Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[KevinSim]

But using the other view, where God is more abstract, I quite honestly don't know what the good thing is that God is in the process of preserving.

Probably because "good" is a value judgement that assumes a subjective opinion as a point of comparison. One has to accept a certain set of values first before one can judge something to be "good".

Honorentheos, you and I wouldn't even be having this conversation if we didn't think that open and honest discussion was a good thing. Are there different subjective opinions, some that hold that open and honest discussion is good and some that say it is evil? Is whether a person is a troll or not depend on people's subjective opinion? I know there are differences of opinion over whether or not some things are good, but lack of consensus today doesn't mean there won't ever be consensus. Look at the advancement of medical knowledge from 1500 CE to 2000 CE. That advancement didn't happen because medicine is subjective; it happened because medical knowledge in 1500 was wrong. I see no inherent reason to believe we can't make similar advancements in understanding what is good; I'm not convinced that what is good is as subjective as you make it out to be.

[MG 2.0]

The Book of Mormon contains things that aren’t true? Wow! Now all we are left with is the question about how to reliably identify which bits aren’t true and which are…

It might be well to flesh this out a bit more:

…the Nephites were racist. This appears to be the most plausible view, and a close reading of the Book of Mormon appears to uphold this view. We get a hint of Nephites being racist toward the Lamanites in descriptions made of the Lamanites by the Nephites…

https://rationalfaiths.com/racism-in-th ... of-Mormon/

The conclusion of this essay:

One of the Book of Mormon record keepers, Moroni, says the following about the Book of Mormon and the fallibility of its record keepers:
“Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”
(Mormon 9:31)
In summary, the most plausible interpretation of the issue of skin color (as you read in 3 Nephi 2:15) is that it was more an issue of the racism that the Nephites held against the Lamanites; there was no actual change in skin color. One should not be surprised that someone from the 7th century BC through the 5th century AD would hold such horrible racist views. In fact, one of the reasons that Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan is so powerful is because of the racist views that Jews held toward the Samaritans.

I might suggest reading this essay and gaining a greater appreciation for historical context.

Regards,
MG

It’s responses like this one from IHAQ that cause me to think as to whether or not critics give the same due diligence for uncovering answers and answering questions as they seem to demand from believers.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

IHAQ, I am not a racist. Nor do I believe that my God is a racist. The Book of Mormon can indeed give a great description of God's nature without every word it says being true.

The Book of Mormon contains things that aren’t true? Wow! Now all we are left with is the question about how to reliably identify which bits aren’t true and which are…

IHAQ’s response was in regards to this post.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Probably because "good" is a value judgement that assumes a subjective opinion as a point of comparison. One has to accept a certain set of values first before one can judge something to be "good".

Honorentheos, you and I wouldn't even be having this conversation if we didn't think that open and honest discussion was a good thing. Are there different subjective opinions, some that hold that open and honest discussion is good and some that say it is evil? Is whether a person is a troll or not depend on people's subjective opinion? I know there are differences of opinion over whether or not some things are good, but lack of consensus today doesn't mean there won't ever be consensus. Look at the advancement of medical knowledge from 1500 CE to 2000 CE. That advancement didn't happen because medicine is subjective; it happened because medical knowledge in 1500 was wrong. I see no inherent reason to believe we can't make similar advancements in understanding what is good; I'm not convinced that what is good is as subjective as you make it out to be.

i would argue that the wrong ideas about medical knowledge could quite clearly be defined as subjective, in the sense that they were based on opinions that were not objectively formed. As knowledge of medicine and the capacity to investigate increased, people's "opinions" regarding
medicine moved to a more objective understanding, based on observable fact.

the concept of "goodness" is qualitatively different. Advancements can come in the direction of evolving the set of values underlying the term, in my opinion, but there is no observable fact making that evolution of opinion and value a single path for all.

Comparing an adjective like goodness to medical knowledge, as though it is on a trajectory toward a single definitive objective definition, ignores the underlying premise that a set of values determines "goodness."

[IHAQ]

The Book of Mormon contains things that aren’t true? Wow! Now all we are left with is the question about how to reliably identify which bits aren’t true and which are…

It might be well to flesh this out a bit more:

…the Nephites were racist. This appears to be the most plausible view, and a close reading of the Book of Mormon appears to uphold this view. We get a hint of Nephites being racist toward the Lamanites in descriptions made of the Lamanites by the Nephites…

https://rationalfaiths.com/racism-in-th ... of-Mormon/

The conclusion of this essay:

One of the Book of Mormon record keepers, Moroni, says the following about the Book of Mormon and the fallibility of its record keepers:
“Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”
(Mormon 9:31)
In summary, the most plausible interpretation of the issue of skin color (as you read in 3 Nephi 2:15) is that it was more an issue of the racism that the Nephites held against the Lamanites; there was no actual change in skin color. One should not be surprised that someone from the 7th century BC through the 5th century AD would hold such horrible racist views. In fact, one of the reasons that Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan is so powerful is because of the racist views that Jews held toward the Samaritans.

I might suggest reading this essay and gaining a greater appreciation for historical context.

Regards,
MG

Miguel Barker-Valdez has a reason for writing his personal essay and for wanting the Nephites to be racist rather than God…

“As a physician’s assistant in an orthopedic surgery clinic, patients have referred to me as “the well-dressed Mexican,” the surgeon’s “little Japanese friend,” and most recently, “the man from East India.” Facebook has pegged me as “77% Brazilian, 13% Japanese.” My father called my brother (Paul) and me his “little Lamanites” when we were children.”
https://sunstone.org/rorschach-test/

Rather than some random guy on the internet trying to make sense of his own personal upbringing, can you give me an official church reference that promotes the view it was the Nephites who were racist, not God?

[IHAQ]

IHAQ, I am not a racist. Nor do I believe that my God is a racist. The Book of Mormon can indeed give a great description of God's nature without every word it says being true.

The Book of Mormon contains things that aren’t true? Wow! Now all we are left with is the question about how to reliably identify which bits aren’t true and which are…

Hi Kevin, still waiting for a response to this^

[drumdude]

It might be well to flesh this out a bit more:



The conclusion of this essay:



I might suggest reading this essay and gaining a greater appreciation for historical context.

Regards,
MG

It’s responses like this one from IHAQ that cause me to think as to whether or not critics give the same due diligence for uncovering answers and answering questions as they seem to demand from believers.

Regards,
MG

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Believers tend not to understand the null hypothesis, and think the two sides have an equal burden of proof. They do not.

[IHAQ]

Where did MGSim2.0 go?

[honorentheos]

Honorentheos, you and I wouldn't even be having this conversation if we didn't think that open and honest discussion was a good thing. Are there different subjective opinions, some that hold that open and honest discussion is good and some that say it is evil? Is whether a person is a troll or not depend on people's subjective opinion? I know there are differences of opinion over whether or not some things are good, but lack of consensus today doesn't mean there won't ever be consensus. Look at the advancement of medical knowledge from 1500 CE to 2000 CE. That advancement didn't happen because medicine is subjective; it happened because medical knowledge in 1500 was wrong. I see no inherent reason to believe we can't make similar advancements in understanding what is good; I'm not convinced that what is good is as subjective as you make it out to be.

Comparing an adjective like goodness to medical knowledge, as though it is on a trajectory toward a single definitive objective definition, ignores the underlying premise that a set of values determines "goodness."

Thank you, Marcus. Well put.

[honorentheos]

Probably because "good" is a value judgement that assumes a subjective opinion as a point of comparison. One has to accept a certain set of values first before one can judge something to be "good".

Honorentheos, you and I wouldn't even be having this conversation if we didn't think that open and honest discussion was a good thing. Are there different subjective opinions, some that hold that open and honest discussion is good and some that say it is evil? Is whether a person is a troll or not depend on people's subjective opinion? I know there are differences of opinion over whether or not some things are good, but lack of consensus today doesn't mean there won't ever be consensus. Look at the advancement of medical knowledge from 1500 CE to 2000 CE. That advancement didn't happen because medicine is subjective; it happened because medical knowledge in 1500 was wrong. I see no inherent reason to believe we can't make similar advancements in understanding what is good; I'm not convinced that what is good is as subjective as you make it out to be.

Hi KevinSim,

Would you describe the sun rising as good?