mentalgymnast wrote:Knowledge is gained line upon line and precept upon precept. If we cut off that 'supply line' I think that we are less likely to receive and understand spiritual things.
It's hard to lose something we already understand.
You maintain that spiritual things should be readily explained and/or given/handed to others...along with the 'evidence' to show that these spiritual experiences are 'true' in some kind of physical sense that can be seen and/or measured.
I think that you and I both know that this isn't possible.
So why does the church make the effort in it's publication's? You avoid it because you know it does not constitute good evidence for the person experiencing the spiritual/sensory experience. You probably don't avoid it if you think you are talking to a believer who will not ask hard questions.
Faith, testimony, belief, is based upon knowledge/experience that one can't see but which one has faith is true. You say it's blind faith, I say it's not. You ask for evidence. I find it difficult to articulate in a tiny little capsule...without writing a book...why my faith is meaningful and/or makes sense to me in the wide realm of possibilities of positions in regards to belief and/or unbelief. We will always be left at an impasse.
It's blind faith only because it does not provide good evidence even to the one experiencing it that beliefs like the Book of Mormon is true or God exists. This is why you cannot articulate why you think it is good evidence. If one pray's and gets an amazing sensory experience from it, how is this good evidence the Book of Mormon is true? Could someone also get the same experience from reading some Scientology book, or maybe some good fantasy book? When I say sensory I don't mean just things like light entering you eye creating and image in your Brain. Your brain is capable of doing that without any real light, but I would still say you had a sensory experience. Emotions may not come from your ability to see, hear, touch, taste or smell but it is still a sensory experience. All experience /observation is some kind of sensory experience.
I don't conclude the Book of Mormon is fiction because of a lack of good evidence it is true. The first vital step was to recognize my spiritual experiences did not constituent good evidence it was true, but I still believed. Only after that and seeing all the evidence showing it was made up could I conclude it was not true. The spiritual experience typical of most members is highly subjective which makes it poor evidence for beliefs like the Book of Mormon is true. Physical evidence we have is far more objective making it good evidence. The problem is the physical evidence is usually not sexy and doesn't generate much emotion. The spiritual experience though tends to be highly emotional allowing one to ignore the rational part of their brain when generating their interpretations. Emotions are really good at maintaining interpretations even if they are really poor.