beastie wrote:When I shared my story about how part of the reason (the largest part) that I lost my faith was because God never would answer my prayer about Joseph Smith being a prophet, despite my desperate pleas, Charity informed me God probably didn't answer me because I asked too much. I was just supposed to ask ONCE, then quietly live the rest of my life as if it were true, and one day God would condescend to answer me.
I admit, that was a first for me - a believer who told me, basically, God didn't answer me because I was nagging him. Most believers just try to parse the "way" I asked to point out what I was doing wrong. You know, if I said mother may I just right, with my eyes crossed and a special hand sign, he would have answered gladly.
I always thought the lesson of the Parable of the Unjust Judge was that we're supposed to keep nagging God until He gives us what we want, assuming that the thing we desire is good.
I'm intrigued by this creative new way of blaming the prayerful seeker for the lack of an answer. I wonder if it works the same way for JWs - if you pray about whether Charles Taze Russell was a true prophet, and God doesn't give you a definite "no," then you should stay with the Witnesses for the rest of your life.
"Every post you can hitch your faith on is a pie in the sky, chock full of lies, a tool we devise to make sinking stones fly"
The Shins - A Comet Appears
Pokatator wrote:I don't ignore facts, either. I guess maybe you just accept some "facts" on faith. I think is what is a difference in anti and pro-thinking. We each think our facts are unassailable and can't admit our "facts" may be wrong. And if faithful LDS do that, so do non-believers. Think of Dan Vogel. His paragdigm is that there aren't any angels, visions, etc. He can't possibly be wrong about that, in his mind. Is he any different in degree of blindness than you think LDS faithful are?[/b]
I don't assume there are no angels, etc. I have consistently said I can't prove a negative, but I'm skeptical because the evidence for the supernatural is very weak. Because I reject Book of Mormon historicity, I also reject Joseph Smith's claims to have gotten the plates from an angel. That's very different from how you represent me.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Dan Vogel wrote:I don't assume there are no angels, etc. I have consistently said I can't prove a negative, but I'm skeptical because the evidence for the supernatural is very weak. Because I reject Book of Mormon historicity, I also reject Joseph Smith's claims to have gotten the plates from an angel. That's very different from how you represent me.
Seems to me there's some projecting going on. None of the critics I know (and certainly not you, Dan) fit charity's broad-brush description.
by the way, that was a nice post over on the other board on the "paradigms" topic. I said the same thing here, essentially, but you put it much more eloquently.
My response to Bokovoy, which I posted on MAD, is in the form of rhetorical questions:
Why do you assume spiritual experience--like any experience--can't be redefined or reinterpreted over time? Why do you assume reason must conform to testimony? Why can't testimony be reassessed with new information? For example, those who have a testimony of the Book of Mormon's truth and inspiration assume their testimony also pertains to historicity issues. Do you think it's possible to attach false assumptions to religious experience? In short, on what grounds do you privilege religious experience over reason, especially in matters where reason and evidence are more reliable? Are you not advocating the corruption of reason--the scientific method even--by the introduction of emotions and subjective states of mind? On what grounds could any interpretation or theory be rejected?
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Dan Vogel wrote:I don't assume there are no angels, etc. I have consistently said I can't prove a negative, but I'm skeptical because the evidence for the supernatural is very weak. Because I reject Book of Mormon historicity, I also reject Joseph Smith's claims to have gotten the plates from an angel. That's very different from how you represent me.
Seems to me there's some projecting going on. None of the critics I know (and certainly not you, Dan) fit charity's broad-brush description.
by the way, that was a nice post over on the other board on the "paradigms" topic. I said the same thing here, essentially, but you put it much more eloquently.
Thanks. I think I'm just being lazy.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Pokatator wrote:I don't ignore facts, either. I guess maybe you just accept some "facts" on faith. I think is what is a difference in anti and pro-thinking. We each think our facts are unassailable and can't admit our "facts" may be wrong. And if faithful LDS do that, so do non-believers. Think of Dan Vogel. His paragdigm is that there aren't any angels, visions, etc. He can't possibly be wrong about that, in his mind. Is he any different in degree of blindness than you think LDS faithful are?[/b]
I don't assume there are no angels, etc. I have consistently said I can't prove a negative, but I'm skeptical because the evidence for the supernatural is very weak. Because I reject Book of Mormon historicity, I also reject Joseph Smith's claims to have gotten the plates from an angel. That's very different from how you represent me.
This is Charity's quote not mine, but was responding to me.
Pokatator
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
guy sajer wrote:I'll accept it, with the proviso that you provide me with some kind of objectively verifiable evidence that what you experienced was a true spiritual experience; otherwise, all I have is your word (and in your case, knowledge of the very flawed paradigm in which you are laboring) and, frankly my dear, that's not good enough.
Or, as an alternative, demonstrate to me in some kind of objectively verifiable manner why your spiritual experience, which tesitifies of Mormonism' truth claims, is more valid than, say, a Baptist's spiritual experience that tells her something entirely different and contradictory.
Also, I'd like you to articulate to me what the a priori decision rule is to decide whether an experience is a "spiritual" one or something else.
Can you do it?
Guy, I am really not arguing in favor of the existence of a Holy Spirit, which touched my spirit and gave me evidence of the Book of Mormon, etc. All I am doing is challenging charity's position that we cannot possibly understand her experience as one who has felt the Spirit. We are, as she says, blind men who are denying the existence of the experience of seeing color in a sunset.
I, however, do not see this as applying to me because I had powerful personal experiences that I identified as the Spirit at one time in my life, so it is not as though I am unfamiliar with what that is like.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
The question below, asked by David, opened this thread: (I'll inject in bold)
Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?
Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true. (RM: Both the question, and this paragraph i think might be more at-home in a GD-SS-class that in a public forum.)
In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true. (Yes, i think it is SS material presented to a select audience who share a common vocabulary. One that might not be understood/accepted unanimously in an "outside" community.)
In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself. (R.M. SS class nods agreement to confirm, once again, that if/when any questions arise to challenge their conditioned response to such questions, or moments of wonder, they and their musings are counter-church. And, as such must be eschewed. Or so it seems??
Is the question still germane to the thread? Chancing that it is:
First, "is there ever a good reason to accept Mormonism? Of course, for the one accepting it."
That being the case, "are there ever good reasons to abandon Mormonism? Of course, for those abandoning it."
Since DB didn't ask what such "good reasons" might be, but prefers to assume there must not be any, as "he" hasn't found just-cause to do so; I can only wonder, "how sincere is his question?"
What is so magnificently on public display here is Pavlov's conditioned herd response. The 'bell', in this case being the term, "special witness from God".
The fact is, that it is more truly, 'a special witness of apprentice ecclesiastics'--who often themselves recognize the fallacy of their claim, as they mature--delivered, in most cases to people vulnerable by dint of emotion, or ignorance. Some of whom respond as directed. Others of course do not.
That future 'doubts' might emerge to be met with discouragement from the institution, attests to what can be considered an un-Godly response of those claiming to know, and represent the Universal Deity.
Mormonism, with all of its good intentions, impressive literature, personable Missionaries, and member-support-teams, does not encouage or allow what is the distinct "God" like character of humanity--as differentiated from beastianity. That is, to express that most human quality to question and quest. Holding nothing sacred but the process of unprejudiced learning and the exercise of intelligence.
Any attempt to disuaide, intimidate or manipulate such freedom of the individual and science is, in theological terms, Satanic. In societal terms, Fascist, Dictitorial, Autocratic and regressive. Which seems to be the thrust of the opening poster: To change ones mind, opinion, loyalty, allegience is counter to the spirit. I respectfully suggest, he is correct on one hand, he is simply representing the wrong Spirit, IMSCO... Interesting number of pages. Thanks for your question David... Warm regards, Roger
I think we see that cascade effect of leaving the Church and
losing trust in God, in many who have come to the conclusion
that the foundational story of the Church is not what it was
reputed to be. That is why I think David Bokovoy's idea of shifting
your acceptance of what constitutes truth is a good one. It allows
those who have discovered something else to not feel like
they have been hoodwinked for all those years, but instead realize
that truth is what you make of it and that there is still much good
to be found in the Church.