David Bokovoy and a Kuhnian Approach to Mormonism

[Guest]

It was readily apparent, despite his extraordinary capabilities for math and engineering, that he'd just assumed the church makes all kinds of sense without exploring any contrary or alternative ways of thinking.

Seeing as how these are my fields, how does math and engineering speak against the Church or cause one to explore 'contrary' or 'alternative' ways of thinking? The scientific method is king and even the scriptures suggest we use it (such as John 7:17).

I take it basic English comprehension isn't one of your fields?

The typical response of one who wants to gainsay, but can't. It's the intellectual equivalent of monosyllabic grunts.

What you have, BCSpace, is self-delusion. Your strength of belief is no different than that of Osama bin Laden, or the Pope, or Jerry Falwell, or the Jehovah's Witnesses down the street at the Kingdom Hall. Only your chosen brand of "Truth" is different.

And how does my 'self-delusion' differ from yours? Your simultaneous acknowledgement and derision of the strength of my beliefs evidences jealousy in that of which you have not the surety you crave. I notice also you have nothing that addresses the merits of my beliefs, rather you are simply angered at their strength as if there is something wrong with that.

[_evolving]

If you humiliated anyone, which you said was SOP in your mission, I stand by my assessment. People who humiiliate others have lousy interpersonal techniques. I don't know, maybe you were a great AP, with good numbers, etc. But what really makes a great anything?

I used the tools I was given at the time - and yes, publicly calling slacker elders to the carpet for low numbers was SOP -- doing something like that today would be very foreign to my nature - I was taught, and I accepted many principles for increasing performance, they worked then and they work in business today. weather they are moral or ethical ways to run a mission ?? I would again say it was SOP -

back to the OP - my orthodox LDS paragdim of past days is long gone... and in it's place a much larger world view - full of possibility, potential growth and understanding. I am no longer limited by a world view of circular logic, justification for historical inconsistencies, and arogant assumtion that everyone else in the world is simply screwed, because they were not born Mormon, or smart enough to convert later in life..

[_Sethbag]

Well Seth, I think there may be some out there who fit your bill. Maybe more than I think. My mission experience, however, led me to believe that the heightened internal state that 8-balls the Book of Mormon as true was more an exception to the rule. I rarely met a missionary who claimed they'd felt the "burning in the bosom". I met quite a few who confided that they didn't know whether they had a testimony or not. I know some researchers believe that there is an area of the brain that accounts for religious experiences. That would support your theory. But I still feel like the Mormon testimony is something every Mormon claims to have but almost none can pin down.

You're probably right about some people, and not right about others. I'm willing to believe that there are some Mormons whose testimony is more like cultural momentum and cultural myopia, and some Mormons who have experienced a lot of just plain old tear-jerker emotional states. I'm also willing to believe some Mormons have experienced very powerful euphoric states. I know this is possible because I'm one of them. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I was a very true-believing TBM and missionary. I really believed it, I "knew" I'd received a testimony, and I'd felt the very powerful experience to back it up. There were undoubtedly some other missionaries I worked with who had never had that experience.

What's important to me now is not that I deny that I ever felt things that TBMs ascribe to the Holy Ghost. What's important for me now is that I understand that these experiences were of a different nature than I comprehended at the time I had them, and that their correct nature is very much in line with naturalistic explanations.

It's the same thing as the "evil spirit" visitations I had in my late teenage years. I was convinced by very real experiences I had, including while at BYU as a freshman, of being assaulted by evil spirits. I could never deny that I had these experiences, because I did. The difference is that back then I thought that it was me being assaulted by evil spirits, and now I clearly recognize all the hallmarks of sleep paralysis.

[_Sethbag]

And how does my 'self-delusion' differ from yours? Your simultaneous acknowledgement and derision of the strength of my beliefs evidences jealousy in that of which you have not the surety you crave. I notice also you have nothing that addresses the merits of my beliefs, rather you are simply angered at their strength as if there is something wrong with that.

I'm not angered at the strength of your belief. If anything, it's the compassion in me that feels bad when I see someone deluding themselves as strongly as you are. It's something akin to watching someone drink themselves into oblivion. You feel bad for them, but it's their choice.

I've come to terms with a universe in which there isn't necessarily a reason why I exist, or an ultimate purpose that comes from a source outside of myself or other human beings, or cosmic surety that we know the "Truth" about much of anything. We're here, and we are intelligent enough to wonder why, and to think about it and come up with goals and values and aspirations and whatnot, and that will have to be good enough. I'm at peace with that. I crave nothing at all like the kind of self-deluded surety that you possess. It's not all that you think it is, and I would like to help you see that too. If you won't, or can't, then that's really beyond my control.

[_bcspace]

Question, yes or no: is it possible that the LDS church is not true, and that Joseph Smith was a sexual predator who not only took advantage of women and young girls, but also invented scripture that he passed off as the ancient records of various people? Is this possible?

Anything is possible. Problem is, many often try to shift their paradigm to fit what they want to be true, not what actually is true. All exmos I've ever met seem to fall into this category.

I'm willing to believe that there are some Mormons whose testimony is more like cultural momentum and cultural myopia, and some Mormons who have experienced a lot of just plain old tear-jerker emotional states. I'm also willing to believe some Mormons have experienced very powerful euphoric states.

I've had none of those experiences (that I labeled a spiritual witness). For me, it's like a light going on and it feels right. The solution is before me and I am enlightened.

[_Gadianton]

Well Seth, I think there may be some out there who fit your bill. Maybe more than I think. My mission experience, however, led me to believe that the heightened internal state that 8-balls the Book of Mormon as true was more an exception to the rule. I rarely met a missionary who claimed they'd felt the "burning in the bosom". I met quite a few who confided that they didn't know whether they had a testimony or not. I know some researchers believe that there is an area of the brain that accounts for religious experiences. That would support your theory. But I still feel like the Mormon testimony is something every Mormon claims to have but almost none can pin down.

You're probably right about some people, and not right about others. I'm willing to believe that there are some Mormons whose testimony is more like cultural momentum and cultural myopia, and some Mormons who have experienced a lot of just plain old tear-jerker emotional states. I'm also willing to believe some Mormons have experienced very powerful euphoric states. I know this is possible because I'm one of them. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I was a very true-believing TBM and missionary. I really believed it, I "knew" I'd received a testimony, and I'd felt the very powerful experience to back it up. There were undoubtedly some other missionaries I worked with who had never had that experience.

What's important to me now is not that I deny that I ever felt things that TBMs ascribe to the Holy Ghost. What's important for me now is that I understand that these experiences were of a different nature than I comprehended at the time I had them, and that their correct nature is very much in line with naturalistic explanations.

It's the same thing as the "evil spirit" visitations I had in my late teenage years. I was convinced by very real experiences I had, including while at BYU as a freshman, of being assaulted by evil spirits. I could never deny that I had these experiences, because I did. The difference is that back then I thought that it was me being assaulted by evil spirits, and now I clearly recognize all the hallmarks of sleep paralysis.

It's interesting that you bring up SP as I was the king of SP. Even now, in my thirties I get it about once a month. But as a teen, I had full on hallucinations that were out of this world. The funny thing is while I was a TBM (at the time constructing my timeline for the events of the Last Days) it never even entered my mind that it could be Satan. When I told my parents about it, they wanted to rush me to the bishop and I just laughed it off. In fact, it took an acquaintence of mine, who had a fairly extensive knowledge of the subject, quite a bit of arguing to convince me that SP could account for many alien abduction reports. I just couldn't imagine that people could think it was "real" after waking up.

[_bcspace]

And how does my 'self-delusion' differ from yours? Your simultaneous acknowledgement and derision of the strength of my beliefs evidences jealousy in that of which you have not the surety you crave. I notice also you have nothing that addresses the merits of my beliefs, rather you are simply angered at their strength as if there is something wrong with that.

I'm not angered at the strength of your belief. If anything, it's the compassion in me that feels bad when I see someone deluding themselves as strongly as you are. It's something akin to watching someone drink themselves into oblivion. You feel bad for them, but it's their choice.

Then it's the merits of my arugement you disagree with, but are unable to address.

I've come to terms with a universe in which there isn't necessarily a reason why I exist, or an ultimate purpose that comes from a source outside of myself or other human beings, or cosmic surety that we know the "Truth" about much of anything.

For me, that's like driving a drunken friend home and he just puked in my car.

We're here, and we are intelligent enough to wonder why, and to think about it and come up with goals and values and aspirations and whatnot, and that will have to be good enough. I'm at peace with that. I crave nothing at all like the kind of self-deluded surety that you possess. It's not all that you think it is, and I would like to help you see that too. If you won't, or can't, then that's really beyond my control.

Ah! The simple pleasures then? It's blissssssssssss.....................

Personally, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me......

[_Sethbag]

You do. It's called Mormonism.

[_Gadianton]

Ahem. Just a quick note here. People "shift their paradigms" in Covey and the world of motivational speaking. In Thomas Kuhn, a paradigm is restricted to science and spans numorous scientists and their institutions as well-organized research.

[_moksha]

And this is what you see in the diehard apologists, and with people like Charity. To Charity, the church's not being true is simply impossible. The very phrase "LDS church is not true" simply does not compute. It's like a null instruction in their brain, or something to be responded to with testimony, not seriously considered on its own merits. To a TBM, the church being true is absolute bedrock axiomatic truth, and any questions or aspects of reality are judged and viewed through that lens. Indeed, as I've said often in the past, the church's being true is the fundemental "Truth" upon which the entire LDS virtual reality is built. Within that virtual reality, all things are judged by reference to the fundemental truths of that reality, which include the church being true.

David is just publicly admitting that he lives in this particular LDS virtual reality, and that he is incapable of, or unwilling to, take seriously a worldview that doesn't assume that the LDS church is true.

This also explains some of Charity's more bizarrre statements and assumptions. We all need to be "charitable" enough to recognize that whatever she says is underpinned in her mind by the obvious truth of Mormonism, and that to her it all makes perfect sense..

What you are ignoring here is my history. I started out with the idea that Church wasn't true. I joined at the age of 19, without having any previous experience with the Church or its doctrines. There was an intense time of study when I didn't know if the Church was true or not. That doesn't fit in with your little made up assessment of me.

Charity and David are the only ones capable of determining which truths are valid for them. Why should they take part in a worldview that is not of their choosing, other than the social compact we make with each other to be law abiding citizens? We are all allowed a separate reality.