Defending Mormonism for fun and profit

[_Tal Bachman]

Gazelam

I like to think of my post as something like the Book of Mormon or the endowment ceremony - the more times you dive into it, "the more you understand". Why not try a third time?

Just in case that doesn't work, the point was (not that it was a big, serious post) was that amateur Mormon apologetic efforts are as embarrassingly counterproductive (though cruder) than the slicker attempts of the pros. And yes, there are professional Mormon apologists - Hinckley himself has said that.

The point about testimonies (really cool how everytime I post something, I have to explain it all again for all the members on here in simpler language) is that IF "knowledge is not possible", then automatically, a testimony - as it is conceived of by most members - is also not possible. Funny then that amateur and pro apologists should flirt with (actually neck and pet with) these sorts of epistemic claims.

[_Yong Xi]

I think Levi's context was the currently living spiritual giants of the earth, whoever they are. He used the words "continue to," as in they'll keep doing whatever it is they're doing right now.

For your part, you refer only to the followers of such historical figures. That's fine and dandy, but I want to know who Levi thinks these "spiritual giants of the earth" are and how, specifically, they move and shape the earth.

I think Levi is referring to "The Three Nephites" and the apostle John. Don't they have spirit running through their veins?

I would really like Levi or anyone for that matter to identify the spiritual giants in today's world. Are they in the church?

Can any apologist on this board make a case for GBH? Monson? Faust? Oaks? Bednar? Are these men shaking up the world?

Did Howard W. Hunter shake up the world? Benson? SWK? Harold B. Lee? These men were unknown outside of the Mormon world and are now by and large forgotten by the Mormon world.

I am not sure that Mormonism in its' current state can even create "spiritual giants". It seems as though the church just churns out businessmen and bureaucrats. They can't even give us a single nobel prize winner or great artist, let alone a spiritual giant (whatever that is). The church seems pretty soulless to me. Where's the vision?

[_Yoda]

Funny then that amateur and pro apologists should flirt with (actually neck and pet with) these sorts of epistemic claims.

You're a hoot, Tal! LOL

[_Tal Bachman]

Yeah - I'm starting to feel all caliente now!

(trying to regulate my breathing...)

[_Gorman]

One classic of amateur Mormon apologetics derives from the risible efforts of guys like Hugh Nibley, Davis Bitton, Richard Bushman, and Peterson (who never seems to have met an apologetic bandwagon he didn't attempt to hoist himself on to), to cast doubt on the entire enterprise of knowing in the first place. Dudes like Benjamin McGuire actually seem to think they're not nuts, defending an organization whose leaders continue to announce that "they know beyond a shadow of a doubt" that Mormonism is true, whose "most correct book on earth" contains the oft-cited "Moroni's promise", who sponsor monthly TESTIMONY meetings, etc., by announcing that "no one really knows anything, anyway". A few references to Karl Popper, a few to Thomas Kuhn, a few to Immanuel Kant, and they're off and running. (And this, despite the fact that they're typing on to a laptop computer connected via wireless to a world wide web, intermittently using a cell phone, etc.). (Funny how the human race's inability to ever know anything could have ever resulted in the human race knowing more now than it did 500 years ago...hmmmm!).

I will not address whether this practice is counterproductive or not, but the argument that we don't know anything has some merit to it. I have put in bold the part that I think does not relate to your argument. I understand that we cannot say we don't know anything, but it is perfectly fair to say that we know extremely little. The only knowledge that we have (how to make a laptop computer or a cell phone, or how to warm up a frozen pizza, etc.) is quite useless when discussing anything really important, such as the fundamental questions that religions attempt to answer. It is of this type of knowledge that I imagine these people you mentioned were talking about. Scientific theories that may one day start to approach the realm where these types of questions may possibly be answered are unsure of themselves, and full trust in them cannot be given.

[_grayskull]

First of all, I agree with Tal that a certain faction of apologists, or a certain subset of internet Mormons, undercut the possibility of a testimony. Sometimes I think they aren't even entirely unaware of what they're doing and probably nudge each other in F&TM whenever a member who learned the gospel via Sunday school rather than their DSL connection expresses what they know.

I completely disagree with PhysicsGuy. I think the knowledge of toilet flushing is far more important than the "fundamental questions religion attempts to answer". And religion does worse than philosophy in trying to answer non-emperical questions. And to the extent that religion tries to tell us things philosophy or science would be helpless to, we need to be primed in the first place by religion in order to think we actually have a need for it. "How did everything come to be?" might be a question that all three try to answer, religion certainly trailing in last as to what kind of meaningful information it can provide. But where religion would dominate is in questions like, "How can man overcome the effects of sin?" It is true that neither science or philosophy can answer questions like these. But it's also true that this isn't really a fundamental question, and it only is a question because some religious nut made up something prior to and lobbied intensively to get it on the list of Most Important Questions.

[_Gorman]

First of all, I agree with Tal that a certain faction of apologists, or a certain subset of internet Mormons, undercut the possibility of a testimony. Sometimes I think they aren't even entirely unaware of what they're doing and probably nudge each other in F&TM whenever a member who learned the gospel via Sunday school rather than their DSL connection expresses what they know.

I completely disagree with PhysicsGuy. I think the knowledge of toilet flushing is far more important than the "fundamental questions religion attempts to answer". And religion does worse than philosophy in trying to answer non-emperical questions. And to the extent that religion tries to tell us things philosophy or science would be helpless to, we need to be primed in the first place by religion in order to think we actually have a need for it. "How did everything come to be?" might be a question that all three try to answer, religion certainly trailing in last as to what kind of meaningful information it can provide. But where religion would dominate is in questions like, "How can man overcome the effects of sin?" It is true that neither science or philosophy can answer questions like these. But it's also true that this isn't really a fundamental question, and it only is a question because some religious nut made up something prior to and lobbied intensively to get it on the list of Most Important Questions.

You bring up a good point. If one were to reject the personal importance of fundamental questions in the first place and just choose to ignore them, then the toilet flushing knowledge is all that is important.

Certainly there are some fundamental questions that only religions try to answer (such as your example on overcoming sin), but these are questions that are further down the line. An individual must first answer the more fundamental ones in a way that is satisfactory to himself. I imagine both science and philosophy have similar questions that are applicable only to those who accept their respective answers to the more fundamental questions first.

As to your assertion that religion is "trailing in last" as to its ability to answer these fundamental questions, that appears to be merely a personal opinion because there certainly appears to be no verifiability in any of these questions.

[_Gazelam]

Just in case that doesn't work, the point was (not that it was a big, serious post) was that amateur Mormon apologetic efforts are as embarrassingly counterproductive (though cruder) than the slicker attempts of the pros. And yes, there are professional Mormon apologists - Hinckley himself has said that.

The point about testimonies is that IF "knowledge is not possible", then automatically, a testimony - as it is conceived of by most members - is also not possible. Funny then that amateur and pro apologists should flirt with these sorts of epistemic claims.

In regards to apologists, don't you think that all these various individuals are at different levels of understanding? Lets say you got online on a historical forum, and were seeking an answer regarding an event in the civil war. Your going to get various answers. One viewpoint form a southern, another from a northern. Maybe a decendent of a slave is on the forum and will throw in their two cents. Who to say in regards to a religious question what studies the apologist has made. The gospel is pretty vast, and theres all sorts of resources out there. I myself am reading Fawn Brodies book for the first time, even though I've studied the gospel for years. I have never made any serious attempts at studying anything regarding the Millinium. I will comment on it, but if oyu want an in depth sort of answer, youd be better asking someone other than myself.

Does that mean that when I come on a forum such as this I should just keep my mouth shut when I see a glaring inaccuracy being bandied about? if you want serious hardcore apologists, then you can seek them out, if you want amateurs, you comer to places like this or MADB. I don't see how you can possibly say that any religious discussion is counterproductive. There is a mountain of good solid studies on just about any gospel topic you can name. I have shelves full. What question do you feel hasnt been answered to your satisfaction?


In regards to the Holy Ghost. Finding the Holy Ghost and learnign how to receive revelation is the entire point of the gospel. The Holy Ghost is, in fact, everything. The end of the first missionary discussion is a challenge to the investigator to learn how to receive answers from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is then given as a gift at baptism with the challenge to learn how to keep him with you. The Holy Ghost then sanctifies and stretchs that person, preparing them for their eventual resurection.

There are things that are only known by way of the spirit. It is impossible to have a testimony of God at all without a witness of the Spirit. There are those of coarse who limp along on the testimony of others, but those testimonies are weak and unable to stand when someone comes along and challenges them.

Knowledge of God is not possible without a testimony. That is why Faith has to be challenged on a basic level, like asking if the Book of Mormon is true. Once that basic witness is held and experienced, then you can build upon it. Theres an old Jewish saying, there is no stirrign above until there is a stirring below. Faith has to be excercised if you want a sign for God.

You have to reach out and knock on the door.

[_Jersey Girl]

Tal,

Do you think that the amateur apologists handle the issues any better or worse than you did?

Jersey Girl

[_Tal Bachman]

Physicsguy wrote:

the argument that we don't know anything has some merit to it.

No it doesn't - not even close.

I understand that we cannot say we don't know anything, but it is perfectly fair to say that we know extremely little

.

Physicsguy:

If we know "extremely little", then we "KNOW" "extremely little", and that means that even you concede that knowledge is possible. Since you concede that, your claim that "the argument that we don't know anything has some merit" can only be ridiculous.

You mention the sorts of "fundamental questions" that religion attempts to answer. I agree that they are important questions, and I would like to know the answer to them as much as you would. Two quick points:

I don't know that they are inherently unscientific questions at all. Their answers may be far away, but there is no reason in principle why the question of, say, how or why life began shouldn't be a question answerable through the same sorts of efforts which have given us answers to other questions. Mormons should believe this more than anyone, as it happens, for they believe that God is a tangible "personage of flesh and bone", who lives near a real star (Kolob). Mormons also believe that the soul or spirit is material.

The other point is that hypothesizing answers to these questions is not equivalent to answering them; but hypothesizing is all that anyone can do right now, even religionists. "Religious" answers, then, have no more reason to be believed than non-religious answers. For example, what leg up on the secular man does a priest have when tackling "how should we live?". None at all. And if any corroboration of an answer can ever come, it must come through not some other assertion by some other priest, but by something like evidence - something real, quantifiable, comprehensible.... You know?

Another way of putting this is like this: Anyone can suggest an "answer" to one of these big question; but the real questions are, Is this answer really true? What reason is there to believe it? How would we know if it were true?, etc. Simply announcing some answer or other does nothing toward these necessary subsequent questions, does it? I might say, "alien sasquatches created the world", and my answer would have the same reason to be believed (namely, none) as "the spirit of the man who would become Jesus of Nazareth created the world". We still have no reason to imagine we are any closer to "the answer" to this one, regardless of what emotional response we might have to any particular answer.

About whether I was worse than amateur apologists in defending Mormonism...it's hard to say. I like to think I was better, and I certainly don't ever remember trying to defend Mormonism by referring to arguments which posit the impossibility of knowledge (since that's totally contradictory), but I don't know. Certainly I played a lot of mind games on myself, like we all did. Coggins7 sometimes reminds me a bit of my former self, that era during which I had convinced myself that Mormonism really made total sense, and that without it, nothing at all would make sense. And I think I would even have stayed that way forever, were it not for my stint as Gospel Doctrine teacher, and a little problem I stumbled upon early in my lesson preps, which I'd never known was a problem before (Joseph Smith's Book of Moses).