Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[MG 2.0]

Where did MGSim2.0 go?

There is no MGSim2.0. It is a figment of your imagination.

Regards,
MG

[KevinSim]

Where did MGSim2.0 go?

IHAQ, is that you? Or are you Fence Sitter? Yes, you can take liberties with my name; so can I with yours. Are you asking where KevinSim went? I posted my answer to that on this very forum, the Terrestrial Forum. I've started my third semester at Utah Valley University, and I said that therefore I wasn't going to be as active a poster as I had been over the Summer. I'm pretty much limited to thirty minutes every Thursday.

[KevinSim]

the concept of "goodness" is qualitatively different. Advancements can come in the direction of evolving the set of values underlying the term, in my opinion, but there is no observable fact making that evolution of opinion and value a single path for all.

Marcus, why then do you have discussions on the Terrestrial Forum of the Discuss Mormonism website, if open and honest discussion might not be objectively good for all?

[KevinSim]

The Book of Mormon contains things that aren’t true? Wow! Now all we are left with is the question about how to reliably identify which bits aren’t true and which are…

Hi Kevin, still waiting for a response to this^

IHAQ, if your goal is, for each "bit," to know if it is true or not, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not for you. On the other hand, if your goal is to let God teach you, however S/He sees fit to teach you, then that Church is indeed for you.

[Marcus]

the concept of "goodness" is qualitatively different. Advancements can come in the direction of evolving the set of values underlying the term, in my opinion, but there is no observable fact making that evolution of opinion and value a single path for all.

Marcus, why then do you have discussions on the Terrestrial Forum of the Discuss Mormonism website, if open and honest discussion might not be objectively good for all?

kevinsims, why do you think that my statement above implied that "open and honest discussion might not be objectively good for all"?

also, why did you pick that single sentence out of my post here, without responding to questions about your post that prompted it?

[
i would argue that the wrong ideas about medical knowledge could quite clearly be defined as subjective, in the sense that they were based on opinions that were not objectively formed. As knowledge of medicine and the capacity to investigate increased, people's "opinions" regarding
medicine moved to a more objective understanding, based on observable fact.

the concept of "goodness" is qualitatively different. Advancements can come in the direction of evolving the set of values underlying the term, in my opinion, but there is no observable fact making that evolution of opinion and value a single path for all.

Comparing an adjective like goodness to medical knowledge, as though it is on a trajectory toward a single definitive objective definition, ignores the underlying premise that a set of values determines "goodness."

the response to you specifically was this:

...Look at the advancement of medical knowledge from 1500 CE to 2000 CE. That advancement didn't happen because medicine is subjective; it happened because medical knowledge in 1500 was wrong. I see no inherent reason to believe we can't make similar advancements in understanding what is good; I'm not convinced that what is good is as subjective as you make it out to be.

...Comparing an adjective like goodness to medical knowledge, as though it is on a trajectory toward a single definitive objective definition, ignores the underlying premise that a set of values determines "goodness."

why did you compare objectively valuated medical advancements to the subjective evaluation of "goodness"?

[IHAQ]

Where did MGSim2.0 go?

There is no MGSim2.0. It is a figment of your imagination.

Regards,
MG

And yet you show up SIMultaneously…

[IHAQ]

Hi Kevin, still waiting for a response to this^

IHAQ, if your goal is, for each "bit," to know if it is true or not, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not for you. On the other hand, if your goal is to let God teach you, however S/He sees fit to teach you, then that Church is indeed for you.

Hi Kevin, I note you didn’t answer the very reasonable question I put to you.

[honorentheos]

the concept of "goodness" is qualitatively different. Advancements can come in the direction of evolving the set of values underlying the term, in my opinion, but there is no observable fact making that evolution of opinion and value a single path for all.

Marcus, why then do you have discussions on the Terrestrial Forum of the Discuss Mormonism website, if open and honest discussion might not be objectively good for all?

Because open and honest discussion is subjectively good for some.

[Philo Sofee]

Hi Kevin, still waiting for a response to this^

IHAQ, if your goal is, for each "bit," to know if it is true or not, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not for you. On the other hand, if your goal is to let God teach you, however S/He sees fit to teach you, then that Church is indeed for you.

NO ONE actually *needs* a church in order for God to teach them. That is just beyond silly.

[MG 2.0]

IHAQ, if your goal is, for each "bit," to know if it is true or not, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not for you. On the other hand, if your goal is to let God teach you, however S/He sees fit to teach you, then that Church is indeed for you.

NO ONE actually *needs* a church in order for God to teach them. That is just beyond silly.

Except for humble followers of Christ that desire to make and keep covenants that lead towards God. Granted, that will not include EVERYONE.

You don’t have to believe it, but the church acts as the reservoir/conduit between heaven and earth to make this possible.

A lot of folks believe they can save themselves from sin and error on their own without God or His church. More power to them. I think that to a certain degree they can find fulfillment and purpose on their own. You have, I expect.

We are free to choose.

I think you’re overreaching by saying “NO ONE”.

Regards,
MG