DiscussMormonism.com

Kishkumen wrote:Huh. OK. Well, we are different in that way, I suppose. Everyone likes to imagine she or he is openminded. I give people credit for trying. I'm just not sure we all succeed to the degree we imagine we do. I agree that people are a lot more close-minded on religion and politics than they would like to think. Heck, I am sure I am.

A non answer to how we can have varieties of open mindedness. I am just not sure what you mean being open minded in his own way. There are some things we have to do to try and get close, which MG has admitted to not doing. Not educating ourselves on any issue limits our ability to be open minded about it. Approaching a subject with a conclusion before knowing all the facts limits our ability to be open minded. I did this for decades in regards to LDS truth claims. I suppose it is why people tend to stick with their religions and why many can stick with some crazy beliefs. Like Scientologists making Mormonism look sane for decades.

Yeah, maybe. Some people seem to be able to handle the cold hard facts and hold onto faith.

I admit to not understanding why some do, but it doesn't change the mountains of evidence the earth is much much older then 6k years.

mentalgymnast wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:Everyone likes to imagine she or he is openminded.

I'm not sure that this is true in all instances...but, be that as it may...

Regards,
MG

I suppose there are those who admit to not being open minded on a certain issue, but that at least is a good step towards being open minded.

Themis wrote:A non answer to how we can have varieties of open mindedness. I am just not sure what you mean being open minded in his own way. There are some things we have to do to try and get close, which MG has admitted to not doing. Not educating ourselves on any issue limits our ability to be open minded about it. Approaching a subject with a conclusion before knowing all the facts limits our ability to be open minded. I did this for decades in regards to LDS truth claims. I suppose it is why people tend to stick with their religions and why many can stick with some crazy beliefs. Like Scientologists making Mormonism look sane for decades.

Look, MG has exhibited an interest in Continental philosophy. That is something. I think people can be more openminded in some areas of their lives than others. It is not as though openminded-ness were necessarily an all or nothing thing. I think plenty of people on this board are close-minded, though they like to imagine they are not. Or maybe, to be fair, they are openminded in some ways, and not so much in others.

I admit to not understanding why some do, but it doesn't change the mountains of evidence the earth is much much older then 6k years.

Maybe you just need to open your mind a little.

Kishkumen wrote:

Themis wrote:I admit to not understanding why some do, but it doesn't change the mountains of evidence the earth is much much older then 6k years.

Maybe you just need to open your mind a little.

Or close it.

I have a question wrote:Or close it.

I hope no one closes their mind to the possibility of understanding others better.

Kishkumen wrote:Look, MG has exhibited an interest in Continental philosophy. That is something. I think people can be more openminded in some areas of their lives than others. It is not as though openminded-ness were necessarily an all or nothing thing. I think plenty of people on this board are close-minded, though they like to imagine they are not. Or maybe, to be fair, they are openminded in some ways, and not so much in others.

One thing I noticed was some others reading things into your posts you didn't actually say, and I thought in some cases you were fairly clear about, yet here you are doing the same thing with me. I thought I was clear that open-mindedness is not all or nothing and that we all can be closed minded in certain areas. I even gave an example of that it is usually topics we really care about that can make it hard for us to be open minded, and that with topics almost nobody cares much about we see almost universal agreement with where the evidence points. This would certainly suggest most people are capable of being open minded. I don't think we can be perfectly open minded though. It a degree then a binary all or nothing.

When I have referred to MG's closed mindedness, it has been only on certain subjects.

Maybe you just need to open your mind a little.

I admit to not being very open minded on many subjects, but it still doesn't change that some who know the evidence can keep clearly false beliefs.

Themis wrote:...I don't think we can be perfectly open minded though. It a degree then a binary all or nothing.

When I have referred to MG's closed mindedness, it has been only on certain subjects.

Probably having to do with the acceptance of the probability/possibility of LDS truth claims having merit. And also anything having to do with the acceptance of the probability/possibility of the existence of a creator/God. Because, maybe, that's where your mind has closed.

Kishkumen wrote:Maybe you just need to open your mind a little.

Themis wrote:I admit to not being very open minded on many subjects...

Did I 'hit' two of them?

Themis wrote:...but it still doesn't change that some who know the evidence can keep clearly false beliefs.

In the eye of the beholder.

Regards,
MG

Themis wrote:One thing I noticed was some others reading things into your posts you didn't actually say, and I thought in some cases you were fairly clear about, yet here you are doing the same thing with me. I thought I was clear that open-mindedness is not all or nothing and that we all can be closed minded in certain areas. I even gave an example of that it is usually topics we really care about that can make it hard for us to be open minded, and that with topics almost nobody cares much about we see almost universal agreement with where the evidence points. This would certainly suggest most people are capable of being open minded. I don't think we can be perfectly open minded though. It a degree then a binary all or nothing.

When I have referred to MG's closed mindedness, it has been only on certain subjects.

OK. Cool. I am sorry I misinterpreted what you wrote. I will try to be more careful in the future.

I admit to not being very open minded on many subjects, but it still doesn't change that some who know the evidence can keep clearly false beliefs.

I don't understand why anyone would argue that the Book of Mormon is ancient or even say that they are open to the possibility that it is. It isn't at all ancient in the sense of "composed in antiquity." I don't see that there is any reason to have hope in the possibility. Somehow, people I admire and like, such as Dan Witherspoon, do say they hold such a possibility open. I guess that makes me closed minded. It is true that I do not know for an absolute certainty that no part of the Book of Mormon that is not cribbed from the Bible was composed in antiquity. It's just that the chances seem to me to be so infinitesimally small that I think it is virtually impossible.

So, I suppose that makes me closed minded in the view of people like DCP and others.

Kishkumen wrote:I don't understand why anyone would argue that the Book of Mormon is ancient or even say that they are open to the possibility that it is. It isn't at all ancient in the sense of "composed in antiquity."

I'm of the opinion that the Book of Mormon was composed in antiquity but not translated in antiquity. Duh. As a result of this rather obvious fact I see the Book of Mormon as being a modern translation or more aptly put, a transliteration. But not transliteration in the traditional meaning of the word. Instead of grapheme to grapheme or "letters of the source script to letters pronounced similarly in the target script" resulting in "conversion of a text from one script to another"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration

I see it as a transliteration resulting in the conversion of one historical period to another using conceptual 'mapping(s)' during the translation process. This is possibly one reason that the actual plates weren't always being accessed during the translation. The characters on the plates didn't lend themselves towards a conceptual transliteration.

Kishkumen wrote:It is true that I do not know for an absolute certainty that no part of the Book of Mormon that is not cribbed from the Bible was composed in antiquity.

Conceptual mapping would also lend itself to commonalities with the Bible phraseology. Blake Ostler's 'expansion on an ancient text' would fit in nicely with this, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:Probably having to do with the acceptance of the probability/possibility of LDS truth claims having merit. And also anything having to do with the acceptance of the probability/possibility of the existence of a creator/God. Because, maybe, that's where your mind has closed.

One cannot understand very well what the possibility is if they don't educate themselves well on all the evidence that is related to it's possibility/probability. The problem I have brought up with you, as I see it, is you have not educated yourself well on much of the evidence related to LDS truth claims. You have even admitted some of this ignorance. This is an indication closed mindedness.

In the eye of the beholder.

Until reality hits.