Betty Eadie is the notorious huckster/baptized Mormon of "Embraced by the Light" fame.

Yes, that same eternally-earnest Eadie who insisted on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" that she's actually "hugged" Jesus.

Even some tub-thumping Mormons have commendably acknowledged that Sister Eadie is, well, completely nuts.

(see Douglas Beardall, "Embarrassed by the Light: The Unauthorized Biography of Betty Eadie and a Critical Expose' of 'Embraced by the Light,' An Investigative Probe of a New York Times Bestseller!" [Provo, Utah: LDS Book Publications, 1995], 172 pp.)


Admittedly, Brother Beardall, as a true-believing Mormon, has his own handicapping blind spots but at least when it comes to poking holes in the non-scientific NDE-related superstitions of Eadie and her easily-swayed, well-paying followers, he's both spot-on and dead-on.

Referring to Eadie's bizarre appearance on "Oprah," Beardall confesses that Betty's lack of appropriate Mormon missionary zeal and what he sees as her spreading of devilishly false doctrine really upsets him, even to the point where he admits he kicked up a household ruckus by "yelling at the television" ( subheads added for topical breakdown):

-Eadie's Fountain of Fizz vs. Foundation of Fact

"Betty Eadie had some colorful, visual computer graphics which coincided with the questions Oprah was asking--psychedelic montages which looked like the lead-in to a 'Star Wars' movie and scenes of flowers and waterfalls and stars in the universe. Admittedly, it was entertaining.


-Eadie Evades the One-and-Only-True Mormon Jesus Question

"However, what made me so indignant and furious was when Betty Eadie stated two separate times, in very plain and direct language that: 'Jesus told me (Betty) that it didn't matter what church a person belonged to, that as long as you have love, that's all that matters. Oprah Winfrey agreed with Betty and said, 'That's what I've always believed.' . . .

"Betty never did admit on the 'Oprah Winfrey Show' that she was a current, baptized member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She refused to admit, stand up and be proud that she was a Mormon. . . . Why would anyone want to talk to a [Mormon] missionary when they had just witnessed Betty Eadie says she 'hugged' Christ and He told her that it didn't matter what church a person belonged to as long as they had love?"

Beardall is particularly upset that the "many, many years she spent as a baptized member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . is purposely and conveniently left out. Why would Betty not proudly proclaim that she has been a Mormon for most of her life? What has she to hide? What is she ashamed of? Is she embarrassed to be a Latter-day Saint? . . . [Her] egotistical reasoning behind . . . publishing . . . . . . the 'Embraced' book of fantasy is serious enough but the $20,000,000 in book sales [in its first two years of marketing] is still no reason to preach and publish Christian heresy."


-Sister Eadie Has Been Unfair to the Mormons

Having vented on matters of faith dear to his latter-day heart, Beardall then complains that "Eadie and her 'ghost writers' have used and abused the basic tenets of the Mormon religion "to develop a fantasy, near-death experience which did not actually happen."


-Picking Apart Eadie's Wondrous Whoppers

Beardhall's case against Eadie's beyond-the-veil post-mortem magic-making is as follows:


-Eadue's Fails to Name the Hospital or the Individuals on the Medical Team under Whose Care She Had Her "NDE"

"In nationwide broadcast talk show interviews and public relations news releases, Betty has refused to reveal and document her medical hospital experience.


-Eadie Refuses to Take a Lie Detector Test

"She refuses to submit to a polygraph examination or to ever reveal the name[s] of the doctors, nurses or hospital to verify even the hint of an actual death experience. If her death actually happened there should be no reason to refuse a quick and simple verification.


-Eadie's "NDE" Tale Doesn't Square with What Happens When One Physically Dies

"Upon interviewing and questioning a number of physicians and anesthesiologists as to what physically occurs at the time of death, the following truths emerge:

"After physical death, all of the essential bodily organs die. The brain dies. The heart and lungs and all of the other vital organs cease to function. Morbidity occurs. The circulatory blood system becomes rigid and incapable of being revived. Betty claims to have actually been dead, not near-death, but dead for over four hours. Resuscitation and revival is medically impossible. Lack of oxygen causes brain damage. . . .

"Betty was not in intensive care and she was not electronically monitored by unknown medical staff of the unknown hospital. This is according to Betty's own written testimony. There were no professional medical personnel to assist her in the event of sudden death. Her operation was a serious matter. Hysterectomies are a great concern for all women but hysterectomies do not usually cause death as Betty reports. I am not minimizing the seriousness of this elective surgery but I am stating that Betty was not in the intensive care of any medical staff, nor were there any family, friends or [Mormon] priesthood brethren with her at the time of her alleged death. There was also no one there when she claims to have returned to life four hours later."


-Earnest Eadie Has Exaggerated Her Alleged "NDE" Experience Over Time Using "Ghost Writers"

"It must be noted that Betty Eadie's alleged death was originally written in a small letter until it was picked up and embellished by a couple of ghost writers, almost 20 years later. Betty admits that there is much of the experience that she has forgotten and could not remember until this later date; almost two decades later."


-Eadie Mixes Her "NDE" Fantasies with Basic LDS Teachings

Beardall further complains that Eadie, in making up her death-defying experience, nonetheless based it on bedrock truths of Mormon Church doctrine:

"Betty's final manuscript was enhanced and further embellished by her ghost writer, Curtis Taylor, who substantially integrated much of the Mormon doctrine and Gospel truths found within the teachings and beliefs of the LDS Church. . . . What is so very disconcerting to the many millions of Mormon members is that Betty Eadie and Curtis Taylor and Jane Barfuss have purposely refused to admit that 'The Book of Mormon,' 'The Pearl of Great Price,' 'The Doctrine and Covenants' and the inspired version of the King James translation of the Old and New Testaments is the foundation of their writings in the book, 'Embraced by the Light;' then they changed the Gospel!"


-In the End, Evil Eadie Defys Mormon Priesthood Authority

Indeed, Mormon ward Gospel Doctrine teacher Beardall claims that there was no way Eadie was ever really dead in the first place, noting that such a "rais[ing] from the dead" cannot be accomplished "without a priesthood blessing."

So there.

The only thing he left out was the all-important last part: "InthenameofJesusChristamen."

(Eadie, "Embraced by the Light," in "Introduction," pp. viii, ix, xii, and "Chapter One: Did Betty Really Die?" pp. 1-3: she related thread, "Are There Any Mormon-Specific NDEs?," http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2019330)


Brother Beardall appears to regard Sister Eadie as a latter-day witch. I take a simpler approach, given that I don't believe in ghosts, goblins or gods. I simply believe she's a goof. To be sure, Unsteady Eadie has been as goofy after as she was before her NDE, whether or not she has since "come to the light" on anything else. In any event, her supposed NDE was, and remains, fishy, incredulous and unbelievable in fundamental respects.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 03:04AM by steve benson.

She just wanted to make a lot of money.

You don't know if it was bogus since you weren't there to experience it.

You are confusing what happens to the body/brain at death and what happens to a person's spirit when it crosses into a different realm.

I would not argue with a person who says they had a near death experience.
It was real to them.

This board has been over this topic 100s of times. No one is arguing with what she thinks happened in her wee head. She claims to have been dead for four hours. Didn't happen.

You weren't there.

Not being there does not make it true.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary EVIDENCE.

The claim that a person was dead for 4 hours is indeed an extraordinary claim, so where is the evidence that backs up this claim?

Without evidence there is no reason to believe such and extraordinary claim. Well, unless one is desperate for what such a claim would imply.

Hospital staff would not leave a newly post-op patient alone for four hours.

I wasn't there for Joseph Smith's holy visitation either.

Even though I really doubt, based on my spiritual experiences, anybody 'was told' I am God, Jesus, etc.. in NDEs around 56% of NDErs claim they meet a 'divine person'. Amazingly, 75% of 'atheists NDEs' claim meeting a 'divine person'.

Based on my 'experiences' they are meeting their 'spirit guides' who they could have met without an NDE if they were 'awake' through meditation, prayer, etc.

No one or very few are told 'join' xx religion, get baptized, go to the temple, etc. Actual, discussion of religion is not what 'most' people experience at all. So any claiming they found out their religion was the 'truth' are clearly questionable.

Even Eadie told Oprah 'it didn't matter what church people joined'. This is one of the things making this NDE/vision/dream possibly real! A Mormon admitting this fact given the 'known' embarrassment that would be to LDS inc.!

The 10 most common things in reported NDEs are in this article. https://www.thoughtco.com/common-elements-near-death-experiences-2594675



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 12:41PM by spiritist.

in the brain and can be replicated scientifically what's expected organically empirical results. That's a hardcore reality. No need for projections into afterlife hopes and dreams.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 12:45PM by steve benson.

I would like to read the 'scientifically produced' NDEs to see if they are really similar to the 'normal' NDE/dreams, etc.

Any reference?

Do a site history search.

By the way, "normal" NDEs are predictable, traceable and replicatable intracranial creations. Woo-woo need not apply. Betty Eadie's was a pure, jacked-up carnival act. That's the one specifically addressed by the OP--and the one that you're ignoring.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 12:51PM by steve benson.

I didn't think you could really give me a reference to a specific story where many of the 10 common elements in an NDE occurred by 'science'!

What 'science' claims and what it can deliver are often different things. Especially, when you know they cannot really deliver on this.

To say they can produce certain 'effects' is one thing. But to be able to produce 'meeting with divine people' is quite another.

They are there and you know it. Lift a finger and do some forum homework.

And you're still ignoring the topic of the thread: Betty Eadie's crock of cuckoo.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 12:57PM by steve benson.

spiritist,

The "Skepticism and Controversy" section of this article about NDEs may have some references that may be along the lines of what Steve Benson was thinking of:

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/near-death-experience



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 02:14PM by commongentile.

But unlike the illegitimate fancying typical of the paranormalist crowd, it is generated through a system of rigorous empirical testing, observation, replication and falsification of evidence that is gathered and presented in theory form for actual, reliable and cross-checked physical analysis.

Science.

What a concept.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 04:04PM by steve benson.

Thanks for your efforts to identify 'science produced NDE' summaries, but they amounted to what both of us knew they would ---- 0, nothing!

I am not accusing you of 'overstating what science has found' but one has to wonder about your 'facts' when you can't produce specifics to support them.

I am on many boards, including NDE boards, and have yet to read a 'science produced NDE' that has many of the 10 common traits of 'reported NDEs' that have been studied and summarized by researchers.

Sure, we all know taking 'drugs' can produce some wild and beautiful things in the mind but that is not what 'normal NDEs' are or at least have not yet been proven to be.

Good luck in your quest for the truth!

Just for the record I can neither 'confirm or deny' whether Eadie had an NDE, dream, vision, etc.. I have not studied her claims and had a chance to match them up with the 'common things' in NDEs. One thing she said, as a Mormon, that God didn't care what religion a person was ---- is not how I would state it but not far off what many people get. I do know one doesn't have to undergo an NDE to experience what NDE people claim they get.

This is what you get for not doing basic homework, the data for which was readily available at your fingertips had you decided to engage in a simple RfM site search.

Hopefully you can live and learn from this as you prepare more thoroughly for the next encounter (and, no, I'm not talking about hugging Jesus at the end of a "tunnel of light" that funnels folks into the "spirit world"). Live by your demand that scientific evidence be provided to you, with references; die by your failure to search for it yourself, even though I told you you could find it here by doing your own forum history research.
-----


"NDEs Have Been Shared & Debunked as Anything but an Intra-Cranial Reality"

posted by Steve Benson
"Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board
13 September 2013

NDEs and OBEs are nothing exceptional, has empirical science as amply demonstrated through observation, experimentation, replication and falsification. In reality, they are nothing more than but brain-caused hallucinations brought on by anything from oxygen deprivation to the brain itself, to in-brain receptors taking in LSD-like substances which induce organic-chemical responses which NDE believers mistakenly interpret as manifestations of life-after-death experiential realities--which they demonstrably are not.

Let's review some basics:

In a previous post, RfM contributor “Jesus Smith” referenced an intriguing and informative science article on the brain activity of dying rats--one which underscored the neuro-biological realities (not spiritual mythologies) of so-called “near-death experiences” (NDEs).

(“NDE in Rats? Think Again, If You're Not Brain Dead,” posted by “Jesus Smith,” on “Recovery from Mormonism” discussion board, 13 August 2013, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,988289,988289#msg-988289)


The article, headlined “Near-Death Experiences Are 'Electrical Surge in Dying Brain,'” reports that based on the results of experiments published in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sicience,” the brain at the edge of death is, according to the study’s lead author Dr. Jimo Borigin (University of Michigan), "much more active during the dying process than even the waking state."

The article reports that the near-death process of the brain involves a myriad of neurological sensations, as described by those experiencing the NDE, These range "[f]rom bright white lights to out-of-body sensations and feelings of life flashing before their eyes . . . .”

Borigin notes that tests performed on dying rats detected the presence of upper-frequency, electrically-pulsing gamma rays which “were found at even higher levels just after the cardiac arrest than when animals were awake and well”--and which Borigin believes could feasibly “happen in the human brain, and that an elevated level of brain activity and consciousness could give rise to near-death visions.”

The article reports the enthusiastic response of other scientists to the research findings:

“Commenting on the research, Dr. Jason Braithwaite, of the University of Birmingham, said the phenomenon appeared to be the brain's ‘last hurrah.’

"’This is a very neat demonstration of an idea that's been around for a long time: that under certain unfamiliar and confusing circumstances--like near-death--the brain becomes over-stimulated and hyper-excited,’ he said.

"’Like “fire raging through the brain,” activity can surge through brain areas involved in conscious experience, furnishing all resultant perceptions with realer-than-real feelings and emotions.’

“But he added: ‘One limitation is that we do not know when, in time, the near-death experience really occurs. Perhaps it was before patients had anaesthesia, or at some safe point during an operation long before cardiac arrest.

"’However, for those instances where experiences may occur around the time of cardiac arrest --or beyond it --these new findings provide further meat to the bones of the idea that the brain drives these fascinating and striking experiences.’”

(“Near-Death Experiences Are 'Electrical Surge in Dying Brain,'” by Rebecca Morelle, science reporter, “BBC World Service” 12 August 2013, at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23672150)
_____


These findings underscore what mainstream science has known for some time about both the planetary reality and the in-brain neuro-chemistry of “near-death experiences.”

As Matthew Alper, author of “The ‘God’ Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God,” writes:

“. . . [[T]he near-death experience has been reported by a cross-section of nearly every population and must therefore constitute an inherent part of the human condition. As with all other cross-cultural behaviors, this would suggest that the near-death experience . . . most likely represents the consequence of a genetically-inherited trait, a biologically-based response to specific stimuli. Though near-death experiences are conventionally interpreted from a spiritual perspective—the consequence of a brief encounter with the afterworld—I assert that, like all other spiritually-conceived experiences, these, too, are STRICTLY NEURO-PHSYIOLOGICAL IN NATURE” (emphasis added).

Alper proceeds to make the case for the NDE as a purely biological, neurological and chemical phenomenon occurring within the brain itself that is NOT connected to, or stemming from, any so-called “out-of-body” or “spiritual” experience. He breaks these organic causes into various categories.
_____


--NDEs and the Depletion of Oxygen/Blood Flow to the Brain

Alper explains that oxygen and blood supplies are nearly always critical factors in the production of NDEs:

“For starts, near-death experiences almost always occur as a result of decreased blood flow to the brain and/or a lack of oxygen, usually from shock induced either fro severe infection (septic shock), from myocardial ischemia (cardiogenic shock), cardiac arrest or the effects of anesthesia. Apparently, the NDS is integrally linked to one’s physical chemistry.”
_____


--Accounts of Intense Bright Lights During NDEs Are Interpreted by Believers as Proof of an Immortal Soul and Afterlife, but Science Has a Sounder Explanation

Alper recounts how Plato, in his “Republic,” tells “the story of Er, the son of Armenius, who allegedly dies and then comes back to tell the story of his existence during his temporary ascension to heaven and consequent return to the living. During Er’s experience with death, he describes a vison he had of a ‘bright and pur column of light, extending right through the whole of heaven.’ Such descriptions of visions of a bright and often dazzling or blind light leading to heave constitutes one of the key symptoms of the NDE and therefore leads many to believe that what Plato was narrating was just that. It is through Er/s tale that Plato goes on to advance the notion of an immortal soul, as well as an afterlife in his work. As a matter of fact, the NDE might very well represent one of the primary means through which humans validate a belief in some form of an afterlife. . . .

“ . . . [A] common symptom of the NDE, similar to the one narrated [above]by Plato, is described as a sensation of being led down a dark tunnel and then drawn toward a blinding white light, one that is often interpreted as holding religious significance, such as being representative of heaven’s gates. (Such descriptions as these—of experiencing a ‘piercing’ or ‘blinding’ white light—have been attributed to activity within the brain’s optic nerve which has a tendency to erratically flare when deprived of its normal oxygen supply). It is during this same part of the experience that a person will often express a feeling of being engulfed, not just by ‘the light,’ but also by God’s presence.”
_____


--Endorphins Explain the NDE Ecstasy

Alper offers scientific explanations for NDE good vibrations:

“Though there is no international standard through which to formally define a NDE, studies show vast similarities in description of this phenomenon, ones that cross all cultural boundaries (Fenwick, 1997; Feng and Lin, 1976, Parischa and Stevenson, 1986) . . . [I]n the majority of recorded accounts, the first thing most recall of their experience is a feeling of intense fear and pain that is suddenly replaced by a sense of clam, peace and equanimity (similar to those sensations attributed to more generic spiritual experiences). To offer support of a neuro-physical model to explain this phenomenon, D. B Carr suggested (1981, 1989) that the aforementioned sensations, in so far as they are experienced during a NDE, might come as a result of a flood release of endogenous opiods (endorphins).”
_____


--The NDE Cousin (the Out-of-Body Experience") Is Way More In-the-Brain than Out-of-the-Body

Alper addresses the relationship between OBEs and NDEs:

“[In order of frequency after the ‘sense of calmness or euphoria’ produced in a NDE], the next most often-related symptom to occur during an NDE is that of an OBE, or ‘out-of-body’ experience. Here, the person describes a sensation of rising or floating outside of one’s physical body and, in some cases, even being able to look down at one’s self from above. One hospital, in order to validate claims of ‘out –of-‘body’ experiences, placed an LED marquee above its patients’ beds which displayed a secret message that could only be read if one were looking down from above. To date, not one person who has claimed to have had a NDE or ‘out-of-body’ experience from within this hospital has expressed having seen the message.

“During this part of the [NDE] experience, those undergoing an OBE have expressed a sense that their limbs are ‘moving within their mind,’ though they are actually immobile. This is similar to the type of hallucinations, or ‘confabulations,’ suffered by those who sustain right parietal lesions--yet another indication that such experiences can be traced to one’s neuro-physical activity as opposed to originating from one’s alleged spirit or soul.”
_____


--“Spiritual” Commonalities between NDEs, Epileptic Seizures and Psychedelic Drug Use

Alper explains the shared effects among the three:

“Similar to accounts of those who have had either a temporal lob seizure or experimented with entheogenic [psychedelic] drugs, those who have undergone a NDE will almost invariably interpret the experience as being spiritual in nature:

“’Hallucinogen ingestion and temporolimbic epilepsy produce a near-identical experience as described by persons having a near-death experience. These brain disturbances produce de-personalization, de-realization, ecstasy, a sense of timelessness and spacelessness, and other experiences that foster religious-numinous interpretation.’ (‘Journal of Neuropsychiatry: Clinical Neuroscience,' 1997, Summer 9[3], pp. 498-510)

“Consequently, it is no surprise that a significant number of those who undergo a NDE claim that it strengthens their faith in God, a soul and an afterlife. Regardless of how these experiences are interpreted, we must ask ourselves: ‘Is this type of experience transcendental in nature or, like all other types of spiritual experiences, are we dealing with a serious of strictly neuro-physical events?’”
_____


--NDEs are Facilitated by the Brain’s Chemical-Transmitting Receptors

Alper describes how brain-based chemicals create the NDE experience:

“One key to answering [the above] question comes through the research of a Dr. Karl Jansen who has found that ‘[n]ear-death experiences can be induced by using the dissociative drug ketamine’ (K.I.R. Jansen, M.D., ‘Using Ketamine to Induce the Near-Death Experience,’ p. 64).

"Dr. Jansen’s report goes on to state that ‘[i]t is now clear that NDEs are due to the blockade of brain receptors (drug-binding sites) for the neurotransmitter glutamate. These binding sites are called the N-methly-D-asparate (NMDA) receptors. Conditions which precipitate NDEs (low oxygen, low blood flow, low blood sugar, temporal lobe epilepsy, etc.) have been shown to release a flood of glutamate, over-activating NMDA receptors. Conditions which trigger a glutamate flood may also trigger a flood of ketamine-like brain chemicals, leading to an altered state of consciousness,’ (ibid., p. 73)

“It was also found than an intravenous injection of 50-100mg of ketamine reproduces all of the features commonly associated with the near-death experience. (Sputz, 1989; Jansen, 1995, 1996). Even Timothy Leary, the notorious psychedelic drug advocate of the 1960s, described his experiences with ketamine as an ‘experiment in voluntary death’ (Leary, 1983).

“Similar to the manner in which entheogenic drugs trigger the symptoms of a ‘spiritual’ experience, the drug ketamine can be used to synthetically trigger the symptoms of a near-death experience. “
_____


--Neuro-Chemistry, Not Spirituality, is the Source of NDEs

Alper lays out the scientific foundations of NDEs:

“What [the above] suggests is that, as with any other type of spiritual experience, near-death experiences are rooted in our neuro-chemistry. Apparently, the NDE represents the consequence of a physiological mechanism that enables our species to cope with the overwhelming pain and anxiety associated with the experience of death and dying.

“Once again, though such evidence can never prove there is not spiritual reality, it is certainly indicative that this might very well be the case. “

(Matthew Alper, “The God Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God” [New York, New York: Rogue Press, 2000], Chapter 8, “Near-Death Experiences,” pp. 140-43, and “Endnotes,” #79-81, p. 177)

**********


For those who might still want to believe in the alleged "spiritual/religious/godly/immortal" reality of NDEs, you're in a sense right:

It's all in your head. Enjoy the ride.

:)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2017 01:46AM by steve benson.

Again, please provide me a 'scientific NDE' with the complete description of an 'NDE' that conforms to a 'normal' NDE.

As you can see, if you ever did research, these people's lives changed as a result and they can talk 'hours' about their 'amazing experiences concerning what they 'found out and felt'.

Again, you can't so just admit it.

If 'science' could replicate the 'NDE experience' they could publish 'best seller' books and open shop to provide people that experience.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, please provide me a 'scientific NDE' with
> the complete description of an 'NDE' that conforms
> to a 'normal' NDE.

Since there's no such thing as a 'normal NDE,' your demand is unreasonable.

> As you can see, if you ever did research, these
> people's lives changed as a result and they can
> talk 'hours' about their 'amazing experiences
> concerning what they 'found out and felt'.

Not everyone's life (who has such an experience) is 'changed as a result.' And that some people do feel 'changed' after the experience does not, of course, indicate that the experience was 'real.'

> If 'science' could replicate the 'NDE experience'
> they could publish 'best seller' books and open
> shop to provide people that experience.

'Science' doesn't do that. However, lots of people already do just that -- they take drugs that induce most or all of the supposed 'NDE' effects. At any rate, you appear to be confusing 'popular' or 'believed in' with 'factual.' Those aren't the same things. At all.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/fyi-what-causes-near-death-experiences

You obviously can't and you won't.

You're like the Mormon Cult: You won't answer a straight question with a straight answer, . And you can't give a straight answer because you're not reasonably conversant with the science.

Hell, you won't even do your own research and, in fact, asked me to do it for you--which I did, and about which you then (as before) demonstrated that you don't care. You run and hide from the science because you don't know and are not interested in the science.

You're a "spiritist" alright. When you're asked to empirically prove your position, you spirit yourself away.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2017 04:43PM by steve benson.

He has drawn a great deal of personal comfort from it, and as a mental health counselor (who is, I think, a good one) he has given several copies of it to clients who are themselves terminally ill, or who have someone close to them who is dying.

I've read it a couple of times, trying to see what he gets out of it. I'm not a believer, so obviously, I am coming from a different place.

The book never did a thing for me. I believe that the author was a well-educated, sincere man, but I still think that as Steve has pointed out, this kind of stuff tends to spin out in a brain that is shutting down.

Dr. Ritchie, who wrote the book, was "clinically dead for 19 minutes" during which time all sorts of shenanigans supposedly went on. He had been "pronounced" and the sheet drawn over his face, and he was stuck in a side room on a gurney while waiting for the meatwagon.

I don't recall any heroic attempts to revive him, but that may just be my poor memory. I think he sort of auto-restarted (I may be wrong here - it's been ages since I read the book, and I didn't believe it to begin with.) He apparently went on to practice medicine - psychiatry, I believe - for a number of years post-croak.

To a believer, I guess that this stuff is very inspiring. I'm not a believer, so I don't expect to see Jesus or anybody else I know when I shuffle off. The best I can hope for - and I DO hope for this - is a reunion with my best friend.

Steve: "Indeed, Mormon ward Gospel Doctrine teacher Beardall claims that there was no way Eadie was ever really dead in the first place, noting that such a 'rais[ing] from the dead' cannot be accomplished 'without a priesthood blessing.'"

As entertaining and silly as the whole reported episode is, that was the LOL moment.

Fun way to begin the day.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 01:07PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA. So true. god I can't believe that I once bought her bogus book. Of course that was when I was still a believing Mormon which of course enabled me to believe in all kinds of absurd crap.

Elyse I would not argue with someone who took LSD what they saw was real to them.

Hopefully we are all trying to get to a reality we all agree on.

Otherwise what is the point?




Spiriist I will be you that all NDE reporters saw a devine person that matched up to what they believed they would see ie a white jesus/god

LSD sends you on a trip. LDS sends you on a mission.

One you take with a cube of sugar. The other you take with a grain of salt.

Most NDEs I have studied have stated they 'see/talk to divine beings (based on their beliefs)' however, few if any say the 'divine beings' introduced themselves as XYZ. The NDEer just 'knew/assumed'.

Based on 'my experiences' and many others in the metaphysical fields I study, it is very unlikely they met 'God' but their spirit guide whose appearance is meant to 'calm the person'.

In your studies did God or any other 'divine being' introduce themselves?

What is your opinion of her supposed "NDE"?

Don't answer by wandering off into your own experiences or those of others.

Stick to the topic: Was Betty Eadie's "NDE" real or not? Why or why not?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2017 07:26PM by steve benson.

Like I said - it felt real to her.

You can argue with a person about what they believe.
But you really can't argue about how somebody FEELS.

And I'm beginning to feel some of you guys are as nutty in your insistence on atheism as some are about Mormonism.

LOL
In other words, cuckoo, cuckoo.

And that's all I have to say about that.

I asked you what you felt about it. Why won't you answer the question? Some spirit from the "other side" got your tongue?

Their "feelings" may be real as feelings, but that does not mean they were based on accurate perceptions or interpretations.

I do not question that there was something that happened, only the interpretation of the event.

May I suggest people watch "Brain Games" to see just how fallible our perceptions can be!

Hit the nail on the head there, dear Elyse!

I thought the topic was about Eadie being all wrong because she taught contrary to the provably bogus scriptures. She claimed to have joined the Mormons after the experience.

Doctors at one time thought the germ theory of disease was a load of crap. That Louis Pasteur guy, such a charlatan. Show me a doctor today that doesn't believe in germs. The beliefs of experts are still beliefs. What brand of cigarettes does you doctor smoke? Find the ad on YouTube. The people who once cut veins to let the bad blood out are now expected to be experts on consciousness. Excuse me if I take the word of a story-telling cat lady over theirs.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doctors at one time thought the germ theory of
> disease was a load of crap. That Louis Pasteur
> guy, such a charlatan. Show me a doctor today that
> doesn't believe in germs.

Show me one that does...
This straw-man is all too often repeated.
And it's rather silly.

Decent, rational "doctors" (and anyone else with any decent critical thinking skills) didn't "believe" in "germs" 'cause there was no evidence for them.
When Pasteur (and many others) provided empirical, repeatable, testable evidence for them, then "germs" were accepted.
It's not a "belief" that "germs" cause diseases. No belief is involved or required. And that at one time they weren't accepted by rational people isn't an indication that science is flawed in some way.

They weren't accepted until there was evidence for them. Once there was evidence for them, they were accepted. Not "believed in." Because repeatable evidence verified their existence.

So when there's evidence to back up Betty's outrageous, implausible claims, they can be accepted. Until that's the case, there's no reason to give them any merit whatsoever.

> The
> people who once cut veins to let the bad blood out
> are now expected to be experts on consciousness.
> Excuse me if I take the word of a story-telling
> cat lady over theirs.

Nice try equating today's scientific medical researchers with ignorant, untrained, unscientific bloodletters of many centuries ago. A complete straw-man, of course, making it worthless...but nice try.

Try this: don't take anybody's "word" for anything. Go by what evidence can verify. Then you're on reasonable ground. Otherwise, you're not.

Germ theory history is very interesting. Humans, including doctors, have a very hard time changing their minds. When Pasteur presented his theory and supporting evidence, the majority of doctors rejected it. It took years and years for the majority of doctors and even scientists to accept the theory. I wish I could give you the book my nursing professor was using for the lecture she gave on this topic. We humans are not rational by nature. Science is our only hope for not running around chanting and throwing carrots in the air.

So accepting overwhelming evidence is not cheating? That's a good thing to believe. It's kinda why we're not Mormons anymore.

Although life is hell on the overwhelming evidence side. A lot of these new discoveries are ridiculed until their proponents are dead. Get excommunicated for writing a book, then the church says you were right all along.

The basic problem we still face is that all evidence is evaluated through filters. We used to have Mormon filters. Now we have exmo filters. The reality I experience in the world is that the vast majority of people aren't even interested in looking at new evidence. The new Louis Pasteurs aren't crazy. It just sucks to be them.

Prez Spence Kimball didn't don't a damn thing, for instance, about organic evolution, either scientifically or theologically. When I cited him the official positions of the Mormon Cult on organic evolution expressed over time through either statements by the Cult prez or by the First Presidency speaking for the Cult, he said he wasn't familiar with such statements and asked me to send him one in particular.

Geezus.

I knew more about science than the Mormon "prophet of God" did and that's because I actually took science classes in jr. high, high school and college, hung out with friends who were professional scientists/educators and took a river-raft trip the entire length of the Grand Canyon with a group of scientists from various fields, sponsored by the National Center for Science Education.

I think that's better than hanging hopes on ghosts, Ouija boards, taro cards, NDE'ers like Betty Eadie and/or other dead-Jesus huggers.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2017 05:14PM by steve benson.

simply can't handle it. That's why "spiritist" is running away from the stated topic.

"spiritist" just ain't ready to handle Eadie.

No Steve one is real. I can tesify

My key board has a bad t, sorry.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2017 12:36AM by steve benson.

As a TBM, I believed Eadie's story until I read her second book, "The Awakening Heart". Then I figured out that she was looney-tunes.

. . . allow themselves to get suckered in by the wacky Betty Eadie.

Moths drawn into the magical flame of their mind-messin' myths.

It's made even more bizarre, given how clear it is that Unsteady Eadie is a flagrant phony.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2017 01:54AM by steve benson.

brigidbarnes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a TBM, I believed Eadie's story until I read
> her second book, "The Awakening Heart". Then I
> figured out that she was looney-tunes.


Same here.

Sister Beardall, you ask, "Why would Betty not proudly proclaim that she has been a Mormon for most of her life?"

Well apparently Jesus told her it didn't matter. Answer is plain and simple.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Betty's final manuscript was enhanced and further
> embellished by her ghost writer, Curtis Taylor...

Aha! Proof that ghost (writers) DO exist!

:)

I temporarily "died" on the operating table during intestinal surgery a couple of years ago. No vision, but I could hear the nurses talking. One said that I looked like Mike from Breaking Bad. I felt a searing pain where they cut me open. It was awful, and it was followed by hallucinations and more pain. My heart had stopped and likely my brain was short of oxygen. What I did see was in the ICU room. I saw the room with an overlay of my living room on it--a fusion of sight and memory.

No angels or beatific lights. Sorry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2017 10:52PM by donbagley.