charity wrote:I know, runtu. You are meaning to say the LDS are doing this. I think many anti's do this, too.
Why would you assume that? I have met people on all sides of Mormonism who do that, not just believers.
Then there are others who look at it all, evaluate it for credibility, chose that which is credible, and discard the rest. I think that applies to both LDS and anti's.
Agreed.
Remember my friend Givens--there is evidence enough for a life of credible belief or dismissive denial. What we chose says more about who we are than the nature of the evidence.
And I've said before that Givens' statement is absurd.
charity wrote:Thank you, but it isn't really that deep an insight. After all, any of the other questions that are debated around here, ad nauseum, are really made moot with the answer to that one question.
I support the nomination. Is it mentally unhealthy to arrive at conclusions based on available evidence?
But when you pick and choose between which evidence you want to believe, it complicates the decision making process.
How grounded in reality was the O.J. Simpson jury? One juror didn't believe the DNA because she took a pregnancy test once and it was wrong. If they really were representative of the population, at least three of thr jurors made their decision based on the belief that a sport star wouldn't do something like that. They all looked at the evidence and decided he was innocent. And then what about all those idiots who think that because the jury found him not guilty that he really wasn't?
I don't know what picking and choosing you are talking about; it all eventualyy boils down to "spiritual witness", and I've never had much of a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet or any of his "scriptures" other than a self-induced one. It's not just hindsight bias; I've never felt the same thing reading them as I did while reading the Gospels, which I told to multiple people when I thought of myself as a faithful member, and never shared the Book of Mormon obsession every other LDS seems to have. Since even the Lord's annointed have assured us that the testimony is found in the bearing of it, there is nothing wrong with interpreting the desire to believe as belief itself, thought I.
So do you think I'm not mentally healthy?
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
Zoidberg wrote: I don't know what picking and choosing you are talking about; it all eventualyy boils down to "spiritual witness", and I've never had much of a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet or any of his "scriptures" other than a self-induced one. It's not just hindsight bias; I've never felt the same thing reading them as I did while reading the Gospels, which I told to multiple people when I thought of myself as a faithful member, and never shared the Book of Mormon obsession every other LDS seems to have. Since even the Lord's annointed have assured us that the testimony is found in the bearing of it, there is nothing wrong with interpreting the desire to believe as belief itself, thought I.
So do you think I'm not mentally healthy?
I for one know I'm not mentally healthy (at least without medical help), but it has nothing to do with whether or not I accept Joseph Smith as a prophet. To suggest that there's something mentally deficient in those who accept based on the evidence that Joseph Smith was no prophet is something I'd expect of Wade, not charity. It's certainly not a charitable way to look at unbelievers.
charity wrote:If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then all the people who refsue to believe him are the ones who are not mentally healthy because they are denying reality and living in a concocted world of their own.
Ditto, then, I suppose for Mohhamed?
I suppose this means that 99.9999% of all those who have graced this planet are mentally unhealthy. Charity is among the .00001 chosen few.
Way to go Charity!
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
charity wrote:If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then all the people who refsue to believe him are the ones who are not mentally healthy because they are denying reality and living in a concocted world of their own.
Ditto, then, I suppose for Mohhamed?
I suppose this means that 99.9999% of all those who have graced this planet are mentally unhealthy. Charity is among the .00001 chosen few.
Way to go Charity!
Just wonderin' out loud. I wonder if it is mentally unhealthy arguing truth claims with Charity?
It's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.
But, I guess that isn't so mentally unhealthy, or....? For psychological studies, it could perhaps be beneficial.
Again, just wonderin' out loud.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
gramps wrote:Just wonderin' out loud. I wonder if it is mentally unhealthy arguing truth claims with Charity?
And this is how you know I'm nuts. But charity made a judgement about our mental health using other criteria, which was my point here.
Runtu, join the club.
I understood your point. I hope you didn't take anything personally.
I didn't mean anyone to apply what I said to any one person or group of persons.
Simply just wonderin'.
I believe angels fly around with gold plates = mentally healthy. Huummhh?
No, I didn't take it personally, gramps. I am crazy:)
I don't know how charity would go about a close acquaintance of hers all of a sudden starting to claim they communicated with those angels. I wonder if she would apply the same standard to them as she does to Joseph Smith.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
gramps wrote:Just wonderin' out loud. I wonder if it is mentally unhealthy arguing truth claims with Charity?
And this is how you know I'm nuts. But charity made a judgement about our mental health using other criteria, which was my point here.
Runtu, join the club.
I understood your point. I hope you didn't take anything personally.
I didn't mean anyone to apply what I said to any one person or group of persons.
Simply just wonderin'.
I believe angels fly around with gold plates = mentally healthy. Huummhh?
No, I didn't take it personally, gramps. I am crazy:)
I don't know how charity would go about a close acquaintance of hers all of a sudden starting to claim they communicated with those angels. I wonder if she would apply the same standard to them as she does to Joseph Smith.
Well, welcome then! I am crazy, too.
But, it is a different kind of crazy than the one that allows for flying angels and gold plates and magic stones.
To each his own I guess.
About the Charity question: obviously she would do whatever she needs to do to stick with the program, which as we can witness from apologetics generally, allows for a lot of leeway to sidestep or jump over the puddles.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Insinuating or flat out stating that apostates are psychologically unhealthy is a favorite among internet LDS. They're a tad too sophisticated to just revert to the normal, chapel, "people leave the church because they want to sin, are lazy, or never believed or understood", partly because all of those accusations can easily be shown to be fallacious in many cases. But psychologically unhealthy? Purrrrfect. People can be in denial about their own psychological problems, so it doesn't even matter if apostates deny it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.