There's something strange about 'the Mormon debater'

[_CaliforniaKid]

I don't know about everyone else. I'm mostly trying to keep entertained.

---Is that like watching an r-rated movie for entertainment, even when you're not really supposed to? :P

When you're a master debater it's hard to stop, even if the GA's tell you to.

[_Tal Bachman]

Talking about different theological points is a part of "studying it out in [my] mind."

---Does that mean there's still some question in your mind about whether Smith told the truth about his experiences?

Not every member of the Church enjoys talking about religion as often as those who participate online. Some do, however. Members are taught to trust reason and revelation, and find a road that involves both.

---But in all seriousness, when the most basic tenets of Mormonism simply cannot be reconciled with everything we know about the world, AND basic logic...how much sense does that really make? Aren't you or I kidding ourselves if we think, even for a moment, that "Mormonism is fundamentally compatible with reason"? It requires you to believe (amongst other things) that the sun gets its light from a star called Kolob, that "A equals not A", etc. (?)

The Book of Mormon Jesus criticizes religious "disputations".

(Parenthetically "The Book of Mormon Jesus" is an odd way to state it. It seems more natural to say "In the Book of Mormon, Jesus..." or "according to the Book of Mormon, Jesus..." for what it's worth.) But yes, it's good and often unheeded advice.

---Why is it odd when we're talking about one book's characterization of Jesus? It's like saying "the Homerian Achilles...".

I think that's a pretty broad characterization. I don't see people who leave the Church as either dumb or evil. I know some brilliant people who have left the Church, and I don't view them as "evil" either. I know that's just my personal opinion, however.

---Well, I'm curious to hear your explanations for why people leave the church if not because of some spiritual or cognitive defect. Indulge me. (Also, given all that "sincere of heart" business in Moroni 10...this might be tough!).

Most crucially, to engage in debate is to tacitly concede that (empirically-discernible) facts and logic impose constraints upon what one may justifiably believe; but this is just what Mormonism denies.

How so?

---WHAT?! lol

but any question is decided in the end by "feelings" taken to be divinely-given, and/or simply crediting what "the prophet" said. Hinckley made this point himself in his "Loyalty" GC talk a few years ago.

I'm not familiar with this loyalty talk. Can you link me? I remember a book in which Elder Oaks is talking about reason and revelation, is that what you have in mind?

---"The Lord's Way" I think is the Oaks book you're referring to. I have it and have read it several times: it's a good example of a bright guy trying to make sense out of what, in the end, just doesn't make any sense. Hinckley's "Loyalty" talk was given in the 2003 GC, don't remember which session. But read it carefully...the true thrust of it is actually very disturbing.

So what are all these online Mormon "debaters" even doing, really?

Sometimes I see it as a sort of hobby. Other times as a type of missionary work.

---How many people who have come to acknowledge that Mormonism isn't what it claims, have you "re-converted"?

Other times I see it as a waste of time. (Or combine them, for a waste of time doing missionary work.) Talking about my religion online overall has been a good experience for me. It's broadened my horizon a little. It's led me to interesting new books, articles, viewpoints, etc. that I wouldn't have discovered otherwise. It's also helped form a few new friendships.

---Gotcha

I suppose a similar question could be posed to you, Tal. Why do you spend time online talking about Mormonism?

---Main reason is I'm really interested in psychology, and identifying Bacon's "idols of thought" and how that whole process works....

[_Doctor Steuss]

When you're a master debater it's hard to stop, even if the GA's tell you to.

Indeed. I keep churning out posts like a little factory.

[_John Larsen]

When you're a master debater it's hard to stop, even if the GA's tell you to.

Indeed. I keep churning out posts like a little factory.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to tie your typing hand to the bed post.

[_richardMdBorn]

So be it, but those who have paid the price to “grow into the principle of revelation” are not likely to be very impressed by your insistence that such things are not real. You see, although the calibration process is quite unique to each individual, the revelation received in consequence is quite consistent across the board and has the effect of unifying those who are “tapped in” to the source. Those who have grown “into the principle of revelation” are cognizant of others who are like them. They have seen that there is consistency to what they and others have learned through this unique sensory pathway. They form a whole, and combined as such, they constitute a power you cannot understand and they create a gravity that pulls into their orbit others who are attracted by the light and intelligence they exude. Of course, in any gravitational system, there are both centripetal and centrifugal forces in play. Therefore, while some bodies are drawn to the source, others find themselves repelled by it.

C’est la vie.

If that's the case, then why are so many statements previously considered revelation are now "just the prophet's opinion".

[Guest]

Well, I think everyone's motivation is their own. I'm not sure there's a blanket M.O. you can assign to anyone who chooses to engage in any type of debate. Ultimately, humans are social creatures and simply need to interact with one another. Whether one chooses to gripe about someone's sports team, or yammer on about a religious affiliation it's all the same. A caveat: If the stakes are higher the debates are more robust.

[_Doctor Steuss]

When you're a master debater it's hard to stop, even if the GA's tell you to.

Indeed. I keep churning out posts like a little factory.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to tie your typing hand to the bed post.

Good idea. Next time I'm tempted to make multiple key strokes of my space bar, I will give this a try.

[_why me]

What is the point of debating Mormonism, for believing Mormons?

LDS missionaries are told explicitly not to Bible bash. LDS GA's constantly tell members that conversion "only comes through the sweet spirit of God", not through debate. The Book of Mormon Jesus criticizes religious "disputations". Most Mormons can't help but regard those who have left or rejected Mormonism as either too dumb to understand "the gospel", or too evil to stick with it - making it even more pointless, from the Mormon's perspective, to debate.

Most crucially, to engage in debate is to tacitly concede that (empirically-discernible) facts and logic impose constraints upon what one may justifiably believe; but this is just what Mormonism denies.

Mormon theology might pay lip service to "studying it out in your mind", but any question is decided in the end by "feelings" taken to be divinely-given, and/or simply crediting what "the prophet" said. Hinckley made this point himself in his "Loyalty" GC talk a few years ago.

So what are all these online Mormon "debaters" even doing, really?

What is the point of debating Mormonism, for non-believing Mormons?

Countermos are told repeatedly to scripture bash the Mormons. The countermo leaders constantly tell their following to equate the spirit with a warm fuzzy. Most countermos regard Mormons who stay as either too dumb to understand the truth or too simpleminded, making it even more pointful to debate and attempt to dislodge the Mormon cogdis.

Countermos may be lip service to 'studying it out in your mind' but any questions of spirit feelings as divinely given is mocked and ridiculed regardless if Mormons do study the scriptures. Countermos have their own prophets who they Trump out on their boards and yet, are intolerant to Mormon counter claims thereby showing that their loyality is basically to degrade the LDS religion.

[_Tal Bachman]

TB:

… to engage in debate is to tacitly concede that (empirically-discernible) facts and logic impose constraints upon what one may justifiably believe; but this is just what Mormonism denies.

I perceive no such restraints, for in my defense of my beliefs, I will as easily appeal to the metaphysical as to the empirical, and to regard metaphysical discernment as being, generally speaking, more reliable, in terms of its use as a sensor of fact/truth, than the tools employed in any laboratory. Of course, the inherent difficulty of using metaphysical sensors is the degree of fine calibration required – calibration parameters which seldom have relevance for someone else. We communicate “beyond the veil” on a frequency peculiarly our own, and learn how to make judgments based on the peculiar nature of the signals we discern.

---Hence, the success of science over tarot card reading.

By the way, is it just me, or did you finish this paragraph by undermining your very first words in it? You began by saying that you don't see Mormonism as denying that empirically-established facts and logic impose constraints on what we may justifiably believe, but then ended by championing a wholly occult (in the true sense of the word) "epistemology" - which by definition DOES deny those constraints. You began by disputing my characterization, but ended by agreeing with it. How does that work?

Mormon theology might pay lip service to "studying it out in your mind", but any question is decided in the end by "feelings" taken to be divinely-given, and/or simply crediting what "the prophet" said. Hinckley made this point himself in his "Loyalty" GC talk a few years ago.

Actually, this statement tells us much more about you than it does about the “believers” whose faith you disdain.

---Well, to me that sounds like code for "I haven't read the Hinckley talk you're referring to". Why not go read it?

It is quite apparent that you have had no experience with the kind of metaphysical sensors to which I refer above. And that explains your continued inability to understand the certainty with which many “defenders of the faith” approach these discussions.

---It may pain you to consider that "feeling 100% metaphysical certainty" is not unique to believing Mormons, nor of something reputed by Mormons to be "the Holy Ghost"...just as it might pain you to carefully consider whether "certainty" should really be taken to be the equivalent of knowledge. If someone feels "100% certainty" about something, does that mean he knows it?

All you have to do to feel 100% metaphysical certitude about something is to be human, William. And yes, I've felt the same 100% level of certainty about Mormonism as you have, though I understand how difficult that will be for you to believe right now. I have also come to accept the fact that feeling certain that something is so, is not equivalent to it actually being so.

You have crafted a caricature of what you think these words mean – subjective “feelings” – and you set up this caricature as an object of derision; convinced that there is no substantive reality to something described as “the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you.”
No, in your mind, if it’s not something you can plug in and expect to function immediately according to your expectations, then it has no value. And because you failed to work your way through the process of “calibration,” you ultimately concluded that the tools were useless.

---Do you think it's possible - just possible - that there might be something about this whole issue that you might be missing? That's just a yes or no question. What is the answer?

And yet Joseph Smith (and others) have taught quite clearly that:

“… by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation.”

But, to you, this is all just a fantasy, right?

---Here is what is not fantasy, William: feeling more certain than you do about anything else, that Mormonism is all it claims to be. That's no "fantasy". That is an intensely real experience. So, the question isn't whether it's "real or fantasy"; it is, what exactly should we infer from, and about, that real experience? That question opens up a window to all sorts of considerations, doesn't it?

So be it, but those who have paid the price to “grow into the principle of revelation” are not likely to be very impressed by your insistence that such things are not real.

---You seem to have mistaken me for someone else...

You see, although the calibration process is quite unique to each individual, the revelation received in consequence is quite consistent across the board and has the effect of unifying those who are “tapped in” to the source. Those who have grown “into the principle of revelation” are cognizant of others who are like them. They have seen that there is consistency to what they and others have learned through this unique sensory pathway. They form a whole, and combined as such, they constitute a power you cannot understand and they create a gravity that pulls into their orbit others who are attracted by the light and intelligence they exude. Of course, in any gravitational system, there are both centripetal and centrifugal forces in play. Therefore, while some bodies are drawn to the source, others find themselves repelled by it.

---This is a wonderful "folk sociology" explanation of all we experienced as Mormons. Yet it neatly sidesteps what to me is the most crucial element of all in that experience, namely, the foundational epistemic questions. Those questions would force us to examine, for example, just how reliable as a "calibration standard", "others agreeing with us" is; and what standards might warrant much greater credibility.

Are you with me so far?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

---Does that mean there's still some question in your mind about whether Smith told the truth about his experiences?

For me it's not really an issue of Smith "telling the truth," I believe he was truthful about speaking with God, angels, having possession of actual gold plates, etc. for example.

---But in all seriousness, when the most basic tenets of Mormonism simply cannot be reconciled with everything we know about the world, AND basic logic...how much sense does that really make?

You're begging the question a few times over. Your approach is showing aspects of that "black and white" thinking I noted while listening to your interview segments with Helen Whitney. Yes, I realize you believe there ain't no angels and visions and gold books. I personally don't subscribe to a strictly positivist or modernist view of reality. We're approaching the same subject from very different angles.

Aren't you or I kidding ourselves if we think, even for a moment, that "Mormonism is fundamentally compatible with reason"? It requires you to believe (amongst other things) that the sun gets its light from a star called Kolob, that "A equals not A", etc. (?)

I believe Mormonism is "fundamentally compatible" with reason. If you mean that Mormonism itself is irrational, I believe even irrationality has to be compatible with reason, else we wouldn't be able to talk about it or dissect it. But I don't believe that Mormonism is irrational, either.

---Why is it odd when we're talking about one book's characterization of Jesus? It's like saying "the Homerian Achilles...".

Just a personal preference. Some people (especially fundamentalist or "evangelical" Christians like to talk about the "Mormon Jesus" and the "Bible Jesus." A distinction which, I believe, is bent on poisoning the well rather than elucidation.

---Well, I'm curious to hear your explanations for why people leave the church if not because of some spiritual or cognitive defect. Indulge me. (Also, given all that "sincere of heart" business in Moroni 10...this might be tough!).

Well, my aunt left because her husband did, and said if she didn't leave too it would be splitsville. She really loves him, though, so I wouldn't feel right about saying that choice was based on a "defect."

Breaking it down to a "spiritual or cognitive defect" is much too broad in my opinion. Everyone has some sort of spiritual and cognitive defects to work with, so just having those isn't the issue. Additionally, some people who I really believe have some sort of spiritual or cognitive defect actually join or remain in the Church. So again, that alone can't be it. "Apostasy" to use the common term is an interesting study, though. Maybe better suited for its own thread. Some people don't like to invest the time. Others have a higher purpose elsewhere for the time being. There are countless reasons why people leave, probably as many reasons as people.

---WHAT?! lol

It seems you want to deny that LDS believe they can utilize "facts and logic" in all things spiritual. I disagree with this. LDS can, and most often do, believe that facts, reason, logic, whatever, are involved in the spiritual process.

---"The Lord's Way" I think is the Oaks book you're referring to. I have it and have read it several times: it's a good example of a bright guy trying to make sense out of what, in the end, just doesn't make any sense. Hinckley's "Loyalty" talk was given in the 2003 GC, don't remember which session. But read it carefully...the true thrust of it is actually very disturbing.

I skimmed through it but didn't see it as "disturbing." (for what it's worth, I find your take a little disturbing. Not because it somehow frightens my little Mormon mind, but because it seems to be extremely fundamentalist in a positivist way, of course. I also don't want you to come over to my house and blow me up. ;))

---How many people who have come to acknowledge that Mormonism isn't what it claims, have you "re-converted"?

First, I don't see missionary work in terms of how many people I have converted or "re-converted." I have seen one woman, however, who struggled with some difficulties return to activity. People who have left the Church aren't really my "target audience," per se. But missionary work from my perspective involves a lot more than convincing someone that the "Church is true," or that they need to be more active, or that they need to get baptized, or whatever. Sometimes missionary work can be helping people who want to leave the Church leave. It can include helping an Evangelical Christian deal with a problem they have in their own faith. It can involve helping someone cope with a spouse who believes in the Church while they themselves do not. Missionary work in that sense involves a lot more than scoring "converts."

---Main reason is I'm really interested in psychology, and identifying Bacon's "idols of thought" and how that whole process works....

I suppose Mormonism would provide an interesting grounding for your study, since you've had direct personal experience with it.