This statement may apply well to the apologists, but do you really think that hubris is the right word for the average believer who has simply been taught to use the word "know" in this way? For them the whole thing is about divine witness, and they generally don't study ancient history to verify or challenge their position.
No, I don't think hubris is the right term for the average believer. I have slowly grown to conclude, over the years, that the real True Believers (in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word) aren't the average LDS sitting in the pews, but rather the apologists who are aware of all this information, and still continue to believe, and constructs ways to render their claims unfalsifiable.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:No, I don't think hubris is the right term for the average believer. I have slowly grown to conclude, over the years, that the real True Believers (in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word) aren't the average LDS sitting in the pews, but rather the apologists who are aware of all this information, and still continue to believe, and constructs ways to render their claims unfalsifiable.
Well, the term "true believer" is used in so many ways that it sometimes gets confusing. Thanks for clarifying.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
dartagnan wrote:Mormon apologists for the most part, will never believe a killer blow can exist. Pacman over at FAIR said this exact thing when someone asked the TBMs what kind of evidence could there be to dissuade them from the Church's truth claims. He said point blank, "no amount of evidence."
As Jonathan Z. Smith said, and I paraphrase: prophets and kings are made; they are not inherently prophets and kings. What makes them such? A community sets them apart as such.
The Book of Mormon is a sacred text because Mormons hold it as sacred. It is not sacred because an actual angel really visited Joseph Smith and gave him plates of gold bearing a real history of an actual ancient American civilization.
Crazy as it sounds, some apologists, one called Juliann for instance, not only believes exactly as Z. Smith does, but then goes on to nag critics about the definition of a prophet, having something in mind similar to what you've paraphrased. Graduate school had given her privilaged access to this definition, one critics couldn't comprehend.
I don't think this surprises anyone here. We're just sayin'. ;)
Gad,
Crazy as it sounds, some apologists, one called Juliann for instance, not only believes exactly as Z. Smith does, but then goes on to nag critics about the definition of a prophet, having something in mind similar to what you've paraphrased. Graduate school had given her privilaged access to this definition, one critics couldn't comprehend.
Aha. This explains why she refuses to discuss any issue to do with Mormon prophets because critics won't adequately define what a prophet is. I actually did offer her a definition once, based on Mormonism, and she ignored it. Now I know why.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I don't think this surprises anyone here. We're just sayin'. ;)
Gad,
Crazy as it sounds, some apologists, one called Juliann for instance, not only believes exactly as Z. Smith does, but then goes on to nag critics about the definition of a prophet, having something in mind similar to what you've paraphrased. Graduate school had given her privilaged access to this definition, one critics couldn't comprehend.
Aha. This explains why she refuses to discuss any issue to do with Mormon prophets because critics won't adequately define what a prophet is. I actually did offer her a definition once, based on Mormonism, and she ignored it. Now I know why.
Defining or re-defining prophet? Redefinition is a recurring process in Mormon apologetics.
charity wrote:Since my name has been brought up in the thread, I suppose I should do the courteous thing and respond.
What would be a killer blow to the Book of Mormon? Nothing that men can come up with. All the arguments against the historicity are just fried froth. You can't prove a negative. You can prove that the Book of Mormon does describe a real people in a real place when archeological evidence for the place is discovered, or records are discovered and translated by *ahem* non-LDS scholars.
But all the critics can say is that to date there hasn't been any such thing discovered. Hardly a strong argument. Just recently there was a discovery in Mexico city that changed some of the "known" facts about the Aztecs. The whole point of scientific discovery is that it keeps happening. It never is finished.
But the real problem is that when you have a witness from God, it is very hard to deny. Some people do, as witnessed here on this thread even. "Reinterpret their experience" is what some have called it. There are two possiblities. One--the person really is denying the Holy Ghost, which is a very serious thing to do because they know they are doing it. There is no question. That, of course, wouldn't be what they told us. Or else they had some experience they had labeled "the witness of the Spirit" but it wasn't, so it isn't that hard to rethink.
Actually, charity, a negative can be proven. Having said that, you make mention of scientific discovery. How could science prove to you that the Book of Mormon is false? Can you think of any way that could happen in your life time?
Trevor wrote:As Jonathan Z. Smith said, and I paraphrase: prophets and kings are made; they are not inherently prophets and kings. What makes them such? A community sets them apart as such.
Personal note: I've taken a class from Prof. Smith. He's a bit of a madman though a nice one.
Can you differentiate between self-induced feelings and whatever it is that you think "comes" from God? Once I realized that it was impossible for me to do so, that pretty much threw a killer blow to one of my favorite apologetic lines. Ultimately it is circular reasoning anyway. It is from God. How do you know? Because the missionaries say good feelings wil be from God.
I mean even if you do hear voices in your head how do you know it is from God? Because the LDS missionaries tell us so and we believe it because we want to. Confirmation bias and a social need for acceptance helps us blind ourselves to the fact that we have been hearing voices and feeling feelings like these all our lives. We just didn't have anyone explain to us where they came from, from an objective, biological point of view. Nothing about the Mormon testimony cannot be rationally explained via science. Nothing.
The emotion factor is generally considered a mystery for humans and the LDS fairy tale version of it all makes many feel like, "Yea, wouldn't it be cool if that were true"? So once they have convinced themselves that their self-induced feelings of goodness is actuallyGod's way of "confirming" whatever it is the missionaries told them, it is all downhill from there.
I don't know about others. My testimony is not based on a few 'good feelings'. Others say that that is how they got it. I find this borderline unfathomable. I have no frame of reference to relate to that.
I'm sure God has talked to me before and I've missed it. I'm sure weak impressions from God I have written off as my own reasoning. This is due to me refining my ability to know what is and what is not from God through experimentation. There are indicators that make me know if something is from God. How do I know? These things always work/happen. They always have. If they stopped working I would probably have a crisis of faith. I would still be confused as to why it used to work but it might be a death knell to my testimony if it continued. I would be at the very least be very very confused.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Trevor wrote:As Jonathan Z. Smith said, and I paraphrase: prophets and kings are made; they are not inherently prophets and kings. What makes them such? A community sets them apart as such.
Personal note: I've taken a class from Prof. Smith. He's a bit of a madman though a nice one.
Cool! I only know him from his writings, and I think the man is a genius. He is an immensely influential theorist right now.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”