DiscussMormonism.com

I can't warrant a belief in the Mormon/Christian God as spoken of in their sacred writings. Science certainly doesn't warrant it. The current theology is based on current context, not ancient context, therefore the deity in question cannot exist.
But you are correct, the FIRST place to start is with the putative deity. You haven't crossed the hurdle on that one enough for it to be warranted in my mind.

Philo Sofee wrote:I can't warrant a belief in the Mormon/Christian God as spoken of in their sacred writings. Science certainly doesn't warrant it. The current theology is based on current context, not ancient context, therefore the deity in question cannot exist.
But you are correct, the FIRST place to start is with the putative deity. You haven't crossed the hurdle on that one enough for it to be warranted in my mind.

Hi Philo, could you flesh out the part in blue? Why the first sentence or that which comes after the sentence in question must unduly influence a non belief in God is sort of fuzzy in my mind.

Thanks,
MG

I have a question wrote:Having now listened to both episodes, I have a question for Elder Corbridge. Would he advocate the same methodology for people of other faiths trying to ascertain the truthfulness of their chosen religion?

I can't speak for him, but I think that anyone ought to be encouraged to determine whether or not the 'first principles' of their chosen faith are true and/or are right for them in their daily walk.

I have a question wrote:For instance, Scientologist, Catholic’s, Moonies, FLDS, etc. If not, why not? And if he did, and they ascertained their chosen religion was true, then where does that leave Elder Corbridge?

It leaves him right where we left him. Encouraging members of the church to determine whether or not the primary beliefs of the CofJCofLDS are true. And that the secondary questions are just that, secondary. They shouldn't necessarily determine the truth of the first claims or primary questions of God, etc.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:It leaves him right where we left him. Encouraging members of the church to determine whether or not the primary beliefs of the CofJCofLDS are true.

I determined years ago that the "primary beliefs" of the CofJGofLDS are not true. Kind of leaves Corbridge 'right where we left him', he looks rather silly, doesn't he?

Holy Ghost wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:It leaves him right where we left him. Encouraging members of the church to determine whether or not the primary beliefs of the CofJCofLDS are true.

I determined years ago that the "primary beliefs" of the CofJGofLDS are not true. Kind of leaves Corbridge 'right where we left him', he looks rather silly, doesn't he?

Ummm...no.

If anything, it makes those that focus wholly on secondary questions looking rather silly.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:It leaves him right where we left him. Encouraging members of the church to determine whether or not the primary beliefs of the CofJCofLDS are true. And that the secondary questions are just that, secondary. They shouldn't necessarily determine the truth of the first claims or primary questions of God, etc.

The secondary questions are what make up the foundation to know if the primary questions are true.

If you're buying a used car and from the outside it looks OK would you just trust the dealer because you really want that car and feel encouraged to jump in? Unlikely -- you're going to get it checked out by a mechanic to make sure everything under the hood fits together as advertised, and then you'll know the primary question of whether or not the car is right for you gets answered. (And this would work with a new car as well since you'd research the reviews, etc before jumping in based on that initial attraction to it).

And last, Corbridge has two primary questions that are not exclusive to the LDS church that he then uses to leverage the truth claims of the LDS church... you get people to agree to the first two and then they're already softened up for the 3rd and 4th which are exclusive to the LDS church. It's a pretty disingenuous thing to tell students.

jfro18 wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:It leaves him right where we left him. Encouraging members of the church to determine whether or not the primary beliefs of the CofJCofLDS are true. And that the secondary questions are just that, secondary. They shouldn't necessarily determine the truth of the first claims or primary questions of God, etc.

The secondary questions are what make up the foundation to know if the primary questions are true.

If you're buying a used car and from the outside it looks OK would you just trust the dealer because you really want that car and feel encouraged to jump in? Unlikely -- you're going to get it checked out by a mechanic to make sure everything under the hood fits together as advertised, and then you'll know the primary question of whether or not the car is right for you gets answered. (And this would work with a new car as well since you'd research the reviews, etc before jumping in based on that initial attraction to it).

And last, Corbridge has two primary questions that are not exclusive to the LDS church that he then uses to leverage the truth claims of the LDS church... you get people to agree to the first two and then they're already softened up for the 3rd and 4th which are exclusive to the LDS church. It's a pretty disingenuous thing to tell students.

I've heard that used car analogy quite a few times over the years. I wonder where that was first printed. It sure has made the rounds.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:

Philo Sofee wrote:I can't warrant a belief in the Mormon/Christian God as spoken of in their sacred writings. Science certainly doesn't warrant it. The current theology is based on current context, not ancient context, therefore the deity in question cannot exist.
But you are correct, the FIRST place to start is with the putative deity. You haven't crossed the hurdle on that one enough for it to be warranted in my mind.

Hi Philo, could you flesh out the part in blue? Why the first sentence or that which comes after the sentence in question must unduly influence a non belief in God is sort of fuzzy in my mind.

Thanks,
MG

*bump

mentalgymnast wrote:

I have a question wrote:Having now listened to both episodes, I have a question for Elder Corbridge. Would he advocate the same methodology for people of other faiths trying to ascertain the truthfulness of their chosen religion?

I can't speak for him, but I think that anyone ought to be encouraged to determine whether or not the 'first principles' of their chosen faith are true and/or are right for them in their daily walk.

So what might be the 4 primary questions for a Scientologist or a Branch Davidian, or a Seventh Day Adventist if you prefer something a little more “Christian”?

mentalgymnast wrote:

jfro18 wrote:
If you're buying a used car and from the outside it looks OK would you just trust the dealer because you really want that car and feel encouraged to jump in? Unlikely -- you're going to get it checked out by a mechanic to make sure everything under the hood fits together as advertised, and then you'll know the primary question of whether or not the car is right for you gets answered. (And this would work with a new car as well since you'd research the reviews, etc before jumping in based on that initial attraction to it).

I've heard that used car analogy quite a few times over the years. I wonder where that was first printed. It sure has made the rounds.

The analogy is the same with anything. Would you take a new job without knowing any of the details about the company outside of salary? Would you buy a home if the exterior looks good when the realtor is telling you *not* to get a home inspection since you don't want to ruin that good vibe you get from seeing it form the outside?

I'm just not sure why dismissing the car analogy helps beyond just not wanting to deal with the fact that the primary questions are impossible to answer if you're unwilling to look at the secondary ones. Otherwise you could make ANYTHING true - Scientology, Unicorns, angels with flaming swords pressuring young women into marrying a person they look up to as a man of God, or people being black because God cursed them.