Peterson Misleading Again

[_Daniel Peterson]

Harmony:

I don't want to gross you out, but I appreciate the stance you took in your exchange with antishock8, above.

-dcp

[_truth dancer]

In my experience, most people really don't drop out of activity because of "ideas." They do so because they prefer waterskiing on Sunday, like a cool beer in the evening, get pregnant out of marriage and simply fade away, want to sleep in, etc. This seems to me so obvious as to be wholly uncontroversial. You can try to portray it as reasoned dissent from Mormon teachings, but it doesn't seem to me genuinely to rise to that level.

Weird.

I'm recalling the many friends and acquaintances I have who have left the church and I can't think of one who didn't leave because of serious issues with doctrine/belief/teachings.

I'm sure there are those (although I do not know of any) who are inactive because they don't like church and it doesn't benefit their lives, (I don't see this as a sin by the way), but in terms of disbelief, virtually everyone I can think of has disagreements with the fundamental teachings/doctrines/beliefs.

Dan, would you agree that LDS people leave (disbelieve) their religion for the same reasons other believers stop believing in their various faith traditions? Or do you think LDS believers are different.

~dancer~

[Guest]

My understanding of Christian doctrine is that all have fallen short of the glory of God and are therefore in need of the Atonement. If this is the case, anyone who leaves the LDS Church is a sinner, just as anyone who stays in the Church is a sinner. It seems to me to be too convenient, therefore, when LDS people attribute to others sin as a reason for their having left. Unless someone specifically says, "I left because I could not keep the commandments and did not want to try or to repent," maybe it is best to leave the sin box unchecked on the "reasons for leaving" form.

After all, as beastie argues, disbelief in the LDS Church can lead to different lifestyle choices. It is not necessarily the sin that lead to the disbelief or departure. It would seem to me to be safer to withhold judgment, in any case. Too often I have seen LDS people look for the sin first, as it is the only explanation that seems to make sense to many of them.

[_antishock8]

The 1st Watson letter exists, with proof that it exists were that to be required. Thus there is no credibility problem associated with the 1st letter or the possessers of that letter (who are the Tanners, if I'm reading this correctly).

It seems to me that the problem with the 2nd Watson letter is that there is no proof, outside the word of a few selected individuals with a vested interest in maintaining its existence, that the letter does indeed exist. Thus the credibility of the 2nd letter and the witnesses to the 2nd letter is suspect.

Not really. Blah blah blah... Obfuscate obfuscate obfuscate...

Solving this problem is simple: produce the 2nd letter. Not a copy, not the text... produce the letter itself and all these questions go away. Don't produce the letter itself, and the questions and disbelief will continue, and the credibility of the both the letter and the witnesses will continue to be called into question.

Not, I think, blah blah blah... Obfuscate obfuscte obfuscate...

Color me.... Shocked... SHOCKED I tells ya... That the liar can't produce evidence of his claim. SHOCKED I tells ya. And yet, Harmony gets mad at me. Jesus Christ.

Man. All these assholes have to do is backup their claims.

Show us the Golden Plates. The historical and academic gains would be tremendous. Funny how God doesn't want that particular piece of humanity to be discovered. Ever.

Show us the missing scrolls. Ah. You can't. You won't. But they exist!!! "Trust God.", says one deceiver. "He's misinformed, trust me.", says the other. You people.

Show us the 2nd Letter. Funny how that purported letter is lost in a messy office... Somewhere. Funny how that works.

Show us. Show us. Show us. Demanding proof of an outrageous claim is deemed outrageous itself by the con man, the liar, the deceiver.

Show us, Dan. But you won't. Your friend won't, either. But damned if you won't keep making that claim, though. That claim, combined with a lack of proof, makes you a liar. Sorry. It just does. And no, it's not our problem for not being credulous enough to trust you, your friend, or your employer.

[_Jersey Girl]

My understanding of Christian doctrine is that all have fallen short of the glory of God and are therefore in need of the Atonement. If this is the case, anyone who leaves the LDS Church is a sinner, just as anyone who stays in the Church is a sinner. It seems to me to be too convenient, therefore, when LDS people attribute to others sin as a reason for their having left. Unless someone specifically says, "I left because I could not keep the commandments and did not want to try or to repent," maybe it is best to leave the sin box unchecked on the "reasons for leaving" form.

After all, as beastie argues, disbelief in the LDS Church can lead to different lifestyle choices. It is not necessarily the sin that lead to the disbelief or departure. It would seem to me to be safer to withhold judgment, in any case. Too often I have seen LDS people look for the sin first, as it is the only explanation that seems to make sense to many of them.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Please don't make sense, Trevor. It creeps me out.

[_Mister Scratch]

In my experience, most people really don't drop out of activity because of "ideas." They do so because they prefer waterskiing on Sunday, like a cool beer in the evening, get pregnant out of marriage and simply fade away, want to sleep in, etc. This seems to me so obvious as to be wholly uncontroversial. You can try to portray it as reasoned dissent from Mormon teachings, but it doesn't seem to me genuinely to rise to that level.

Does a failure to believe the basic Joseph Smith story count as dropping out for "ideas" or "sin"? What about discovery of "unsavory" or "shocking" facts related to Church history or doctrine?

[_Trevor]

I understand your complaint to a certain degree, antishock8. I too have often been frustrated by the number of missing pieces of the puzzle that must be assumed to exist in apologetic arguments.

But, seriously now, do you honestly believe that Hamblin and Peterson would forge a letter from the secretary to the First Presidency and expect to get away with it?

[_mikwut]

Beastie,

I agree with the Muslim example you provided, sure its true. From both sides of the discourse I think it is true. From the believing Muslim I see nothing wrong with continuing to believe that sin has caused the apostasy. In the alternative, from the nonbeliever I can affirm and recognize that she thinks her family is ridiculous and sin had nothing to do with it. Both can be consistent, both could be right, both could be wrong and one or the other could be wrong, but both are consistent positions. Viewing the world from completely different fundamental positions creates just that. It is only when one or the other insists that the other is foolish, lying and/or intellectually dishonest or in denial and insists on the other recognizing this that any problem arises (of course this assumes one side isn't being dishonest), and that is the problem I see with your and Daniel's discourse. Why would you think that you could convince him otherwise? And, why would either of you think the other is dishonest or insincere?

I think the deeper and more interesting position for me is the one regarding "sin". We do all sin, even you keep a moral compass that absent a deity still allows for you to stray from it. My interest lies in, do our beliefs stem from our actions or the other way around or the more probable - both? I don't think you hold all your beliefs because of pure intellectual rigor, nor do I, nor do I think DCP does. Many of our beliefs are just there, because of how we live, I think the Mormon position, even if it is expressed cartoonishly at times expresses this reality. This is why I would answer your query of "motivated reasoning" as - sure you bet, and what is wrong with that? I think all utilize it.

Now, I think a positive Mormon belief should carry an understanding and an affirmation that one can and does at times leave or lose faith due to purely intellectual reasons. My perspective of this, which can be agreed upon or not, is that many people have either not placed themselves in the appropriate environment to recognize the spirit and develop genuine spiritual skill in attunement, recognition and resonance with the spirit. A way that that individual can develop this skill is by learning and living completely without it, and by learning what the spirit is 'not' can lead to what it is, and this could take years. Conversely, many a Mormon could learn from the likes of you and others on how to develop their critical thinking skills and this need not be a faith eroding exercise.

I do affirm critics often can be viewed as not letting the other speak for themselves, I am saddened by that fact and wish it weren't true.

You say communication between the two sides is hopeless in your opinion. I really wish you would reconsider that, both sides stubbornly not viewing from the others position creates hopelessness. There are points of just fundamental disagreement which shouldn't be confused with offense.

Regards, mikwut[/quote]

[_Trevor]

Please don't make sense, Trevor. It creeps me out.

Sometimes, creepily enough, hell does freeze over.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Mikwut,

My perspective of this, which can be agreed upon or not, is that many people have either not placed themselves in the appropriate environment to recognize the spirit and develop genuine spiritual skill in attunement, recognition and resonance with the spirit.

Who do you place in this category?

Former Scientologist, former FLDS, former Catholics, former Muslims? Or just former LDS believers?

And what is the "appropriate environment to recognize the spirit and develop genuine spiritual skill in attunement, recognition, and resonance with the spirit"?

Also, most former believers here have once been LDS so I think we "get" the mindset of believers. :-)

~dancer~