Who Cares?

[_Quasimodo]

[
+1 point for Stemelbow!

Nah, I don't think so.

[Guest]

Are you trying to make the atheists' point, stemelbow?

Atheism was started by a liar...the devil himself. my point is each religion, if defined by any man, or started by man, is one started by a proven liar. All people lie at some point.

Some might take exception to the rule, like Christians, but, assuming Christianity is true, there are so many flavors of Christianity, only one can be started by Christ. Which one is clearly in dispute.

[_stemelbow]

In evaluating the truth claims that tumbled out of JSJr's mouth, how can you not evaluate his character in coming to a conclusion about the veracity of those claims?

I think in principle this is easy. Afterall when we argue with each other about certain positions we are to argue the positions and not deflect to complaining about the individual (albeit often hard in practiced as evidenced by the posters on this board;-)). While it is hard, sometimes for some people, it is easy to figure out how/why its a good rule.

[_keithb]

Z had said, ""Why are you so bent on finding dirt on the church? I mean, who cares? All that really matters is that we center our life on Christ's example."

That is a comment I received recently that goes well with the topic of this thread."

I've heard that, too. The answer is that the history and origins of the church are important to you. It's not a character flaw, and people can't simply will you to stop caring, just as you can't will them to care about the things you care about.

But the history and origins of the church are important to many faithful LDS as well. The issue isn't so simple as that. The difference between one who knows the history and bleieves, and one who knows the history and doesn't believe, as a result, is one of personal conclusions and biases. That's pretty much it.

I agree completely with this statement Stemelbow. Indeed, the choice to believe in any religion, or any sort of spirituality whatsoever (including alien abductions, monsters, vampires, crop circles, tarot card readings, etc.), is ultimately one of personal conclusions and biases.

However, would you also acquiesce to the point of view that a subjective, personal experience isn't the correct way to decide the objective "truth" of claims, whether they are spiritual or otherwise? For example, if I came to you with a claim that I was abducted last night by aliens, would you just take me at my word? What if I told you to think about my words and see if they gave you a "warm feeling"? Would that be enough to convince you that I was telling the truth?

To extend the analogy a bit, what if the parts of my statement that are falsifiable contradicted sharply with the known facts of my story. For example, what would you say if you knew, from eyewitness testimony and video evidence, that I was actually in a bar during the time when I said the alien abduction was taking place? Would you still tend to believe my story of the alien abduction and your warm feelings when I told you the story, or would you want to reexamine your initial conclusions in light of the additional evidence?

I think that this is probably one of the ultimate sources of "hangups" (if you want to call them such) that prevent many people on this board from accepting a supernatural explanation for events in the world. As you said, all religion depend on a subjective, personal interpretation of the available evidence. However, for many (including myself), that level of evidence doesn't cut it, especially when we're being asked to change our entire lives to center around that belief.

[_karl61]

The Church cares deeply about the past:

1) a reported apostasy;
2) writings locked in a vault;
3) church courts;
4) genealogy.

[_Aristotle Smith]

You think people would be more curious about the man who has done more for the salvation of men than any other man, save Jesus only. But I have to keep reminding myself about what's important in life: what color shirt I wear on Sundays, how many earrings my wife and daughter have, and not playing penny poker. I'm glad these people exist to point out the obvious to me. I mean here I am trying to understand God, life, death, the universe, meaning, redemption, good, evil, etc. I mean who cares about that stuff? I'm such a dumbass.

Whose to say this dude isn't here to understand God, life, death, the universe, meaning, redemption, good, evil, etc? Perhaps that is his focus and thus why he is not so concerned about Joseph Smith' marriage life? I know you think you know, but really who knows?

Question for Runtu:

Does this person read deep philosophy and theology? Does he/she dabble in quantum mechanics on the weekend? Does he/she stay current on popular science literature? Does he/she read great literature? Does he/she read lots of history? Is there any indication that this person grapples with deep questions, but for whatever reason as a believing Mormon does not consider the behavior and teachings of Joseph Smith to fall under the category of deep questions?

[_stemelbow]

I agree completely with this statement Stemelbow. Indeed, the choice to believe in any religion, or any sort of spirituality whatsoever (including alien abductions, monsters, vampires, crop circles, tarot card readings, etc.), is ultimately one of personal conclusions and biases.

However, would you also acquiesce to the point of view that a subjective, personal experience isn't the correct way to decide the objective "truth" of claims, whether they are spiritual or otherwise?

In principle I certainly agree with you on that. Spiritual experience, even if true, is still left to interpretation, which interpretation is left to individuals, who are subject to their own personal biases, opinions.

For example, if I came to you with a claim that I was abducted last night by aliens, would you just take me at my word? What if I told you to think about my words and see if they gave you a "warm feeling"? Would that be enough to convince you that I was telling the truth?

Depends on what you mean by aliens. But surely I agree a warm feeling about something is not necessarily confirmation of that thing as true.

To extend the analogy a bit, what if the parts of my statement that are falsifiable contradicted sharply with the known facts of my story. For example, what would you say if you knew, from eyewitness testimony and video evidence, that I was actually in a bar during the time when I said the alien abduction was taking place? Would you still tend to believe my story of the alien abduction and your warm feelings when I told you the story, or would you want to reexamine your initial conclusions in light of the additional evidence?

I think I'm going right along with your point at this juncture. sure...there are definitely many things to consider when drawing conclusions of this type.

I think that this is probably one of the ultimate sources of "hangups" (if you want to call them such) that prevent many people on this board from accepting a supernatural explanation for events in the world. As you said, all religion depend on a subjective, personal interpretation of the available evidence. However, for many (including myself), that level of evidence doesn't cut it, especially when we're being asked to change our entire lives to center around that belief.

With that I'm quite like Joseph Smith, if experiences did not happen for me as they have I wouldn't believe it either. I feel like I'm quite liberal in regards to truth as well. Truth is so abundant outside the church, indeed in some cases/places just as abundant if not more, I'm more than willing to accept the notion that even people who do not believe in God are led by God. Some poeple who do not bleive in God remain sincere and genuine. Seek deligently for good. What I'm saying is, I don't htink the Church is for everyone, and I don't think God thinks that either....essentially.

[_stemelbow]

The Church cares deeply about the past:

1) a reported apostasy;
2) writings locked in a vault;
3) church courts;
4) genealogy.

Can't deny that.

[_stemelbow]

Question for Runtu:

Does this person read deep philosophy and theology? Does he/she dabble in quantum mechanics on the weekend? Does he/she stay current on popular science literature? Does he/she read great literature? Does he/she read lots of history? Is there any indication that this person grapples with deep questions, but for whatever reason as a believing Mormon does not consider the behavior and teachings of Joseph Smith to fall under the category of deep questions?

Seems like a myopic view to think deep questions and thinking is limited to these particular fields.

[_Darth J]

Atheism was started by a liar...the devil himself.

This one time, I was talking to an atheist, and he was going around trying to get other people to be atheists, and I asked him how he knew there was no God. And he said it was because an angel told him there was no God.





Okay, I made that up. I didn't think that anyone would believe a story that stupid, anyway.