Let's see where we can get with this
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:26 pm
Hey all.
It appears to me "the critic" whomever that may include, seems to often be missing the boat in this whole "discussion" thing.
The critics position, as far as I can tell, seems to be "The Church is not true. It simply can't be true. it is proven false on too many fronts to be able to hold the claim that it is true."
The LDS position seems to be, this is true at least for me, "I have faith that the Church is true. This means I hold my faith as the evidence that the Church is closer to being the true Church than any other organization on earth."
I readily acknowledge I can't show you my faith. Faith is personal. in it I see evidence. But I can't show or demonstrate that evidence.
The critic, as it is, as the arguer must demonstrate his or her position. He/she is beholden to the notion that the Church is demonstrably false. in his/her mind it seems obvious to me, that the Church is false because many particular claims made by the Church shows either no evidence in support of it, or show contradicting evidence. The parameters are illy defined in most cases, so we're left quibbling about non-essentials it seems from my believing perspective. "did the Book of Mormon peoples really exist?" who knows? The critic may think he/she knows but it seems like he/she can't define what would be expected. Can't demonstrate that civilizations are all known and accounted for and that those that are known about are really understood. If that's not demonstrated then there's no support for the proposal that the Book of Mormon events never took place.
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).
That's where we're at. Unless we can address the other side with a good idea of where they are coming from and what they wish to discuss, we'll be left quibbling, as it were, about things like is DCP a bad man? Does Pahoran hate Runtu? Are Mormon idiots? Can a Mormon become president?
It appears to me "the critic" whomever that may include, seems to often be missing the boat in this whole "discussion" thing.
The critics position, as far as I can tell, seems to be "The Church is not true. It simply can't be true. it is proven false on too many fronts to be able to hold the claim that it is true."
The LDS position seems to be, this is true at least for me, "I have faith that the Church is true. This means I hold my faith as the evidence that the Church is closer to being the true Church than any other organization on earth."
I readily acknowledge I can't show you my faith. Faith is personal. in it I see evidence. But I can't show or demonstrate that evidence.
The critic, as it is, as the arguer must demonstrate his or her position. He/she is beholden to the notion that the Church is demonstrably false. in his/her mind it seems obvious to me, that the Church is false because many particular claims made by the Church shows either no evidence in support of it, or show contradicting evidence. The parameters are illy defined in most cases, so we're left quibbling about non-essentials it seems from my believing perspective. "did the Book of Mormon peoples really exist?" who knows? The critic may think he/she knows but it seems like he/she can't define what would be expected. Can't demonstrate that civilizations are all known and accounted for and that those that are known about are really understood. If that's not demonstrated then there's no support for the proposal that the Book of Mormon events never took place.
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).
That's where we're at. Unless we can address the other side with a good idea of where they are coming from and what they wish to discuss, we'll be left quibbling, as it were, about things like is DCP a bad man? Does Pahoran hate Runtu? Are Mormon idiots? Can a Mormon become president?