Enuma Elish wrote:Since both apologists and critics can produce strong evidence to support their paradigm (and I’m going to even admit here that I believe that the apologetic paradigms for the most part are always the strongest assumptions), why when faced with a crisis of faith due to the paradigm a Latter-day Saint maintains to interpret facts shouldn’t the individual simply adopt a new paradigm that supports the spiritual manifestations the person has received concerning the truthfulness of Mormonism?
People on this thread have already done that, several times over. They now account for the spiritual manifestations as emotional and/or psychological phenomena. So YES, they preserve their spiritual manifestations as having actually taken place, and YES, their paradigm has shifted to account for new facts.
Do you see any problems with this methodology? If so, how does it differ from what you originally advocated?