Exit or Not (FAIR post by Scott Gordon)

[_wenglund]

Life is too complicated to muck about in someone else's way of surviving.

I wonder if the oh-so-self-righteous TBM's here (who know good and well who they are) would do some of us the favor of commiting this to memory?

Thanks.

I note the rank irony of this request. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

[_Ray A]

To your respective ways of thinking or feeling, how do varied levels of belief factor in (wavering or weak to unequivocal and strong)?

Or, varied levels of disbelief (agnostic vs. athiest)?

To your ways of thinking or feeling, is it possible that perceived evidence may play a part (i.e. the more perceived evidence in support of a belief, the stronger the belief, whereas the less perceived evidence in support of the belief, the weaker the belief; and the more perceived evidence in controvention to a belief the stronger the disbelief, and the less perceived evidence in controvention to a belief, the weaker the disbelief)?

Thanks, -Wade

What evidence are you talking about? A spiritual witness, or pure physical evidence? If pure physical evidence, then I would say Jaredite barges carrying humans and animals in ancient submarines upon the water for 344 days, with illuminated stones for light, no apparent toilet facilities, and emerging half a globe away in a promised land, and starting a whole civilisation, which eventually detroys itself down to one man who survives, the leader, is fantasy. This is also what Roberts thought in his "devil's advocate" writing, and it's things like this that Roberts questioned, "how shall we escape these difficulties?"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking belief insofar as mythology brings people meaning. What I am questioning is the literalness applied to what is clearly mythology. If you'd like to start a thread on the Jaredite barges, Wade, be my guest. The Book of Mormon is far more than Jaredite barges, or Liahonas, or mountains removing at a word, or three Nephites who are still alive, somewhere, and who crop up in legends so often. Nephi could see some 2,500 years into the future, in detail that would give Nostradamus a fit. Yet as beastie pointed out, the leaders could not see in 1950 how wrong racism was. I won't go into those embarrassing Petersen's quotes, because he was a cultural norm of his time, and if he was here today he would not say those things. But the Book of Mormon does have other ethically admirable concepts which disposes one to accept all the other junk stories. I contend that a separation is necessary. We need a whittling down to the good concepts in the Book of Mormon, and to ignore the junk stories.

So the evidence I see is that people place their faith in what is good and uplifting in the scriptures, yet some feel they have to make it all literal to be true. If asses don't talk, then the Sermon on the Mount is a fraud. Great logic. That's just one analogy. I have a Christian friend who insists that the world was created in six 24 hour days, and if, in his mind, this was proved false, he would lose his whole faith in Christianity! You might think this silly, but he can't wrap his mind around the "silliness" of the Book of Mormon, yet he has no problem with biblical stupidity. So is this evidence perceived, or real? Did Elisha really have two bears kill those children because they teased him about his bald head? This has to be the worst case of sledgehammering ants or killing someone, children at that, for lighthearted teasing. And if you think there is some mythology in the scriptures, where do you draw the line? To many Muslims the Qur'an is NOT mythology - it is verily the word of God. Those who doubt the literal interpretations of the Qur'an are called "moderates". So why do we call them moderates for doubting literal interpretations, but if a Mormon doubts literal interpretations they are called "apostates"?

I won't go into 1 Samuel 15 in detail, but do you believe that Samuel chopped Agag in pieces with a sword, and that Saul was disobedient because he killed all the men, women and children, but spared Agag and the animals? Is this historical fact?

I'm merely discussing evidence. Do you see anything wrong in the points I've made, if so, why?

[_wenglund]

To your respective ways of thinking or feeling, how do varied levels of belief factor in (wavering or weak to unequivocal and strong)?

Or, varied levels of disbelief (agnostic vs. athiest)?

To your ways of thinking or feeling, is it possible that perceived evidence may play a part (i.e. the more perceived evidence in support of a belief, the stronger the belief, whereas the less perceived evidence in support of the belief, the weaker the belief; and the more perceived evidence in controvention to a belief the stronger the disbelief, and the less perceived evidence in controvention to a belief, the weaker the disbelief)?

Thanks, -Wade

What evidence are you talking about? A spiritual witness, or pure physical evidence?

It is whatever each individual determines for themselves is evidence. Some people may limit evidence to physical evidence, and by so doing, they my find little evidence to support a belief in spiritual things, and thus at best they may be weak in their belief, or more likely they will disbelieve. Whereas, those who are open to spiritual evidence, may find sufficient and increasing evidence to support their growth in faith.

Also, it depends upon how one may interpret physical or spiritual evidence. Some may reasonably conclude that the story of the Jaredites is physically improbable or impossible, and thus think the physical evidence is against it being a reality. Whereas others may think it physically possible, and thereby be open to it being a physical reality. Some may conclude that spiritual experiences are simply self-induced neurological reactions or human emotions, and so spiritual experiences will for them not qualify as evidence in support of a belief in a spiritual reality; whereas others who view spiritual experiences as a product of literal spiritual sensations may view those spiritual experiences as evidence supporting a belief in a spiritual reality.

In other words, whatever each individual determines for themselves is evidence, will factor heavily into whether one believes or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

Nephi could see some 2,500 years into the future, in detail that would give Nostradamus a fit. Yet as beastie pointed out, the leaders could not see in 1950 how wrong racism was.

This is very profound, Ray.

To many Muslims the Qur'an is NOT mythology - it is verily the word of God. Those who doubt the literal interpretations of the Qur'an are called "moderates". So why do we call them moderates for doubting literal interpretations, but if a Mormon doubts literal interpretations they are called "apostates"?

This is worthy of a sig line.

Very insightful, Ray. Thank you.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Wade...

Also, it depends upon how one may interpret physical or spiritual evidence. Some may reasonably conclude that the story of the Jaredites is physically improbable or impossible, and thus think the physical evidence is against it being a reality. Whereas others may think it physically possible, and thereby be open to it being a physical reality. Some may conclude that spiritual experiences are simply self-induced neurological reactions or human emotions, and so spiritual experiences will for them not qualify as evidence in support of a belief in a spiritual reality; whereas others who view spiritual experiences as a product of literal spiritual sensations may view those spiritual experiences as evidence supporting a belief in a spiritual reality.

Yes but lets go even deeper ... why is it that two people can see or experience the exact same thing and come to different conclusions?

One person may see a red, horned creature in her bedroom and determine it is Satan himself, another may see the same thing and call the doctor to get her meds adjusted.

One person can read the story of the Jaradites and find it completely plausible while others find it totally impossible?

It seems there is something deeper than the actual experience/information that allows one to either believe or disbelieve it.

At this point I feel fairly certain it is neurological.

I'll give you a personal example. I grew up in a family who felt racism was a horrible, degrading, cruel phenomenon. When I learned about the priesthood ban (a few years after my conversion), I was horrified to say the least. I talked to many church leaders, heard all the justifications for it, read several books on the topic (even though I was fairly young), and nothing could even remotely make me think the ban was of God. I also prayed, fasted, pleaded with God to help me understand and all my spiritual experiences convinced me that the ban was a horrible thing created by men. Nothing I could do could convince me it was of God. Other member with whom I discussed the issue could just not see the big deal... still to this day many believers just put it aside as if it is nothing to worry about. So, I believe part of the difference between the two reactions to the ban is that my early education and moral teaching was hardwired in my brain strongly enough that I could not "unwire" it. Others perhaps grew up with the idea that the ban was Godly and so didn't seem to give it a second thought.

Does that make sense?

~dancer~

[_Ray A]

Also, it depends upon how one may interpret physical or spiritual evidence. Some may reasonably conclude that the story of the Jaredites is physically improbable or impossible, and thus think the physical evidence is against it being a reality. Whereas others may think it physically possible, and thereby be open to it being a physical reality. Some may conclude that spiritual experiences are simply self-induced neurological reactions or human emotions, and so spiritual experiences will for them not qualify as evidence in support of a belief in a spiritual reality; whereas others who view spiritual experiences as a product of literal spiritual sensations may view those spiritual experiences as evidence supporting a belief in a spiritual reality.

In other words, whatever each individual determines for themselves is evidence, will factor heavily into whether one believes or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If I'm reading you correctly you're saying a spiritual experience, let's say a witness from the HG, is enough to convince one that the physical evidence is correct, that no matter how impossible it may seem to someone else, in the mind of the one who has had the spiritual witness this establishes the truth of historicity. Is that correct?

Next question: Does Moroni 10:3-5 speak only of a spiritual witness (that the teachings are true), or does it, when it says "ye shall know the truth of these things" also include the history of all the Book of Mormon? That every event is true, including the Jaredite crossing.