Was I clear as mud as to how to find peace?

[_mentalgymnast]

You don't look at possiblities which don't agree with your religious beliefs.

MG: bullcrap.

Psychoanalysis...on the run...next patient...

Regards,
MG

[_marg]

previously I wrote: I'm going to assume given what you've said in this thread that you have been indoctrinated into Mormonism from a young age. What do you think are the probabilites that you are able to objectively look at your beliefs and determine whether or not the claims of J.Smith and the Mormon church are true? What do you think are the probabilities that you can objectively with intellectual honestey look at any evidence regarding the church which doesn't support it? An intellectually honest individual lets the evidence lead them to best fit conclusons. An intellectually dishonest individual dismisses or downplays evidence they don't like, which doesn't support their beliefs. I didn't see you mention evidence as being a critical factor in determining your religious beliefs. It rarely is for a religious individual. Few people critically evaluate all religions and then choose one, and few end up with religious belief much different to that they were exposed to in their early years. It is mathematically obvious then that most people don't use evidence and reasoning in reaching their religious beliefs.


Your statement that "reality demonstates..ways to know God" has no evidence to support it. How long has your God theoretically been known? There is DNA evidence of modern man being on earth at least 100,000 years. Yet your God if we assume it's the one in the O.T. of the Bible has only been known theoretically 6,000 years. Evidence or reality is that people didn't know your God in the span of time that it is known modern man existed. There is also no good reason to assume a supreme entity would care if humans make efforts to connect. Just because humans worship, or it makes some people happy doesn't mean a God exists or that one would care sbout being worshipped if one did exist.

Your ( MG ) response:

let me point you in a few directions.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://www.2think.org/hii/god.shtml

Well I just looked at your last one http://www.2think.org/hii/god.shtml and it is saying what I was saying to you. The 4,000 year quest of Judaism, Christianity & Islam. This book explores how the Jews transformed pagan idol worship into monotheism and how Christianity and Islam both rose from this foundation. Also explored are the variations of who or what “God” is thought to be by the various religious leaders over the centuries. A History of God completely changed my outlook on life. It is fascinating to see how humans have created and recreated various gods in their own image. Here are a few of my favorite quotes from the book:

We know based on Y dna that modern man has been around at least 100,000 years. I believe with mt dna the evidence is that modern women was around about 200,000 years ago but I might be wrong on that, I'm simply basing it on memory of what I've read. And there are fossil evidence of related hominids going back 6 million years ago. This concept of the Christian God is relatively new as your link and reference points out, not more than 4,000 years. You had said "reality demonstrates there are many ways to know God". That's incorrect, because man would have known your God for a much longer time than simply 4,000 years if reality/evidence indicated it was easy to know God.

This is just a small sampling of the kind of stuff I like to listen to and read. I'm not going to give you the long list and go round up books from the library list that I've read over the years or the books that are stored down in the basement because it's not worth my time. You'd probably pooh pooh it anyway because it's a list coming from a hopeful believer that egads!!! is an active member of the LDS church.

So you don't deny you've been indoctrinated into the Mormon church from a young age. Most of the information and the foundation of your beliefs is what you have been taught. it is not a function of you doing a great deal of research and then picking the religion which makes the most sense based on evidence you've acquired.

If I'm reading you right, you seem to be saying that a person who is born into the LDS church is not able to objectively sit down and think about evidence and make a decision "as if" they had been born into a different religious or non-religious background. That's sinking the ship before it ever gets out of the harbor and has a chance to sail!

Well you are interested in probabilities right? Think about if, if the majority of people hold the same or closely related religious beliefs they were exposed to in their upbringing doesn't it stand to reason statistically that one's religious beliefs are for most people a function of what they've been indoctrinated into, not what they've researched, found evidence for and reasoned from? And the probability of this is based on evidence, of questioning people and determining statistically what percentage of people end up with different religious beliefs than their family's.

I don't know you. I don't know your background. I don't know your educational background and experience in reading and research. But I can tell you, that for a layperson, I would guess that I am as well read, if not more so than many on this board. As I've said earlier, that's not being condescending, that's just the reality. I suppose that in order to prove that we'd have to have a dueling contest of sorts in regards to who's got the longest eclectic reading list. That would be a hoot, huh?!

Someone who is well read is not necessarily a good thinker. Admittedly, generally having knowledge on a particular issue is a key ingredient to thinking well on that issue. But some people are intellectually dishonest about their beliefs and this particularly seems to be the case for people well indoctrinated into a religion throughout their lives from a young age. When I say intellectually dishonest I mean they do not or are unable to evaluate their beliefs, non emotionally, objectively and critically. Instead they dismiss disconfirming evidence, they seek evidence which will confim their beliefs, and they often belittle evidence and promote faith instead.

You make a go of disproving the existence of God as though it could be done in a few sentences or less on your lunch hour. Whatever.

Well not only do you claim God as a given without evidence, but from there you pile on more claims. God reveals polygamy, reveal to Smith, sometime Smith get's mixed up and doesn't appreciate when Satan is revealing instead of God. Your claims frankly if I didn't know were part of Mormonism I would consider to be coming from an insane person. But I do know you didn't make this up yourself, the thoughts were planted in you at a young age which at the time you accepted unquestioningly as kids do. They must for survival. But as you matured to adulthood you simply have never objectively critically with intellectual honesty evaluted those church claims. You simply accept them and look for ways to justify them. You've come up with this neat bit of reasoning that you are not dogmatic in your beliefs becaue you look at probabilities. Well MG, there is no probability in anything for which there is no evidence.

Now as far as me disproving God, that's illogical. I've made no claim with regards to any God. I'm simply addressing your claim of your God for which you assert all sorts of things which have no evidence. And let me repeat one can not claim a probability for anything for which there is no evidence.

[_marg]

You don't look at possiblities which don't agree with your religious beliefs.

MG: bullcrap.

Psychoanalysis...on the run...next patient...

Regards,
MG

Give me one possibility you mentioned in this thread which runs counter to your beliefs.

[_mentalgymnast]

previously I wrote: I'm going to assume given what you've said in this thread that you have been indoctrinated into Mormonism from a young age. What do you think are the probabilites that you are able to objectively look at your beliefs and determine whether or not the claims of J.Smith and the Mormon church are true? What do you think are the probabilities that you can objectively with intellectual honestey look at any evidence regarding the church which doesn't support it? An intellectually honest individual lets the evidence lead them to best fit conclusons. An intellectually dishonest individual dismisses or downplays evidence they don't like, which doesn't support their beliefs. I didn't see you mention evidence as being a critical factor in determining your religious beliefs. It rarely is for a religious individual. Few people critically evaluate all religions and then choose one, and few end up with religious belief much different to that they were exposed to in their early years. It is mathematically obvious then that most people don't use evidence and reasoning in reaching their religious beliefs.


Your statement that "reality demonstates..ways to know God" has no evidence to support it. How long has your God theoretically been known? There is DNA evidence of modern man being on earth at least 100,000 years. Yet your God if we assume it's the one in the O.T. of the Bible has only been known theoretically 6,000 years. Evidence or reality is that people didn't know your God in the span of time that it is known modern man existed. There is also no good reason to assume a supreme entity would care if humans make efforts to connect. Just because humans worship, or it makes some people happy doesn't mean a God exists or that one would care sbout being worshipped if one did exist.

Your ( MG ) response:

let me point you in a few directions.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

http://www.2think.org/hii/god.shtml

Well I just looked at your last one http://www.2think.org/hii/god.shtml and it is saying what I was saying to you. The 4,000 year quest of Judaism, Christianity & Islam. This book explores how the Jews transformed pagan idol worship into monotheism and how Christianity and Islam both rose from this foundation. Also explored are the variations of who or what “God” is thought to be by the various religious leaders over the centuries. A History of God completely changed my outlook on life. It is fascinating to see how humans have created and recreated various gods in their own image. Here are a few of my favorite quotes from the book:

We know based on Y dna that modern man has been around at least 100,000 years. I believe with mt dna the evidence is that modern women was around about 200,000 years ago but I might be wrong on that, I'm simply basing it on memory of what I've read. And there are fossil evidence of related hominids going back 6 million years ago. This concept of the Christian God is relatively new as your link and reference points out, not more than 4,000 years. You had said "reality demonstrates there are many ways to know God". That's incorrect, because man would have known your God for a much longer time than simply 4,000 years if reality/evidence indicated it was easy to know God.

This is just a small sampling of the kind of stuff I like to listen to and read. I'm not going to give you the long list and go round up books from the library list that I've read over the years or the books that are stored down in the basement because it's not worth my time. You'd probably pooh pooh it anyway because it's a list coming from a hopeful believer that egads!!! is an active member of the LDS church.

So you don't deny you've been indoctrinated into the Mormon church from a young age. Most of the information and the foundation of your beliefs is what you have been taught. it is not a function of you doing a great deal of research and then picking the religion which makes the most sense based on evidence you've acquired.

If I'm reading you right, you seem to be saying that a person who is born into the LDS church is not able to objectively sit down and think about evidence and make a decision "as if" they had been born into a different religious or non-religious background. That's sinking the ship before it ever gets out of the harbor and has a chance to sail!

Well you are interested in probabilities right? Think about if, if the majority of people hold the same or closely related religious beliefs they were exposed to in their upbringing doesn't it stand to reason statistically that one's religious beliefs are for most people a function of what they've been indoctrinated into, not what they've researched, found evidence for and reasoned from? And the probability of this is based on evidence, of questioning people and determining statistically what percentage of people end up with different religious beliefs than their family's.

I don't know you. I don't know your background. I don't know your educational background and experience in reading and research. But I can tell you, that for a layperson, I would guess that I am as well read, if not more so than many on this board. As I've said earlier, that's not being condescending, that's just the reality. I suppose that in order to prove that we'd have to have a dueling contest of sorts in regards to who's got the longest eclectic reading list. That would be a hoot, huh?!

Someone who is well read is not necessarily a good thinker. Admittedly, generally having knowledge on a particular issue is a key ingredient to thinking well on that issue. But some people are intellectually dishonest about their beliefs and this particularly seems to be the case for people well indoctrinated into a religion throughout their lives from a young age. When I say intellectually dishonest I mean they do not or are unable to evaluate their beliefs, non emotionally, objectively and critically. Instead they dismiss disconfirming evidence, they seek evidence which will confim their beliefs, and they often belittle evidence and promote faith instead.

You make a go of disproving the existence of God as though it could be done in a few sentences or less on your lunch hour. Whatever.

Well not only do you claim God as a given without evidence, but from there you pile on more claims. God reveals polygamy, reveal to Smith, sometime Smith get's mixed up and doesn't appreciate when Satan is revealing instead of God. Your claims frankly if I didn't know were part of Mormonism I would consider to be coming from an insane person. But I do know you didn't make this up yourself, the thoughts were planted in you at a young age which at the time you accepted unquestioningly as kids do. They must for survival. But as you matured to adulthood you simply have never objectively critically with intellectual honesty evaluted those church claims. You simply accept them and look for ways to justify them. You've come up with this neat bit of reasoning that you are not dogmatic in your beliefs becaue you look at probabilities. Well MG, there is no probability in anything for which there is no evidence.

Now as far as me disproving God, that's illogical. I've made no claim with regards to any God. I'm simply addressing your claim of your God for which you assert all sorts of things which have no evidence. And let me repeat one can not claim a probability for anything for which there is no evidence.

Hi Marg. Earlier in this thread I chained a series of assumptions together.

A chain of assumptions...

There is a God. If God is, then God created us. If he created us, he has a plan/roadmap for us to become like him...this would necessitate his interaction with mankind. An organization would be necessary for this plan to be carried out. Authority to speak in the name of God...fully...would have to be given by him. "Starting gates" of some sort (ordinances) would need to be set up/provided to initiate the creative progression/expressions towards becoming more like God. A "fail safe" mechanism for making things right (Jesus and his atonement) would have to be put in place for all of the possible anomalies and imperfectnesses in the creation(s) that are naturally going to happen as a result of "the fall". Finally, when all is said and done, if God is, it seems to me that he would have a "true and living church" upon the earth if it is "humanly" possible to do so to bring the human family back to his presence...

Yes, this chain of assumptions directly dovetails with my Mormon upbringing. And yes, you are right that it will be the tendency for me to defend or rationalize the beliefs that have been inculcated into my mind from an early age. The faith of our fathers cannot be easily jettisoned.

In Mormonism, as well as many other belief systems, there are beliefs that appear to be unreasonable or weird. For instance in Mormonism...God residing on Kolob. That's way out there. It is neither provable or unprovable. Sounds crazy. In Christianity...Jesus resurrected. That's neither provable or unprovable. Other examples can be demonstrated from other faith traditions that show that faith in a deity or deities often requires adherence to beliefs that seem to be unreasonable.

Non-belief in a god or gods has a number of things going for it. Here are a few:

1. theology :There are conflicting revelations and faiths. This makes every fundamental theology trivial
2. theodicy : If the Divine is deemed good, then the massive amount of evil history records could not exist, so the Divine is nonexistent
3. irrationality : The theologies of the world evidence triviality, lack of elegance, inefficiencies, major contradictions and apories, absence of fact and poor argumentation, in short : irrationality
4. criterion of truth : A religious criterion of truth cannot be justified, for the attempt will always entail a circular argument
5. logic : It can logically be demonstrated that the existence of the Divine is either an empty set or untrue.
6. science : The existence of the Divine is not corroborated by contemporary science.

So Marg...you've got me. I cannot rationalize religious belief to your satisfaction. You are going to have the upper hand because you are able to access information from any one of the above six categories and make a case for either soft or hard atheism.

I've made a list of assumptions. They make sense to me as a rationalization for continuing in a state of religiosity, particularly within the confines of Christianity and LDS'ism. Contrary to what you may think, however, I am able to step outside of the box of Mormonism/Christianity and take a gander of what else is "out there". As I do so, I feel somewhat comfortable in retaining hope/faith in the Christian faith system and LDS'ism in particular.

Again, you are right...I cannot prove to you that my assumptions are any more valid than the guy down the street who may be a practitioner of Scientology. I have what I consider to be rather soft evidence of LDS'ism being a reasonable, and possibly even true, path to follow/adhere to in looking for ultimate happiness/joy, but again...you're right. No hard evidence. Alas, there seem to be what appear to be evidences that Joseph Smith and Co. were less than perfect and flawed individuals claiming to speak for the God of Christianity who as you mention, seems to in some respects have roots in early pagan practices, etc. An apparently good reason for the many that choose to face away or run away from the CofJCofLDS.

Belief becomes a choice. A leap of faith.

I choose to believe at least in part because of Pascal's Wager. If the LDS church is what it claims to be, I'd rather be on "the Lord's side" than the other. If it's all bogus, then I really haven't lost too much except for some money (that goes to a good cause anyway)and time (but I still have plenty of discretionary time anyway...look, I'm sitting here playing on the computer). The other attributes/practices of being a good member of the church...service, community, goodwill, neighborliness, supporting faith/goodness, obedience to a code of health and moral cleanliness, etc., are all basically good.

Overall, it's pretty much win-win in comparison with other faith or non-faith options out there.

Regards,
MG

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

A chain of assumptions...

There is a God. If God is, then God created us. If he created us, he has a plan/roadmap for us to become like him...this would necessitate his interaction with mankind. An organization would be necessary for this plan to be carried out. Authority to speak in the name of God...fully...would have to be given by him. "Starting gates" of some sort (ordinances) would need to be set up/provided to initiate the creative progression/expressions towards becoming more like God. A "fail safe" mechanism for making things right (Jesus and his atonement) would have to be put in place for all of the possible anomalies and imperfectnesses in the creation(s) that are naturally going to happen as a result of "the fall". Finally, when all is said and done, if God is, it seems to me that he would have a "true and living church" upon the earth if it is "humanly" possible to do so to bring the human family back to his presence...

In Mormonism, as well as many other belief systems, there are beliefs that appear to be unreasonable or weird. For instance in Mormonism...God residing on Kolob. That's way out there. It is neither provable or unprovable. Sounds crazy. In Christianity...Jesus resurrected. That's neither provable or unprovable. Other examples can be demonstrated from other faith traditions that show that faith in a deity or deities often requires adherence to beliefs that seem to be unreasonable.

I've made a list of assumptions. They make sense to me as a rationalization for continuing in a state of religiosity, particularly within the confines of Christianity and LDS'ism. Contrary to what you may think, however, I am able to step outside of the box of Mormonism/Christianity and take a gander of what else is "out there". As I do so, I feel somewhat comfortable in retaining hope/faith in the Christian faith system and LDS'ism in particular.

Again, you are right...I cannot prove to you that my assumptions are any more valid than the guy down the street who may be a practitioner of Scientology. I have what I consider to be rather soft evidence of LDS'ism being a reasonable, and possibly even true, path to follow/adhere to in looking for ultimate happiness/joy, but again...you're right. No hard evidence. Alas, there seem to be what appear to be evidences that Joseph Smith and Co. were less than perfect and flawed individuals claiming to speak for the God of Christianity who as you mention, seems to in some respects have roots in early pagan practices, etc. An apparently good reason for the many that choose to face away or run away from the CofJCofLDS.

Belief becomes a choice. A leap of faith.

I choose to believe at least in part because of Pascal's Wager. If the LDS church is what it claims to be, I'd rather be on "the Lord's side" than the other. If it's all bogus, then I really haven't lost too much except for some money (that goes to a good cause anyway)and time (but I still have plenty of discretionary time anyway...look, I'm sitting here playing on the computer). The other attributes/practices of being a good member of the church...service, community, goodwill, neighborliness, supporting faith/goodness, obedience to a code of health and moral cleanliness, etc., are all basically good.

Overall, it's pretty much win-win in comparison with other faith or non-faith options out there.

Regards,
MG

I'm not so sure about that! If the hell-fire-and-brimstone crowd are correct, your eternity is pretty bleak. What if Islam is correct? Too bad for you. You're much better off going in one of those directions because then if LDS turns out to be correct you don't end up burning in hell. Even Outer Darkness doesn't sound as bad as a lake of fire, and you'd probably end up in the telestial anyway.

But since you've chosen the wager in the way you have, it does seem too bad that you're only "somewhat confortable" in believing that Mormonism is true. What seems highly unreasonable to me is that any church/religion should be true. If there is a true church, then faith becomes a guessing game more than a choice.

[_marg]

Belief becomes a choice. A leap of faith.

So when I asked you “By what means did you arrive at your religious beliefs? What reasoning and evidence do you use to warrant holding them?” And you answered “ thinking and reasonings concerning the probabilities existing within a grouping of possibilities.” You weren’t being straightforward with me. You were trying to make it sound as if you reasoned your way to your current beliefs by looking at all sorts of possibilities and then determined the best probability. A leap of faith is the opposite of using reasoning for justification of a belief.

I choose to believe at least in part because of Pascal's Wager. If the LDS church is what it claims to be, I'd rather be on "the Lord's side" than the other. If it's all bogus, then I really haven't lost too much except for some money (that goes to a good cause anyway)and time (but I still have plenty of discretionary time anyway...look, I'm sitting here playing on the computer).

Historically have churches always used their money for good? Isn’t the past typically a good indicator of the future? You say the money goes to good. Last I heard the church has accumulated approximately 35 billion dollars in assets. They’ve done that in about 170 years. If the money is being put to good why are they hording it? With all their billions why do they ask poor members who have need of money for their own families to give to the church? Why isn’t more of the church's money used to help people in need rather than to build shopping malls and make further investments?

You have your personal justifications for your beliefs. But I see no evidence that you think outside the box, look at possibilities with intellectual honesty, are open to changing your beliefs based on where evidence and good reasoning lead. What you have is a set of irrational religious beliefs that you intend to hold onto despite evidence and good reasoning to the contrary.

The other attributes/practices of being a good member of the church...service, community, goodwill, neighborliness, supporting faith/goodness, obedience to a code of health and moral cleanliness, etc., are all basically good.

Service community, neighborliness, taking care of one’s health are good, but one doesn’t need to believe wacky, irrational ideas which obviously originated in man made hoaxes and story telling, in order to participate in these. It’s criminal to indoctrinate kids with much of the nonsense religion does. It’s criminal to essentially demand money from the poor when it’s not needed as the Mormon church does. Much of the energy, time, and money could be put to better use than be spent on propping up the irrational, outdated, downright insane ideas which religion pushes.

Overall, it's pretty much win-win in comparison with other faith or non-faith options out there.

What makes the Mormon church and others seem not terrible is that they must function within the legal system. This limits their power. The church’s interest is in itself as an organization. It's goal is continued perpetuation, continued growth in money, power, assets including membership. As an organization it does not have an interest in individuals.

What’s wrong with non-faith options?

[_mentalgymnast]

So when I asked you “By what means did you arrive at your religious beliefs? What reasoning and evidence do you use to warrant holding them?” And you answered “ thinking and reasonings concerning the probabilities existing within a grouping of possibilities.” You weren’t being straightforward with me.

Yes I was. The LDS churchs's truth claims are contained in one system of belief. As I consider the LDS church's truth claims compared with other packages/systems of thought that are out there, I consider the probability of the LDS church's truth claims to have a higher degree of probability in being true than the possibilities that exist in other belief/philosophical systems.

You were trying to make it sound as if you reasoned your way to your current beliefs by looking at all sorts of possibilities and then determined the best probability.

Yep. That's pretty close.

A leap of faith is the opposite of using reasoning for justification of a belief.

No. After a decision has been made, there is a leap of faith necessary to continue and stay on the path. Reasoning comes first, faith and testimony come later as a gift.

D&C 9
But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind...

Historically have churches always used their money for good? Isn’t the past typically a good indicator of the future? You say the money goes to good. Last I heard the church has accumulated approximately 35 billion dollars in assets. They’ve done that in about 170 years. If the money is being put to good why are they hording it? With all their billions why do they ask poor members who have need of money for their own families to give to the church? Why isn’t more of the church's money used to help people in need rather than to build shopping malls and make further investments?

Start a new thread, see if anyone is interested in clearing up your problems/issues in this area. I'm not.

You have your personal justifications for your beliefs. But I see no evidence that you think outside the box, look at possibilities with intellectual honesty, are open to changing your beliefs based on where evidence and good reasoning lead. What you have is a set of irrational religious beliefs that you intend to hold onto despite evidence and good reasoning to the contrary.

Marg, that is a judgement call on your part. You are welcome to it. In my judgement you are off base...by a long shot. I suppose we'll each have to go our own way on this. It is difficult to get a true snapshot of another person on a message board. Your conclusions and judgement calls are proof of that.

Service community, neighborliness, taking care of one’s health are good, but one doesn’t need to believe wacky, irrational ideas which obviously originated in man made hoaxes and story telling, in order to participate in these. It’s criminal to indoctrinate kids with much of the nonsense religion does. It’s criminal to essentially demand money from the poor when it’s not needed as the Mormon church does. Much of the energy, time, and money could be put to better use than be spent on propping up the irrational, outdated, downright insane ideas which religion pushes.

OK. Whatever floats your boat. All I can say is wow!

What makes the Mormon church and others seem not terrible is that they must function within the legal system. This limits their power. The church’s interest is in itself as an organization. It's goal is continued perpetuation, continued growth in money, power, assets including membership. As an organization it does not have an interest in individuals.

Well, now I know where you're coming from. You've got it all figured out!

Thanks for the interesting conversation,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

If there is a true church, then faith becomes a guessing game more than a choice.

I think there is more to it than that. There has been in my case anyway.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

"Leaving the church" had nothing to do with black and white thinking. As a chapel Mormon I was a black and white thinker. If the church wasn't true, then nothing was in my mind. As an inactive internet Mormon I am no longer a black and white thinker. It was opening my mind to the gray areas that led me out of the church.

MG: hi Seven. Do you mind if I come back to this for just a moment?

What were some of the "gray areas" that led you out of the church and how did learning about these "areas" act as a catalyst to your eventual or sudden development into a "thinking outside of the box" kind of gal? Why did you then decide as a thinking outside of the box kind of gal that this wasn't an option (not continuing as a black and white thinker) within the church?

Also, let me ask a hypothetical question: if you still believed the church to be true would you be open to the idea that truth is also to be found in other places? Were you so set in your ways, in your black and white days, that you looked at the rest of humanity of being somehow disconnected from your personal reality or perception of the world? Humanity was the...other? Your previous statement, "If the church wasn't true, then nothing was in my mind" leads me to ask this set of questions.

I'm trying to understand why people that have left the church say that when they were members they were "black and white" thinkers, and when they left they suddenly or gradually transformed/morphed into something different...more advanced in some ways? If this is so, was it some brand/degree of special awareness that led to a belief that they were more advanced or enlightened in their mode/way of thinking? I ask this because at times I perceive what seems to be an "ahead of the curve" sort of mindfulness and/or attitude, and in some cases what appears to be arrogance, in those that have apparently "seen the light".

But I could be wrong and I'm seeing what's not really there, at least as it seems to appear in some cases.

Is there some kind of actual "ahead of the curve" mindfulness or thought processing sort of change that occurs when a person picks up their brain and walks out the doors of Mormonism for the last time?

Thanks for your thoughts,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Earlier in the thread:

Hi Don. Over the years I have enjoyed (and that's the truth!) your insights as to things Mormon. I don't know that I've ever seen you get overly dramatic about anything and you've remained level headed in your approach. Thanks for that. A few comments in response to your post. First, I can accept the possibility that any one of those that I pointed out in my original post are not simply black and white thinkers in regards to faith issues and Mormonism in particular. Unless I've inadvertently met one of these people up at a Sunstone or FAIR conference, or heard them speak, I haven't had the pleasure of getting to know them on a personal level.

I'm sure that many individuals that have left the church have done so having looked at many issues and come to the conclusion that it's not worth trying to "think outside of the box" anymore because it has become irrational to do so. Comparable, I suppose, to year after year waiting for the incontrovertible evidence of Bigfoot...and it never comes. You refer to those that remain within the Mormon faith system as having to put things on the shelf. Yes, that's true also. My experience, however, has been that as I'm patient and continually searching for new information/insight some of the issues that were on the shelf have come down and I haven't felt it necessary to return them to collect some more dust.

The issue isn't whether Mormonism is possibly true if we make all kinds of allowances for it, but, rather, whether it is probably true given the bare, brute facts and without special pleading...The evidence against biblical faith, let alone the LDS revelation built atop it, is decisive.

MG: and that's where I respectfully have to disagree with you. If the evidence was decisive, I and many others would be sitting in the same non-belief pew as you and others who have respectfully (thank you) replied to my original post. I see dealing in possibles and plausibilities as being reasonable. A few things off the top of my head (that don't involve relying on "spiritual fruits" and evidences) that cause me to remain open to possibilities of the LDS church being what it claims to be are:

1) the continuing debate among the naysayers and the apologists without complete resolution either way. The Vogel/Broadhurst debates having to do with the SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY being a prime example. Are they both right? Are they both wrong? Have one of them conclusively provided incontrovertible evidence that they are right and the other isn't?

2) internal evidences of the Book of Mormon that haven't been demolished and sent to the trash bin. Hebraisms, word print analysis, and some of the other internal evidential stuff you can find at some of the apologetic sites that to my knowledge haven't been repudiated successfully even though efforts have been made to do so.

3) Old World evidence that helps out some of the Book of Mormon archaeological conundrums. Have you seen the DVD production from FARMS called, "Journey of Faith"? It's worth a look.

4) Book of Abraham hits that Joseph Smith did get right. The Kerry Shirt's research/DVD's, Sunstone presentions have been helpful here. I haven't seen anyone successfully accomplish a one-two knockout of the stuff he's come up with or some of the stuff over at FARMS that deals with Book of Abraham issues.

5) Alternative ways of looking at troublesome aspects of Mormonism and Christianity which leave a place for faith. John Dehlin's work has been very helpful in this respect. I think I've listened to just about every podcast he's provided.

6) Doctrines/beliefs that make sense in general. Eternal progression and the possibilities/opportunities of becoming more perfected. Binding love connections "sealed" beyond the grave. Atonement and reconciliation with deity. Becoming co-creators with God and receiving portions of what he has. Choosing to believe/follow God without coercion, especially from a philosophical viewpoint...faith/hope literally becoming a choice. Kingdoms of glory...eternal happiness for just about everyone. Priesthood power and responsibilities which encourage men to try and keep up with their wives...just thought I'd throw that one in there <g>.

7) The wide range of "Mormon thought" and opinion that exists and maintains itself quite well within the framework of the church.

Don, you said in your original post,

...your whole enterprise is wrongheaded. The issue isn't whether Mormonism is possibly true if we make all kinds of allowances for it, but, rather, whether it is probably true given the bare, brute facts and without special pleading...he evidence against biblical faith, let alone the LDS revelation built atop it, is decisive.

MG: I then said, " A few things off the top of my head (that don't involve relying on "spiritual fruits" and evidences) that cause me to remain open to possibilities of the LDS church being what it claims to be are:

and I rattled a few things off in the list above.

I'm not sure that I can see where you can come off deciding that you are the final authority on defining what "probable" means. Also, I'm not sure why possibilities can't be thrown into the mix.

I have to take issue with your statement that the evidence is "decisive". We subscribe to the Daily Herald here in Utah County and I haven't seen any front page headlines saying the LDS church is closing up shop because it's all a big scam.

Regards,
MG