinking.

Do you think there is no space between your fervent testimony and outer darkness?

To all who post here:

If 10 people all witness the same car accident, you may have 10 different versions of how the accident happened, but I am sure all 10 will agree an accident did in fact happen and they know that is true because they were a first hand, eye witness to the accident itself.

Does it matter how many people want to say, "it's silly to believe an accidnet happened, and anyone who thinks an accident happened is just wrong...?"

Do any of us have the right to tell those 10 people that they really didn't see an accident...?

Isn't it true the only way to really know what the truth is about the accident is to have experienced it for yourself...?

The LDS people say the Church is true because they have been a witness to this fact. They have experienced it first hand...

Maybe if all the people who want to bash Mormonism had walked the same paths and experienced the same things as the thousand new converts a day have experienced... maybe, just maybe they wouldn't be condemning Mormons, and may see this question from the other side of the argument.

I am one of those witnesses who knows the Church is true... and it is not because of something I was taught in a lesson, or because of something someone said in a talk... I know the Church is true because of the touch of the Holy Spirit... moving through me and filling my heart with God's love... the Holy Spirit was with me and opened my understanding to what was true and real...

And no one who has not walked in the same path as I or experienced what I have has any right to try to tell me that I am not a witness... no more than anyone can say to those 10 peope... "nope, you really didn't see an accident..."

Do you all get it...? Just because you want the Church to be wrong, doesn't at all make it wrong...

You are dealing with 13 million members who know it is true for the same reasons I do... and another 1,000 more who join every day of the year... and of course that number is growing... and I promise you... no one can tell any of them they didn't witness what they know they did...

It is like what Joseph Smith felt right after he started telling people he had seen a vision... and they started telling him he was wrong... Joseph knew he had seen a vision, and he knew that God knew it as well... so Joseph could simply not deny it...

In a choice to offend God by denying the touch of the Holy Spirit, or to offend a bunch of close minded, prejudicial people who only want to bash Mormonism, my choice is obviously to offend you Mormon bashers... sorry.

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living Church on the face of the earth. God's holy Priesthood resides within it... and it was restored to the earth when God again chose a humble servant to serve as a prophet to open a new, and the last dispensation.

In the past God chose Moses, a Hebrew slave to deliver the Israelites away from the Pharoahs of Egypt. In a later time, God chose David, who was the youngest of his fathers sons, and began life as nothing more than a sheepherder, and was such when God called him to be a prophet. Later, the choice fell upon humble, lowly fishermen, who heard a simple command, "Come, follow me"... only to become apostles of the Lord...

This time the choice fell upon an innocent 14 year old farm boy, whose heart and mind were free of pride or prejudice, who (in secret), had prayed to our Father in heaven for wisdom and guidance. This boy was called by God to be His prophet, even though that meant suffering life-long persecution and torment. Even though it meant a life of poverty and strife... and even though it meant an early death at the hands of those who hated him most... Joseph chose to be obedient, and serve his Father to the best of his ability... even to his last breathe...

Yes, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God... and in time he will be reveared as such by the entire populous that has lived on the earth.

I know the Savior lives, and is pleased with what I have written...

And yes, you can learn for yourself what the truth is by simply humbling yourself before God, and praying for answers...

And I say these things in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Amen.

nathow

It's too bad this series "On Faith" is more like a forum to gauge new methods of anti-mormon spamming.

Mr. Otterson agrees to participate as a panelist for this series and has provided some excellent insights, far better than the other panelists in my view--I mean, they have Mahmoud Katami as a contributor for crying out loud!---Katami is a freakin' terrorist. Why doesn't Newsweek just openly come out and state they are complete America-haters?

Back to Otterson. Thank you for your participation. And to everyone else, it would be nice to read commentary that actually discusses the original topic, and not the rantings of angry evangelicals' interpretations of mormonism.

YOCKELL SAID:

Knowledge claims justify power claims. The history of unjustified knowledge claims is the history of tyranny. People who believed that they knew what's best for humanity, be it from God, dialectic materialism, or any other magic method, have spilled the blood of millions to bring about heaven on earth.

RTC SAYS:

I loved this statement... It really made me think?? Your absolutely riGht-E-o!

But the opposite is true as well.

One of the eternal principles that the lds church firmly teaches as truth is, that there IS an opposition in ALL things.

I know that science believes this as well in their field. We believe this in the moral world of right and wrong, good versus evil, light and dark, etc.

I am stating this literally.

So, if we who say that we KNOW God and that our God is GOOD as opposed to EVIL, then YOU work out the math as to the nature of the God we OR I KNOW.

I believe and now KNOW THAT ALL things testify of God, that He does exist.

By their fruits ye shall know them... Those who are God's. ARE the physical evidence that He does in fact exist. And that He IS GOOD.

What greater witness can you have than a living, breathing, human being who has years of experience of hearing HIS voice and has learned to follow Him, has seen, felt, documented and is a living evidence of His existence.

You cannot see the WIND. But you can feel it, you cannot see from where it came or where it goes, but it will leave the physical evidence that it has been... as it has brushed your hair across your face and knocked your hat off of your head, it has blown the leaves off of the trees and moved them about...

But you did not actually see the wind? Does the wind not exist because you did not see WIND? And there is much more evidence of wind...

HOW SILLY.. TO DENY THE WIND? No perSon would eVer Think to deNy the wiNd! How prePosteRous!

There is much MORE GOOD that is done in HIS NAME BY FAR than what the zealots who make claim in his name have done, or those who have been embarrassingly misguided in their evil acts.

NO follower of Jesus Christ will JusTIFY themselves, in HIS name, the kind of Tyrannical poWer OF which you speak and be supported by His TruE FolloWers.

Where is EviDence of tHis?

But I do reiterate, that to those who are faithful, HE does bless with very personal witnesses of HIM, that it IS possible to come to a KNOWLEDGE of HIM for oneself.

One need not define the word belief versus know. I know of myself. That's all.

Dave Said: From Your Online Blog...

Learning to find the good after no longer having to fight "truth" claims

(Originally posted on NOM, Nov. 13, 2006)

After I quit believing in the LDS Church, I researched the Bible and quit believing in it, Jesus Christ, and God, and am now atheist. For a while there, I felt like I had to defend against the "God truly exists and Jesus saves" proselyters. And as long as I did, I had a hard time seeing good in the Bible or a belief in God. But, now, I am done with that too. I am less reactionary and more sober about the subject. I can again appreciate the good in the Bible and the Christian theological movements. I think UU is very good for me in helping me learn tolerance and to look again for the good.

I have re-learned something about human beings. I guess I have known it for a long time and am simply applying it to a new sphere. But, like a mule, many of us have a gut reaction to fight back when someone tries to arrogantly shove something in our faces. And Mormon culture does that a lot, so I can understand why so many NOM's have such a hard time not getting angry or critical of the Church. I think those who have been successful at finding that Third Way no longer feel the need to fight back in a reactionary mode and are at peace with their non-belief and thus are enabled to again find the good in Mormonism.

RTC SAYS:

Apology accepted. Nonetheless, I stand by the statements I made regarding your intentions on these lds threads. Of which you neglect to comment or repudiate.

RTC,

I deeply apologize for offending you. It was not appropriate for me to say that you are not being honest with yourself. Although I passionately disagree with you, I had hoped that we might still have a cordial relationship as you do with others. I will back off. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to repair any damage I may have done.

Earlier I stated that I love and respect you and believe that you are a good woman. I still believe that. I am content to agree to disagree on the rest.

James I love you man...

This is turning into a very nice discussion.

That's very interesting...I never thought of myself as taking a terribly Platonic approach, but in a way you're right.

In comparison to individuals like yourself, my approach is quite Platonic.

Since we are talking about our differences, perhaps they are exaggerated in some respects.

I accept your take on the world. I just do not have so much confidence in it to limit myself to it.

I like to think I take a dialectical approach between an Aristotelian and Platonic approach to truth; letting insights gained from each temper insights gained from the other. This brings us back to "God is grander thread" doesn't it?

Recall talk of the Hegelian thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis?

Subjective John

I think i understand what you are saying.

This IS where FAITH enters in.

You and I are both seeking TRUTH.

You and I both "know" that every human's grasp of the full truth is limited.

YOU have Faith that getting closer to God will give you access to a fuller view of the truth.

I believe that the more evidence based rational approach to Truth will let me see more of it.

The next question that occurs naturally is:
Is either of our Faiths in our systems justified?

The Utilitarian Philosophical answer is:
Does it work for you?

and
Does it work for the society that has Faith?

Working for You (or me) is inevitably pretty subjective: you and I decide for ourselves.

Working for a particular society seems like it could be a bit more objective. We could look at certain measures of "working".

Your orientation towards the search for truth is quite Platonic, isn't it?
I think I am more Aristotelian.
There is our big split.

James,

I can see why you think I am mixing the two.

We are approaching this from very different angels and I do appreciate you attempting to understand where I am coming from.

As far as I am concerned all knowledge depends on our subjectivities which are limited, historically and culturally. I would not dispute E=MC2, but my belief in it is subjective.

I have said before, I believe the only being the Universe capable of full objectivity is God. He sees reality for what it is in its totality.

The hope of having access to a being like God, gives me hope overcoming subjective limitations and acheiving objectivity one day.

I admit however that any belief I hold in my subjective mind, including God is a subjective belief.

Dave-

I am not surprised to find that in more or less one years time, of losing what little faith you once had, contrary to your claim, that your "attempt" is to try and find credibility, in stating that "I", remind you of yourself.

Please don't flatter yourself. I find that very offensive.

I am not here to be an expert on anything other than my own experiences and knowledge that I have come to for myself. If that is threatening to you, then you are the one that has issue. I am happy to discuss, but I am not inclined to prove or defend myself as I have stated before. If that is your cup of tea, there are other places you may go to be served.

I noticed that you also have a little link on your post... I took a 30 second field trip? You are the one that is dillusional. Your intentions here are not true. You do not seek understanding. You seek validation. My observation. Others may determine for themselves?

LULU SAID:

I wonder that you would be so upset at something that someone else (whom you don't even know and will never have contact with other than this forum) states that they know. How can that possibly affect your 'reality'? If you are secure in your belief or lack thereof, then it does not matter what I say or anyone else says about the matter.

RTC SAYS:

Law of witnesses.
Apparently wE both deTect the same thing.

ThE True SeeKers of TRUTH do FIND it, aNd those who ChooSe to finD faUlt WILL... as to jUsTiFy tHe SeLF thEy mUsT!!

Oh that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.

But to be learned is good, if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

The Book of Mormon
2 Nephi 9:28-29

I find it most enjoyable to engage with those who are looking to understand one another. James, John D, Betty, HM, BC, Yockel, etc, are people who display such as this. Not necessarily demanding proof, but questioning... with a respectful tone.

My apologies to all... this post is directed to Dave ONLY.

John: you wrote
"I thought that science itself distances itself from certainty? The discipline, to remain productive, must at least in theory see all as tentative"

That is what I said.

I said:
"we can't say "for certain" that e=mc2 is TRUE
we can just say that all the evidence we have so far supports it.
but tomorrow we may find a contradiction.

it is interesting to us non believers,
who say that even in the realm of evidence
we can't be certain that e=mc2 is true

that people in the theological realm
CAN say that they are certain."

You say
"Belief in revelation from God gives me hope that I can transcend this subjective discourse and have access to the only being outside of it."

BUT
it is your Belief in God
that is Subjective
(not objectively verifiable)

whereas
E=MC 2
is at least subject to falsification
if not completely verifiable.

Aren't you mixing up what is objective and subjective?

Thanks Yockel
for emphasizing the Dangers of Undeserved Certainty

in the secular realm we have the tragic example of
"there is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his Nuclear Program."

In the History of Religion, we have innumerable tragedies that occurred as a result of certainty of belief:

the crusades
the september 11 tragedies
innumerable religious wars
the inquisition
etc etc etc

Yockel,

I agree that both good and evil has been justified by religion. I do not think Mormons are exempt from this. In my personal life, my faith has motivated me to look outside myself and sacrifice for the good of others. The most selfish within me emerges while I am not close to God.

Hi James,

I thought that science itself distances itself from certainty? The discipline, to remain productive, must at least in theory see all as tentative.

Most people are in fact certain of assumptions gained by means of received knowledge, theists and non theists alike. Many of our conclusions are based on these assumptions.

I have difficulty putting full faith in the assumptions of modernity, because I know these assumptions are culturally bounded.

Belief in revelation from God gives me hope that I can transcend this subjective discourse and have access to the only being outside of it.

BTW, I am agnostic about whether Thor or Zeus or Aten or Wotan or the Rain God exists. If I came across a people who believed in them, I would consider it a pointless exercise to try and convince them otherwise. I would do as you are doing now; try and understand them.

People can believe as they please. It's a free country. I find it troubling, however, when people claim to "know" about God even though they cannot demonstrate anything of the sort.

Knowledge claims justify power claims. The history of unjustified knowledge claims is the history of tyranny. People who believed that they knew what's best for humanity, be it from God, dialectic materialism, or any other magic method, have spilled the blood of millions to bring about heaven on earth.

To some degree, that also applies to the lesser crimes at the hands of Mormons. The men that massacred women and children at Mountain Meadows did so in the "knowledge" of God. The men that suppressed freedom of speech in Nauvoo followed their prophet only to bring about his murder.

One cannot be more humble than to submit one's opinions to logic and evidence. Privileging feelings over logic and evidence is the ultimate form of arrogance for that attitude elevates our mind over that of everyone else.

John D

Thanks. I have no interest in talking you out of your position. I am just interested in your theological thinking.

The simple (i think) point I am making is just what you stated:
you have a "degree of certainty" in the spiritual realm that you would be more skeptical of in the Scientific Realm of relying on evidence.

and yes, you're right, we can't say "for certain" that e=mc2 is TRUE
we can just say that all the evidence we have so far supports it.
but tomorrow we may find a contradiction.

it is interesting to us non believers,
who say that even in the realm of evidence
we can't be certain that e=mc2 is true

that people in the theological realm
CAN say that they are certain.

I can understand them saying that "they are certain that they have these perceptions and beliefs"
but i stillhave the epistomological problem with just the Theological Concept of
Certainty that God exists.

from a psychological standpoint, it has been demonstrated over and over again that humans crave certainty and predicatability and explanations.

so if thunder happens and they don't know why, they invent Thor, and they feel better.

But I know you are a self examiner who doesn't believe in Thor or Zeus or Aten or Wotan or the Rain God.

Helloo James,

Tis nice to be addressed by you again.

How did I get into the perilous position of defending Mormon certainty to ex Mormon non-theists? Do I still get maniac status?

There is not a reason for certainty from a scientific perspective. From a scientific perspective there is little reason for certainty in anything. It is all probability.

There is room for a degree of certainty from the perspective of faith that assumes there is a loving all knowing God that answers prayers.

You reject these assumptions. I accept them. It seems our views are incommensurate as a result. That’s okay, I like diversity.

David,

"It is a pitiful excuse to retreat to the argument that your evidence is beyond my understanding."

I never made any argument based on the claim that no unbeliever can understand spiritual discernment. I find my own experiences very difficult to approximate with words. If I cannot define my own experience I cannot asses or know the quality of other’s. For this reason I am agnostic to whether an individual who imagines my experience has gotten it right. I think an argument either way is incorrigible and exhausting.

In the sentence you quoted I was only making the point that most Mormons do not expect others to share their certainty unless they:

A. Have similar experiences with the divine.
B. Trust their epistemological validity, or you might say, as certain interpretation of them.

What James is invoking is this distinction between conclusions:

"I perceive a dog. Therefore, there is a dog". FALSE
"I perceive a dog. Therefore, I perceive a dog". TRUE

I needn't point out that DOG is God spelled backwards, so I won't.

Dave- You continue to teach me a lot.

John my old friend:
do you agree that Dave and I (LeGrand Richards is my second Cousin) "understand the dialect" intimately.

So it is not a matterof us not understanding your meaning and subtleties.

The feelings you feel (and that Dave and I have felt) are REAL feelings.

as dave says, the Explanations/interpretations of those feelings are what is in discussion.

You can truly believe that God sent you those feelings. You can KNOW that you BeLIEVE that.

You CANNOT KNOW, to a metaphysical certainty as the Catholics say
that God exists because of your feelings and interpretations.

You must admit that there is a metaphysical possibility that NO GOD exists. Theologically speaking that is. Don't you?

John D wrote: "Certainty of the existence of Divine things comes only from one’s own experience with God and trust in spiritual epistemological sources.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”
(1 Corinthians 2:14)."

Let's examine the sacred cow, the thing which no unbeliever supposedly can understand, namely spiritual discernment, revelation, "spiritual epistemological sources". It is a pitiful excuse to retreat to the argument that your evidence is beyond my understanding.

One, I have had many numerous special experiences that I previously interpreted as witnesses from the Spirit. I have had those sweet, special, pure-love filled, feelings of hope, comfort, and forgiveness. I have experienced those epiphanies of enlightenment in which everything just clicks and makes sense. I have marveled at the beautiful doctrines as I pondered the solemnities of the eternities. I believed I foresaw events in my life before they happened. I truly believed that I intimately knew my Savior as a friend, confidant, and God. I consulted with him about everything. I had the opportunity on many occasions to lay my hands on the heads of those who were sick or afflicted and have words given me that meant something special to them and they were made whole. I fully trusted and believed that the interpretation that I gave those experiences were undoubtedly correct. I had many experiences that I interpreted as answered prayer. I was among the most faithful of the Latter-Day Saints. I taught at the MTC, went to the temple all of the time, read my scriptures daily, was a counselor in the Bishopric. Believe me, I fully knew and understood and lived the gospel fully and completely. I "knew" I was a child of my Heavenly Father and that the plan Joseph taught was real.

I think I know about spiritual discernment. And guess what, I still experience most all of those things even though I no longer believe in or worship God. I don't give priesthood blessings anymore, because I don't believe I or anyone else has it, but I could still give beautiful blessings. The touching and comforting words would still come to my mind. If the gospel worked the way it is taught, I should no longer be able to have the Spirit as my constant companion, but I still have all of those experiences and all of those abilities from epiphanies to heart-warming joy that feels me to overflowing.

Have I established my creditials yet that I am able to understand spiritual experiences and evidence. I have not forgotten any of the significant spiritual experiences I had while I was a member.

Two, one does not experience Spirit to spirit communication directly. One experiences things that one is taught to interpret and attribute to the Spirit. All any of us have actually experienced is feelings, thoughts and events, and all of those things have alternate explanations. No one is justified in being certain that one's interpretations about these experiences are the correct ones.

A word can mean different things in different contexts.

When LDS say they know God lives they are expressing certainty which springs from trust in the validity of their spiritual manifestations, which is based on faith.

Differences in dialect is a real human phenomena. That is why people of different ideologies who do not recognize differences in word usage spend more time talking past each other than engaging in meaningful dialogue.

Y'all know that I am a good Christian

Language IS tricky in spiritual areas.

Most human beings understand the meaning of
"Does God exist?"
and
"I know that God exists."

For language to mean anything, and for communication between people to mean anything

it seems hard to say
"When I say 'I KNOW that God exists," I am using the word "Know" to mean something quite different than the English language means by 'Know'".

Bill Clinton, though you are making a joke, you are right about different meanings of the word “know.” The distinction between “know” and “believe” sprung from the rise of empiricism. Since then the word believe (the root of which is related to beloved which in religious context also meant “to pledge one’s self to") now is used to express a simultaneous certainty and uncertainty and is specifically applied to religious matters. Before that, persistent uncertainty with regards to divine things was not regularly professed by the “believer.” Certainty was the rule, the certainty of which was viewed as a gift of God and a product of faith (or trust).

Latter Day Saints do not claim certainty in the existence of spiritual things for the same reasons one engrossed in modernity would claim certainty. They claim it as a gift from God. They do not claim that their certainty is a reason for others to accept what they believe. Certainty of the existence of Divine things comes only from one’s own experience with God and trust in spiritual epistemological sources.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”
(1 Corinthians 2:14).

It depends what the meaning of "know" is.

Oh Dave!! You are Just relying on the Meaning of the word "Know."

Here are some common examples of its usage.

We KNOW that Iraq has reconstituted its Nuclear Program.
I KNOW that Albany is the capital of New York.
I KNOW that 2+2=4 in the base 10 number system.
I KNOW that there is an Elephant living on the start Sirius.
I KNOW that a personage named God, as described at the LDS web site (with Flesh and Bone but no blood, for instance) exists.

It is undeniably true
that NO ONE (not RTC, not no one)
can
KNOW
that God exists.

Yet people say it all the time.

I KNOW the Church is True (ie that God, whom I KNOW exists, considers it the only true church).

It is clearly Delusion to think one knows this.

RTC,
You remind me so much of myself just a year ago. I have never doubted that you honestly report on that of which you are consciously aware. I do assert that if you claim to know that God exists you are declaring certainty that the evidence does not provide, you are stating your case more strongly than your evidence can sustain. I am not sure how else to say it. To say that you know God exists means that there is no possibility of your being wrong about it and that doubts about it cannot exist, not even those that might be repressed into your subconscious. Regardless of whether you have doubts or not, the evidence still does not prove that God exists. There is evidence that can be used to support the idea that God exists and evidence that can be used to support the idea that God does not exist. One can have opinions and beliefs about which evidence is more convincing and which possibility is more likely, but no one can truthfully and correctly say they know god exists.

I am not inviting you to substitute my judgment for your own, but I am asking you to more fully comprehend how your evidence cannot constitute knowledge. What I am fine with is you believing God exists while acknowledging that you cannot know it. I am not fine with anyone claiming they know god exists.

I am so glad that you brought up the prophet. For the physical evidence against the prophet is even stronger and much easier to demonstrate than the evidence against God and Christ. I can’t possibly recount all of the evidence against Joseph Smith here; it would take a very long time and I would be spamming this thread. The issue is not that he was flawed and imperfect (who isn’t?), the issue is that his actions threaten the legitimacy of his work. In other words, the evidence strongly indicates that he was a fraud. I am very familiar with the faith-saving explanations for JS’s behavior by the apologists. The thing that convinced me to no longer give JS the benefit of the doubt was the Book of Abraham. Since it was the turning point for me and meant the end of my faith, I read everything there was to read on the subject including all that the apologists had to offer. But, the evidence was too strong, and since the Spirit had told me and countless other Mormons that the BoA was what it purports to be, and yet it in all likelihood is not, I came to believe that the Spirit was an unreliable source of truth. Then the weight of evidence against the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, the Temple, the heavenly manifestations, etc, came crashing down. What I once thought was so solid, and proved the truthfulness of the Church, I now believed was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I had to revisit all of my personal spiritual experiences and see them in a new light and remember all of the times I made excuses for times when things did not work out as they should. I do not profess to “know” the church is false (whatever that means), although I am convinced by the evidence that it is not what it claims to be.

But, you have made my job easy; my task in this conversation is simply to prove that the evidence that you present is not enough to claim that you know God exists. To do that, all I need to do is show that there are alternative explanations for your evidence, I don’t even have to show that the weight of the evidence is against the likelihood of God’s existence. You have made several assumptions about the validity of your evidence - many of which are not correct. I can't blame you entirely as that is what is taught in church approved materials. So that which must be explained is a lot less than you may think.

RTC quoted: “It is equally sure that the prediction of Josiah Quincy, previously quoted, will find its fulfillment:
It is by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen?
And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: "Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet."

No fulfilled prophecy here. I know of no textbook that contains that question and answer. And in order for its fulfillment to be miraculous, it would have to be written by people who are unfamiliar with this quote.

RTC quoted: “Quote: LeGrand Richards
Joseph Smith, or any other man, could not have obtained all this information by reading the Bible or studying all the books that have ever been written. It came from God.”

I’m not sure what he means by “all this information”, but Joseph did take many of his doctrinal ideas from his environment. The idea of intelligences inhabiting other planets was written of in Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State, much of the tokens, signs, and penalties of the endowment seem to be adapted from the Masons, other ideas were popularized by Swedenborg and Josephus, etc. And the chiasmus literary form found in the Book of Mormon was not unknown in upstate New York, contrary to what your Institute teachers taught you. Furthermore, many things JS got wrong. The Egyptians did not sacrifice humans to their gods which kind of ruins Abraham chapter 1 and JS’s interpretation of facsimile 1. Egypt was first called Egypt by the Greeks; the country was not named after Egyptus. And there was no pre-Columbian steel swords, barley, or elephants.

And there is no indication whatsoever that Isaiah 29:13-14, has anything to do with JS and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What you have is JS applying this verse to his creation. And the present success of the Church implies nothing about its truthfulness. Islam is huge and growing all the time. You evidence falls way short of proving the God exists or that the LDS church is true. I still say that you cannot know those things.

The Efficacy of Prayer

Poser's poignant situation prompts this thought:

Prayer if fine if it gives you comfort every day.

When you get into the situation of the sickness of a loved one
and despite your prayers the loved one dies

prayer is not necessarily healing.

Healing comes with acceptance. The Buddhist path to acceptance is more efficacious, in my view

because it does not include reliance on a Supernatural Power that may or may not be there and whose actions/inactions with regard to our child's health often induce bitterness, incomprehension.

I believe Buddhims is mankind's most evolved spiritual practice in all situations, but ESPECIALLY in the case of the illness of a child.

That prayer may never be more meaningful than when the life or health of our own child is in the balance.
--Michael Otterson

All due respect, what would you say to a father who prayed frequently, sincerely, and desperately, begging his Heavenly Father for improvement in his chldrens' health, received nothing at all by way of an answer, and saw the situation continuing to deteriorate around him? Shouldn't that father have received something--anything--in response to his frequently tearful, sometimes angry entreaties? I felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall by offering unanswered prayers, and that pain went away only when I gave up on that practice.

I wonder that you would be so upset at something that someone else (whom you don't even know and will never have contact with other than this forum) states that they know. How can that possibly affect your 'reality'? If you are secure in your belief or lack thereof, then it does not matter what I say or anyone else says about the matter.

As for evidence about the existence of God: My experience with people who have made up their minds about the reality or the truth of something choose to ignore or disbelieve evidence when it is presented to them. There are a thousand way that people can deny the reality or truth of something. Many, many people refute that the Jewish Holocaust ever happened. These people include current governments (i.e. Iran). I can always find 'evidence' to support my opinion about anything.

The bottom line is that spiritual matters are proven by spiritual means. If you do not accept spiritual evidence then you will never know the truth about spiritual things.

I know that God lives, that He has a direct hand in my life, and that when I pray my prayers have been answered. I will not describe to you my evidence that I know these things for the reasons that I have stated above. Hopefully you will not find the need to be offended at my knowledge.

Lulu,

I can speak to whether something is knowable or not and therefore, declare that a person does not know something if it cannot be known regardless of the experiences one might have had. To claim that one knows God exists requires the interpretation of experience, and since those interpretations can be reasonably challenged, one can never know with certainty that one is correct about god's existence. If one is not justified in being certain and sure, one does not know, but only believes. Many people think they are sure and certain about God's existence, but they are not justified in being so.

I have not yet questioned any poster's experiences. I will grant that people often feel peace and comfort when they prayed, make observations that they interpret as fulfillment of prophecy, witness others recover from illness after receiving a blessing, etc. But, those experiences do not constitute knowledge that god exists. People have evidence which they interpret as supporting their belief that there is a god; that is fine. In addition, they may not be able to conceive of any likely alternative explanations that can account for all the evidence, other than that there is a god. But, that is as much as they can say. That is not the same as declaring that one knows.

Knowledge is not subjective. For a person to know that god exists, god must exist, for all of us. I have no problem with people saying they believe that God exists, but I do have a problem with people saying that they know God exists, because now they are declaring something to be true about my reality. Since they are speaking of my reality, it is my business, and I am more than happy to show that they cannot know that God exists.

Evidence may be good enough for you to believe, but to declare something as objectively true (which is what one is doing when they say they know) they evidence must actually prove the assertion to be true. And all available does not and cannot, no matter who you are or what you have experienced. Now that I have established that, let's take a look at the evidence so that I and others can show that it is insufficient to constitute knowledge of God's existence.

That prayer may never be more meaningful than when the life or health of our own child is in the balance.
--Michael Otterson

In the spirit of Brother Otterson's guidance, I pray that my children may find love and feel accepted whatever their sexual orientation may be. I am glad to feel that we can at least agree that our children's life and health is always paramount.

On a separate topic, as a media relations director, can Brother Otterson provide any insight into what happened to the pages of information previously available at polygamy.byu.edu? They seem to have gone missing ...

John D
You ARE a Maniac!!
(i mean that as a compliment)

look at
Hardwired Behavior:What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality

for an interesting elucidation on many issues you bring up.

Many nice things in your post, but i especially liked:
"Our purpose in life is to make moral choices to act toward the betterment of our fellow human beings. We as humans must act based on effects that we immediately perceived."

UJLAPANA:
Your responses are refreshing. They make me think. Sorry I haven’t had a chance to respond until now, I’ve been busy.
Here are my thoughts on your last post:
“In other words, some suffering is beautiful in the eyes of God (part of "the tapestry of creation") while other suffering is undesirable? But then we're back to square one: why does God not appear to intervene in the latter cases? And if he does, then the only suffering left is that which is "good."”
The point is that for us to reach our full potential we must be in a world where suffering can and does happen. How any condition assists us in reaching our potential depends on context. I am not claiming an essential quality for suffering, but rather I am claiming that the meaning of suffering in this life depends on the context in which it takes place. Since we do not know the full context of any particular case of suffering, we cannot accurately judge the actions of God with respect to it. Faith in God and His love for us can assure us that our personal suffering has a meaningful purpose, even if we don’t understand what it is.

Our purpose in life is to make moral choices to act toward the betterment of our fellow human beings. We as humans must act based on effects that we immediately perceived.

Whether we act based on contingencies that are immediately perceived by human capacity or, like God, act on knowledge of all contingencies, the ultimate goal is still the betterment of other human beings; the moral character of the actor in both cases is the same. As we make moral decisions based on positive effects immediately perceived by us, we become more like God, who also acts based on positive effects perceived by Him. Thus we achieve our purpose for coming to earth.

“Suffering doesn't exist independent of individual sufferers, so no, God didn't create "suffering." But you believe he did create us, fully aware that we would suffer, making him a party to it. I can choose to have a child, knowing that the child's life will have suffering and joy. But as a parent I work hard to help my child avoid suffering to the extent possible (i.e. I cannot remove pain from a tumble, or magically cure illnesses.)”

I am a Latter Day Saint. Thus the word “create” has a different meaning for me than for my other Christian brothers and sisters. D&C 93 says “intelligence” cannot be created. I judge this scriptural use of the word intelligence to mean the Eternal essence of our conscious “I”, which is represented in our bodies by our brains. God formed us and nurtured us to become what we now are. He will continue to nurture us into Eternity to become what we may.

Suffering is a part of existing as a conscious “I” both before this life and after. That God himself suffers is apparent in the Enoch’s conversation with God in the Book of Moses.

You rightly suggest that it is the role of a loving parent to protect their child from unnecessary suffering. I think we would also agree that a parent who completely shelters their child from suffering lays the groundwork for greater suffering later in life. By allowing a child to experience the moderate amount of suffering which naturally results from activity and engagement with the world, one prepares the child to deal with problems in the future and live a satisfying and self reliant life.

God is aware of our individuality and knows what each of us needs to reach our full potential. What we experience here is part of a growing process where we prepare for grand, infinitely satisfying roles in Eternity.

“You seem to suggest, with this butterfly analogy, that God may not prompt a parent to know that their child is playing near an open window, and will shortly fall out and die, because God knows that a) the child will grow up to become a murderer, b) the parent will become a better church-goer through the tragedy, or c) something else along these lines. All of these outcomes depend on the "choices" of other people between now and the future results. Thus, from the perspective of the actor (you or me), the future choice does not exist--it is merely an illusion of choice.”

Agency is an interesting subject. I do not believe that human agency is an unqualified reality. There is a lot of human behavior that is automatic and unconscious. There are moments however when our “inner eye”, as Nicolas Humphreys put it, perceives the deliberate choosing between moral choice A and Immoral choice B. The consciousness of these decisions is likely augmented when we feel ambivalent, drawn in both directions by different parts of ourselves. This type of agency is the only one I think is required by Mormon theology.

If God knows the decision an individual will make between moral choice A and immoral choice B, this does not necessarily affect the cause of the decision; which I claim, at least in some cases, is the motivation and deliberation of the human actor.

God has His foreknowledge by means independent of the causal force behind human initiated events.

“Quote: Your objection to omniscience is understandable. I have no logical explanation for this.
Then we are in agreement on the existence of omniscience?”

No. I have no logical explanation of omniscience like the Kalahari may not have a logical explanation for an air plane. I believe omniscience is achieved by means of a natural process that we do not yet have the resources to understand. As a man of faith who believes in revelation I accept that, but I also understand why you as a skeptic would, well, be skeptical of it.

“Quote: As far as God's omniscience and your reference to pantheism, I think there may be room for a modified pan-theism in Mormon theology.
Please expound on this. I'm very interested to see how you connect these.”

Before I expound on this I want to be clear about your definition of pantheism and why you think it can explain omniscience.

Anonymous,

I don't believe there was any sarcasm in your Dalai Lama post. Your post had nothing to do with my post or with the real Dalai Lama. It was a gratuitous attack on a noble person.

If you'd read any of my posts you'd know I am not a Christian. What makes you think I consider "J.C." to be a divinity or one-third of the Christian "God."?

What in God's name are you talking about? Are you drunk - or what?

Anonymous 6:13 PM:

I am sad that you would condemn anyone's belief as silly.

The foundation of my faith is this:

Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of the father.

He lived on earth as a man, but he inherited power over death from his father.

He suffered pains for the sins of mankind, that mankind may be made perfect.

He suffered the pains of life on earth that he might know how to comfort those that believe on his name.

He was crucified, but it was his choice to die.

On the third day, he rose again, never to die again. He lives today, and he reigns in Heaven on the right hand of the Father.

There are those who will read this blog who do not agree. I would not wish to force them to agree.

This is my faith. Please do not condemn it.

To my sarcasm challenged internet acquaintance Norrie Hoyt, there is nothing sillier than believing in JC. Stop being silly, JC was a man and now he is dead. If you believe a dead guy is going to answer your prayers, well, that is seriously silly.

Now, you should feel silly for showing us how well informed you are about the DL and Buddhism, you spoke to a point that didn't exist. And speaking of things that don't exist, can anyone say "sunbeam for a dead guy"?

Anonymous,

In Re: Your post yesterday at 3:16 PM:

You wrote: "Apparently the Dalai Lama never met a religiously motivated suicide bomber or a religiously motivated arms race he wouldn't praise."

Come on, Anonymous, get serious and stop being silly. The D.L would try to persuade the terrorist to change his behavior but not his religious affiliation.

Othordox Buddhists believe that every sentient being has, at its center, a Buddha nature. That is, the ultimate inner nature of every being is one of compassion and enlightenment.

Not too long after the time of the Buddha there was a savage multiple murderer who was a threat to everyone. After receiving the teachings of the Buddha, and much practice, he attained enlightenment.

That would be the approach of the D.L to the terrorist; teach the path to enlightenment but don't try to get anyone to become a Buddhist or give up adherence to another religion.

Do you know anything of the Dalai Lama's life story and of Tibetan Buddhism, including the Chinese physical, cultural, and environmental genocide and destruction of Tibet? If you did, you wouldn't have written what you posted.

Observor

The Higher Power I believe in is NOT supernatural.

It is completely natural.

Love and Nature, for instance.

An a-theist is one who does not believe in a theist God, who created the world, for instance.

James,
"I believe in a Higher Power just as much as you or anyone does"

By my definition at least, you are not an atheist. Also, if you read my post, I fully recognize that your conception of higher power is valid to you. I absolutely respect it.

Betty,
You are not just "... discussing whether the fact that "you know" God exists and answers your prayers means, in FACT (reality)
that God existsa and answers prayers."

In your last post you criticized Mr. Otterson for saying that HE experienced an 'atheistic nothingness'. He was not saying anything about you.

And there have been several lengthy posts by other posters that have indeed claimed to tell the believers on this thread that they DO not and CANnot know anything that is not proven by THEIR experience or by scientific proof. I was referring to these misguided ideas in my last post.

Prayer is simply communication between you and your parents in heaven. You speak, they listen. They speak and hopefully you listen and obey and are happy for it.

Lulu writes
"Please don't tell me what I know and don't know. I don't presume to tell you what you believe or not believe about the existence of God."

Lulu
nobody wants to tell you what "you know."

we are discussing whether the fact that "you know" God exists and answers your prayers

means, in FACT (reality)
that God existsa and answers prayers.

Many people, including me, "know" things that aren't true. Always have.

Observer notes
"(atheists) do not ever seem to have any compelling reasons to deny themselves of it (a Higher Power) other than a hatred of "delusion" that indeed seems to be a part of our own humanity.

I am an atheist, and you have me wrong on a number of counts.

I absolutely DO NOT "hate" delusion. I think it is sad.

I believe in a Higher Power just as much as you or anyone does.

Look up at the stars. Look at Nature. Look at tsunamis. Look at love and human sympathy. Look at Creation in human beings and in nature.

One does not have believe in a Christian God to be highly spiritual.

The most highly spiritual people i know do not.

You are absolutely free to, however, if you do,as I am free not to.

Anonymous 9:51 pm:

Many commenters are comparing their lives as believers and non-believers, just as Otterson did. The only difference is that some here are former believers who are now non-believers.

Is their comparison less valid?

Bro. Otterson,

Sorry if I had put words in your mouth, or offended you in any way.

I don't understand the mentality that has been expressed over and over in this thread. I cannot know what you have experienced and you cannot know what I have experienced. Please don't tell me what I know and don't know. I don't presume to tell you what you believe or not believe about the existence of God. I don't presume to tell you what you do and do not know. Mr. Otterson was expressing his OWN experience as an athiest and as a believer in God.

Heraclitus,
I don't know, why don't you pray about it?
Obviously, there are many who feel strongly about what they will and will not call evidence. Mr. Otterson happens to feel from personal experience that he has developed a closer relationship with the divine. Who am I to deny the reality of such experiences.
As to the comment about meditation, who is to say that this is not communication with the divine. Put from the perspective of a believer, does God have to specifically be acknowledged to speak to someone else's spirit, particularly if they are unable to conceptualize him and anything else other than the force of life. One thing that seems rather constant in mankind is the need to look to a power higher than ourselves. While the Atheist's may come up with explanations for this, they do not ever seem to have any compelling reasons to deny themselves of it other than a hatred of "delusion" that indeed seems to be a part of our own humanity.

Question from a 12 Year Old

Mr Otterson says he has
"a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer of mankind,"

My Question:

Does Believing in Something PROVE
that what you believe in is true?

What if a LOT of people believe in it?
Does that make it more true?

For you Mormons posting here, I would like to ask how your faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet is faring in the light of what modern science is finding regarding the Book of Mormon? Maybe I should say, what modern science is not finding.
Scientist have found exactly no archeological proof of the BofM. Certainly not because Mormon archeologists haven't been looking. And now genetics has further disproved the Mormon contention that the great "lamanite" civilizations came from the middle east.
Is it any wonder that Mormons are now emphasizing their "Church of Jesus Christness" and de-emphasizing the Book of Mormon. In twenty years the BofM will go the way of plural marriage and "the mark of Cain".
Bye the way, does the church still teach, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become"??

James,

I do not believe that he is saying what you are speculating; that is, "because prayer gives them comfort, therefore God exists". Food gives me comfort, but I do not bow down and worship my ice-cream. There's much more to a belief in God and prayer is just one aspect.

To try and narrow down all the facets of gospel doctrine into one post is impossible. He's just stating one portion of his personal experience, just like everyone else...

Anonymous

Lovely for Mr Otterson that he finds comfort in prayer.

No one wants to deny him his personal satisfactions.

The PROBLEM
is when he
or anyone else
claims that because prayer gives them comfort

therefore
God exists,
religion is better for humans
than a humanistic loving kindness practice,
atheists are morally bereft and lead empty lives
prayer is an objectively valid and good way to make decisions about ones life
and to decide what is true in the world

Bush's reliance on prayer to confirm his disastrous decisions is the most far reaching disaster that can be laid at prayer's feet.

But the illusion that prayer has objective validity and efficacy should not go unchallenged as a personal tool either.

The sick are not healed because of prayer.

Look - I won't speak for the poster, but I think you're reading his post completely wrong. First, he's stating the obvious - that at first, he didn't believe in prayer. I'd even be willing to venture that he questioned a God during the early ages of his life. Thus, his statement of atheistic nothingness is that of his belief in a God, not an atheist's actual personal life.

Second, he elaborates on two stages of his life - one being *without* a belief of a God, where he stated - "confident in my teenage omniscience that religion was a crutch for people who couldn’t otherwise make it on their own" and another stage where he *did* believe in God.

Interestingly, he's comparing his life as a non-believer and also as a believer. Obviously now that he is a believer, he's realized the difference from when he was *not* a believer.

For those who do not believe in a God (ie - those who are saying he's blind) obviously are blind themselves. Since you have not experienced God in your lives, you cannot compare the two as he has. I think the poster clearly states that he has experienced the two and can compare.

Jesus is dead.

Dolores posed the question:

Will they get back before we blow up our planet with all the nuclear bombs, that many nations have, on land and sea?

Should we pray about this or do something?

James Moffatt correctly shows that the KJ version of the bible left out a very important word in translating Matt. 24:22 from the original Greek. In the midst of the Olivet prophecy, Jesus actually states, in the original translation "...unless those days are shortened, there would be no flesh saved alive"...KJ version ends the verse at 'saved'.

Jesus Christ will certainly intervene at that time, after the world experiences great tribulation (satans last chance to destroy mankind). And yes, we should pray always to be accounted worthy to escape all these things. (Luke 21:36)

"What I am enjoying about this forum most of all, is the learning that comes when individuals discuss openly and honestly with a desire to understand one another."

Nonsense, what you enjoy most of all is telling everybody what "you know". The implication of what “you know” screams louder than a desire to understand others. I call bulls**T! As soon as you stop this pathetic testimony bearing then the non-believers might take you seriously.

Andrew-

I want you to know that from my perspective as a "mormon", I am completely aware that you most certainly must have a very rich and wonderful life by what you have described.

How do I know this? I myself have been married for over 28 years to a wonderful man and we have raised five great children. We currently have six beautiful grandchildren that are the joy of our lives! We have traveled and had many equisite experiences that have enriched our lives as well. So maybe this is why I can relate to you so very easily?

Yes, I can also appreciate the gratitude you experience for a wonderful life... regardless of your foundational beliefs.

What I am enjoying about this forum most of all, is the learning that comes when individuals discuss openly and honestly with a desire to understand one another.

Thank you for speaking to what your impressions were to the comment posted, that a person like myself "another mormon" might share her thoughts with you.

Otterson's Blind Field of Vision

Andrew hits the nail right on the head.

Mr. Otterson has such a limited and doctrinaire view of human experience

that he can not imagine a Non Christion non mormon
having a
Rich spiritual imaginative moral loving life.

2/ 3 rd's of the world are thereby excluded,

Including atheists, but by no means limited to us.

It is appallingly self righteous and pitiably uninformed for Mr Otterson
to use phrases like
atheistic nothingness.

I have been a Mormon
and
I have been an atheist.

Atheism is much more enriched, and full of Many Many things
than the restricted fearful world of mormonism.

Mr. Otterson: I see that for all of your prayer, you are certainly not above religious slurs. Atheist nothingness? That is the moral and philosophical equivalent of me saying that what you believe is superstititous claptrap. But, then, I was raised to respect those of different beliefs - you apparently were not.

Atheistic nothingness? I have been married to my spectacular wife for 35 years, we have raised and love 6 children, and we now have 11 grandchildren. I have seen the sun rise on the Hindu Kush, tasted the saltiness and sweetness of Proscuitto y melone in Portofino, witnessed the beauty of the Monte Verde Cloud Forest in Costa Rica, experienced the incredible sense of smallness and aloneness on Nuku Hiva in the Marquesas, eaten oysters right off the boat in Louisiana, watched Grizzly Bears feast on salmon in the MacKenzie River and much much more. Atheistic nothingness? I think you need to reconsider your thinking.

"He has much physical evidence to support his prophet in his claim that he is a true prophet of a Living God."

Like what?

Like Islam has the Koran?
Like Judaism has the Torah?
Like Oral Roberts has his millions?
Like Buddhists have reincarnation?
Like the Taliban have the West?
Like Catholics have the Pope?
Like American Idol has a winner every year?

Look, have you seen how many movies they've made about Santa Claus, there's gotta be some truth to old Saint Nick. I think I will pray to see if Santa isn't real?

Apparently the Dalai Lama never met a religiously motivated suicide bomber or a religiously motivated arms-race he wouldn't praise.

But seriously, the DL has a point. It is quite useless to try and convince people of the inferiority of their position if you think the end result will be an absent moral compass (but what a silly conclusion).

Also, I agree that in the short term believers are able to achieve more happiness and more satisfaction by holding to their beliefs. How many children have suffered learning that Santa is not real?

It isn't the individual that needs an overall, it is the religious systems with their political ramifications that must be challenged - in this regard the DL has it wrong.

I praise the DL for being kind even though he suffers from wishful thinking (and I won't be trying to convince him of the inferiority of his position).

om mani padme om

Dave said:

RTC, I love and respect you. I have read your comments on the "Women and the Church" thread. I know that you are a good woman, but I feel that you are not being entirely honest with yourself in what you can truly know based on the experiences you have had, and you are being a bit close-minded. I would assume that you would value open-mindedness and honesty with one's self over the alternative. It can be scary to learn that what you thought you knew, might not be true, especially when you have built your whole life on it. But, if you are like me, you value being honest with oneself over almost anything else. Currently, you believe being honest with yourself means knowing that God exists.

I can show you that if you dig a little deeper, you don't know that God exists and cannot know that, but you may continue to believe. I would be fine with that.

RTC SAYS:

Yes, as you have come to know, if you have read my previous postings as you state, that I am honest. I believe what I state completely. Therefore, I am not inclined to have man as my judge on this particular matter. God does exist. I am glad you are fine with that conclusion for me.

But, the Lord has given the world His prophet that ye may judge, IF and WANTS you to, and does stand by him completely. He has much physical evidence to support his prophet in his claim that he is a true prophet of a Living God.

Joseph Smith is my mentor. It was in his example of asking and receiving through prayer that I have patterned my own life after, that I too might come to the same knowledge that he did. He was by no means perfect as our history reveals, but was a sincere and humble seeker of truth. And because of this, God was able to use him for a great work.

I would invite anyone to do the same...

Quote: LeGrand Richards

Joseph Smith, or any other man, could not have obtained all this information by reading the Bible or studying all the books that have ever been written. It came from God. It is exactly what Isaiah promised the Lord would do when conditions upon the earth should become as Joseph Smith found them when he went into the woods to pray for light as to which of all the churches he should join.
 
Consider again the promise of the Lord through Isaiah:
 
   Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
  
Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. ("Isa.29:13"Isa. 29:14Isaiah 29:13-14. Italics added.)
 
It truly is a marvelous work and a wonder. Can you conceive of anything that could be more marvelous or more wonderful?
 
In the face of it all, the wisdom of wise men does perish. The world has no satisfactory explanation. In the Church Historian's Office in Salt Lake City are more than 20,000 volumes, large and small, each of which says something about the Prophet Joseph Smith. There are also some 2,000 pamphlets on the subject.

Many of these publications represent attempts on the part of non-Mormon writers to explain the conundrum of Joseph Smith and the work he established, but all without avail. All these writings have been accumulated since the birth of Joseph Smith in 1805. In contrast, in the more than two centuries that have elapsed since the birth of George Washington, it is reported, there are only some 3,000 volumes written about him on file in the Library of Congress.
 
Well did Isaiah predict: “For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.” ("Isa. 29:14Isaiah 29:14.)
 
How could this prediction possibly be more literally fulfilled than in the case of Joseph Smith and the work the Lord established through him?

We emphasized a statement published in the New York Herald, which we quoted in this chapter: “Joseph Smith is creating a spiritual system, combined with morals and industry that may change the destiny of the race.”

This statement was made in 1842, and at this writing, more than a century and a half later, it is evident, from the present accomplishments of the Church founded under his leadership, that this prognostication is sure to achieve a complete fulfillment.

It is equally sure that the prediction of Josiah Quincy, previously quoted, will find its fulfillment:

It is by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen?

And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: "Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet." (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1950], 411-412)

gospeldoctrine.com 

Here's a nice quote from the Dalai Lama showing how a leading Buddhist views other faiths:

Dalai Lama Quote of the Week:

"Suppose... you try to convert someone from another religion to the Buddhist religion, and you argue with them trying to convince them of the inferiority of their position. And suppose you do not succeed, suppose they do not become Buddhist. On the one hand, you have failed in your task, and on the other hand, you may have weakened the trust they have in their own religion, so that they may come to doubt their own faith. What have you accomplished by all this? It is of no use. When we come into contact with the followers of different religions, we should not argue. Instead, we should advise them to follow their own beliefs as sincerely and as truthfully as possible. For if they do so, they will no doubt reap certain benefits. Of this there is no doubt. Even in the immediate future, they will be able to achieve more happiness and more satisfaction.

"...When I meet the followers of different religions, I always praise them, for it is enough, it is sufficient, that they are following the moral teachings that are emphasized in every religion. It is enough, as I mentioned earlier, that they are trying to become better human beings. This in itself is very good and worthy of praise."

--from Answers: Discussions with Western Buddhists by the Dalai Lama, edited by Jose Ignacio Cabezon, published by Snow Lion Publications

Prayer had not done much to change the Life on our planet. Since Cain killed Abel, Man has been killing ever since. It is time to stop praying and start doing. If every one that believes in Jesus would refuse to kill for their country or their religion, it would be a start.

We have polluted our planet with all kinds of trash dumps, oil spills, nuclear waste, and when this starts burning it will be the Judgement Day Fire caused by Man not God. Will prayer change our destiny or action?

It is almost time for God and Jesus to return to our planet. It is time we started cleaning up our planet for our space visitors. How will God and Jesus like what we have done to our planet.

Will they get back before we blow up our planet with all the nuclear bombs, that many nations have, on land and sea?

Should we pray about this or do something?

Peace.

God Evidence versus Alien Evidence

this morning at 4 am, while milking the cows, I was flipping around my AM dial.

One Channel had a fundamentalist Christian show testifying that they KNEW that God was Real.

Another Channel had a show about Aliens and UFOs, with many testifying that they KNEW that Aliens and UFOs were REAl.

It struck me
The Alien folks were JUST AS CONVINCED as the God/Jesus that THEY ARE Right.

And the FUNNY thing is

The Alien people HAVE MORE EVIDENCE.

They have seen the UFOs. Many KNOW they have been adducted and can describe their abductors.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

RTC said:
"Those who have had the kinds of miracles of which I speak will know exactly what I mean and that these are truly from God, to those who are His faithful and wait upon Him. He gives these very personal witnesses that they might be strengthened."

I have had the "kinds of miracles of which [you] speak". I believed just as sure as you do now that they were from God. (At the time, I would have claimed that I knew they were from God and that to deny them I would be denying myself). Well, I do not deny the experiences. I had them, alright. But, I now have great reason to believe that the God of Abraham had nothing to do with them, because I have great reason to believe that the God of Abraham is nothing more than a mental construct invented by a tribe of Hebrews, even as Ra was invented by Egyptians and Zeus by Greeks.

I do not claim to know that god, in the undefined sense, cannot exist. In that form it is nonfalsifiable. But, there are several different lines of reasoning and evidence to suggest that a specifically defined god, in this case, the God of Abraham does not exist. Now, one could continue to believe in the God of Abraham even after knowing that the probability of his existence is very low; and I would be ok with that.

But, what I am not ok with is people who claim to KNOW the unknowable and the very unlikely. It is as if someone swears that they know through their miraculous life experiences that the Tooth Fairy is real and is responsible for removing their teeth from under their pillow when they young. They cannot know that the Tooth Fairy is real (I cannot know that the Tooth Fairy does not exist), but the evidence strongly suggests that the Tooth Fairy is not real. Would it not bother you if a whole church of Tooth Fairy worshippers went around testifying to innocent others that they know the Tooth Fairy is real? But, you might say, the evidence against the Tooth Fairy is a lot greater than the evidence against the God of Abraham. I don't think it is that far off.

RTC, would you be so kind as to share your experiences that demonstrate the power of God with us, so that we can show you that they do not constitute the sure proof of God's existence that you believe they do. There are alternative explanations for those experiences, and I can supply you with the reasons and evidence why you should favor those alternative explanations over the God hypothesis.

But, alas, I hope you don't employ the old argument that these events are too sacred to be shared with the skeptical. That rationale should set off a red flag for you. Anyone who is really interested in truth will not hide their thoughts and experiences in cocoons where the light of reason cannot expose their flaws. If your beliefs are true, they can withstand any counter-argument, but if they are false and it can be shown that in all probability they are not true, then discard them and embrace that which is much more likely to be true.

RTC, I love and respect you. I have read your comments on the "Women and the Church" thread. I know that you are a good woman, but I feel that you are not being entirely honest with yourself in what you can truly know based on the experiences you have had, and you are being a bit close-minded. I would assume that you would value open-mindedness and honesty with one's self over the alternative. It can be scary to learn that what you thought you knew, might not be true, especially when you have built your whole life on it. But, if you are like me, you value being honest with oneself over almost anything else. Currently, you believe being honest with yourself means knowing that God exists. I can show you that if you dig a little deeper, you don't know that God exists and cannot know that, but you may continue to believe. I would be fine with that.

It is quite illustrative to read these posts. If a martian were to land on earth and read this stuff he would assume that the "religious" of the writers were completely insane. The more "spiritual" you are, the more you sound like babbling lunatics. Sorry to say that, but put yourself in the place of a non-believer and read these responses.
If, as a scriptures say, you believe and ask, it will be given to you. However, if you have an open mind, you will have to admit that the only prayers that are ever answered are the ones which are potentially self correcting. God, NEVER once, healed an amputee, for example.

WTF

RICKETY -

I appreciate your comments regarding faith and prayer as well as the scripture that you have posted.

I also made known in my earlier comments as well, that for me, it is the empirical evidences that have accumulated throughout my life, that now leave no doubt in the power of prayer unto revelation that those things which I know to be true... are.

I am now in a position in my life that to say that there is no God, that does not hear and answers prayer, or does not guide my life, or does not reveal knowledge to me directly that otherwise I would not or could not know of myself... would be to say that I am not. How could I say such a thing? For then I would condemn myself literally.

I have heard the reasoning of many of these post as to how one can accumulate evidences to prove that prayers are answered, if one is looking continually for substantiation. Yes, I will agree to a certain point, that if these were the only types of verification one was looking for, such as lost keys, waiting for a certain phone call , making the light turn green perhaps?

I am not speaking of such trivial things. I am speaking of much more personal knowledge and specific evidence, which are far from coincidences, as have been suggested.

I love the principle wherein that it is after the trial of your faith, come the miracles. I have seen this over and over again in my life.

What is a miracle one might ask? But to speak of such would minimize the miracle, for miracles are more than the sensational that the world would seek.

Those who have had the kinds of miracles of which I speak will know exactly what I mean and that these are truly from God, to those who are His faithful and wait upon Him. He gives these very personal witnesses that they might be strengthened.

This is what I refer to, when I say that to deny these very personal evidences is to say that He is not... nor I.

Reading some of these posts makes it easier to understand why some folk still believe in Bush and what is doing.

Rickety

you would surely love true buddhists.

their first principle in relation to you, and all their fellow men

is to practice "loving kindness"

which is based on compassion for the suffering of others.

this is the HIGHEST principle of morality,
a TRUE universal

which is why i believe that "true buddhists"
are the most spirtually developed class of people in the world.

they have practiced practicing loving kindness for 2600 years.

Bill and Buddha

Bill
all it takes for you to cure your misconceptions about buddhism is

to go to Google

type in
buddhism beliefs

and read the first entry.

all it takes is just a bit of desire to know the truth rather than rely on your misconceptions

James said:

"But they certainly would not want to force you to do so, and they would applaud the fact that you are on your own spiritual journey in your own way."

I'm beginning to like Buddhists already.

I would think that for a Buddhist that life's actions don't matter. That what you do in life is no big deal because I'll always have a chance to reincarnate and do it again. If I reincarnate as a bug then life will be over within a year anyway and maybe I'll become an untouchable or the ruling class next time. You win some you lose some.

Rickety's Prayer

Yes R, buddhists would think it good that you were developing your spirituality as you pray to Almighty God.

They might think that you would be even more highly developed spiritually if you were able to wean yourself from the dependence on a supernatural being and could thereby come more in touch with the world and the universe as it is.

But they certainly would not want to force you to do so, and they would applaud the fact that you are on your own spiritual journey in your own way.

Anonymous,

Thanks for the link, it makes it easier for others reading here. I will follow your lead if I post any more scriptures.

James,

I appreciated your post.

I am thankful that Buddhists are spiritually developed. I know very little about them but it seems that they would approve of others seeking to improve their own spirituality, even those that pray to Almighty God, as I do.

Rickety,

That verse in scripture meant alot to me when I was first investigating the LDS church. In fact that whole section is something I never forgot when I read the Book of Mormon:

http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/26-43#26

Rickety's Prayer

R i am glad prayer gives you solace.

there are many other paths to a spiritual life than through Jesus and God.

buddhists are the most spirtually developed people on the planet, and they don't believe in a God the way you do.

as many have noted on this thread
there is no way to disprove the existence of anything,whether it is God or the
Easter Bunny.

Dave,

Thank you for your post.

Empiricism is one way I gain knowledge. That there is a spiritual dimension to life I have learned by experience, prayer being a part. Sometimes it is helpful to me to remember Alma's words when he said:

"And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only....The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." (Alma 30:40,45)

I take back everything from my last post. I know I wrote things that are not true beliefs held by Mormons. Furthermore, I know Mormons worship the same God spoken of throughout the Bible, the God of Israel. Please forgive me of my indiscretion.

Rickety,
I think it is great that you try to test the effectiveness of prayer in your life. Although you should know that your so-called experiments amount to nothing more than anecdotal evidence. The systematic scientific investigations conducted by professional scientists include several methodological controls to limit the effects of threats to validity. You would not have employed those controls since you were both the experimenter and subject.

In other words, you could be fooling yourself. There could be other explanations for the results you got that have nothing to do with power of prayer. I am fine with anecdotal evidence - I even cited some of my own in an earlier post. I just want to make sure that you do not think that your "experiments" have the same weight as those of modern science.

Mr. Otterson, I commend you on another finely written PR document. However the reader is left with the impression that you speak of the Christian God. What you fail to mention about your mormon beliefs is that your god is an exalted, polygamous man that lives near the star Kolob with his multiple wives that he engages in eternal physical relations with to populate his many worlds he created. I believe one of the ten commandments is "thou shalt not bear false witness." Be careful, Joseph Smith might deny you entrance to the third level of the Celestial Kingdom........

At first, I did not expect much from my prayers. However, after trying an experiment, and repeating it, the empirical evidence of my personal experiences are unmistakable. I remind myself to be unafraid of trying an experiment. This scripture is about faith but the principle can be applied to prayer:

"But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words." (Alma 32:27)

hP
it was ME, not Dave.
he has too much taste to recycle stale jokes.

I, on the other hand, consider it one of my specialities.

( it didn't REALLY happen to me)

Dave,
You do realize that story has been floating around for a long time, don't you? If that actually happened to you, your Harvard professor friend was setting you up for a joke.

Dave's Brilliant Moral Essay on Prayer

says all that I would want to say. People throughout history have done countless things because God told them it was right.
George Bush's going to war with the guidance of his Higher father is just the latest tragic example.

There is the DANGER of Prayer. It might be a delusion, not God. You might be psychotic, or in GW's case, sociopathic.

I have a friend here who is a Harvard professor. I went over to his house the other day, and noticed he had a Horseshoe hanging in his hallway.

I said
"You don't believe in that stuff, do you????"

and he said
"Of course not, but i hear it works whether you believe in it or not."

Here are a few reasons why I believe prayer continues to be popular.

1) It's non-falsifiable. When you get what you pray for, it is evidence of the mercy of God. When you don't get what you pray for, it was not God's will. When those who don't pray experience good fortune, God was merciful to them and "hey, it rains on both the righteous and the wicked". When people who don't pray get what they wish for, it is interpreted as evidence in favor prayer because some blessings are reserved for those who ask God for them.

2) Confirmation bias. People who pray expect to be blessed, so they actively look for and interpret any good fortune as an answered prayer. Since they are praying all the time, they never get the opportunity to see that the good fortune would have happened whether they prayed or not. I haven't prayed since last April and guess what? I still find my lost car keys, my wife still makes it through her c-section ok, and "miraculous" coincidences that seem so unlikely still happen. Incidently, I still have as many misfortunes and unlucky breaks now as I did before as well. It does not matter whether I pray or not things turn out about the same. Granted that is anecdotal evidence and not scientific. I am not trying to show that divine aid does not exist, only that one cannot know that divine aid does exist just because it seems to miraculously work sometimes.

3) Behavioral psychologists have shown that a variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement is the best at producing a consistent, frequently occurring behavior. This is a system in which you only get rewarded after a variable number of responses, just like a slot machine. If you pray a whole lot, from time to time an event will take place that you will interpret as answered prayer. We tend to downplay the misses and overemphasize the hits.

4) Prayer does have personal benefits equal to meditation and is culturally sanctioned. Prayer and meditation do relieve stress, foster hope, and give comfort to the practitioner. This could be a natural result of the activity and not the result of divine intervention, but we cannot rule out divine intervention (it is non-falsifiable).

I am not trying to prove there is no god, only that one could get all of the same results even if god does not exist. Why is that important? Because if one is not sure that guidance received during prayer is from God, one might pause before acting on it, especially if the behavior is something that you would not do if you did not believe in God.

If Nephi had been a real person and was not sure it was God telling him to kill Laban, he might not have done it and that would be a good thing. If Muslim extremists were a little less sure that their actions were approved of God they might not blow themselves up killing innocent civilians. What has that to do with you? You would never do anything like that. Yet, you support the LDS church in treating women as inferior and discriminating against homosexuals. You justify it by saying God wants it that way. My point is you cannot be sure. And since you are not sure, you should treat people at least as equals lest you be wrong by treating them worse than you would otherwise.

There are many other things prayer might tell you to do that common decency would not. Since you cannot be sure that those inclinations come from God, err on the side of common decency. Don't cause disharmony in the families of other faiths by pushing your religious beliefs on them. Often times people would be better off if the missionaries would have just left them alone. Spend time with your family instead of spending all of your free-time with church responsibilities and meetings.

Quote: If we say suffering can be part of God's plan to bring about the greater good, that does not mean this is always the case.

In other words, some suffering is beautiful in the eyes of God (part of "the tapestry of creation") while other suffering is undesirable? But then we're back to square one: why does God not appear to intervene in the latter cases? And if he does, then the only suffering left is that which is "good."

Quote: BTW, I don't think God created suffering....

Suffering doesn't exist independent of individual sufferers, so no, God didn't create "suffering." But you believe he did create us, fully aware that we would suffer, making him a party to it. I can choose to have a child, knowing that the child's life will have suffering and joy. But as a parent I work hard to help my child avoid suffering to the extent possible (i.e. I cannot remove pain from a tumble, or magically cure illnesses.) Based on the actions usually attributed to God (such as magically curing illnesses), the "extent possible" is much greater than the alleviation we actually see.

Quote: Your objection to omniscience is understandable. I have no logical explanation for this.

Then we are in agreement on the existence of omniscience?

Quote: But I do not understand how it undermines free will. Like I said before, God is one powerful agent...with much more foresight and power.

You seem to suggest, with this butterfly analogy, that God may not prompt a parent to know that their child is playing near an open window, and will shortly fall out and die, because God knows that a) the child will grow up to become a murderer, b) the parent will become a better church-goer through the tragedy, or c) something else along these lines. All of these outcomes depend on the "choices" of other people between now and the future results. Thus, from the perspective of the actor (you or me), the future choice does not exist--it is merely an illusion of choice.

Humans will save the child, regardless of future crimes the child may commit. They do so because future outcomes of the type above are impossible to predict, so present suffering is paramount. To the extent we can "know" the future, we may permit suffering (e.g. dentist visits to ward off future cavities), but when millions of individual choices stand between the present and the consequence, neither humans nor God can know the effects. Unless we negate free will (which I'm fine with as a materialist).

Quote: As far as God's omniscience and your reference to pantheism, I think there may be room for a modified pan-theism in Mormon theology.

Please expound on this. I'm very interested to see how you connect these.

"--That prayer may never be more meaningful than when the life or health of our own child is in the balance. "

what in the name of god, flying spaghetti monsters and yockel does the above statement mean? do tell.

i dont even know where to begin with this. is this implying that we should be praying all the time just in case we are to ever have a sick child?

is it implying that someone who is childless, and will never have a child at risk will not have as meaningful of a prayer as a parent?

is it implying that by praying, god will intervene in some way, and grant life? or health? but without the prayer of the parent, the child is at risk?

is it implying that the greatest comfort or hope to the parent will come through the prayer of the parent?

i am all for prayer and meditation. but i sure find a qualifier like this one to be outrageous. though, i do find it consistent with mormon thoughts and doctrine. i have been close to a terminally ill child, and i know how valuable prayer and faith and hope can be and how the prayer for eternal families can be comforting to mormons. that is a beautiful thing when it is not twisted out of proportion.

as much as i respect prayer, i sure dislike the notion that prayer is more valuable in any given moment. its personal. its private. its faith based. clearly there is no mr. deity up there checking his messages at the end of a thousand year day. and even if there was, i really doubt a good mr. deity would be checking his list to see if a parent was praying sincerely while a child's life was in the balance. i think the god of lost keys, death and national disasters would be just fine doing whatever necessary for that child, even if the parent was grieving prayerlessly in anger, regret, frustration, despair or whatever.

Believing Skeptic,

You seem like a fine person. I hope to hear more from you here. Thanks for your post.

Uljapana:

Thanks for your thoughtful critiques of my theodicy. It is still in the works and has many quirks to work through.

I did not make many statements that are meant to be unqualified or true in every case and in every sense.

For example, If we say suffering can be part of God's plan to bring about the greater good, that does not mean this is always the case. As a Latter Day Saint I believe this life is a proving ground and every aspect of it is meaningful for our journey in Eternity. Both suffering and its alleviation are significant aspects of this time we have on earth. I believe a large part of the test is how we respond to the suffering of others. But it is not the only part.

There is a lot to cover when we talk about the purpose of life and the meaning of God and His actions. The topic of theodicy is inexhaustible.

BTW, I don't think God created suffering, I think it exists independent of God. But that opens up a can of worms that will get us hopelessly off subject.

Your objection to omniscience is understandable. I have no logical explanation for this. But I do not understand how it undermines free will. Like I said before, God is one powerful agent interacting with less powerful agents affecting butterfly effects in the same way we do, but with much more foresight and power.

I prefer a qualified omnipotence not because it is totally comprehensible per se but because it make more sense out of life than absolute omnipotence. As far as God's omniscience and your reference to pantheism, I think there may be room for a modified pan-theism in Mormon theology.

That’s all.

Thanks for the exchange my friend!

What a great dialogue this has become! All of your comments have been inspiring to me. Like many of you, I feel like my prayers ascend--at least to the ceiling. When I can clear my thoughts, open my heart, and not feel constrained by time, I feel like my prayers are heard...and I know I have had prayers answered.

I liked Betty's observation at the beginning, because although her Buddhist meditation does not rely on a "male authority figure," it is in this frame of mind...the meditative state she describes...that I begin to feel that my prayers are actually being heard somewhere by ears and a heart that cares. (While I recognize God as a male authority figure, I also believe in a Mother in Heaven, and although we do not normally pray to Her, I have no doubt that She is there, that She is more than a Heavenly Homemaker, and that She has influence on the Father, in the same way that our own mothers influence our fathers.)

Every one of these comments has helped me strengthen my own desire to pray, to pray effectively, and to do it in the peaceful, "meditative" state that allows me to utter the most meaningful prayer I can.

Thanks to Michael Otterson for sharing such a personal and poignant experience. I know it must be difficult to write the feelings of your heart and then often have them stompted upon...but I imagine that you get a thick skin when you put yourself out there. I just think that this was your most personal and deeply reflective post since this blog started. Thanks for sticking in in spite of the "fiery darts."

JDF:
God is aware of all the contingencies surrounding certain circumstances, he also aware of the butterfly effect that can result from certain events.

You've lept from the frying pan to the fire here. I agree that omnipotence is illogical by definition; however, omniscience doesn't work much better. First, it negates free will, leaving God trapped in a movie theatre watching the future, rather than shaping it. Second, it requires (for true butterfly-effect knowledge) that God know the spin and energy state of every subatomic particle in the universe. That means God "interacts" with every electron, and transmits that information at greater than the speed of light to his brain. Which is the size of the universe, in that it has to have a discrete location (and the Mormon God does have a physical brain) to be stored and accessed. Omniscience seems to require pantheism to me.

Quote: This view gives great meaning to our individual suffering; since we can have confidence that it all occurs for a greater good (even if we don't know what that is). This view does NOT give us impetuous to dismiss the suffering of others. Part of God’s plan is that we learn to respond to the suffering of others.

So God is a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of teacher? No, if suffering occurs for a greater good, then stopping suffering confounds that greater good. And that which confounds good would be...bad. If a child drowning in a pool is part of a greater good, why would you save her?

John D the First:
“Is their any field that claims to understand events in their totality?”

You insinuation is correct, no one field including religion currently enlightens a complete understanding of our universe. Nonetheless, the study of evolution and it related fields of evolutionary psychology and abiogenesis does come close.

“To believe we can comprehend events in their totality lays the intellectual delusion.”

You are also correct here, for our understanding has and will always continue to evolve throughout time. This fact is one of the many exciting elements of intellectual discovery since there is always a remaining mystery or concept to expand further. Unfortunately, many literalist religions defiantly resist novel discoveries. One prominent example is Galileo another is the official statements form the church presidency denouncing evolution.

“My statement primarily appealed to situational ethics and to the fact that we do not know all the butterfly effects that spring from certain events; both here and in the hereafter.”

Ok… and your point still remains unclear. Are you saying that we can not be moral beings with an ethical mind apart for revelation? We do have the capacity to appropriately judge the actions of humanity aside form ancient cultural perceptions of morality as preserved in the Tanakh.

“Are you a theist? If so how do you explain God's love and power in the face of evil? If you're not a theist...what do you think is best way we theists could explain it?”

I am a non-theist, so I can not answer all of the following questions based on your premise of a man upstairs orchestrating our existence.

"Today, no true theologian, scholar, or intellectual would accept such a feeble paradigm."

"I would ask you to please let the "true" theologians; scholars and intellectuals speak for themselves. I claim to be neither. I do not really have interest in engaging with people who pull out the authority card and wield ad hominem attacks such as this."

My use of ‘true’ denotes reputable scholars of a peer-reviewed field. The language of true is not an authoritative statement but rather one of acknowledgment to those whose work stands against the skeptical scrutiny of others.

1). “The question of whether an act is moral or not depends on the effects of the act.”

Yes

2). “The effects of certain acts are countless, especially if you combine them with countless other acts.”

This is one perspective that is exhaustingly endless.

3). “We cannot know all the effects of a given act—the butterfly effect is infinite.”

Same as number 2.

4). “God does know all the effects of given acts. The morality he abides by has the ultimate end of blessing His children. He knows how a given act contributes to this end because he knows all the effects of that act. We do not know all the effects of any given act so we cannot necessarily comprehend how certain acts of God are moral.”

I disagree entirely with this premise; furthermore, I believe it to be preposterous. Were the Jews blessed when god forsake their covenant and allowed them to be exterminated by the millions?

5). "Once we have an Archimedean view of things, as God has, we will see how these acts are moral. This is my hope some day, not in this life however."

I as a non-theist and other theists for that matter do not perceive your dualistic world the same as you and therefore would refute your dogma on theodicy.

John D the First,

Your method for comprehending the morality of an act would apply to any individual, not just gods. The effects of any person's acts are countless, and cannot be judged in their final totality. By your criteria, we would be utterly unable to make any moral judgments at all.

The reality is that moral behavior is not and cannot be judged by the absolutes that so many believers desperately cling to. Moral judgment and decision-making is always tentative, based on limited information, and it must be made in a finite amount of time. You can believe in objective moralities or not as you like, but real moral decisions will remain imperfect and will sometimes be dead wrong, even when the intent is good.

"Prayer is the souls sincere desire, uttered or unexpressed, the motion of a hidden fire that trembles in the breast."

Free2think:

"The self limiting intellectual delusion that we as mortals can not attempt to comprehend god's plan or the extent of our existence is shamefully disgraceful to any faith."

Strong rhetoric my friend...

I agree that we can attempt to understand God's plan.

However, to make moral judgments of God we must understand events in their totality. Is their any field that claims to understand events in their totality? I think Archimedes was the last one to assert that this was a possibility; I don't think any of the fields you reference would ever make take Archimedean view on the world.

To believe we can comprehend events in their totality lays the intellectual delusion.

Granted the sentence you quote might sound like I am saying: "there's just no way we can know", that is my fault, because I used the word "inevitable." I think we can learn at least part of the meaning of events by seeking personal revelation from God.

My statement primarily appealed to situational ethics and to the fact that we do not know all the butterfly effects that spring from certain events; both here and in the hereafter.

Are you a theist? If so how do you explain God's love and power in the face of evil? If you're not a theist...what do you think is best way we theists could explain it?

"Today, no true theologian, scholar, or intellectual would accept such a feeble paradigm."

I would ask you to please let the "true" theologians; scholars and intellectuals speak for themselves. I claim to be neither. I do not really have interest in engaging with people who pull out the authority card and wield ad hominem attacks such as this.

If you wish to address my thoughts, please address my claims directly:

1). The question of whether an act is moral or not depends on the effects of the act.

2). The effects of certain acts are countless, especially if you combine them with countless other acts.

3). We cannot know all the effects of a given act—the butterfly effect is infinite.

4). God does know all the effects of given acts. The morality he abides by has the ultimate end of blessing His children. He knows how a given act contributes to this end because he knows all the effects of that act. We do not know all the effects of any given act so we cannot necessarily comprehend how certain acts of God are moral.

5). Once we have an Archimedean view of things, as God has, we will see how these acts are moral. This is my hope some day, not in this life however.

To me prayer is indeed real communication with my Heavenly Father. I can truly say that I know he is listening to my prayers and that I can trust him with my problems and burdens. He will listen and he will help me overcome those things that cause me pain. I do not only prayer to ask for help, I pray to talk to my Father in heaven. This concept of communicating with Him became more real after the passing of my mortal father. I was a teenager at the time and after my dad's passing I all of a sudden found myself alone. I then started to rely on prayer to communicate with God and I have made that ha habit since then. Today, I spend some good time on my knees pleading with my God to bless my family, and others who stand in need. I also thank him for the many little things he gives me day ti day that make my life so wonderful. So is prayer real? Absolutely yes, and I know my heavenly father is on the other side waiting to hear from me every day. Prayer has changed my life.

"God's moral axiom is to act for the betterment of His children—how He does this will inevitably baffle us because we have only a sliver of the whole picture." John D the First

The self limiting intellectual delusion that we as mortals can not attempt to comprehend god's plan or the extent of our existence is shamefully disgraceful to any faith. Today, no true theologian, scholar, or intellectual would accept such a feeble paradigm. James E. Talmage once said that it is to become like god to seek out the mysteries of the universe and attempt to comprehend the thoughts of deity. Exegetical studies, genetics, and anthropology have all asked BIG questions and have granted us a greater understanding of what it is to be human and what the animating force behind life really is. No literal interpretation of sacred text could ever come close in comparison.

Dear Ujlapana:

Thank you for pointing out one implication of my post: When God does not intervene it is because of lack of faith.

I personally believe that God's power is increased by our exercise of faith. That does not necessarily mean that when His power is not displayed it is because of a lack of faith.

Have you ever seen Bruce Almighty? I thought the movie was really bad, but it made an interesting theological point.

When Bruce answered everyone's prayers, "Yes", it resulted in chaos. Sometimes one persons prayers cannot be answered without it causing five others greater misery. God is aware of all the contingencies surrounding certain circumstances, he also aware of the butterfly effect that can result from certain events. I have faith that in the end, when we see the whole picture, we will see that the intervention and lack thereof by God is justified by the betterment of each person who has ever been born; though we may not see how it results in betterment now.

Of course God, who has the whole picture, will operate from a different morality than humans do.

More information changes the moral quality of certain acts. Abortion, for example, could be seen as a morally reprehensible act in itself. But if you have further information that the life of the mother is at stake, than failure to abort is considered immoral.

God's moral axiom is to act for the betterment of His children—how He does this will inevitably baffle us because we have only a sliver of the whole picture.

If God has the Universe wound up magically like clockwork, He wouldn't have to work by such means. But, like I said, I do not think that he has power to do magic. Therefore we have reality as we see it, with a loving God working His hardest in it to create what will be a masterpiece in the end.

This view gives great meaning to our individual suffering; since we can have confidence that it all occurs for a greater good (even if we don't know what that is). This view does NOT give us impetuous to dismiss the suffering of others. Part of God’s plan is that we learn to respond to the suffering of others.

The idea that God needs us to help Him do His work of relieving human suffering helps us to avoid fatalism often associated with notions of God’s omnipotence.

JDF:

Your belief, on the surface, is more logical than "God intervenes willy-nilly," but I've never met anyone who really, truly, believed this. Most people I know believe that they can ask for things not in their (or anyone else's) power to influence, such as a miraculous cure or help finding lost items. When these things work out, God's intervention is accepted as proof that He exists.

So the dilemma remains--if God has ever, even once, supernaturally intervened to help someone find their wedding ring, then why has God ever abstained from prompting a frantic parent as to the whereabouts of their lost child? When 3 kids died in the trunk of a car in Camden last year--just yards from their home--was nobody praying? Do you believe that God beamed, "check the trunk," into people's minds and they all ignored it? You seem to suggest that it was insufficient faith on the part of the children and the search teams, some of whom actually looked in the very car the kids died in (but not in the trunk). I guess God sure taught them a lesson.

I believe prayer can have value as a meditative exercise. Rituals can restore a sense of control, even when none exists. But even my five-year-old, who attends church weekly, knows that you don't get what you ask for--in his case, a reprieve from nightmares. I guess he just doesn't have enough faith.

Ultimately, if someone likes praying, that's great. But when they point to how their prayers supernaturally affect the world, that's when God gets dragged into being complicit with evil, or with having a moral system that we would find reprehensible in our neighbors.

When I was a believer, I had the same sorts of experiences that Otterson, Richard, Scott, John D, and RTC currently have. I described my experiences with nearly the same language they use now. I am so happy for them and glad that they find peace, comfort, and guidance through prayer. I am grateful for what I perceived at the time was help from my Heavenly Father when I was dealing with the death of my mother.

I have since come to think of all of those experiences differently. I no longer believe in God or the Holy Spirit, etc. The only thing I would caution believers against is declaring that they "know" that they are conversing with a real being when they pray and that they know that events that take place are proof of the existence of divine aid.

Look at the evidence you really have: deep sensations, feelings, thoughts, and interpretations. None of that justifies an honest declaration of "knowing". You cannot say that there is no possibility of your being mistaken. Leaving yourself open to that possibility keeps you teachable and avails yourself to be entreated by further evidence that might cause you to second guess your present convictions.

Firmly believing is fine. But, declaring you know when you do not because you cannot, yields close-mindedness and opens the way to be deceived. All in all, I currently feel more peace, comfort, guidance, and deeply satisfying transcendence not believing in god. And I am grateful for that as well.

I completely agree with Mr. Otterson's insights. I struggle with making my prayers meaningful---I have the tendency to thoughtlessly repeat the same things everyday. But when I take the time to improve the focus and specificity of my prayers, I quickly receive answers and insight and am able to recognize His influence more in my life. What an amazing thing to be able to communicate with our Father in Heaven! Our ability to pray and receive answers confirms to me that although he is the creator of all the grandure of our world and the Universe, his main interests and efforts are focused each of us, his children.

Betty,

Right on!

Yockel,

Nicely said!

Dear Yockel,

Nice, thoughtful post. I think the issues you raised are important matters that believers and non-believers should grapple with head on. I would like to share my thoughts on the timeless problem of evil which you appropriately brought to this forum.

How can we assert both God’s power and God’s love in the face of suffering?

Many thinkers who submit that there may be a God conclude that it must be a monster.

One thought comes to mind:

I claim that God is all powerful, but I do not mean this in a Calvinist sense. He has all power that is permitted given the constraints of reality.

John Polkinghorne, a Cambridge physicist, pointed out that a scientific worldview permits prayer and divine intervention, but not in a traditional sense. According to modern physics, there cannot be a God with the Universe wound up like clockwork, where He can magically affect His will in any combination of reality He pleases. However a realistic picture of a personal God is a powerful agent working among other agents like ourselves, affecting His will through butterfly effect. This demonstrates the limits on His power that prevents Him from performing magic, yet makes His power very real. I think this view squares well with the tenants of my faith.

From scriptures I understand that God’s power is limited by our faith and our use of agency. We give Him more power when we are anxiously engaged in doing His will, and when we make implorations to Him in faith.

Given this view, many children’s death by natural causes could be prevented by use of our resources for preventative measures and more faithful prayers on behalf of children found in calamity. God has given us this power and responsibility.

I appreciate your thoughts Yockel because it causes me to reflect on whether I am really using my time in a way that is pleasing to my Heavenly Father. Am I doing enough to prevent the suffering that God has given me the responsibility to prevent? Am I exercising my faith only on behalf of myself and those close to me, and neglecting the countless others that could use my prayers and faith on their behalf? I think these are questions all believers need to ask themselves regularly.

Prayer does change one's life... for in it, we realize we are not alone.

I have come to rely upon prayer as my souls deepest form of communication not only with the self, but with Him in whom I completely rely upon for literally all things. I will not presume to go about anything in His name, without first asking Him for the spirit to be with me, that I might say and do that which He would have me say and do. I believe that it is only through prayer that we can have access to this power.

I cannot imagine a life without the spirit of revelation that comes through prayer. Through experience I have learned how to ask of my Heavenly Father, for that which I desire, and to receive answers by the power of the Holy Ghost... and that come in such a way that is undeniable. I know that it is through prayer that we come to know His will for us.

Through the experience of years, (30 adult years) these answers have manifested themselves in my outward life as physical evidences that are now sure proof of not only the power of prayer, but ... of the reality of those things that are not seen, which are true, and to that "feeling" which confirms them... which is, the power of the Holy Ghost. Wherefore I can say, I know.

I know, that I have a Heavenly Father as sure as I know, that I am. I know, that His son Jesus Christ, has made it possible that I might have communion with Him. I am grateful that he cares for me in such an intimate way that there is not anything that he does not know about me, or anything about me that he will not accept and love... no matter what. I can, at any time pour out my soul to Him and He hears me and offers His love, mercy and comfort... even when I feel I do not deserve it. I know, I can always turn to Him and He will lift me and reassure me, because I am His daughter and I know, that He loves me.

I am eternally grateful that He has sent His son that I might have a way to repent of those things that would separate me from Him otherwise. For these reasons, I am most thankful for prayer...

These things, I Know.

There's power in ritual, no doubt about it. And we all benefit from reflection. I am skeptical about Heavenly Father's interest in any of us. There are so many children perishing in natural disasters, which cannot be blamed on human evil, that it is unlikely that a God interferes on behalf of any of us.

It would be presumptuous to assume, for example, that God helps me in my job interview while someone else's child dies. If God actually acted that way, that would be horrible.

There is also no way for us to know if we are talking to God or to ourselves. That raises the problem of wishful thinking, which is especially acute when we seek authorization to suspend the usual rules of good and neighborly behavior.

I am sure that some of the riflemen that participated in the Mountain Meadow Massacre prayed regularly. Yet they participated in the killing of women and children. It may even be the case that they participated because they prayed.

In fact, we know from the flight recorders that the 9/11 hijackers prayed non-stop.

Prayer can be a fine practice as long as we do not allow our experience to abandon skepticism and to suspend our obligation to respect the rights of others.

Hi Betty,

Thank you for your contribution thus far. I think it is a point of view worth considering.

When I was a freshman in High School I read a book on "scientific prayer." After reading it I thought, 'that explains the power of prayer in way that doesn't require God.' So I tried it for a while combined with self hypnosis. As a young teenager who, for obvious reasons, found Mormon morality cumbersome, I thought a Godless prayer sounded pretty good; all the benefits without the obligation. But, it just didn't seem to work worth anything. I later found that my prayers that were actually directed at God were answered, and that help came more readily when God was involved.

Of course, there are many explanations for this difference. But like you said, I must do what is right for me. For me, introducing My loving Father in Heaven into prayer not only makes the act incredibly meaningful, but it is what makes it an efficacious, real force in my life.

I believe this result is partially psychological, but also an effect of the volition of the divine, who cares about my petty needs for some incomprehensible reason. I need to give credit where credit is due.

For me, prayer is not an individualistic endevour, it is relational. It is about being in communication with a real being that is both all knowing and interested in me, all powerful yet humble enough to want to give me all that He has.

It gives me comfort to have contact with the one being in the universe that is truly good; who both loves me and knows everything about me.

It is a comfort to have dialogue with God. To recieve answers and direction I can trust when I do not have knowledge of all the contingencies of a given decision.

Communing with the infinit is exhilarating both because God is indeed infinit, but also because, counterintuitively, the infinit is my literal kin. My prayer with God involves a sense that we truly share something. His desire for me is not to be an Eternal inferior, but He wants me to become all that I have the potential to become.

That is the granduer of God. He spends every milisecond of His existence working to lift those lower than Himself. I feel priviledged to approach this majestic, interested being and pour out my banal hopes, fears, desires, and regrets.

When I truly realized Father in Heaven really is my literal father, the way I prayed changed. I began to pour out my soul unto him and he fills me with comfort because he loves me! I know that when I pray sincerely, my prayers are answered, though not always in the way I desire, but in retrospect my prayers are always answered in the way that is best for me.

I know that Heavenly Father lives. I know he knows me personally and I know he himself is concerned with my welfare.

Buddhist Meditation is More Efficacious Than Prayer

it is commonly true that people like Mr ottherson and richard perceive benefits to prayer.

Buddhism and it's associated meditation is a 3,000 year old practice
that give ALL the benefits of prayer
without the supernatural clinging to the illusion
of a male authority figure who grants or doesn't grant your wishes, and who guides you.

The universe guides you.
Be in touch with the universe
and you will have all the peace that
your conception of God brings you

and you won't have the childlike delusion
that there is some kind parent up there
who is taking care of you.

But of course, as always, do what is right for you.
Don't listen to me.

The more honest I am with my desires, needs, and gratitudes, the more meaningful prayer is to me. Even for someone who was never taught to "recite" prayers, I've noticed that my prayers tend towards cliches or repetition, so I have to constantly guard against it. When I pray and actually say the things for which I'm thankful (in a real, day to day sense) and ask for things I really need (in a specific, non-generic way), then my prayers feel meaningful. I don't think God requires a certain level of "fanciness" in our prayers, but we exercise more faith when we're thoughtful about them.