What are you willing to change an opinion about?

[_honorentheos]

I've noticed it is very rare for anyone on this board to say something like, "You know, that's a good point. I'm going to look into that." It's even more rare to hear this same person follow up with, "So, I looked into this and decided that you are right and I was wrong."

Is there anything out there you are even willing to change your position on? If we can figure out what those are, maybe we could discuss them.

I'm willing to change my opinion on:

1. The existence of God
2. Is it ethical to lie in a TRI
3. LDS is well positioned to grant females the priesthood
4. Generally, LDS provides a net positive for youth
5. It is possible to be intellectually stimulated at church

You?

Good post, zee.

I think I could be convinced that God either does or does not exist if the agnosticism were washed from my eyes.

I think that I could change my view on just about every political position I currently hold within a few degrees, but not to either extreme. I'm not sure why. Maybe I can't be convinced that moderation is better than extremism.

I think someone could convince me that Romney or Huntsman would be a better president than Obama, yet it hasn't happened yet. I don't think a person could convince me that Michele Bachmann or any tea-party candidate would be. I think that's related to my point above.

I think someone may be able to convince me that religion is more valuable than I current think it is. It would take less logical argument and more demonstration though. Sadly, it would be pretty hard to convince me that human nature would allow this to happen. I'd be pleasantly surprised if it did, though.

I'm not sure a person could convince me that philosophy degrees are worth the paper they are printed on. Maybe. But like religion, it would take more doing and less talking. So far, I'd put my money on religion winning that race.

[_stemelbow]

I've noticed it is very rare for anyone on this board to say something like, "You know, that's a good point. I'm going to look into that." It's even more rare to hear this same person follow up with, "So, I looked into this and decided that you are right and I was wrong."

Is there anything out there you are even willing to change your position on? If we can figure out what those are, maybe we could discuss them.

I'm willing to change my opinion on:

1. The existence of God

Its tough to imagine I'd change my opinion on this. I'm ears though, at least I feel I am.

2. Is it ethical to lie in a TRI

I don't know if there is a particular justification for someone lying in this case. One might be made and I'd listen.

3. LDS is well positioned to grant females the priesthood

I'm open to it.

4. Generally, LDS provides a net positive for youth

I don't' know. Many people's experiences, particularly youth, are quite different. I don't now if there's a net positive for every youth. Some youth have probably been victims of abuse because of their affiliation with the Church. I can't imagine that provides a net positive for anyone.

5. It is possible to be intellectually stimulated at church

You?

Anything's possible on this front. I don't see how anyone will make me stop and say, "hey its absolutely not possible for anyone to be intellectually stimulated at church". So on this, you got me. I'm not so willing to cahnge my mind.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Z,

I've often admitted to being in error, or have been willing to see someone's point. I'm amazed, though, at how staunchly innoculated Mopologists are to humility. It's a strange character trait.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Ceeboo]

Morning Zeeeeeeeeeez,

I've noticed it is very rare for anyone on this board to say something like, "You know, that's a good point. I'm going to look into that." It's even more rare to hear this same person follow up with, "So, I looked into this and decided that you are right and I was wrong."

Rare indeed.

And when the topic of discussion/debate is rooted in religion/beliefs/faiths, I would suggest that (in many/most cases) the "very rare" should be changed to "very, very rare".

What is very interesting (to me anyway) is how much it depends on WHEN (the timing) you bump into someone (what part of their jouney they are on at that moment) that could/does/will change or impact the dialouge/discussion that takes place.
(Wether that is me, Runtu, Kevin G, Stem, Zeezrom, etc, etc, our current opinions/beliefs/perspectives are what influences the firm stands we all take. And those "firm stances" we now represent may indeed, and often are, very different than the ones we may have displayed in the past and/or might in the future). Very interesting/telling, in my opinion.

Is there anything out there you are even willing to change your position on? If we can figure out what those are, maybe we could discuss them.

Clearly, in my opinion, the answer to your question (wether people would freely admit it or not) is an enormous yes!
Why? Because for as long as history has been recording (and currently still taking place) people have been changing their position on things across the entire spectrum. One needs to look no further than this board (a very small corner of a gigantic sandbox) to see examples of people who have clearly changed their position on things.

Anyhooo, way cool thread, Zeeeez.
I look forward to hearing what others contribute here.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_zeezrom]

Nothing about those bothers me.

BC,

I understand. You don't want to let on that anything bothers you because you've taken a firm stand. That's fine.

[_bcspace]

I think it's intellectually dishonest to expect people to change their minds just because you have a different opinion don't you?

I wonder? If a person sincerely believes in a position and the underlying logic that supports that position, why wouldn't that person be honest in feeling that another person could be convinced enough to change their mind on the subject?

I'd argue this doesn't make a person dishonest. It does, however, reflect on their understanding and experience with people. There's a reason grumpy old men have become such - they seem to be equally convinced of their own rightness and other's incompetence in coming to that position. I generally think life has dealt a little too justly with such people.

God grant us all a portion of optimism despite it all.

That's not really what happens in antiMormonism though. Ignoring evidence or making up evidence seems to be the order of the day in that case.

[_jon]

I would be willing to change my (low) opinion of the use of Church funds but that would take more openness than the Church is ever likely to cede.

[_honorentheos]

I wonder? If a person sincerely believes in a position and the underlying logic that supports that position, why wouldn't that person be honest in feeling that another person could be convinced enough to change their mind on the subject?

I'd argue this doesn't make a person dishonest. It does, however, reflect on their understanding and experience with people. There's a reason grumpy old men have become such - they seem to be equally convinced of their own rightness and other's incompetence in coming to that position. I generally think life has dealt a little too justly with such people.

God grant us all a portion of optimism despite it all.

That's not really what happens in anti-Mormonism though. Ignoring evidence or making up evidence seems to be the order of the day in that case.

HI BC -

You jumped fairly quickly from a discussion about human nature to anti-mormon claims. You suggest above that the majority of anti-mormon claims consist of either ignoring evidence or making up evidence. In the interest of staying as close to the OP as possible, would you be willing to discuss a specific issue for the purpose of showing how you do not ignore evidence or make up evidence in order to maintain your current position? I think it would be interesting.

The example I choose, knowing some of the evidence that is likely to be brought forward by both sides, is the nature of Joseph Smith’s relationships with his polygamous wives. Specifically, that there was a sexual component to these relationships in at least some cases and in the best documented ones it included already married women such as Presinda Huntington or young women such as the Partridge sisters.

These women’s later testimonies such as were given during the temple lot case trial appear to clearly state that at least some of them did, indeed, have sexual relations with Joseph Smith. Yet my observation is you and a couple of other believers on the board discount these testimonies.

So, based on your statement above the question becomes - how is the evidence being misused here? And what evidence are you using to support your position?

To make it slightly easier for you, I am going to cite what could be considered one of your anti-Mormon sources as a soft ball for you to hit out of the park. Provided you are correct in your previous assertion, of course.

Typical Anti-Mormon Source

[_beastie]

I'd change my mind about any of them.

It would be far harder for me to change my mind about politics than religion.

[_Tchild]

I've noticed it is very rare for anyone on this board to say something like, "You know, that's a good point. I'm going to look into that." It's even more rare to hear this same person follow up with, "So, I looked into this and decided that you are right and I was wrong."

Is there anything out there you are even willing to change your position on? If we can figure out what those are, maybe we could discuss them.

I'm willing to change my opinion on:

1. The existence of God
2. Is it ethical to lie in a TRI
3. LDS is well positioned to grant females the priesthood
4. Generally, LDS provides a net positive for youth
5. It is possible to be intellectually stimulated at church

You?

There are few things that I have considered:

1) Mormonism contains "truths" helpful to advancing the evolution of human awareness and consciousness. I don't believe they are literal truths, nor are they exclusive...no matter how much the LDS leadership wishes they were. Mormonism is neither better nor worse than other systems, just different, and some find that system of belief useful while others do not.

2) Joseph Smith was truly sincere in what he claimed. While he may have been fully aware of what he knew were lies or fabrications on his part, his intent was more pure (pious fraud).

3) LDS leadership honestly believes that material investments in malls, land, businesses or whatever, is really the wisest use of what they determine to be the "Lord's funds".

4) That a Mormon Presidential candidate would actually be a good president for our country. -boy, I hope that doesn't come back to bite me-

What I will never believe, even if an angel with a flaming sword commands me to believe, is that an angel with a flaming sword commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy...which sort of makes my #2 the most unlikely for me to consider as possible.