DiscussMormonism.com

What is the point of debating Mormonism, for believing Mormons?

LDS missionaries are told explicitly not to Bible bash. LDS GA's constantly tell members that conversion "only comes through the sweet spirit of God", not through debate. The Book of Mormon Jesus criticizes religious "disputations". Most Mormons can't help but regard those who have left or rejected Mormonism as either too dumb to understand "the gospel", or too evil to stick with it - making it even more pointless, from the Mormon's perspective, to debate.

Most crucially, to engage in debate is to tacitly concede that (empirically-discernible) facts and logic impose constraints upon what one may justifiably believe; but this is just what Mormonism denies.

Mormon theology might pay lip service to "studying it out in your mind", but any question is decided in the end by "feelings" taken to be divinely-given, and/or simply crediting what "the prophet" said. Hinckley made this point himself in his "Loyalty" GC talk a few years ago.

So what are all these online Mormon "debaters" even doing, really?

Probably the same thing you are doing trying to debate the "Mormon debaters" about debating Mormonism. Or more likely, the same thing you are doing in your continuous debates against Dawkins-atheists.

Edited to add:
I don't think there is anything wrong with either of these. I think everyone debates because they enjoy it.

The apologists fancy themselves above the normal chapel Mormon. Those rules are just for them.

Truthfully I just think they enjoy it. They're able to make social connections via the boards, they can get into a frothy group think, discuss EV's and other things of interest to them, talk about apostates, and then once in a while debate for the hell of it. Some people just like to argue.

Tweak those above sentences and it can easily be shifted to fit some ex-LDS....


.....and me....

The bigger question to me is, why are so many of them dumbfounded that exmo's still want to talk about Mormonism?

I don't know about everyone else. I'm mostly trying to keep entertained.

Tal Bachman wrote:What is the point of debating Mormonism, for believing Mormons?

LDS missionaries are told explicitly not to Bible bash. LDS GA's constantly tell members that conversion "only comes through the sweet spirit of God", not through debate.

Talking about different theological points is a part of "studying it out in [my] mind." Not every member of the Church enjoys talking about religion as often as those who participate online. Some do, however. Members are taught to trust reason and revelation, and find a road that involves both. Mormons are counseled, as you likely remember, not to just suppose knowledge of the gospel will be given us.

The Book of Mormon Jesus criticizes religious "disputations".

(Parenthetically "The Book of Mormon Jesus" is an odd way to state it. It seems more natural to say "In the Book of Mormon, Jesus..." or "according to the Book of Mormon, Jesus..." for what it's worth.) But yes, it's good and often unheeded advice.

Most Mormons can't help but regard those who have left or rejected Mormonism as either too dumb to understand "the gospel", or too evil to stick with it - making it even more pointless, from the Mormon's perspective, to debate.

I think that's a pretty broad characterization. I don't see people who leave the Church as either dumb or evil. I know some brilliant people who have left the Church, and I don't view them as "evil" either. I know that's just my personal opinion, however.

Most crucially, to engage in debate is to tacitly concede that (empirically-discernible) facts and logic impose constraints upon what one may justifiably believe; but this is just what Mormonism denies.

How so? We'd have to define terms and be more specific, Tal.

Mormon theology might pay lip service to "studying it out in your mind",

You got me there! (But I'm not just paying lip service, I actually believe it.)

but any question is decided in the end by "feelings" taken to be divinely-given, and/or simply crediting what "the prophet" said. Hinckley made this point himself in his "Loyalty" GC talk a few years ago.

I'm not familiar with this loyalty talk. Can you link me? I remember a book in which Elder Oaks is talking about reason and revelation, is that what you have in mind?

So what are all these online Mormon "debaters" even doing, really?

Sometimes I see it as a sort of hobby. Other times as a type of missionary work. Other times I see it as a waste of time. (Or combine them, for a waste of time doing missionary work.) Talking about my religion online overall has been a good experience for me. It's broadened my horizon a little. It's led me to interesting new books, articles, viewpoints, etc. that I wouldn't have discovered otherwise. It's also helped form a few new friendships.

I suppose a similar question could be posed to you, Tal. Why do you spend time online talking about Mormonism? [/quote]

Tal Bachman wrote:... what are all these online Mormon "debaters" even doing, really?

They're playing a game, mostly with themselves. Or to put it another way, they're playing with themselves.

As Nehor says its some kind of "entertainment." This explains right there the lack of serious intellectual engagement. That these things may indeed be quite serious, emotionally and intellectually, for other people is immaterial.

I'm sure it provides a self-aggrandizement fix, too: Lo, I have once again dealt a blow against The Adversary! I think this role playing is pretty obvious from the demonizing and dehumanizing language they direct toward their "opponents." It also provides a persecution fix: Waaaa! The antis are saying mean things about my sacred (fill in the blank). It's Missouri all over again.

It's not about discussion for them, or even debate as a component of learning. They're not here to enlarge the scope of human knowledge and understanding because from their vantage there is no need for such things: all important truths or knowledge have been revealed and they possess it.

(I hope its obvious, but in case it isn't, I'm talking about self-styled apologists and other jacked-up defenders here and not every single self-identified LDS member.)

TB:

… to engage in debate is to tacitly concede that (empirically-discernible) facts and logic impose constraints upon what one may justifiably believe; but this is just what Mormonism denies.

I perceive no such restraints, for in my defense of my beliefs, I will as easily appeal to the metaphysical as to the empirical, and to regard metaphysical discernment as being, generally speaking, more reliable, in terms of its use as a sensor of fact/truth, than the tools employed in any laboratory. Of course, the inherent difficulty of using metaphysical sensors is the degree of fine calibration required – calibration parameters which seldom have relevance for someone else. We communicate “beyond the veil” on a frequency peculiarly our own, and learn how to make judgments based on the peculiar nature of the signals we discern.

Mormon theology might pay lip service to "studying it out in your mind", but any question is decided in the end by "feelings" taken to be divinely-given, and/or simply crediting what "the prophet" said. Hinckley made this point himself in his "Loyalty" GC talk a few years ago.

Actually, this statement tells us much more about you than it does about the “believers” whose faith you disdain.

It is quite apparent that you have had no experience with the kind of metaphysical sensors to which I refer above. And that explains your continued inability to understand the certainty with which many “defenders of the faith” approach these discussions.

You have read the following passages, but you’ve never really experienced the thing to which they refer:

I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you …

… this is the spirit of revelation …

… whatsoever you shall ask me to tell you by that means, that will I grant unto you, and you shall have knowledge concerning it.

Remember that without faith you can do nothing; therefore ask in faith. Trifle not with these things; do not ask for that which you ought not.

Ask that you may know the mysteries of God … and according to your faith shall it be done unto you.

You have crafted a caricature of what you think these words mean – subjective “feelings” – and you set up this caricature as an object of derision; convinced that there is no substantive reality to something described as “the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you.”

No, in your mind, if it’s not something you can plug in and expect to function immediately according to your expectations, then it has no value. And because you failed to work your way through the process of “calibration,” you ultimately concluded that the tools were useless. And yet Joseph Smith (and others) have taught quite clearly that:

“… by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation.”

But, to you, this is all just a fantasy, right?

So be it, but those who have paid the price to “grow into the principle of revelation” are not likely to be very impressed by your insistence that such things are not real. You see, although the calibration process is quite unique to each individual, the revelation received in consequence is quite consistent across the board and has the effect of unifying those who are “tapped in” to the source. Those who have grown “into the principle of revelation” are cognizant of others who are like them. They have seen that there is consistency to what they and others have learned through this unique sensory pathway. They form a whole, and combined as such, they constitute a power you cannot understand and they create a gravity that pulls into their orbit others who are attracted by the light and intelligence they exude. Of course, in any gravitational system, there are both centripetal and centrifugal forces in play. Therefore, while some bodies are drawn to the source, others find themselves repelled by it.

C’est la vie.

The Nehor wrote:I don't know about everyone else. I'm mostly trying to keep entertained.

---Is that like watching an r-rated movie for entertainment, even when you're not really supposed to? :P