Don't worry about the history

[_zeezrom]

A TBM told me last night, "History is just history. We don't know everything that happened in the history of anything. What matters is what we know to be true through the promptings of the Spirit."

I asked the TBM if he believed Nephi truly crossed the Great waters. Did he believe that to be a historical fact? He said he did believe that and I asked if he felt it important to believe it to be a factual, historical event. He said it was.

I asked if it was important to believe that the 1st Vision was a factual, historical event and he said it was.

Obviously, history is important. What I find interesting is how we decide what parts of history are important (even vital to the highest degree possible) and others are sent off as little details that have no meaning or weight. What do we call this? Is it creation of our own history? Is it problematic?

I think we can apply this issue to other areas of our life. What if we look back on the history of our personal finances in a similar fashion to the way some look at LDS Church history? We ignore the painful, dirty events and see roses and sunshine. The next thing we know is we just repeated past mistakes and end up in debt yet again.

At the Lady Gaga concert, Mother Monster said, "I hate the truth. In fact, I hate the truth so much, I’d prefer a giant dose of BS any day, over the truth. SHOW ME YOUR TEETH.” Now, I don't get the teeth thing and she likely stole this quote from someone else (like she steals many other things) but her presentation was very amazing and I give her credit for that. My experience with her was religious and I'm sticking to that story, dang it! Oops, how did this turn into a Gaga post?

[_Buffalo]

I think the answer is simple - the only history that's important is the faith-promoting kind. If you drop that attitude, you won't remain a Mormon for long.

[_stemelbow]

Its fair to assume there is a ton of ambiguious theoretical assumptions about history. There just is. Some people take that to mean, it seems, there is history that is problematic, but it doesn't matter because ultimately we don't really "know" what took place so why be so heavily bothered by it all? There must be other reason or evidence to indicate whether a religious position is true or not. That's kinda why, it seems, people suggest they can't put their faith in history.

Other than that, I cna't help ya. It appears religious people, faithful LDS in particular, just see things differently on this basic premise.

[_Buffalo]

Its fair to assume there is a ton of ambiguious theoretical assumptions about history. There just is. Some people take that to mean, it seems, there is history that is problematic, but it doesn't matter because ultimately we don't really "know" what took place so why be so heavily bothered by it all? There must be other reason or evidence to indicate whether a religious position is true or not. That's kinda why, it seems, people suggest they can't put their faith in history.

Other than that, I cna't help ya. It appears religious people, faithful LDS in particular, just see things differently on this basic premise.

Doesn't it seem inconsistent, though, to only emphasize the history that is faith promoting, and relegate everything else to the "we just don't know" bin? That's classic confirmation bias.

[_stemelbow]

Doesn't it seem inconsistent, though, to only emphasize the history that is faith promoting, and relegate everything else to the "we just don't know" bin? That's classic confirmation bias.

Sure. Particularly if you are promoting the faith promoting kind as exhaustive. But what's wrong with a little inconsistency when history is not meant to be the primary source of faith building? Often, to the faithful it simply does not matter what historical research can find, because that's not what faith is based on.

Its also inconsistent to demand, or expect, the faithful to learn of the troubling aspects of LDS history and be exceedingly troubled by it when it is well known they don't trust history as the basis for their faith.

[_Buffalo]

Doesn't it seem inconsistent, though, to only emphasize the history that is faith promoting, and relegate everything else to the "we just don't know" bin? That's classic confirmation bias.

Sure. Particularly if you are promoting the faith promoting kind as exhaustive. But what's wrong with a little inconsistency when history is not meant to be the primary source of faith building? Often, to the faithful it simply does not matter what historical research can find, because that's not what faith is based on.

Its also inconsistent to demand, or expect, the faithful to learn of the troubling aspects of LDS history and be exceedingly troubled by it when it is well known they don't trust history as the basis for their faith.

But as Zeez pointed out, history is VERY important to LDS faith. At least certain events, like the first vision, this history of the Nephites, etc. It's not just based on mystical things that can't be nailed to the wall.

[Guest]

Doesn't it seem inconsistent, though, to only emphasize the history that is faith promoting, and relegate everything else to the "we just don't know" bin? That's classic confirmation bias.

Sure. Particularly if you are promoting the faith promoting kind as exhaustive. But what's wrong with a little inconsistency when history is not meant to be the primary source of faith building? Often, to the faithful it simply does not matter what historical research can find, because that's not what faith is based on.

Its also inconsistent to demand, or expect, the faithful to learn of the troubling aspects of LDS history and be exceedingly troubled by it when it is well known they don't trust history as the basis for their faith.

Belief can be founded on objective evidence, on internal feelings, or a combination of both. When belief founded primarily on subjective feelings and emotion, we think of such belief as unfounded and label it as "faith".

Unfounded belief, and the actions taken based on such belief, are among the greatest dangers facing society today. When people ignore evidence in favor of feeling and unfounded belief as a basis for decision making and action, all of society suffers.

The typical faithful member's subjective and whitewashed view of the troubling history of Mormonism is but one example of the inability of religion to face or deal with objective reality.

As a number of authors have pointed out recently, backed by example after example, society can no longer afford to give religion "as pass" on its lies and misrepresentations. The cost to society of such delusional thinking and the resulting behaviors are rapidly becoming too high.

[_stemelbow]

But as Zeez pointed out, history is VERY important to LDS faith. At least certain events, like the first vision, this history of the Nephites, etc. It's not just based on mystical things that can't be nailed to the wall.

Overall I see your point. But I maintain my point stands on an individual level. Individuals base their faith on something quite different than history. And since history is not complete, since history carries assumptions, since history is to some extent theoretical, there is to the faithful mind, no reason to rely on attempted refutations based on historic analysis. Did Joseph Smith have a vision of God and the Son? Well there is plenty of reason to reject that, but those reasons themselves don't prove it didn't happen. It could still have happened, supposing their is a God.

[_Simon Belmont]

Belief can be founded on objective evidence, on internal feelings, or a combination of both. When belief founded primarily on subjective feelings and emotion, we think of such belief as unfounded and label it as "faith" "faith".

Unfounded belief, and the actions taken based on such belief are among the greatest dangers facing society today. When people ignore evidence as a basis for action in favor of feeling and unfounded belief, all of society suffers.

As a number of authors have pointed out recently, backed by example after example, society can no longer afford to give religion "as pass" on its lies and misrepresentations. The cost to society of such delusional thinking and the resulting behaviors are rapidly becoming too high. Rational human beings really need to quit smiling and looking the other way while the religionists continue to act out in order to get attention.

Let us walk through this line of reasoning, DrW.

Let us say, hypothetically, that you are holding an apple in your hand. What thinking process do you internally go through in order to prove to yourself that the apple exists, and that it is an apple?

[_stemelbow]

Belief can be founded on objective evidence, on internal feelings, or a combination of both. When belief founded primarily on subjective feelings and emotion, we think of such belief as unfounded and label it as "faith" "faith".

I assume you meant to say "blind faith", am i right?

Unfounded belief, and the actions taken based on such belief are among the greatest dangers facing society today. When people ignore evidence as a basis for action in favor of feeling and unfounded belief, all of society suffers.

But determining what is "unfounded belief" is itself subjective. To many, LDS belief is not unfounded. And it seems rather dramatic to define this subjective concept of unfounded belief as "among the greatest dangers facing society today"--of course you might be thinking of Islamic terrorists or something but come on.

As a number of authors have pointed out recently, backed by example after example, society can no longer afford to give religion "as pass" on its lies and misrepresentations. The cost to society of such delusional thinking and the resulting behaviors are rapidly becoming too high. Rational human beings really need to quit smiling and looking the other way while the religionists continue to act out in order to get attention.

You're being very general and vague. I don't know what you're talking about. How's about something to consider?