No Lion Remains in Israel: another one bites the dust

[_Themis]

I am not too concerned about it. People invent myths to make life bearable. We all do. I am just happy to see that stem is honest and conscious enough to admit that there is really no case for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, at least in an "academic sense." That's good enough for me.

I agree with Buffalo. This group in the church tends to be more open minded about the problems and for the moment maintain belief, but it is the group from which most, who lose their beliefs due to intellectual reasons, come from in the church.

Edit: I find stem and people in this group refreshing compared to the very close minded like Simon, Bcspace, Wade, who put their faith in fair and farms. Wade even admitted to putting faith in DCP. They want to believe so much that they put their faith in apologists and will not usually look any further.

[_stemelbow]

It is definitely not a safe assumption. What you still seem not to get is the value the Horse would have had for any group back then. Look at how the horse spread all over much of the Americas when reintroduced. You could even start to get an idea of when Native American groups were introduced to horses and obtained them for themselves becuase they immediately became part of their culture, so we start to see artifacts and artwork depicting them. We do not see this for Book of Mormon periods. by the way Many wild herds developed after reintroduction and do quite well on their own.

I get those points, Themis, as it is I'm just in the awkward position of being a believer having to question all the conclusions, in some, probably, vain hope things appear much more favorable for me/to me.

[_Buffalo]

I am not too concerned about it. People invent myths to make life bearable. We all do. I am just happy to see that stem is honest and conscious enough to admit that there is really no case for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, at least in an "academic sense." That's good enough for me.

I agree with Buffalo. This group in the church tends to be more open minded about the problems and for the moment maintain belief, but it is the group from which most, who lose their beliefs due to intellectual reasons, come from in the church.

Edit: I find stem and people in this group refreshing compared to the very close minded like Simon, Bcspace, Wade, who put their faith in fair and farms. Wade even admitted to putting faith in DCP. They want to believe so much that they put their faith in apologists and will not usually look any further.

I hope Stem is prepared for the blowback that's likely coming from the hardline Mormons who think that giving even an inch to critics is tantamount to apostasy.

[_stemelbow]

I hope Stem is prepared for the blowback that's likely coming from the hardline Mormons who think that giving even an inch to critics is tantamount to apostasy.

Do you think my skimpy wind-breaker will cover it? I'm confident it'll do the trick.

[_Runtu]

I agree with Buffalo. This group in the church tends to be more open minded about the problems and for the moment maintain belief, but it is the group from which most, who lose their beliefs due to intellectual reasons, come from in the church.

Edit: I find stem and people in this group refreshing compared to the very close minded like Simon, Bcspace, Wade, who put their faith in fair and farms. Wade even admitted to putting faith in DCP. They want to believe so much that they put their faith in apologists and will not usually look any further.

Someone on the MADB board used to say that the church was just stories that people used to guide how they lived their lives. That's certainly a reasonable approach when you know the issues involved with historicity and truth claims, but I'm not sure that's a viable approach for a religion. Think about it: how much would you be willing to sacrifice for a religion that isn't so much "true" as it is nice stories? I think that's why there's such an insistence on the literal nature of Mormon truth claims. Seeing things as inspired allegory, or whatever, may work for some, but not for an institution. It hasn't worked out well for the Community of Christ, in my opinion.

[_Buffalo]

I hope Stem is prepared for the blowback that's likely coming from the hardline Mormons who think that giving even an inch to critics is tantamount to apostasy.

Do you think my skimpy wind-breaker will cover it? I'm confident it'll do the trick.

You'll need one of those restaurant sneeze guards to deflect all the self-righteous spittle.

[_Kishkumen]

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that there are billions of people (walking the earth today) that would hold a very different opinion then the one you offer here.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Why, because they think the notion that the God of the universe took the form of a Jewish carpenter, was then crucified by Roman authorities, and came back to life is objectively more believable than the idea of wandering Hebrews who colonized the Americas and were visited by this Jewish carpenter God?

I have no doubt that they feel that way. But why should I care? It is obviously a ridiculous idea, whether people feel it is true and sacred or not. I am simply upset that so many people bought into it. It seems that many people have a need to buy into obvious nonsense. I probably do too, but I am not going to rejoice over it.

[_Themis]

I get those points, Themis, as it is I'm just in the awkward position of being a believer having to question all the conclusions, in some, probably, vain hope things appear much more favorable for me/to me.

Ya I know what you mean. I spent many years there.

[_Themis]

Someone on the MADB board used to say that the church was just stories that people used to guide how they lived their lives. That's certainly a reasonable approach when you know the issues involved with historicity and truth claims, but I'm not sure that's a viable approach for a religion.

Reasonable? If they know the issues then couldn't they figure that maybe they should be able to guide their lives in the church the same way the founder did. :) Could be fun.

Think about it: how much would you be willing to sacrifice for a religion that isn't so much "true" as it is nice stories? I think that's why there's such an insistence on the literal nature of Mormon truth claims.

True, which I consider a good thing. Many sacrifice to the institution or some future heavenly rewards when they should only be sacrificing to ideas and and principles they consider important.

Seeing things as inspired allegory, or whatever, may work for some, but not for an institution. It hasn't worked out well for the Community of Christ, in my opinion.

Not really, but then is that a bad thing? Did those who left become bad people or are they able to see better what is important? I am not one who thinks religion necessarily makes a society better, not that I think all religious beliefs make it worse, although some do. Also I think the lack of success for the CoC may have more to do with them remaining with the rest of society instead of separating themselves like the Brigham group.

[_Sethbag]

Wow, I think this thread is itself a watershed moment. Let's all remember this one.

It's the thread where we saw the first cracks in Stem's dike of faith.

Stem, the fact that you're reading and thinking about things like this is a good thing. Let me make a prediction to you: you will realize eventually, after you've assimilated enough of the stuff you're reading, that most of the arguments that you've been using to forestall the obvious conclusions to which you are being lead (ie: that the LDS church is manmade) are just special pleading. You will be depressed, and disappointed, and in the end you will have to admit to yourself that you've been on the wrong side of the argument this whole time. Then you'll have to decide what comes next.

I don't know if I'm as much of a prophet as Polygamy Porter, so I won't put a timeframe on it, but I do think Stem is heading inexorably toward a sort of point of no return.

ps: if you want some more good topics to chew on for a while, consider the fact that so many people around the world will claim a spiritual witness that their beliefs are true (beliefs contradictory to LDS ones), and may even use a lot of the same terminology to describe their experiences. This may force you to consider what the nature of "spiritual witnesses" really is, since it will be apparent that they can't all be really having them if the witnesses are contradicting each other (unless God is really capricious and not at all like the various churches teach he is). I really like how Stak put it recently in another thread, stating in just three words what I've formerly taken whole sentences or even paragraphs to get out: fallacy of misattribution. The experiences they've had are real experiences, but A) they aren't what people think they are, and B) don't mean what people think they mean, and C) don't come from the source people claim they do.