What are you willing to change an opinion about?

[_honorentheos]

I'd change my mind about any of them.

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

beastie, I think your observation above holds true for many of us. I don't know if my political views can shift radically anymore. I've found I am very much a moderate (I just noticed I reversed the order in my first post in the OP about extremism and moderation) and find extremist views from either side disturbing.

For example, I would highly doubt anyone could convince me that we should not increase the debt ceiling, cut spending where appropriate including defense, and also increase some taxes while closing tax loopholes in order to accomplish the goals that both sides seem to feel are important. I find the current political gamesmanship appalling and akin to teenagers playing chicken with automobiles. I don't know that anyone could convince me that either party is doing the right thing when it comes to how things are currently being handled.

I think it's more likely that someone could provide evidence that God exists and exists in a state that sees Mormonism as a virtuous way of living one's life...provided that God isn't friendly to the same types of gamesmanship we see in relation to the apologetics. In fact, I have wondered before if I might be able to sit comfortably in the pews again if the Church were to simply acknowledge it's own history and move from a position that is built on this acknowledgment rather than one of false superiority.

[_zeezrom]

Thanks all.

I need to admit something. I'm not willing to even consider changing my mind about Mr. Smith's intentions towards the women in his circles. I think my stubbornness is due to the level of revulsion I feel about the whole thing. Maybe after a few years, I will mellow a bit but I sort of doubt it.

[_honorentheos]

Zee,

I appreciate your post above because I think it gets at a tangential issue - maintaining values.

From what you have posted on the net over the last year I think that even as your views/opinions of the church and it's prophets have changed, certain underlying values did not change much if at all. In fact, I suspect that the revulsion you feel toward what you now know about Joseph Smith and polygamy is deeply rooted in these values. Ironically, I think these values were fostered and strengthened by your upbringing in the church. This is one reason why I can not agree with those who see religion as purely wrong.

For me, the question of values is more fundamental than opinion when we talk about how willing a person could or should be to change them. I think that integrity allows us to change our views often and easily in order to align them more closely with our values and the facts as we understand them to be. But integrity also demands that we develop and close guarding our values, and resort to deep self-reflection and caution when we are compelled to question the nature of those values.

My views can and have changed significantly on many subjects during my life. But I hope I can refine my values more, and not lose them when following an urge to be right.

[_MrStakhanovite]

You?

Everything.

[_Some Schmo]

I've had my opinion on many things altered as a result of reading his board; I just tend to make an announcement about it, and I suspect that others have had the same experience. Why read the board if you aren't willing to learn from it?

I changed my entire stance on homosexuality as the result of a thread on the Foyer about 7 years ago. That was the most dramatic change I've ever experienced from reading a forum, but I've had many opinion changes over the years reading forums. I do change as the result of solid argumentation.

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

Before I read your post, beastie, I thought the very opposite of myself: It would be far harder for me to change my mind about religion than politics. I suppose that's because I far more understand and relate to all points of view on both conservatism and liberalism than I can relate to the merits of religious adherence. I don't think I could ever be persuaded to the extreme left or right, which is why I tend to sit in the middle. Those issues aren't nearly as cut and dry as issues concerning the realm of the supernatural, and as I learn more points of view and make more distinctions, I find myself sliding left and right on the political spectrum, depending on the day.

I'd like to think I'm open to changing my mind on anything, but I have strict standards (evidence, logic AND reason) for what will change my mind. Hell, show me a god and I'll believe in god.

[_Buffalo]

Admitting you were wrong mid-discussion takes a lot of pride swallowing. But I think all of us have admitted we were wrong at some point - especially those of us who used to be believing Mormons - there's a lot there to admit to be wrong about. ;)

[_harmony]

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 am willing to change my opinion about how tithing is spent... as soon as I see an annual report that accurately states how much tithing is donated, and where it's spent. To the penny.

And then we can go into the process to award contracts. That should be interesting...

[_bcspace]

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.

That's because this board is nearly pure antiMormonism.

You suggest above that the majority of anti-mormon claims consist of either ignoring evidence or making up evidence.

Part of the definition. Every antiMormon is a liar. There are actual critics of Mormonism, but those are few and far between. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single Mormon critic who posts on this board.

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.

Sure.

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.

Have you checked the children?

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?

I'm not claiming there weren't sexual relations between Joseph Smith and his wives (I do think it highly unlikely for most of them). But I think it highly unlikely that sex was the purpose for plural marriage as it assumes a 19th century man, ostensibly a horndog (antiMormon claim), who doesn't have any children other than those from his first wife.

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.

Feel free.

[cacheman]

Part of the definition. Every antiMormon is a liar. There are actual critics of Mormonism, but those are few and far between. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single Mormon critic who posts on this board.

As I said, this used to bother me, but then I realized that you know as well as I do that we are not lying about the issues that concern us. It's certainly easy for you to dismiss us with a wave of your hand and a smug "liar!" but you know perfectly well that your accusation is untrue. That you persist in an untruth is strange.

I'm not claiming there weren't sexual relations between Joseph Smith and his wives (I do think it highly unlikely for most of them). But I think it highly unlikely that sex was the purpose for plural marriage as it assumes a 19th century man, ostensibly a horndog (antiMormon claim), who doesn't have any children other than those from his first wife.

Hmmm. I don't think Joseph was a "horndog" (your word, not mine) nor that sex was the purpose for plural marriage. It was clearly more complicated than that, but once again you dismiss us as a bunch of liars because you insist we believe something we don't actually believe. Again, it makes me wonder why you cling to untruths in an attempt to discredit others.

[_Runtu]

Thanks all.

I need to admit something. I'm not willing to even consider changing my mind about Mr. Smith's intentions towards the women in his circles. I think my stubbornness is due to the level of revulsion I feel about the whole thing. Maybe after a few years, I will mellow a bit but I sort of doubt it.

I don't really care about his intentions. It's quite possible that he had some weird religious motivation for what he did. What bothers me, however, is the coercion and lying involved in procuring women without Emma's knowledge. If he had been completely above-board about all this, he wouldn't have hidden his sexual encounters and marriages from Emma or trashed the reputation of those who refused his proposals.

People don't cover things up when they believe they are doing right.