What?????s wrong with Mormon Apologetics? My reply to Seth Payne

[_Chap]

The best it seems that people can come up with is, "you're wrong because you have faith and rely on spiritual experience".

No it's more like

"We can't see why the feelings you claim to have had are a basis for knowledge of important facts about the universe, especially when other people claim the feelings they say they have had are a basis for knowledge of quite different facts about the universe."

[_Kishkumen]

Thus, to argue, the believers position on the book can't be taken seriously because there is not enough evidence to support it, the believer is rightly left with a "So?" in response. It certainly doesn't mean it's not possible. The critic is then left with nothing, essentially. Sure the critic will suggest the believer's claimed experiences may not be real...but then again, so? The critic is left with nothing in this area as well.

In a way, I feel for you guys in that you have an endless hill to climb. There is no end.

And my response to you, stem, is "so?" I don't care whether you believe or not. I am happy for you believing in the Book of Mormon. Bully for you. I am not looking to persuade you personally of absolutely anything in that regard. What you do or believe in your personal life is of no consequence to me whatsoever.

So, I have no "steep hill to climb" when it comes to your personal beliefs. I approach things as I approach them because I believe it is a good way of doing it. My approach would continue in this vein regardless of the interest or disinterest of a single LDS person I might come into contact with.

I do, however, take issue with the way LDS apologia is often conducted. That too has nothing to do with whether you or anyone else believes in Mormonism. It is, I would agree, a steep climb to convince apologists that many of their idiotic and outdated means of fighting the good fight are counterproductive.

Book of Abraham apologetics are a fine example. You and any other LDS person who embraces the Book of Abraham as scripture have my full support in so doing. Also, if you really want to believe or need to believe that some guy named Abraham living millennia ago wrote the book, be my guest. Just don't demand that other LDS people embrace it in exactly the same way or fudge your scholarship dishonestly to reach the conclusions that you demand should prevail. Don't belittle and criticize others in your own Church for saying, "Hey, I revere that book as sacred scripture too, but I don't think that Abraham wrote it. I think Joseph may have written it, but he did so as a prophet of God."

When you do the latter things, I am here to pile on you like a mountain of bricks. Because I have no patience for that crap, and I don't believe I have to tolerate it. I will happily criticize any LDS bully who attacks fellow members for not thinking and believing exactly as they do. I have no trouble pointing out the hypocrisy of scholars who fudge their arguments or misuse scholarly discourse in order to prop up their conclusions at the expense of others. It is wrong and it is a disservice to the LDS community.

[_Samantabhadra]

Regardless of what one thinks of the treasure situation, the way in which digging for lost treasure transitioned into a full-blown religious tradition is mysterious.

Tibetan Buddhism distinguishes between two different kind of accomplishments. There is the "supreme accomplishment" of perfect enlightenment. But there are also the "ordinary accomplishments," which are basically magical feats. Being able to locate buried treasure, and pacify the guardians of this treasure, is one of the most commonly described of these "ordinary accomplishments."

Furthermore, in the Nyingma ("Ancient") school of Tibetan Buddhism, re-discovered "treasures" play an enormous role, and have for at least a thousand years. Most often the "treasures" are texts, but sometimes they are artifacts or other items. The basic idea is that the sorceror who brought Buddhism to Tibet, Padmasambhava or Guru Rinpoche, buried all these texts in various places for his followers to find far into the future, at the time when it was appropriate for them to do so. There are also what are sometimes called "mind treasures," treasures that are located in the mind-streams of Guru Rinpoche's students that have been reborn in the present day. Most of these texts are some form of practice instruction or advice on extremely advanced and esoteric forms of meditation.

As you might expect, the idea of "treasures" has attracted a lot of attention from Westerners. Many people dismiss the idea out of hand as Asiatic superstition. Some historians connect the idea to literal treasures that were actually buried in the ground; the Tibetan empire was the biggest power in Asia around the end of the ninth century, and then abruptly collapsed a hundred years later, leaving countless relics, artifacts, and texts hidden for future generations.

I think the crucial takeaway is that Joseph Smith's treasure-digging should be contextualized within what Quinn called the "magical world-view," which cuts across cultures and civilizations. Many Western Buddhists are comfortable with the idea that "treasures" do in fact come from their purported origin, and simultaneously with the idea that they were somehow located within the mind of the "treasure-revealer." In other words, the transition from treasure-digging to religious tradition may not need to be explained; what's more interesting, from my perspective, is how magical feats and religious traditions have seemingly become so separated in the West.

[_stemelbow]

No it's more like

"We can't see why the feelings you claim to have had are a basis for knowledge of important facts about the universe, especially when other people claim the feelings they say they have had are a basis for knowledge of quite different facts about the universe."

Certainly. Simply put, you can't know my feelings or whether they can be called feelings. You have to imagine what it's all about for me in order to complain about it. When you ask me to explain it to you, I admit, I simply can't. Particularly since you ask only to find occassion to complain more.

[_Themis]

Welcome to religious discussion, dude. The best it seems that people can come up with is, "you're wrong because you rely on feelings more than the facts I rely on." I'm not relying on feelings, per se. And you aren't relying on facts per se. It's a bit of mix for the both of us.

I remember all the possibilities you would come up with, most so unlikely it was entertaining. Fun times.

Additionally what you characterize as my feelings are more than just feelings.

I used feelings as it was easier then giving a more lengthy description of what is called the spiritual experience. Sure it involves more then just feelings.

There is something real to me--it is data that I would call facts.

Sure, very subjective ones at that. How many can we find who have different subjective facts that conflict with yours?

[_Kishkumen]

I think the crucial takeaway is that Joseph Smith's treasure-digging should be contextualized within what Quinn called the "magical world-view," which cuts across cultures and civilizations. Many Western Buddhists are comfortable with the idea that "treasures" do in fact come from their purported origin, and simultaneously with the idea that they were somehow located within the mind of the "treasure-revealer." In other words, the transition from treasure-digging to religious tradition may not need to be explained; what's more interesting, from my perspective, is how magical feats and religious traditions have seemingly become so separated in the West.

Thank you so much for sharing that information on Tibetan Buddhism and the concept of treasures. It is very enlightening. I would agree with this paragraph quoted above, but I would recommend you look at Brown, if you have not already, for a better, albeit brief, exploration of the significance in contrast with Quinn's work. I think Quinn's book is important, but he spent so much time sharing the evidence, that he did not really get to the hows and whys to the extent I would have liked.

[_stemelbow]

And my response to you, stem, is "so?" I don't care whether you believe or not. I am happy for you believing in the Book of Mormon. Bully for you. I am not looking to persuade you personally of absolutely anything in that regard. What you do or believe in your personal life is of no consequence to me whatsoever.

And that would be the most appropriate position, I'd say.

So, I have no "steep hill to climb" when it comes to your personal beliefs. I approach things as I approach them because I believe it is a good way of doing it. My approach would continue in this vein regardless of the interest or disinterest of a single LDS person I might come into contact with.

I do, however, take issue with the way LDS apologia is often conducted. That too has nothing to do with whether you or anyone else believes in Mormonism. It is, I would agree, a steep climb to convince apologists that many of their idiotic and outdated means of fighting the good fight are counterproductive.

Complain then. Sadly, when you do so coming from here, seeing as the very things you wish to complain about are only magnified here in frequency and magnitude, your complaints lose effect and credibility--at least in my mind.

Book of Abraham apologetics are a fine example. You and any other LDS person who embraces the Book of Abraham as scripture have my full support in so doing.

How sweet. I didn't know I had any support from anyone.

Also, if you really want to believe or need to believe that some guy named Abraham living millennia ago wrote the book, be my guest. Just don't demand that other LDS people embrace it in exactly the same way or fudge your scholarship dishonestly to reach the conclusions that you demand should prevail. Don't belittle and criticize others in your own Church for saying, "Hey, I revere that book as sacred scripture too, but I don't think that Abraham wrote it. I think Joseph may have written it, but he did so as a prophet of God."

Thanks for the advice. I won't do that anymore, particularly when I LOOK IN THE MIRROR!

When you do the latter things, I am here to pile on you like a mountain of bricks. Because I have no patience for that crap, and I don't believe I have to tolerate it. I will happily criticize any LDS bully who attacks fellow members for not thinking and believing exactly as they do. I have no trouble pointing out the hypocrisy of scholars who fudge their arguments or misuse scholarly discourse in order to prop up their conclusions at the expense of others. It is wrong and it is a disservice to the LDS community.

Alright be my bully. And too bad the thread here about DCP and Will being racist or whatever is around and you participated in it. Your point may otherwise have some sticking power--well let's be real. There are plenty of such threads that make your point sound, well, hypocritical.

[_stemelbow]

I remember all the possibilities you would come up with, most so unlikely it was entertaining. Fun times.

Oh wait, i suppose plain childish mockery is what your left with, not nothing.

I used feelings as it was easier then giving a more lengthy description of what is called the spiritual experience. Sure it involves more then just feelings.

Good, we agree on something. Join me and lulu, please. We're in a virtual love affair now.

Sure, very subjective ones at that. How many can we find who have different subjective facts that conflict with yours?

How not? Who said there is anything foolproof in spiritual experience? Likewise why do scholars disagree?

[_sethpayne]

=

Thank you so much for sharing that information on Tibetan Buddhism and the concept of treasures. It is very enlightening......

Nice pun, intentional or not.

[_Kishkumen]

Complain then. Sadly, when you do so coming from here, seeing as the very things you wish to complain about are only magnified here in frequency and magnitude, your complaints lose effect and credibility--at least in my mind.

Well, stem, based on your engagement with this board, I judge your mind, as it is represented in your posts here, to be one that I am no longer concerned about appealing to. I get what I can from this board. I don't look at it as the primary vehicle for addressing these issues. It is a petri dish for germinating ideas and experimenting with approaches.

Besides, where would you have me explore these ideas, in a place where I will get banned for trying to do so? Don't make me laugh.

How sweet. I didn't know I had any support from anyone.

If you try to look beyond your king-sized persecution complex, you might see such support in unexpected places.

Thanks for the advice. I won't do that anymore, particularly when I LOOK IN THE MIRROR!

I am speaking in generalities, stem. I have no idea what you actually believe.

And too bad the thread here about DCP and Will being racist or whatever is around and you participated in it. Your point may otherwise have some sticking power--well let's be real. There are plenty of such threads that make your point sound, well, hypocritical.

Don't pretend that you actually care what my point is, stem. It seems to me that what you are really concerned with is quashing any criticism, no matter how well founded, of your pals in the apologetic community. I stand by my judgment that the underlying assumptions that drive Will and Daniel's reading of the purported "benefits of slavery" are racist. I don't think it is necessary to attribute to them personal hatred of black people in order for that to be true.

Racism is a worldview as much or more than it is a matter of personal feeling. It is a system of thought that began with fear of the other, but continues to thrive independent of an individual's conscious attitudes about members of different ethnic groups.