If the church is not true, would you want to know?

[_Morley]

....Deutero Isaiah....

Buffalo, though I was familiar with this issue, you've forced me to look up discussions and all of the specifics up on this topic. I appreciate it. Good topic and excellent points.

[_Themis]

No one is asking you to deny your experiences. I think this seems to be one of the most common misunderstandings. I wonder if it is because many members cannot separate between the experience and the inteprretation they attach to it.

eehhhh...what's the point? No matter what I say, particularly if I say it genuinely you'll come back with a comment about what is wrong with LDS, or me. I'll leave it alone. I did not in any way indicate anyone here is asking me to deny any of my experiences.

This is what you said

Basically I believe the Church is true because I honestly trust that God has gave me reason to believe it is true in the form of Him manifesting the truth of it to me. I simply can't deny the experiences I've had that go far beyond anything anyone has been able to critique as far as I've seen.

My main point is that one need not deny the experience. You seem to be making the mistake of not separating the expereince with the interpretation of it. If that offends you I am sorry. I think it is a very important issue and one that relates to this thread.

[_Buffalo]

....Deutero Isaiah....

Buffalo, though I was familiar with this issue, you've forced me to look up discussions and all of the specifics up on this topic. I appreciate it. Good topic and excellent points.

Thanks. I only stumbled on that issue when I was already almost an atheist. I smacked my forehead and thought, "oh man, really? Really, guys? This is our holy book?"

[_Themis]

Themis, from that stuff I've read that you've put out there, you seem to be a fan of the Guns, Germs, and Steel world view. If that's the case, your view is going to be distorted through Diamond's lense when it comes to the way you view the LDS religion because you're going to automatically throw it in the same category (basically under the bus) as other world religions.

I had to read your response to Morely to get what you mean. His response to you was spot on. In evaluating any religion, giving yours special status is only a formula for deluding yourself. Also I did not conclude that the LDS church was not true by comparing it to other religions, but by looking at the evidence both physical and spiritual. Much of the physical evidence has nothting to do with other religions, but one cannot honestly ignore other religions when evaluting the spiritual, unless they are more interested in believing certain things then they are in finding out truth. This kind of person does not want to know if it is against what they believe.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the church encourages its members to seek knowledge/learning through study and faith and then hold fast to that which is true.

The formula they provide is flawed and designed to get the response they want. The church also teaches people things like gaining a testimony is found in the bearing of it. Of course if you tell yourself over and over again most will have stronger beliefs. Tell me why this is a good thing for LDS but not other groups? :)

[_stemelbow]

My main point is that one need not deny the experience. You seem to be making the mistake of not separating the expereince with the interpretation of it. If that offends you I am sorry. I think it is a very important issue and one that relates to this thread.

I often conceed that any experience, particularly claimed spiritual experiences, can result in faulty interpretations. But that doesn't change that you intimated that I somehow objected to anyone thinking I ought to deny my experiences.

[_stemelbow]

There's no evidence that D. Isaiah is more ancient than the time period already discussed. It's full of issues that were very hot in the days of the exile.

And perhaps someday it will be credibly achknowledged that the Book of Mormon will refute the assumption.

Since there is no evidence to support this alternative possibility you are offering, why are you seriously considering it?

Well I don't buy your premise. As I said, there is evidence that the Book of Mormon began in the same contextual atmosphere as the Old Testament time period from which it sprang.

Do you often give serious consideration to ideas for which there is no evidence?

But you also seem to discount the notion of faith being evidence. Do so to your hearts content, but your assumption doesn't convince me.

Or is it just when they support Mormonism that you have such a charitable view of evidence-free ideas?

Don't be silly...I also give clear credence to many other Christian claims.

I hope that doesn't come across as hostile. It probably does, but I don't mean it to be.

Nah...I get your point. No probs here.

Parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament in general are another matter.

Indeed they are. But if the Book of Mormon is ever acknowledged widely as having credibility, then perhaps this whole deutero Isaiah thing will be seen quite differently.

[_Themis]

My main point is that one need not deny the experience. You seem to be making the mistake of not separating the expereince with the interpretation of it. If that offends you I am sorry. I think it is a very important issue and one that relates to this thread.

I often conceed that any experience, particularly claimed spiritual experiences, can result in faulty interpretations. But that doesn't change that you intimated that I somehow objected to anyone thinking I ought to deny my experiences.

That was easy to interpret it that way since you did connect the critic with your not being able to deny the expereince. I believe you did not mean it that way.

[_Themis]

And perhaps someday it will be credibly achknowledged that the Book of Mormon will refute the assumption.

This is exactly what we are talking about when one goes to the unlikely and things that have no evidence to back them up instead of going where the evidence leads us. This is what apologetics is very much about, regardless of which religion one may be doing it for.

But you also seem to discount the notion of faith being evidence. Do so to your hearts content, but your assumption doesn't convince me.

I am not aware that most apologists would try to argue faith as evidence. It is not, or at least it is only evidnece to what an individual believes.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG:Themis, from that stuff I've read that you've put out there, you seem to be a fan of the Guns, Germs, and Steel world view. If that's the case, your view is going to be distorted through Diamond's lense when it comes to the way you view the LDS religion because you're going to automatically throw it in the same category (basically under the bus) as other world religions.

Themis: I had to read your response to Morely to get what you mean. His response to you was spot on. In evaluating any religion, giving yours special status is only a formula for deluding yourself. Also I did not conclude that the LDS church was not true by comparing it to other religions, but by looking at the evidence both physical and spiritual. Much of the physical evidence has nothting to do with other religions, but one cannot honestly ignore other religions when evaluting the spiritual, unless they are more interested in believing certain things then they are in finding out truth. This kind of person does not want to know if it is against what they believe.

I don't think I made myself clear as I simply referenced Diamond's book without explaining what I meant. I am assuming you've read Guns, Germs, and Steel. If not, the general thing that he's got going in his book, at least from what I remember, is that the cultures and civilizations on the planet developed as a result of the resources that were available and the use that people made of them. Also, that religion was a by product of man's evolutionary movement along a spectrum of religious complexity. God isn't necessary in the picture.

So...what I'm saying is that you seem to have a worldview in which religion of all stripes and colors belong in the same box. Manmade. To look at any belief system and/or religion as being God inspired and directed would not fit in with this worldview. Thus your comments in regards to whatever happens in Mormonism being a product of the mind and physiology rather than the possibility that God is behind it. Spiritual experience as stem describes it is thrown off as an implausibility to the extent that a god is not communicating and/or interacting with individuals...at all.

You seem to be operating on the assumption any spiritual claims made are erroneous at the outset because they can't be demonstrated or proven empirically or scientifically. I describe this as looking through Diamond's lense as one observes the world. The question needs to be asked, however, whether that view of the world is distorted. From you POV, no. From the POV of others, yes. There can be no meeting of the minds which will result in agreement as to the source of spiritual phenomena for individuals because the assumption has already been made that spiritual phenomena which actually have their source outside of the human mind are not possible.

You believe that you are right because of the evidence. Others that have had what they believe to be reliable spiritual promptings from God would disagree. And it can often be shown that these purported spiritual experiences are in error or manufactured through normal processes of human emotion. You have the upper hand because those that have had spiritual experiences cannot prove them empirically and there is much evidence that the brain itself is intimately involved in whatever processes are going on.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

The church also teaches people things like gaining a testimony is found in the bearing of it. Of course if you tell yourself over and over again most will have stronger beliefs. Tell me why this is a good thing for LDS but not other groups? :)

Well, I think it is a good thing for other religious groups if the testifying brings them to a good place where they are able to live productively and with a certifiable degree of happiness/fulfillment. When it comes to the area of truth claims, one can be mistaken concerning the foundational underpinnings that would support said testimony, but if the bearing of that witness keeps them in a good place, like I said, it is useful in the life of that person in the sense that it gives them an anchor which provides stability. Many people thrive within this operational schema. It ends up being a net gain rather than loss.

Regards,
MG