Do they know it's not true?

[_Gadianton]

The faith of the GA's can be explained by a bizarre intersection of cognitive dissonance, the Stockholm syndrome, MBA anti-intellectualism, and the "lonely leader" preservation of the greater good phenomena.

Cog dis. They've put so much time and effort into it, they will see the rewards proportional to their sacrafice, not the tangible benefits. People work harder for less money.

Stockholm. After a lifetime of abuse and psychological manipulation by the church, they come to sympathize with it proportional to its captivity and the degree to which it imposes its authority.

MBA. One of my ultra-TBM econ teachers at BYU lamented his former position at a highly respected MBA school because MBAs were the most "intellectually disinterested" crowd he'd ever encountered. They are pragmatic and success hungry. This enables the previous two psychological issues to remain unchecked.

lonely leader. One of my mission presidents taught this principle. Leadership is lonely, because the commoners can't relate to the struggle of the leaders perplexing devotion to the Good. But it's essentially an elitist perspective, that the masses are on the verge of self-destruction if the leader can't keep them occupied, even if that means withholding information they aren't ready for. After all, being a cut above the common man, the "lonely leader" can accept anything, right? Which justifies MBA opportunistic anti-intellectualism which enables cog dis and stockholm to do maximum damage.

It's really, messed up, ain't it?

[_Boaz & Lidia]

So lets examine the record. Joseph Smith bore bold testimony of the appearance to him of the resurrected Christ and the resurrected Moroni, and others.

Reeeaaahhhhiiiillly? When? oh yeah years and years and revisions LATER! That is NOT BOLD but belated bullshist.

Did everyone who heard his powerful testimony take notice and join? No, most of them took notice and then became hostile, even to the point of violence.

When you heard the FLDS were building a new town and temple in Eldorado Texas, what did you do?

Here is some ketchup for you to put on that foot next time you shove it in your mouth. The ketchup will help kill the taste.

[Guest]

And it is that you are now so firmly backed into the corner of defending your loss of testimony that you will not even admit that your understanding might be wrong.

And when, pray tell, are you going to admit that your understanding might be wrong?

I can't count high enough to log the number of times I've seen critics admit they might be wrong. I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen apologists do that.

Harmony,

It’s a characteristic difference between those who imagine truth by assertion and those who recognize that skeptical review of position is wise.

Science uses the latter. Science reaches tentative conclusions and leaves open the possibility and even the probability that new information may come to light and require modification of a previous view.

That is a fundamental difference between religious pundits and research scholars.

JAK

Well, we're mostly religious pundits here, JAK. In case you haven't noticed. No wonder you can't argue from our worldview. You aren't absolute enough to be a religious pundit.

Harmony,

You have both my understanding and my sympathies as a victim of religious, superstitious indoctrination. I work with the National Historical Society as well as our local branch of the local Historical Society. At both levels we understand how difficult it is to document the artifacts we collect.

We do not rely on truth by assertion in these organizations. Rather we take joy in authentic documentation and evidence for the many artifacts including written ones.

A “world view” from within the confines of a given narrow window of religious dogma is an unreliable world view.

Those (like you) who attempt to function there do so in a world that never was and never will be.

And so, you deserve sympathy and understanding.

Without question, we are a product of our heredity & environment. We can escape neither. The fortunate ones are those who have had the exposure to the most information. Perhaps, you are not familiar with the Amish (or maybe you are). They live more in the eastern and eastern Midwest. They too have a “world view” which is in stark contrast with a view which is replete with information and documentation.

Just for your own information you might read a little about the Amish and “the plain people” and Amish Life.

They live in a very isolated world with their own religious mythology firmly rooted in the Bible (as are other Christian denominations).

Like you, they believe the myths, practices, and doctrines of their religious faith. And like you, theirs is a very narrow view which resists and rejects perspective of “world view” which is contrary to their own.

The Amish are not interested in the National Historical Society, but the Historical Society has some interest in them. Yet with all that, the Amish are studied (objectively). The Amish people and practices are but one aspect of interest for Historical Societies near Amish communities.

I’m somewhat skeptical that you are “mostly religious pundits” at MBD. Perhaps you are, but I read much descent among those who clearly believe different things. Few on MBD, for example, believe what you believe. They challenge you. And so they are prone to invent their own religious myth in contrast with the official Mormon doctrines.

Historians and philosophy are open to evidence and are open to revision of conclusion if the evidence supports a different perspective or view.

The problem with those with blind faith, such as you, is that you are closed to information except wherein you can make a fragment fit your “world view.”

I find interesting the evolution of religious views, doctrines, and dogmas. Prior to the 1800s, there was no such thing as LDS or the spins which resulted from a variety of circumstances at that particular time in American history as it was emerging and evolving.

While historians do have much consensus, they arrive at that consensus as a result of thorough, thoughtful investigation of all the evidence which they can accumulate. They would like their conclusions to be reliable and valid. They do not start with the conclusion. Historical documentation would be as flawed as religion if it began with the conclusion.

JAK

[_charity]

Jak and sethbag, You have both attacked my world view as being out of touch, wrong, etc. ignorant, etc. Which of course, means that you have some superior vantage point with which to evaluate my world view. Rather arrogant of you, while chiding me for my "arrogance" in continuing to maintain my belief in the midst of all this supposed truth and enlightenment that you spew forth.

I have heard a prophet, seer, and revelator bear solemn witness to the reality of the Savior. I know what he said. If he didn't use the words you wanted to hear, or if you never put yourself in a place where you can hear the witness, that is your responsibility.

And I think it is quite hypocritical to demand that a person explain something to you in specific language when you wouldn't believe him if he did!

[_Runtu]

Jak and sethbag, You have both attacked my world view as being out of touch, wrong, etc. ignorant, etc. Which of course, means that you have some superior vantage point with which to evaluate my world view. Rather arrogant of you, while chiding me for my "arrogance" in continuing to maintain my belief in the midst of all this supposed truth and enlightenment that you spew forth.

This is ironic, since you did exactly the same to me, calling my worldview arrogant and recalcitrant, going so far as to suggest that I think my views are infallible. You have no right to call JAK and Seth on the carpet for doing exactly what you did.

[_charity]

I know that Joseph Smith was a good and moral man. And when there is something that appears to conflict with that, it is either misunderstood or false. I know that Joseph died a martyr's death, approved by God. That is what charity knows.

This statement encapsulates why I will never go back to Mormonism. In charity's mind, there is not even the remotest possibility that Joseph Smith did something wrong or immoral; nope, anything that he did that appears immoral or unethical is "either misunderstood or false." (Who says Mormons don't believe in prophetic infallibility, by the way? Apparently, at least one does.)

The problem here is that you have to take things that are obviously wrong (promising exaltation to families in exchange for teenage daughters, marrying other women behind your wife's back, and marrying other men's wives behind the husbands' backs, lying to the public and to the church about polygamy, etc.) and say, "I don't care what the facts are. I simply won't allow myself to believe anything wrong of the beloved prophet." And so you swallow your conscience and defend what deep inside you know is wrong. LDS scriptures talk about being "past feeling" and having a "seared" conscience. And in the statement from charity, that's exactly what we see.

I will not sacrifice my conscience to any man or belief system. If I'm damned for refusing to countenance evil, so be it.

So, you tell people they have seared consciences, and swallow their consciences when you don't think you are absolutley correct? I'd never say anything like that to a person if I thought I could be wrong.

I guess you weren't just having a little fun with that stupid picture. Don't bother to pm me again, john. I really don't want to continue any kind of communication with you under the circumstances.

[_Sethbag]

That is rather rich coming from someone willing to stand up and tell us that she knows, not just believes, that her worldview is true and accurate because she feels good about it. Of course, it's "way more" than feelings - the Spirit must be like super-duper feelings, on steroids.

[_charity]

This "you are more arrogant than I am" contest is silly. We will have to wait a few years to find out the results.

[_BishopRic]

This "you are more arrogant than I am" contest is silly. We will have to wait a few years to find out the results.

Okay...Charity, will you please 'come back' and tell us the results after your death?

[_charity]

This "you are more arrogant than I am" contest is silly. We will have to wait a few years to find out the results.

Okay...Charity, will you please 'come back' and tell us the results after your death?

I'll come back, but I don't think you will be able to hear me.