Let's see where we can get with this

[_sock puppet]

Stem, I do not doubt you have had an experience you chhose to interpret as a sign from god confirming the truth claims of .Mormonism, LDS style. (I have no idea why you choose to interpret it that way, and you are certainly welcome to explain that. I think we'd all find that intersting.)

That is your individual experience and interpretation. Without a cogent explanation of why you dismiss all other interpretations of your experience as such, there's nothing to discuss except perhaps how you fend off evidence that contradicts Mormonism's truth claims.

So please do elucidate us on why you accept no other explanations of your experience and how you deal with the contra evidence.

I readily acknowledge my personal experiences that make up my faith can be viewed by many in a variety of ways. I'm aware that any explanation I offer concerning my experiences can easily be thought to be nothing more than my own interpretation that may not be factual. That's cool. I'm not here to justify my faith, as I said. I'm just here to discuss the issues of the Church, acknowledging often that there are problems with the claims of the church. In some cases I feel the Church can be wrong and yet my faith still hold merit. And in other cases I feel justified in thinking my faith provides evidence of issues we aren't fully informed on. The issue I have is if the critics position is to be taken seriously the critic must prove its claims--that is if the claim truly is the Church is proven false.

Since you obviously refuse to first establish that which is not self-evident, i.e. your claim that the LDS Church's claims are true, there is nothing established to be proven false.

Until you do, I couldn't care less whether you take criticism of the LDS Church seriously.

I can fully understand why TBMs will not go into a detailed description of

(a) why they choose to interpret an experience a certain way rather than other logical, alternate interpretations, and

(b) why they nibble on the edges like mopologists of historical facts and scientific advancements, for room for plausibility rather than face probabilities.

Self-examination (#(a)) above has destroyed the testimonies of many. And #(b), facing head-on the problems of probability and the most likely and obvious evidence (like the DNA evidence in this thread) has also destroyed the testimonies of many, as have the unearthing for the masses of the historical record of 19th Century Mormonism. BKP told the flock 'let it alone.' Sage advice if you can't handle the truth.

[_stemelbow]

I thought the OP was about your faith?

no. Go read again. The OP is about why there seems to be a problem in discussion here and perhaps allowing room to explore how we can find resolution.

[_stemelbow]

Since you obviously refuse to first establish that which is not self-evident, i.e. your claim that the LDS Church's claims are true, there is nothing established to be proven false.

Wait a second. You misunderstand. I do not at all refuse to establish the Church's truth claims. It just so happens they are all individual claims. Sure some of them relate and depend on others. What I refuse to do is accept the notion that if the Church holds claims that aren't true that means the Church can't be inspired, or considered true, generally.

Until you do, I couldn't care less whether you take criticism of the LDS Church seriously.

Oh you care some, admit it.

I can fully understand why TBMs will not go into a detailed description of

(a) why they choose to interpret an experience a certain way rather than other logical, alternate interpretations, and

(b) why they nibble on the edges like mopologists of historical facts and scientific advancements, for room for plausibility rather than face probabilities.

Self-examination (#(a)) above has destroyed the testimonies of many. And #(b), facing head-on the problems of probability and the most likely and obvious evidence (like the DNA evidence in this thread) has also destroyed the testimonies of many, as have the unearthing for the masses of the historical record of 19th Century Mormonism. BKP told the flock 'let it alone.' Sage advice if you can't handle the truth.

So your objective isn’t to establish that the claim the Church is proven false has any merit. Its more about just trying to get more people on the side of disbelieving it? Okay.

[_reuigen verrater]

Look RV, my position is this.: I have faith in the major tenets of Mormonism. Meaning (for RockSlider and co) I believe, based on personal spiritual experience, that there is a God as taught in Mormonism, and that Christ is the Savior of the world and that the Gospel was restored beginning with Joseph Smith. I humbly admit my faith, even if evidence to me, is not a valid demonstration of my beliefs. Therefore I concede my position is untenable in the realm of formal argument. I then have decided since its untenable in terms of logical argument, I am left to see whether the critics position is tenable. As I examine the claim that the Church is proven not true, I am left to note that is also untenable. My faith then continues to have room to flourish. Afterall for me, my faith is evidence.

lol to summarize what you just said. "I have faith in the church and even though real evidence proves it false I don't want to accept it so i'll just keep having faith."

What is untenable is the expectation to have a discussion on Mormonism when you have already concluded everything that goes against what you believe to be worthless.

You see, the problem with your current thought process is that you don't want to discuss anything that invalidates your view. You say your church is Gods one true church and you have a living prophet. Someone points out that your scripture is not based on truth and your living prophets are falling quite short of the mark of oracles. Your response "well I have faith..." rather than discuss the claims you brought up you simply brush the objection and claims under a rug and say.. well i got faith.

Ok fine you have faith. What is faith? testimony? how is it that others have had the same type of experiences and now attribute them to some other source or explanation and others yet were simply denied by God, who is no respecter of persons, any faith building experience and others yet experience that opposite to yours? Your response I don't know

Well if you don't know shouldn't we examine this issue further? if the only thing you are basing your views on is suspect then shouldn't you reconsider the evidences? Your response, no it doesn't matter because i know what I experienced.

Alright fine... you know what you experienced to be true, shouldn't what others experience be just as significant? NO, because I have a testimony and though I don't know all their circumstances, I know my experience is the real one.

That's not a discussion, that's proselytism. There is no discussion when the other party involved is not open to change their mind or restructure their belief system.

[_RockSlider]

We're coming from two separate paradigms. The critics is there is no such thing as faith. The believers is my faith supports my position. There's little if any attempt to address each other. There's little if any attempt to understand each other (and that's with the knowledge that many here are former believers).

What am I missing from the above statement? Did I not directly address your side of the paradigm in all of my statements so far?

Or are you trying to point out some sacred, not secret clause were actually addressing your faith is off limits?

[_stemelbow]

lol to summarize what you just said. "I have faith in the church and even though real evidence proves it false I don't want to accept it so i'll just keep having faith."

That's not what I said.

What is untenable is the expectation to have a discussion on Mormonism when you have already concluded everything that goes against what you believe to be worthless.

I've never held that position.

You see, the problem with your current thought process is that you don't want to discuss anything that invalidates your view.

That's not true at all.

You say your church is Gods one true church and you have a living prophet. Someone points out that your scripture is not based on truth and your living prophets are falling quite short of the mark of oracles. Your response "well I have faith..." rather than discuss the claims you brought up you simply brush the objection and claims under a rug and say.. well i got faith.

I haven’t done that. That’s a weird characterization. But its true that, and hopefully you can admit this, the parameter wasn’t set in the example you gave. Its much like the critics position, it seems. What do you mean by the scripture has been shown to not be based on truth? And what do you mean when you say the living prophets are falling quite short of the mark of oracles? You have plenty of ‘splaining to do.

Ok fine you have faith. What is faith? testimony? how is it that others have had the same type of experiences and now attribute them to some other source or explanation and others yet were simply denied by God, who is no respecter of persons, any faith building experience and others yet experience that opposite to yours? Your response I don't know

I generally grant people their opinions.

Well if you don't know shouldn't we examine this issue further? if the only thing you are basing your views on is suspect then shouldn't you reconsider the evidences? Your response, no it doesn't matter because i know what I experienced.

You don’t know if its suspect. You just suspect its suspect. My own experience might be far different from another’s who holds to faith.

all right fine... you know what you experienced to be true, shouldn't what others experience be just as significant? NO, because I have a testimony and though I don't know all their circumstances, I know my experience is the real one.

Well I can’t rightly put my trust in other people’s claims on this stuff. I’ll get nowhere.

That's not a discussion, that's proselytism. There is no discussion when the other party involved is not open to change their mind or restructure their belief system.

I’m open. I‘ve been, admittedly, unconvinced up to this point and as the time passes on I’ll probably trust that I’ll remain unconvinced. That’s not to say I have no interest to discuss these topics. I’m just trying to set up parameters.

I’ll explain more, if one wishes to prove the notion that the Church is proven false and in discussion says its false because Joseph Smith married other women and even young gals. The assumption here is that Joseph Smith couldn’t have been a prophet called of God because of what he did with women. But, that is merely assumption. We don’t know if God truly inspired Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith got carried away with women or if Joseph Smith went ahead and did what God had asked and that included sealing himself to these women or not. We simply have assumption.

[_Darth J]

Its not there, Drifting. so of course not. My point here is not to justify my faith. My point is to demand that other people justify their failure to accept my cherished beliefs, which is the exact same issue phrased in different terms, but my inability to formulate or articulate a coherent thought makes me oblivious to my own position. My faith, I recognize is unjustifiable in terms of argument, point and counter-point.

The critics claim, it seems to me, is generally,

--the Church

--unicorns

--Scientology

--voodoo

--the Bermuda Triangle being a vortex into another dimension

--astrology

--Raelism

--JFK and Elvis are living in a secret underground bunker guarded by the Loch Ness Monster

is proven false. I'm eager to see that proof. That's because I can't formulate a coherent thought. Since I have already conceded that my faith is unjustifiable in terms of argument, point and counter-point, it makes no sense why I would be demanding argument, point and counter-point about my cherished beliefs that I have already admitted are impervious to evidence and reasoning. the claim of proving a negative is a tough one to maintain, I'd think. But maybe that's because trying to explain to me the concept of burden of proof is like trying to teach a goldfish how to fly a jumbo jet.

As for the Church's claims, myself, individually, I can stake out a position on each and every claim myself. I can take a nay or a yea position, if I like, which again makes no sense, since it would be on the basis of argument, point and counter-point---which I said are irrelevant to my faith---that I would be deciding which of the Church's teachings I'm going to cherry-pick and arbitrarily declare that my subjective, idiosyncratic patchwork of the faith-promoting narrative is sufficient for me to claim the title of believing Latter-day Saint.

hope this helps.

[_Chap]

I concede my position is untenable in the realm of formal argument. I then have decided since its untenable in terms of logical argument, I am left to see whether the critics position is tenable. As I examine the claim that the Church is proven not true, I am left to note that is also untenable.

I think you will find that the position of many if not most critics is not that the distinctive teachings of the CoJCoLDS have been proven not to be true.

That is because, as repeatedly demonstrated on this and other boards, it is more or less impossible to prove in an ineluctable way that a religious position is not true, unlike the way one can prove that a mathematical proposition such as "there is a finite number of prime numbers" is not true. That is because you can nearly always find a possible (even if improbable) way of dodging pretty well any criticism of even a historical claim. let alone a religious one. Examples:

1. Critic: Joseph Smith translated that papyrus wrongly.
Believer: Maybe when he said 'translate' he meant something different from your usage.

2. Critic: Your deity cannot be good because he lets innocent babies die horrible deaths.
Believer: Maybe he does something so nice for them after death that they would gladly have chosen to die like that.

Critics have a stronger position when they point out that the case made by the CoJCoLDS that its teachings are true is really very unconvincing, so unconvincing that very few people in a position to evaluate it in a well-informed way are likely to adopt it on the basis of those arguments, as opposed to receiving a 'burning in the bosom'. That is a very tenable position, even if it is not logically equivalent to Sethbag's ringing claim that "Mormonism is not only not true, it's obviously not true".

So far as I can see, the great majority of intelligent people who defend religious positions adopted them because their parents brought them up that way. If little stemelbow had been brought up in Mumbai, he might be now informing us that because Hinduism had not been proved untrue, there was still room for him to continue to believe in it. And so on. That kind of thing is however not an argument in favor of the religion in question being true.

[_reuigen verrater]

Well I can’t rightly put my trust in other people’s claims on this stuff. I’ll get nowhere.

Missed my point entirely, but managed to prove it through your own inability to formulate a coherent response that was relevant. I think that sentence of yours pretty much addresses why you have a problem having a discussion. You can't put trust in others claims, yet you expect us to put trust in yours. Ridiculous. Utterly one sided. You can't have it one way and expect to have any substantive discussion.

[_sock puppet]

Since you obviously refuse to first establish that which is not self-evident, i.e. your claim that the LDS Church's claims are true, there is nothing established to be proven false.

Wait a second. You misunderstand. I do not at all refuse to establish the Church's truth claims. It just so happens they are all individual claims. Sure some of them relate and depend on others. What I refuse to do is accept the notion that if the Church holds claims that aren't true that means the Church can't be inspired, or considered true, generally.

I must have misunderstood. I do not think there must be infallibility in everything a church does (e.g., spending millions during a recession on genetically engineering trout for a mall). But I do think that everything that is promoted as god-given, god-inspired ideas must be, or else the claimed channel of information from and infallible god must be faulty, and then how to you trust any of it? If you say individual revelation, then that raises the question of why then the need for any church and hierarchy of leadership, just ask god directly.

Since all are individual claims, then we're left to evaluate those claims by asking the individual who holds them as beliefs (a) what specifically and in detail was the experience leading to your holding the beliefs, (b) why do you interpret them in the way leading you to those beliefs rather than alternative explanations, and (c) how do you deal with the probabilities posed by contra evidence, historically or scientifically.

Until you do, I couldn't care less whether you take criticism of the LDS Church seriously.

Oh you care some, admit it.

Busted. You're right. I've even ordered you a blue Snuggie for Xmas this year, so you can have warm fuzzies all winter long. Seriously though, you are right. I care in the sense that I do want fellow men and women that I consider to be under a spell to come out from under it. But, to use a missionary phrase, after trying so long, maybe I've dusted my feet on your doorstep.

I can fully understand why TBMs will not go into a detailed description of

(a) why they choose to interpret an experience a certain way rather than other logical, alternate interpretations, and

(b) why they nibble on the edges like mopologists of historical facts and scientific advancements, for room for plausibility rather than face probabilities.

Self-examination (#(a)) above has destroyed the testimonies of many. And #(b), facing head-on the problems of probability and the most likely and obvious evidence (like the DNA evidence in this thread) has also destroyed the testimonies of many, as have the unearthing for the masses of the historical record of 19th Century Mormonism. BKP told the flock 'let it alone.' Sage advice if you can't handle the truth.

So your objective isn’t to establish that the claim the Church is proven false has any merit. Its more about just trying to get more people on the side of disbelieving it? Okay.

It's more about trying to get people to take a close look at why they believe the religious things they do that make them act and behave the way they do in response to those beliefs. If they can drill down to the nubbin and explain the basis for their faith, they're better equipped to evaluate and assess instructions from the COB, Vatican, or wherever. If self-examination gets more people on the side of disbelieving (which seems to be the results of serious self-examination of faith beliefs), then so be it.