How many posters on MD were once apologists?

[_zeezrom]

At the very, very beginning, I used to apologize for things. I was called a troll for doing so.

In my first post at MD, I claimed that I loved the church more after finding the weird, historical crap. The reason I claimed this is because I was suddenly thrown into a world where I looked at church leaders (i.e. Joseph Smith) as people who are prone to make huge errors of judgment and more importantly, wanderings into selfish escapades. A lot of pressure was relieved from my previously pent-up and guilt-ridden world view. I finally saw the church as a place that was made by normal people and egos were just egos of men.

I held this view for as long as I could... Eventually, I began to see my place in the church was precarious and a little dishonest. It works for some people, but not me.

Honestly, if my wife and my kids were still in the church, I could see myself following a John Delhin or someone. I would do it out of necessity. I would even apologize for some things.

[_Quasimodo]

You can speculate all you like about my emotional state, but the evidence is all in my favor. :)

I don't think there is such a think as arriving at supernatural beliefs in a reasonable way. You can't have supernatural beliefs without magical thinking, and magical thinking is an irrational state of mind.

Buff, there is a very well written book that speaks to the existence of fairies. It all takes place in a far off land populated by rival groups. Battles ensue. All very believable.

You should read "Peter Pan" with an open heart. Then, clap your hands.

[_Quasimodo]

At the very, very beginning, I used to apologize for things. I was called a troll for doing so.

In my first post at MD, I claimed that I loved the church more after finding the weird, historical crap. The reason I claimed this is because I was suddenly thrown into a world where I looked at church leaders (i.e. Joseph Smith) as people who are prone to make huge errors of judgment and more importantly, wanderings into selfish escapades. A lot of pressure was relieved from my previously pent-up and guilt-ridden world view. I finally saw the church as a place that was made by normal people and egos were just egos of men.

I held this view for as long as I could... Eventually, I began to see my place in the church was precarious and a little dishonest. It works for some people, but not me.

Honestly, if my wife and my kids were still in the church, I could see myself following a John Delhin or someone. I would do it out of necessity. I would even apologize for some things.

Peoples' need to believe is what I find most curious and interesting on this board. It seems that, in spite of all the historic and archaeological proof, there are people that cannot accept that their beliefs could be wrong. Jumping through all sorts of hoops and exercising some very difficult mental gymnastics to maintain their beliefs.

Thanks for the insight into how that process works.

[_Buffalo]

You can speculate all you like about my emotional state, but the evidence is all in my favor. :)

I don't think there is such a think as arriving at supernatural beliefs in a reasonable way. You can't have supernatural beliefs without magical thinking, and magical thinking is an irrational state of mind.

Buff, there is a very well written book that speaks to the existence of fairies. It all takes place in a far off land populated by rival groups. Battles ensue. All very believable.

You should read "Peter Pan" with an open heart. Then, clap your hands.

*I do believe in fairies. I do believe in fairies.*

[_mentalgymnast]

Neither the fairy believers nor the God believers can come up with any evidence, though.

Is the evidence that you would require to believe in God the same primary evidence that you would require to believe in invisible fairies that can't be seen? If so, what is that evidence? If not, why would you require a different breed/kind of evidential material?

by the way, it is convenient and rather less troublesome to come to one's "reasonable" conclusions based solely upon the "arm of flesh", isn't it? Throwing God out of the picture completely makes things a little less complicated doesn't it? You don't have to worry about all that crap about God's ways not being our ways, etc.

Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my aways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Bunk. Right?

Again, I maintain that it may be a futile journey to rely solely upon the "arm of flesh" of either critics or apologists.

Regards,
MG

[_TrashcanMan79]

Throwing God out of the picture completely makes things a little less complicated doesn't it?

Yup. Occam's Razor is awesome like that.

[_Buffalo]

Neither the fairy believers nor the God believers can come up with any evidence, though.

Is the evidence that you would require to believe in God the same primary evidence that you would require to believe in invisible fairies that can't be seen? If so, what is that evidence? If not, why would you require a different breed/kind of evidential material?

by the way, it is convenient and rather less troublesome to come to one's "reasonable" conclusions based solely upon the "arm of flesh", isn't it? Throwing God out of the picture completely makes things a little less complicated doesn't it? You don't have to worry about all that crap about God's ways not being our ways, etc.

Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my aways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Bunk. Right?

Again, I maintain that it may be a futile journey to rely solely upon the "arm of flesh" of either critics or apologists.

Regards,
MG

You need to convince me first that there is anything BUT an arm of flesh to rely on. If I told you that you need to stop relying on your own willpower and start relying on fairy power, how would you take it?

Personally, throwing God out made things a lot more complex in some ways, given that everyone I love is a devout believer. But yeah, everything suddenly makes sense. Logically it's much simpler. You don't have to do apologetic twists and turns and logical leaps to explain all the things about faith that don't add up. The statement "there is no god" very neatly takes care of all of them at once.

Anyway, in terms of evidence, what have you got? The more the better. Do you have fingerprints of this Elohim person? A hair from his beard? A video of him appearing to a 13 year old girl in Iowa? Or more indirectly, some hard evidence of a supernatural event, like someone being raised from the dead (really dead, not nearly dead) or someone regrowing an arm or someone given the ability to fly - anything like that?

[_mentalgymnast]

The statement "there is no god" very neatly takes care of all of them at once.

Anyway, in terms of evidence, what have you got?

Nothing that you have either heard of before, seen, or possibly experienced. The difference, I suppose, is that I've held on to God belief while you have scrapped it so that the "arm of flesh" evidence which you have compiled fits into your view of reality.

I've been where you're at.

For years I have been a fan of Krista Tippett and her public radio program called Speaking of Faith. Back in 2008 she had a fellow on her program named John Polkinghorne. This interview along with a book I'd read earlier called, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion impacted me to the extent that I started thinking more and more about the importance of the Book of Mormon in verifying the truth claims of the LDS church. The ongoing result being that a couple of months ago after listening to a podcast with John Dehlin where he interviewed Grant Hardy and his wife Heather I went out and bought the Reader's Edition of the Book of Mormon. At this point as I am going through this edition of the Book of Mormon I am finding the text coming to life in a way that for one reason or another it hadn't before.

Evidence of God? The Book of Mormon is a good place to start if you can stay within the covers and stay with the text itself. There is something inexplicably unique about that book. It is indeed the keystone to finding out whether the church is true, God lives, Jesus is the Christ, etc.

In todays world with all of the conflicting evidences that can move a person one way or the other, the Book of Mormon remains the bedrock "evidence" and Exhibit A that the LDS church is something special and unique in the world and has an important mission to carry out.


http://being.publicradio.org/programs/quarks/

http://www.amazon.com/Hand-Mormon-Ameri ... 195168887/

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1547

Regards,
MG

[_Rambo]

I've been where you're at.

Of course.

Evidence of God? The Book of Mormon is a good place to start if you can stay within the covers and stay with the text itself. There is something inexplicably unique about that book. It is indeed the keystone to finding out whether the church is true,

Regards,
MG

I'm pretty sure buffalo has read the Book of Mormon many times. Telling him to read it again with an open heart will not change anything.

The evidence points out that the Book of Mormon was written by a man and therefore Mormons are realying upon "arms of the flesh" as well.

You logic is circular.

It least buffalo has scientific evidence that proves the Book of Mormon not true. What do you have? A special feeling in your heart?

[_mentalgymnast]

The evidence points out that the Book of Mormon was written by a man and therefore Mormons are realying upon "arms of the flesh" as well.

Are you sure?

Regards,
MG