Is this possible? How?

[_Blixa]

(Who Knows is only 34? Yikes)

I just saw this. Why 'yikes'?

I thought you were older. Sadly, at this point when I see "34" I think "wow, young guy!" I guess the "yikes" was more self directed than a comment about you...

[_wenglund]

That is good to hear. I so much wanted to keep you on my list of admirred people (not that a single instance like this would affect a change), and I am pleased that my high opinion of you is no longer the least bit in question.

Have you expressed disapproval to the believers who have frequently espoused the idea behind Blixa's parody?

When it is uncharacteristic (as in Blixa's case) I do. Besides, while I may direct comments to either party, they are meant to apply generically, and so in that sense, what I suggest to one, I suggest to all, including myself.

I hope that helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

...a host of other historical issues that are irrelevant to belief in the restored gospel of Christ

Heh. Tarski's items are EXACTLY the sort if things that ARE relevant to testing the claims of the otherwise unfalsifiable claims of a given religion.

Can you test whether Joseph Smith actually saw god? no. But can you test whether he was trustworthy? Yes. Can you test whether Jesus turned water into wine? no. But can you test whether there was a global flood? Yes.

And when those 'testable' claims turn out to be false, what does that say about the rest of the 'untestable' claims?

I agree that the listed items can be used as "tests". Where we likely may disagree is on what the listed items may actually be "testing", how much weight the listed items may be given in "testing" whatever, whether the "test" is worthwhile or a priority, and what inductive conclusions, if any, may be drawn from the "test" regarding other things.

Clearly, the fact that familiarity with the items on the list have influenced some members to leave the Church, and have either unaffected or positively influenced the faith of other members, and points inbetween, gives credence to what I am suggesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But I think the principle that is often overlooked is "establishing the character of the witness," or in this case, Joseph. So for many of us exmos, we see the list, and it has an effect on whether we will believe any of Joseph's magical claims (since he has been caught in so many lies), and see a pattern that most of the "challenging" bits of history are either:

1) purposely hidden from the members (or at least the members are discouraged from reading the "anti-Mormon" materials that discuss it; or

2) is ignored or minimized by many members so the positive and faith-promoting aspects of the church only are focused on...ie, we try to avoid the cognitive dissonance that accepting this material may cause us.

I think the OP makes the point that it is common (if in fact the premise is true, which I would think highly possible since my own active, temple working family members would be in line with) for active, intelligent members to not even be aware of these issues...and when the points are pushed, they DO admit that if true, it would be problematic for them. They just don't believe they are true, probably because of one of the two reasons I listed above.

While some may over-look the "character" issue, I certainly don't. I just happen to see that there is a broad range of ways in which members of the Church can and have reacted upon learning about the things on the list, including when admitting they are true (as they interpret them). Some may conclude that the Church is "magical" and Joseph was caught in "so many lies" and can't be trusted, and others may increaase in confidence that the restored gospel of Christ is all the more true, though run by trustworth and fallible humans called by God, while still others may find themselves arrayed on various points inbetween.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

What crappy members. They are obviously too lazy to do any research. This was all discussed years ago. Do they expect this trivia to be covered in church instead of important gospel doctrines? Actually Tarski, you're probably making the whole thing up. And oh, yeah, you're an anonymous coward...

(Who Knows is only 34? Yikes)

LOL beat me to it.

Yep, it is their fault for not researching or questioning. The information is right before their eyes. And if they learned anything that really turned out to be FPRS, well, then they are "idiots" for not knowing the difference.

Yay Mormonism!

Apparently, I wasn't the only one who failed to recognize Blixa's comments as a parody. But, at least I didn't inadvertantly feed into the parody, and unwittingly become a parody myself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Blixa]

What crappy members. They are obviously too lazy to do any research. This was all discussed years ago. Do they expect this trivia to be covered in church instead of important gospel doctrines? Actually Tarski, you're probably making the whole thing up. And oh, yeah, you're an anonymous coward...

(Who Knows is only 34? Yikes)

LOL beat me to it.

Yep, it is their fault for not researching or questioning. The information is right before their eyes. And if they learned anything that really turned out to be FPRS, well, then they are "idiots" for not knowing the difference.

Yay Mormonism!

Apparently, I wasn't the only one who failed to recognize Blixa's comments as a parody. But, at least I didn't inadvertantly feed into the parody, and unwittingly become a parody myself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Er, Infymus is just keeping the parody going, not uttering the remarks "seriously.." How could he since they've been said of him?

Anyway...I'm not sure how long I'll stay on that list of admiration, wade. I'm not a very listy person.

[_rcrocket]

What crappy members. They are obviously too lazy to do any research. This was all discussed years ago. Do they expect this trivia to be covered in church instead of important gospel doctrines? Actually Tarski, you're probably making the whole thing up. And oh, yeah, you're an anonymous coward...

(Who Knows is only 34? Yikes)

LOL beat me to it.

Yep, it is their fault for not researching or questioning. The information is right before their eyes. And if they learned anything that really turned out to be FPRS, well, then they are "idiots" for not knowing the difference.

Yay Mormonism!

It must still work for you; your family's members and you admit ward visitors. There's hope.

[_wenglund]

What crappy members. They are obviously too lazy to do any research. This was all discussed years ago. Do they expect this trivia to be covered in church instead of important gospel doctrines? Actually Tarski, you're probably making the whole thing up. And oh, yeah, you're an anonymous coward...

(Who Knows is only 34? Yikes)

LOL beat me to it.

Yep, it is their fault for not researching or questioning. The information is right before their eyes. And if they learned anything that really turned out to be FPRS, well, then they are "idiots" for not knowing the difference.

Yay Mormonism!

Apparently, I wasn't the only one who failed to recognize Blixa's comments as a parody. But, at least I didn't inadvertantly feed into the parody, and unwittingly become a parody myself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Er, Infymus is just keeping the parody going, not uttering the remarks "seriously.." How could he since they've been said of him?

I can accept that. However, reasonably, at some point it stops being a parody of others and begins to be a parody of oneself. But, I suppose there will be disagreement about whether Infymus reached that point or not. ;-)

Besides, it is not as though Infymous is incapable of reacting in-kind. From what I have observed, he is quite capable, and then some.

Anyway...I'm not sure how long I'll stay on that list of admiration, wade. I'm not a very listy person.

That's okay. You don't need to be listy to be admired.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

When it is uncharacteristic (as in Blixa's case) I do. Besides, while I may direct comments to either party, they are meant to apply generically, and so in that sense, what I suggest to one, I suggest to all, including myself.

It doesn't help to make generic remarks about a certain cliché when the main proponents of that cliché aren't around. The time to comment is when the cliché is being repeated in a characteristic way, such as on MAD.

[_Ten Bear]

I would venture to guess that they are also unfamiliar with Judah's inadvertant sexual relations with his daughter-in=law (who he mistook for a prostitute), or Joseph coming to fist-to-cuff with his brother William during a study group in Nauvoo, or Brigham Young's sentiments about dogs in his bedroom, or a host of other historical issues that are irrelevant to belief in the restored gospel of Christ (at least in the minds of many of us believers).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's how I see it. Yes, there are certain tibits of trivia that are not relevant, as you've mentioned here. But you're trying de-sensationalize relevant issues by stating irrrelevant ones.

If I'm trying to sell my POS car, someone might say, "The transmission doesn't work and the front windshield is busted out." I can down play the importantance by saying, "Ya well it's an old car, the paints faded and the carpet is worn. That's what you get with an older car."

It doesn't work.

Are the things that Tarski listed relevent? Oh, h*ll ya.

I was a faithful, believing member. Knowing these things put me in a position to where I can no longer accept the church as true. If you say that these things aren't relevant, then you're saying I'm not relevant. Please don't dismiss these topics as irrelevant.

[_krose]

Tarski, did you happen to ask about the age of the earth?

I've recently taken to surveying people (relatives, missionaries, etc.), asking what they believe about things such as evolution, the flood, age of the earth, LGT, and the existence of a large non-Lehite population that absorbed the Lamanites. I do it in a non-confrontational way, so I don't bring up Book of Abraham issues or Smith's polygamy. It's strictly information gathering, to gauge where most LDS believers are in comparison to Internet apologists. So far there is a wide gap.

Krose,

What do your findings tell you about beliefs or any religious dogma?

Not sure I understand the question correctly, but I have not talked to anyone in real life who believes any of the suppositions of the Internet apologists, including missionaries. They are more like Tarski's family.