DiscussMormonism.com

Themis wrote:What he cannot do is show why he and a few select people in the LDS church can get reliable interpretations of these experiences, but no one else can. It also doesn't address why some who were in his boat no longer think the spiritual experience is reliable for these kinds of truth claims.

I don't know if spiritual experiences are ever completely 'reliable'. That is what the word 'faith' is trying to capture. That uncomfortable feeling that all the experiences you have had thus far are just induced by social training, but you still move forward despite those uncomfortable feelings, hoping for more understanding along the way.

Kind of like the saying, courage is not that absence of fear, it is moving forward despite your fear.

Faith is not the absence of doubt, it is moving forward despite your doubt.

I think only the very foolish are certain about everything. When we realize certainty or even high likelihood is not attainable, we still have to do something. That is faith.

Gorman wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:
Can I just ask a couple of questions here?

1)Have you ever visited that area of NY?

2)When do you imagine this might have happened? Timeframe?

3)What type of foundation are you suggesting that a farmer might have constructed using flat stones? Can you describe it?

1) No. It is possible that stones are abundant in that area. If that is the case, then a monkey wrench is officially thrown in the plausibility (though not possibility) of this thought experiment.

The reason I got interested in what you wrote is because for the first early years of my life, I was raised in an old farmhouse in New York. All true. Anyway, NY is pretty much filled with lakes, rivers, streams, and if I am not mistaken, the Erie Canal runs through the area you are addressing. I understand that you think a farmer might have come up with flat stones from the box, and while flat stones were used in the constructions of homes and walls in the area, I think the more prevalent construction was a combination of roundish rocks (of the river rock variety) put together with a crude mortar, and with a type of post/beam deal for the foundations. Many of the older homes and cabins have wooden floors, sitting right at ground level, and with no foundation at all. Just saying.

2) I think it could have plausibly happened sometime between then and now.

3) Again, I am not trying to argue that a foundation is what happened here. No one can really argue anything here except possibility. I assume stone foundations were used in the past. I assume there exist some buildings within some small distance from the hill. Therefore, there is a possibility. I imagine there might be all sorts of other things stones could be used for in that area (e.g. wells).

Not being LDS myself, I think there are all sorts of possibilities and I don't deny you your possibilities. Many people here will say that the box and plates never existed. If you want to consider other possibilities, that's your business and not mine.

Before we continue our descent into sophmorish name calling and ridicule, let's take a break and summarize.

Oh come on. You're no fun, Gorman!

:-)

Gorman wrote:I don't know if spiritual experiences are ever completely 'reliable'.

It would be far more accurate to say completely unreliable. This is really the problem with them in regards to learning objective truths. They are not at all reliable.

That is what the word 'faith' is trying to capture.

Yes but this is blind faith. Something you are employing to remain believing. You admit the evidence is against those beliefs, and depend on the interpretation of your spiritual experiences which are not reliable at all. All you have left is blind faith. Don't worry though. This is common for other religions as well. Even many non-religious beliefs.

Hi Gorman!

Gorman wrote:
Kind of like the saying, courage is not that absence of fear, it is moving forward despite your fear.

Faith is not the absence of doubt, it is moving forward despite your doubt.

Good stuff, Gorman!
Really good stuff!

I think only the very foolish are certain about everything.

I agree!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Gorman wrote:That may be true, but I think the issue isn't between which is more likely. Maybe I can try to explain from a believer's perspective (if you have been a believer, you are probably already familiar with this). If I have had spiritual experiences that I accept as from a god which points to a Mormon Theology, then events in Mormonism do not have to be likely, they only have to be possible to some threshold.

If I only allow for evidence which would be permissible in a court of law, it is probable that Mormonism fails. It is also probable that Theism fails. If I accept evidence of a spiritual nature, then the entire equation changes.

Yes, people who believe such things can look like they are ignoring all negative evidence and concentrating only on the highly improbable positives, but it could also be the case that people experience convincing spiritual experiences and any small collection of negative evidence simply doesn't change their mind about whether those spiritual experiences are trustworthy or not.

One of the really important things I've learned from being on this board is how difficult it is for many people to separate themselves from what they have been brought up to believe. It can often mean going against the beliefs of their parents, mentors, friends and spouses.

Maybe it's better not to do that. Maybe it's better to believe than doubt when it will cost you so much.

Fortunately, I have never had to make that choice. I was brought up to believe that truth was of paramount importance. Having to put things on a shelf was never an issue for me and I've had a hard time understanding why anyone would do that. After my time here, I think I have a better understanding of why other people do.

Still, since you are here, you must be having some doubts. I hope you resolve them, one way or the other. You are definitely in the right place to work through them.

Don't worry too much about the very few people here that might seem insulting. They have their own problems. Most of us understand where you are coming from.

Gorman wrote:
Kind of like the saying, courage is not that absence of fear, it is moving forward despite your fear.

Faith is not the absence of doubt, it is moving forward despite your doubt.

A lot of people have lost a lot of money applying that principle.
Faith seems to be the ability to cognitively move in the opposite direction to that of the observable data and information.

It is noteworthy, is it not, that the Church and the apologists are now playing down the importance of the gold plates. Both now take the position that Joseph didn't translate the Book of Mormon from them and that the Book of Mormon transcript comes from mixed sources.

It is noteworthy that any observable evidence which would support the truth claims of the Book of Mormon remains undiscovered. And that any and all observable evidence that we do have suggests the whole thing is simply a made up folk tale.

Your principle of moving forward in faith despite doubts is why Bernie Madoff made money, it's why MLM scams make money, it's why people are duped. That should be informing you that it's an unhealthy method of processing information on which to make life decisions.

Gorman is either a troll or is terrified that if he left the Mormon church that his wife would leave him.

Gadianton wrote:I hope the newer members realize Dr. Cam is just passionate about his beliefs and it isn't personal.

Well, there is a saying in North Korea, and shared by those courageous enough to escape the nightmare that is the Kim family's regime:

"Jinsil-eun baegyo e issda."

Translated into reformed Egyptian it comes out roughly to "Est veritas in apostasia."

I'm just thankful Herr Doktor Shades has been gracious and prescient enough to provide a free speech-y forum where we can speak freely, even if you don't like the manner in which we are spoken to (I'm looking at you Tobin).

So. That said. Why don't I take the soft approach to Mr. Gorman? Wouldn't he better served with the HeartsellTM?

It's because we owe it to him.

Most of us were raised in the Umbrella Corporation LDS church, and were massaged early on to accept their message through steady and persistent manipulation through personality management.

And if you don't think personality management exists you either didn't serve a mission, currently don't have a job in a marketing department, or you work for the CIA and you signed a non-disclosure statement.

We owe it to the thoughtful Mormon to be everything they're not used to being, seeing, reading, hearing, and communicating. It may be a sort of shock to the system, but the LDS church has created a tightly controlled narrative and an insular community with the ultimate goal of retaining membership (with, honestly, the ultimately goal of staying financially solvent because it's a fuckin' huge industry and a lot of people are depending on it to stay afloat). We owe it to them, because that's how the real world actually functions. They've been brainwashed, and by communicating with them in an honest and frank manner it exposes their psyche to something it's not used to observing: Reality.

I admire Mr. Gorman. I really do. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to disobey the LDS leadership, and plant one's self on a forum where Mormonism is discussed with little to no moderation. That takes balls.

Some people appear like this to the believer:



But it mattereth not. Gorman...



Thanks again, Dr. Shades. This forum is the bees knees.

V/R
Doc

I have a question wrote:

Gorman wrote:
Kind of like the saying, courage is not that absence of fear, it is moving forward despite your fear.

Faith is not the absence of doubt, it is moving forward despite your doubt.

A lot of people have lost a lot of money applying that principle.
Faith seems to be the ability to cognitively move in the opposite direction to that of the observable data and information.

A lot of people have made a lot of money applying this principle as well.

I would argue that faith isn't necessarily to move in the opposite direction of observable evidence, it is moving in a chosen direction despite not knowing exactly which direction is the right direction.

I have a question wrote:Your principle of moving forward in faith despite doubts is why Bernie Madoff made money, it's why MLM scams make money, it's why people are duped. That should be informing you that it's an unhealthy method of processing information on which to make life decisions.

Moving into the unknown despite your doubts has done worse than lost money, it has gotten countless people killed throughout history. It is also the same principle that got us across the Atlantic and onto the Moon.

Gorman wrote:Moving into the unknown despite your doubts has done worse than lost money, it has gotten countless people killed throughout history. It is also the same principle that got us across the Atlantic and onto the Moon.

But Mormonism isn't unknown.
To use your example, believing Mormonism to be true is the equivalent of going to the moon with the conflicting beliefs that it is made of rock or made of cheese. And then, after visiting the moon, maintaining that it could still be made of cheese despite ALL the observable data pointing to the fact that it's made of rock.

I get that you want it to be made of cheese, but you can hardly expect people to agree with you that it's a reasonable position to hold when the existential data is not of the fifty/fifty variety you seem to want to portray it as being.

On the basis that you cling to belief in Mormonism, you could equally maintain belief in Bernie Madoffs ability to grow your nest egg if only you'll trust him with your life savings. The evidence ratios for and against Bernie Madoff are the same as those for and against Mormonism. But I'm guessing you won't be handing any of your cash over to Bernie any time soon, right?