Does a chapel Mormon really know church history?

[_Coggins7]

Get thee behind me Coggins.

As I said, I would consider homosexual conduct to save many other people from dying horribly in a terrorist attack, but not under any other conditions.

Sorry to disappoint...

[_rcrocket]

The question is have they been adequately dealt with? I guess that is a matter of opinion. Also, the other point is that the Church just does not, in its official organs, really deal much with the difficult issues.

Beastie is a she. And are you really stupid enough to state that someone you do not know never had a testimony? You sound like fundie EVs that say the same thing about a fallen Christian. The person may be faithful and appeared "saved" for 20 year, but when they go astray they probably were never saved or never had saving faith. Their years of faithful fruits must have been a lie.

Well, not a lot of tolerance to go around on this board.

I wonder if the United States has adequately dealt with the issue of Andrew Jackson's theft of somebody else's wife, cohabiting with her for years and probably never marrying her until he decided to run for the presidency, killing a man in a duel over it, and being elected to the presidency on the basis of a battle victory after peace had been declared? After all, lots of historians had dealt with it; why not the United States? Shame on the US.

The simple fact of the matter with this analogy is that the Church does not have on its staff professional publishers of history. Yes, there are a few writers here and there who dabble in it -- Rick Turley, who is really a tax lawyer. But, the scriptural mandate to mantain a history of church proceedings and a record of anti-Mormon publications is not accompanied with the mandate to publish history.

So, when you and others insist that the Church publish faithful history, to whom do they turn for this? One of the general authorities? I can assure you that general authorities have as much knowledge of the scriptures and history as your typical Stake President -- enough for the job. A professional writer on staff with an expertise in western US History? Maybe there is one or two on staff -- but enough to tackle all you think necessary? How about a BYU professor; there are historians there. Hey, wait, they already publish in Church history and you and others reject them out of hand -- usually and often without even reading what they have to say!

So, although the Church's archives are generally open to all historians, and the UofU and BYU and USU and UHS archives are very extensive in their treatment of Church history, there really isn't anybody who can present the kind of "faithful" (I read it as "faithless," but that's just me) history you think should be produced.

Why don't you do it? You have as much access to the archives in all those sources as any other historians. Oh, wait, you probably have a job and lack training, and lack time. Well, so do I and 99.99 percent of the rest of the Mormons.

History is coming out; the modern historical technique is only about 25 years old; certainly not even Fawn Brodie, Juanita Brooks, Bernard DeVoto had any real clue about the techniques now employed. They certainly were lousy at LDS history. But, in the next few years we'll see more than enough. But, will it be published by the Church? No. The Church has no vehicle, no mandate, and no money allocated to do it.

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

coggins,

You are utterly clueless. I know you haven't ever paid a whit of attention to my story, and you have it wrong on every point. I guess when you're chanting the mantra "apostates never believed to begin with", it keeps from you having to hear what other people actually say.

I joined the church at age 19, after praying and receiving what I believed to be a powerful testimony of the Book of Mormon. I will never deny the strength of that experience, and have never denied it. I simply interpret it differently today, and realize that people from all sorts of religious persuasions have similiar experiences, and tend to attach it to dogma, when, in reality, it seems to be unrelated to specific beliefs.

I was an active believer for the next 15 years of my life, helping to convert the rest of my family, graduating from BYU, serving a mission in France, marrying in the temple, serving in many callings. I struggled for years before losing my faith, and pled with God over and over to help me preserve my faith. He didn't.

But perhaps if I had just been willing to close my eyes and continue believing no matter what, I could have preserved my faith like you and others. But I just do not have it in me to be a True Believer.

Not worth it. The Church isn't for everybody, particularly faithless sinners who reject the atonement. They will find solace elsewhere (like this Board? Weird.)

[_Coggins7]

The question is have they been adequately dealt with? I guess that is a matter of opinion. Also, the other point is that the Church just does not, in its official organs, really deal much with the difficult issues. A member must go searching on their own and many do because they want to learn. Then when the stumble on to difficult issues and are disillusioned they naturally feel betrayed to some extent. Right or wrong it is a real issue and intelligent people, even active believing members such as Bushman or Blake Ostler or even Dan Peterson seem to understand this.

One way or another, you stumbled upon the answer, or at least a very sizable chunk of it Jason. The Church doesn't spend much time on the difficult issues because

1. Its core focus is teaching the basic theoological, moral, and social principles of the gospel, not dealing with thorney philsopohical or historical issues that, by their very nature, do not have clear or unambiguous answers that can be sought and

2. Dealing with those issues is primarily our own responsibility, not the Church's. We are not going to take up valuable time--valuable spiritual time--in our meetings, seminaries, or conferences talking about polyandry, Adam-God, MMM, or any of the other things that so exercise the minds of people like Beastie who do not have a testimony sufficient to allow a spiritual buffer between these questions (many long go answer plausibly and others still awaiting such ministrations) such that full blown apostasy from the Church can be avoided (as well as participation in forums such as this in an attempt to destroy the faith and participation in the Church of others) while the issues are worked through.



Quote:

Beasties' main problem, as he unwittingly admits, is that he "lost his faith". What he's not telling you is that he "lost his faith" because he never had a testimony, and without that, historical and doctrinal problems very well may destroy the intellectual or psychological attachment one has to the Church.
He cannot tell you what it is, what it does, or how it affects the organism. He deals only with "educated" people who, it is assumed, are therefore intellectually superior to those who do not have specialized academic niche knowledge.

Beastie is a she. And are you really stupid enough to state that someone you do not know never had a testimony? You sound like fundie EVs that say the same thing about a fallen Christian. The person may be faithful and appeared "saved" for 20 year, but when they go astray they probably were never saved or never had saving faith. Their years of faithful fruits must have been a lie.

Take another look at Beastie's post, and you will see there what she has been doing (and what meny self styled exmo "intellectuals" critical of the Church do on a frequent basis). Take a look:

But perhaps if I had just been willing to close my eyes and continue believing no matter what, I could have preserved my faith like you and others.

You see, all of us who have preserve red through all the long criticisms of the Church, weathered them, found the answers we needed, or when answers were not forthcoming, relied on our testimony to sustain us through the dark night of ignorance and inability to answer our opponents plausibly or definitively, have closed our eyes and continued to believe against the great snow capped mountains of facts and evidence. We are riddled with intellectual self delusion, cognitive dissonance, and doublethink. Those who are not so crippled--deep, rigorous, objective critical thinkers like Beastie etc., have freed themselves from the chains of superstition and ignorance.

They are the "brights" Jason, and surely you know who they are? This board is full of little Dawkins wannabes and worshipers who, through the sheer weight of their intellectual superiority to the religious, have freed themselves from the childish superstition that is Mormonism. Surely, anyone who then remains in this benighted system of delusion is...a superstitious child, intellectually.

Can you begin to see the purpose all of this really serves Jason?

[_beastie]

I thank you for your assistance here in corroborating and proving my point. Latter Day Saints who have experienced revelation and received the testimony of the Holy Spirit do not believe they have received it. Wittingly or no, you have here simply substantiated the dominant patters of apostasy with which the Church, its members, and its leaders are conversant. Yes, others outside the Church have similar experiences, but they do not and cannot have the same experiences without approaching and complying with the requirements of the Gospel.

You have either left the Church because you have denied something you believed, or something you knew to be true, and if the latter, my deepest sympathies because this implies a character bereft of even a glimmer of intellectual integrity, and I don't think that of you regardless of my strong opposition to your teachings and views. Your semantic play with the concept of testimony, however, I've encountered before; and it presents as a rationalization process that seeks distance between the experience of testimony and the other human agendas and desires that have pushed it aside.

Anyone who "believes" he or she has a testimony would probably be well advised to continue the quest to obtain it, if that is their desire, because that's not the definition of testimony nor is it a term faithful LDS use to describe it, at least never in my experience.

What in the world are you babbling about?

I no longer believe in the church. I no longer believe in God. A nonexistent God does not go around sending powerful, numinous experiences to human beings to verify the truth of whatever dogma they happen to believe in. This is my current belief.

When I was a believer, I did believe God existed, and sent powerful, numinous experiences to human beings to verify the truth of specific questions. As a believer, I would have not stated that I believed I received a powerful testimony, I would have said that I received a powerful testimony, period.

It is true that I no longer believe, and hence, use different semantics to describe the experience. The fact that you think this verifies your suspicion that I'm some sort of intellectual "poser" (and I have no idea what that is supposed to mean) affirms to me that I've been right to not take you seriously.

And, by the way, congratulations on attaining omniscience:

Yes, others outside the Church have similar experiences, but they do not and cannot have the same experiences without approaching and complying with the requirements of the Gospel.

(ps, thanks, Jason, for coming to my defense)

[_Mister Scratch]

Not worth it. The Church isn't for everybody, particularly faithless sinners who reject the atonement. They will find solace elsewhere (like this Board? Weird.)

Tell me, Bob---is the Church for faithfull sinners who manipulate sources and act dishonestly about it?

[_Coggins7]

What in the world are you babbling about?

You see, I'm able to push buttons here without even intending to. Its a talent...

I no longer believe in the church. I no longer believe in God. A nonexistent God does not go around sending powerful, numinous experiences to human beings to verify the truth of whatever dogma they happen to believe in. This is my current belief.

If that's your belief, then you'll have to provide a serious, cogent philosophical defense of it. But alas, I've tried to egg this kind of discussion on before, to no avail.

I agree that God does not send powerful, numinous experiences to human beings indiscriminately. Nor do all religious believers receive what they take to be them. Indeed, I suspect that most do not.

I also believe that there are experience open to human beings that appear to be powerful and numinous, and, in the absence of the real article (experiences actually sent from God) or of articles of a much more impressive kind, humans have no frame of reference within which they can tell those that are "sent" from God and those which have been generated in other ways.

When I was a believer, I did believe God existed, and sent powerful, numinous experiences to human beings to verify the truth of specific questions. As a believer, I would have not stated that I believed I received a powerful testimony, I would have said that I received a powerful testimony, period.

How you are beginning to fudge Beastie, and whether you realize it or not, it shows. You either had a testimony or you did not, and, like Joseph Smith, you either knew you had it, and knew God knew you had it, or you did not. If you did, indeed, have a testimony at one time, what an intricate psychological, intellectual, and semantic web you have woven to dissociate yourself from that reality.

It is true that I no longer believe, and hence, use different semantics to describe the experience. The fact that you think this verifies your suspicion that I'm some sort of intellectual "poser" (and I have no idea what that is supposed to mean) affirms to me that I've been right to not take you seriously.

And, by the way, congratulations on attaining omniscience:

What it means is that your elaborate criticisms of Book of Mormon historicity, for one primary example, is not nearly as well founded as you apparently think them to be. The holes and gaps in your analysis are easily exploitable by educated LDS. You do not have nearly the intellectual credibility in this area among others that clearly exists in your own mind. But you can always take care of that problem by labeling LDS apologists, no matter how qualified, as those who have "closed their eyes" and continued to believe anyway in the fact of your devastating torrent of hard facts and unassailable logic.

Once your intellectual conceit can be tamed a little, you may actually be able to engage other educated LDS in serious critical debate, in which both sides can admit they do not have many of the answers in a cut and dried way. The FARMS and FAIR people have always been clear that, on thorny issues, particularly historical (like your favorite hobby horse--no pun intended--the pre-Columbian horse), the best we can do is plausibility. But that is never enough for pop Dawkinoids who claim to have hard, conclusive facts (when all they really have is speculative theoretical structures lovingly spun to make their side of the debate appear perhaps stronger than it really is).



(ps, thanks, Jason, for coming to my defense)

Of course. The cafateria Mormon, given a choice, will always come to the defense of the exmormon first, before the Church or its faithful members. That's a very American perk; part of a culture that glorifies the maverick, the James Dean rebel first, before ever giving the traditional view the time of day.

Almost a cultural trope, I think, in many ways.

[_Coggins7]

sinners who manipulate sources and act dishonestly about it?

You mean like...Mr. Scratch?

And those advanced degrees were in what areas Scratch??

[_beastie]

Coggins,

You do realize that, under your paradigm, it would not be possible for someone who really believed in the church to ever lose that belief?

Once more, thanks for affirming the wisdom of my decision to rarely interact with you. I've about had my fill for today, as well.

[_Inconceivable]

Get thee behind me Coggins.

As I said, I would consider homosexual conduct to save many other people from dying horribly in a terrorist attack, but not under any other conditions.

Sorry to disappoint...

You took this entirely the wrong way, Cog. It wasn't meant to be a back door joke. I don't laugh at that kind of humor.

But I can see how (in light of the posts around it you would come to that conclusion).


No, what I meant was that you don't countenance what I would consider a peaceable follower of Christ. You're posts have a tendency toward the abrasive. If you didn't say you were Mormon, no one would ever know it.