Is Mormonism so bad?

[Manetho]

Whose life would we need to verify in order to fulfill the burden of the claim? Some random Jewish guy named Jesus? Or some random Jewish guy named Jesus who had a mother named Mary, who was a virgin at the time of his birth, a guy who spit upon a deaf and blind person to heal them and was killed by crucifixion? A guy who taught others names Peter, James, John, Simon etc? It doesn't seem like any of those elements are verifiable. If so, what's the point? He might as well have been a made up person.

We have the letters of Paul, who personally knew Peter and James, so our earliest sources about Jesus are only two degrees of separation away from his own life. That's a lot closer than we can get for many other significant figures from the ancient world.

I think the problem here is that Christianity makes Jesus almost literally the center of the universe. When people raised in a Christian background look into the evidence, they find that there's far less evidence than you'd expect for such a hugely important figure. But Jesus was not an important figure in and of himself, and the thing that made him more significant than other failed messiah claimants is the tenacious devotion of his followers and how widely that devotion was able to spread long after his death.

If Christianity had died out within a generation after Paul's death, so that there were no gospels detailing Jesus's life, but Paul's letters had somehow survived into the present, historians would treat Jesus as a real but minor historical figure because Paul's letters treat him as a real historical figure. There would be no movement dedicated to disproving his existence because Christianity wouldn't have created such absurdly high expectations.

[mentalgymnast]

Whose life would we need to verify in order to fulfill the burden of the claim? Some random Jewish guy named Jesus? Or some random Jewish guy named Jesus who had a mother named Mary, who was a virgin at the time of his birth, a guy who spit upon a deaf and blind person to heal them and was killed by crucifixion? A guy who taught others names Peter, James, John, Simon etc? It doesn't seem like any of those elements are verifiable. If so, what's the point? He might as well have been a made up person.

We have the letters of Paul, who personally knew Peter and James, so our earliest sources about Jesus are only two degrees of separation away from his own life. That's a lot closer than we can get for many other significant figures from the ancient world.

I think the problem here is that Christianity makes Jesus almost literally the center of the universe. When people raised in a Christian background look into the evidence, they find that there's far less evidence than you'd expect for such a hugely important figure. But Jesus was not an important figure in and of himself, and the thing that made him more significant than other failed messiah claimants is the tenacious devotion of his followers and how widely that devotion was able to spread long after his death.

If Christianity had died out within a generation after Paul's death, so that there were no gospels detailing Jesus's life, but Paul's letters had somehow survived into the present, historians would treat Jesus as a real but minor historical figure because Paul's letters treat him as a real historical figure. There would be no movement dedicated to disproving his existence because Christianity wouldn't have created such absurdly high expectations.

That is true. History is full of ‘if’s’. But the fact is, we are left with a record and a series of fortunate events that led us to where we are. It’s fun to play the ‘what if’ game, isn’t it?

Was he or wasn’t he? A perfect storm resulting in only two possible choices. At least that I can see.

And one of those choices leaves open another perfect storm of events that lead us to the restoration narrative. Of course, the other one doesn’t.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

...My reply was aimed towards the thread in general and the lurkers and other respondents to the thread as it's an interesting point about an ongoing attribute of Mormonism - that of wanting to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously.

And that attribute seems all too frequently to trace back to assuming one's conclusion a priori. How else to deal with facts that are impossible to reconcile with one's assumptions?

[mentalgymnast]

...My reply was aimed towards the thread in general and the lurkers and other respondents to the thread as it's an interesting point about an ongoing attribute of Mormonism - that of wanting to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously.

And that attribute seems all too frequently to trace back to assuming one's conclusion a priori. How else to deal with facts that are impossible to reconcile with one's assumptions?

The only hard fast conclusions I’ve come to that I know for a fact are the reality of death and taxes. Maybe I could throw in a few other things too. But conclusive knowledge dealing with the metaphysical? That’s pretty hard to come by in a world where we live by faith rather than absolute understanding or knowledge. And yes, there are some things that are difficult to reconcile with belief in either God or Mormonism in particular. No argument there.

What seems to be a necessary component for moving forward in faith, however, is a love of God and all mankind. Without this, we will falter along the way.

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
1 Corinthians 2:9

Before you came to disbelieve in God, did you ever truly love Him. I mean, as in being grateful/thankful for your life, your being, etc.? Or did something come along that caused you to lose that?

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

...My reply was aimed towards the thread in general and the lurkers and other respondents to the thread as it's an interesting point about an ongoing attribute of Mormonism - that of wanting to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously.

And that attribute seems all too frequently to trace back to assuming one's conclusion a priori. How else to deal with facts that are impossible to reconcile with one's assumptions?

The only hard fast conclusions I’ve come to that I know for a fact are the reality of death and taxes. Maybe I could throw in a few other things too. But conclusive knowledge dealing with the metaphysical?

You missed the point if that's what you think I was referring to, in response to ihaq. Here's his full post, in situ, and my response.

When MG posits that if he is right, then what he believes to be true is true, one shouldn't feel obligated to post a reply. That's a mad man ranting on the street corner, convinced of his own rightness because he lacks the capacity to get outside of the preference he holds for his own opinions.

But then he has also become satellite to some book or other recently that has spun him off into claims those who do not agree with his opinion are myopic and have their viewfinder focused poorly.

I don't know how many times over numerous threads a board member has pointed out to MG he has his ladder placed on the branch he is sawing, that his reasoning is circular, or that he is locked in a Mormon-based worldview he asserts as universal. There aren't many more ways to express it that haven't been tried. So, I guess that's about as far as the conversation will ever make it.

You're so right.
I never feel obligated to reply to the troll known as 'mentalgymnast'. My reply was aimed towards the thread in general and the lurkers and other respondents to the thread as it's an interesting point about an ongoing attribute of Mormonism - that of wanting to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously.

[And that attribute seems all too frequently to trace back to assuming one's conclusion a priori. How else to deal with facts that are impossible to reconcile with one's assumptions?

[Moksha]

That is true. History is full of ‘if’s’. But the fact is, we are left with a record and a series of fortunate events that led us to where we are. It’s fun to play the ‘what if’ game, isn’t it?

And one of those choices leaves open another perfect storm of events that lead us to the restoration narrative. Of course, the other one doesn’t.

Regards,
MG

I love what-if games! Even if restoration was taken off the table, what if from now on the Church dedicated itself to providing as much good to the world as it possibly could? I think they could do a lot.

Por ejemplo, buying up some farmland in Colorado to start an LDS Commune for the homeless, that could grow medicinal marijuana for cancer wards throughout the country. A gift from LDS humanity.

[honorentheos]

There aren't many more ways to express it that haven't been tried. So, I guess that's about as far as the conversation will ever make it.

I have said the same thing a number of times. There is a divide that cannot be traversed.
Regards,
MG

https://youtu.be/0U2zJOryHKQ

When someone's caught in a logic loop, it's madness to follow them.

[Moksha]

Por ejemplo, buying up some farmland in Colorado to start an LDS Commune for the homeless, that could grow medicinal marijuana for cancer wards throughout the country. A gift from LDS humanity.

Some boba milk tea shops employing the homeless. Could have an LDS scripture on the side of each cup.

[dastardly stem]

I have said the same thing a number of times. There is a divide that cannot be traversed.
Regards,
MG

https://youtu.be/0U2zJOryHKQ

When someone's caught in a logic loop, it's madness to follow them.

I think Mentalgymnast would have to be categorized as a presuppositionalist. Or is comments seem to amount to as much, as far as I can see. It makes a conversation difficult from the outset. I don't mean to make it about him or make a fuss about this, but it does seem when he does comment directly to something I've said it amounts to something like "well, ok, but if it is true then it is true..." I don't know why, but seeing his comments that way helps.

[dastardly stem]

We have the letters of Paul, who personally knew Peter and James, so our earliest sources about Jesus are only two degrees of separation away from his own life. That's a lot closer than we can get for many other significant figures from the ancient world.

I think the problem here is that Christianity makes Jesus almost literally the center of the universe. When people raised in a Christian background look into the evidence, they find that there's far less evidence than you'd expect for such a hugely important figure. But Jesus was not an important figure in and of himself, and the thing that made him more significant than other failed messiah claimants is the tenacious devotion of his followers and how widely that devotion was able to spread long after his death.

If Christianity had died out within a generation after Paul's death, so that there were no gospels detailing Jesus's life, but Paul's letters had somehow survived into the present, historians would treat Jesus as a real but minor historical figure because Paul's letters treat him as a real historical figure. There would be no movement dedicated to disproving his existence because Christianity wouldn't have created such absurdly high expectations.

Channeling Carrier, if I could, half of Paul's letters are considered forgeries, and the ones that aren't do not in any sense speak or verify the life of Jesus. Indeed, Paul's teachings and claims for how he's gotten his knowledge, seem ignorant of Jesus' life. And, on top of that, we have no words from Peter or James. So, we're further from verifying Jesus' existence then it seems.