Book of Mormon apologetic of last resort?

[_Dr. Shades]

Tarski,

Define Truth.

mikwut

I'll do it: Truth is that which continues to exist even after you stop believing in it.

[_Scottie]

Tarski,

Define Truth.

mikwut

I'll do it: Truth is that which continues to exist even after you stop believing in it.

That's a pretty crappy definition there, Shades...

By that definition, Mormonism is true. It still exists, and I don't believe in it.

[_dartagnan]

I might have been too narrow with the exactness in my initial statement, but presumptions are presumptions, and I don't find presuming that Joseph Smith is a prophet on spiritual witness as radically different than any other ultimate presumption.

What spiritual witness? You cannot even describe or identify what it is in any sense that would suggest it is something other than one's body chemistry reacting to enhanced expectations. Again, why take chemical reactions in the body as evidence that a mysterious "spirit" is trying to tell you something when we already know from science what is really taking place? This is teh point where Mormonism becomes unreasonable. And this is why the presumption about Joseph Smith's status as prophet is different from all other ultimate presumptions. It requires several other baseless presumptions to be taken for granted. The missionaries have a job on their hands to convince investigators that their feelings are a gateway to communication with the divine. Upon success, they can manipulate any feeling or sensation for their own purposes. Even a lack of sensation is used by LDS to argue that the person isn't praying with "faith unwaivering."

Mormons do. I disagree that the premise isn't earned without facts and reasoning.

Mormons don't. If you think you can present a case for Mormon reasoning, then please explain where reasoning, independent investigation and critical thought is urged in missionary discussions. Please explain why the "reasoning" of men is presented in the worst possible way in LDS sermon/scripture. Whenever you hear Mormons or even LDS authorities speak about how they expect Mormons to think for themselves and investigate truth, etc., these are empty comments that are generally responding to public criticism. In practice, however, one cannot really question authority in the Church. Just try it and see what happens. This raising your hand to confirm support for new calling is just a meaningless show. Suppose someone raised their hand and opposed something in conference. Would a debate take place? Or would Church security lead the person from the premises?
If you question and think critically, you're cast aside as a doubter, a borderline apostate, and if you continue along this path of critical thought, the fold is happy to see you gone because they don't have to worry about you possibly rubbing off on other members.

Conversion experiences are deep and complex.

If you know anything about sociology of religion, you'll know this complexity is hardly explained by miraculous experiences. Conversion to Mormonism is identical to conversions to any kind of social scheme. The need to feel accepted is a primary motive. But feeling accepted might make you feel good, though it doesn't say anything about "spiritual" confirmation. Mormons have a history os using just about anything as "evidence" that the Church is true. WHen I joined teh Church, it was the Church growth that was being twisted as evidence for its truthfulness. Nowadays even apostates are used as evidence that the Church is true. Mormons come up with witty self-serving slogans that help them dismiss critical commentary; like "they can leave the Church but they can't leave it alone... that proves they know its true but that they are just unwilling to repent!"

"Implanted?" - I find this emotionally charged. In fact, I find your criticism as emotionally charged as what you are criticizing.

Emotionally charged? I'm merely speaking from experience. I joined the Church as most people do, without a knowledge or understanding of the experiences my body was going through at the time of conversion. I allowed 19 year old kids to convince me that it was God talking to me. In retrospect, I can see that I was operating in ignorance, and the Church was more than happy to let me make that decision in ignorance.

I consider myself a critical thinker.

That's becaause the bar isn't set very high in Mormonism.

This is simply cliché, I disagree with pacman, I could be convinced by a lot of evidence.

Empty talk which means nothing since you'll simply look at the evidence and conjure up all sorts of "plausible" theories to explain it away. Anyone who knows teh full extent of the Book of Abraham controversy, and yet remains a faithful member, cannot be said to be critically inclined.

I do admit it would be difficult to persuade me because you would be persuading me that my actual experience does not correlate to a reality.

Emotional experiences can be explained in many ways that are more probable than "spiritual."

My premise is that many ex-mormons, maybe yourself - maybe not, abandon this fact and then afterwards proceed on an intellectual critique of Mormonism

That is your premise because that is the one the Church gave you. You think this is new? It is as old as the Church. You're not thinking for yourself, you're merely following the logic dictated by the Church. For you, ex-Mormons cannot possibly make good cases because they are working for Satan. Just maintain the slogan "the Church is true" and change your paradigm if need be, but never give apostates the benefit of the doubt.

I am unaware of what studies your specifically referring to but "biological science" has not proved anything like this.

Yes it has, but I am not surprised you're ignorant of this. I guess this just goes to further my point. Mormons don't know how to make sense of their emotions in non-spiritual ways.

If it has you have no ability beyond the Mormons to accept your basic premises - it's simply what you "want" to believe. Sword cuts just as sharp both ways.

The difference is, I left Mormonism wanting it to be true. I left Mormonism because the evidence was too powerful for me to keep dismissing. I left because I was tired of spending my life trying to come up with one plausible rationalization after the other. Compare this to people who join the Church because they want it to be true. Even more, Mormons who are already dependent on the Church, cannot afford to find out that it isn't true. So there is no comparison here, and this is what Mormons don't understand. For them, they have to come up with all sorts of excuses as to why intelligent members leave the Church. You'll see them at MADB start entire threads about how apostates are sinners who were too lazy to repent. They have started threads arguing that nobody has ever left the Church for intellectual reasons, or that their decision could never be due to "knowledge." Dan Peterson encouraged this line of criticism as well, by jumping in and supporting those who had "stories" about members who just wanted to drink, smoke, do drugs, commit adultery, (pick your sin). They circulate these amongst themselves to provide comfort for themselves and make them feels ome sense of security in their decisions to rely strictly on the Church and not on their own mental faculties.

[_richardMdBorn]

The difference is, I left Mormonism wanting it to be true. I left Mormonism because the evidence was too powerful for me to keep dismissing. I left because I was tired of spending my life trying to come up with one plausible rationalization after the other. Compare this to people who join the Church because they want it to be true. Even more, Mormons who are already dependent on the Church, cannot afford to find out that it isn't true. So there is no comparison here, and this is what Mormons don't understand. For them, they have to come up with all sorts of excuses as to why intelligent members leave the Church. You'll see them at MADB start entire threads about how apostates are sinners who were too lazy to repent. They have started threads arguing that nobody has ever left the Church for intellectual reasons, or that their decision could never be due to "knowledge." Dan Peterson encouraged this line of criticism as well, by jumping in and supporting those who had "stories" about members who just wanted to drink, smoke, do drugs, commit adultery, (pick your sin). They circulate these amongst themselves to provide comfort for themselves and make them feels ome sense of security in their decisions to rely strictly on the Church and not on their own mental faculties.

Hi Kevin,

When did you leave the LDS church? I had the impression in the discussions on ZLMB in 2004 that you would eventually leave Mormonism. It was clear that you were gradually rejecting the apologetic arguments especially with respect to the Book of Abraham.

[_Tarski]

Tarski,

Define Truth.

mikwut

*sigh*
OK, but just so there is no disagreement, you first define "define".


Better yet, tell me why you want me to define "truth" in the first place. Do you expect disagreement on the very application of the term in a given case? Do you suppose that we might end up disagreeing on whether a statement such as "The Hobbit is a fictional character" is true or not simply because we disagree about how to use the word truth?

If you have to preemptively jump into the real of philosophical theories of truth in order to defend your beliefs then something must really be stinking.

Bill: Are any of the common 9-11 conspiracy theories true?
Joe. Umm, Define truth.
Bill: *sigh* Goodbye.

Here ya go: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Knock yourself out.

[_Sethbag]

When someone resorts to solipsism as a way of deflecting rational criticism and analysis and critical thinking, the argument is over, as Tarski so well said.

"There is no truth, we can't really know anything, therefore your rational arguments are just as baseless as my spiritual witness, which somehow ends up meaning that I win."

Uhuh.

[_dartagnan]

When did you leave the LDS church?

I had started my gradual departure when I was hit with the facts regarding the Book of Abraham about five years back, although I remained an apologist "on hold" for a good year or two afterwards.

I had the impression in the discussions on ZLMB in 2004 that you would eventually leave Mormonism.

Well, that is what many at MADB had been hoping would happen. They didn't like me as an apologist posing difficult questions. As a full blown "apostate," it was much easier to dismiss me and justify their dismissal amongst other LDS.

It was clear that you were gradually rejecting the apologetic arguments especially with respect to the Book of Abraham.

I simply followed the evidence and drew conclusions accordingly.

[_aussieguy55]

It was the Book of Abraham issue that also started me off on the path of exit the church. I use to read Nibley's articles in the church mag and thought he was ok, until I got the Dialogue 1968 articles which blew me away. I also had obtain copies of some letters Klaus Baer had written regarding Nibley's apologetics and that further supported my exit.

[_antishock8]

The thing is we have absolute statements by the people who claim divine intercession and authority juxtaposed with apologists who claim that it's all left up to the Spirit, and how It guides you.

With Mormonism, and determining its claims on veracity, you don't have much wiggle room. You have to make a conscientious decision to ignore reality. in my opinion, most apostates just can't do that. The Book of Abraham is probably the most damning evidence against Mormonism, not the Book of Mormon.

[_Pumplehoober]

I had started my gradual departure when I was hit with the facts regarding the Book of Abraham about five years back, although I remained an apologist "on hold" for a good year or two afterwards.

This does not make sense. You were married for less than five years (I thought). Did you marry your wife while leaving the faith? If so, why marry her within the confines of the faith? It seems like a false premise from the beginning.

Well, that is what many at MADB had been hoping would happen. They didn't like me as an apologist posing difficult questions. As a full blown "apostate," it was much easier to dismiss me and justify their dismissal amongst other LDS.

Perhaps the problem was your attitude, and not your arguments?