Drilldown #3: TBMs, how do you deal with contra evidence?

[_Some Schmo]

Actually, though, the yahoo did answer the OPs question in his immutably dumb ass, backhanded way. Believers don't actually deal with contra evidence. They ignore it, misdirect, focus on the source and employ every defense mechanism they can get their hands on so they don't need to deal with it. That's what apologetics is, after all. Screaming, "I don't have to believe you because you're anonymous! *whine, moan, blubber*" is a classic example of shifting focus due to not being able to deal adequately with criticism.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

First, I ask myself, is the person claiming the contrary evidence a real, credentialed person, or a cowardly anonymous poster who claims to be a lawyer yet who knows almost nothing about the basics of constitutional law? (An important thing to know in discussions about the role of religion in the U.S. If you boast about your credentials you'd better know your shift.)

Second, I ask myself, does the person claiming the contrary evidence really know what the hell he is talking about? Like, does he suggest that there is a temple vow against the U.S. government that should be exposed by the press when any student of Mormon history knows damn well what went on in the Reed Smoot Senate hearings? Under such circumstances, I might think to myself that the person claiming contrary evidence is out of his league.

Sockpuppet, great OP. Many TBM's, when they can't factually address contral evidence, often lash out at others and resort to calling them names ("anonymous coward", for example). Still, other TBM's might resort to personal attacks ("you don't know what the hell your talking about", for example).

Sock, I just wish I had an example to show you a TBM lashing out. Oh well.

[_Corpsegrinder]

From his blog:

My LDS meetinghouse is near a Baptist college. In the past, it has been defaced with a Sharpie on the brick and glass with Evangelical slogans. I see little difference between that form of anonymous hate speech and the type one routinely sees on blogs attacking the faith of another.

This particular "real, credentialed person" seems oddly incapable of distinguishing an act of vandalism from an internet post.

[_mentalgymnast]

In all things there are opposites. So it would not surprise me if there are contrary hypotheticals out there about Mormonism. Here is the point: there is no conclusive evidence that Mormonism is false or that Joseph Smith was a fraud. And the window of opportunity of proving such a thing has passed. It was certainly tried when all the people were alive. The witnesses were asked repeatedly to give their explanations and no one denied what they saw or felt. And when sidney and Joseph were alive, no one proved the complicity of sidney in the Book of Mormon. But it was tried.

Thus, sidney and the witnesses went to their deathbed verifying their experience. For sidney it was a final denial about writing the book and for many of the witnesses, it was a final testimony.

So what to do?

And then emma never doubted that her husband did not write the book. What to do?

For further insight regarding this line of thought, here is a podcast worth listening to:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=2018

by the way, I don't know that there is any contra evidence for one's OWN spiritual experiences. My experience has been that experiences that I've had that I would classify as "spiritual" don't distinguish themselves primarily via emotion.

Regards,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

by the way, I don't know that there is any contra evidence for one's OWN spiritual experiences. My experience has been that experiences that I've had that I would classify as "spiritual" don't distinguish themselves primarily via emotion.

Regards,
MG

MG,

Are all spiritual experiences equally valid?

[_sock puppet]

In all things there are opposites. So it would not surprise me if there are contrary hypotheticals out there about Mormonism. Here is the point: there is no conclusive evidence that Mormonism is false or that Joseph Smith was a fraud. And the window of opportunity of proving such a thing has passed. It was certainly tried when all the people were alive. The witnesses were asked repeatedly to give their explanations and no one denied what they saw or felt. And when sidney and Joseph were alive, no one proved the complicity of sidney in the Book of Mormon. But it was tried.

Thus, sidney and the witnesses went to their deathbed verifying their experience. For sidney it was a final denial about writing the book and for many of the witnesses, it was a final testimony.

So what to do?

And then emma never doubted that her husband did not write the book. What to do?

For further insight regarding this line of thought, here is a podcast worth listening to:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=2018

by the way, I don't know that there is any contra evidence for one's OWN spiritual experiences. My experience has been that experiences that I've had that I would classify as "spiritual" don't distinguish themselves primarily via emotion.

Regards,
MG

I agree. But if the spiritual experience is interpreted as affirmation of Mormonism's truth claims, the contra evidence is that which belies the efficacy of those Mormon truth claims.

[_stemelbow]

This is the third in a three-part query. Here is the introduction and first, and here is the second.

Having had your experience (query #1) and having interpreted it as a spiritual confirmation (query #2), this query #3 asks how you deal with evidence that contradicts the spiritual truths that have been spiritually confirmed to you.

Do you simply ignore anything historical or by way of scientific development that is contrary to the confirmed spiritual truths as false?

No. I’m not sure what you’re thinking on this.

Do you postpone the harmonizing explanation of contrary evidences, trusting in your spiritual confirmation and that the harmonizing explanation will be revealed some day?

I suppose you could say that. I truly feel that in many ways we all think we know far more than we actually do.

Do you take each bit of contrary evidence and try to understand it, and try yourself to harmonize it with the confirmed spiritual truths?

No. Its far too much for my little brain. I try to understand opposing views as much as I can.

Do you look for and read apologetic pieces that try to do the harmonization?

Sometimes.

Which specific bits of contrary evidence have you successfully harmonized with your confirmed spiritual truths?

Don’t know. I’m not sure what you mean when you say this.

Which, if any, specific bits of contrary evidence have you yet to be able to harmonize with your confirmed spiritual truths?

Same.-

[_mentalgymnast]

by the way, I don't know that there is any contra evidence for one's OWN spiritual experiences. My experience has been that experiences that I've had that I would classify as "spiritual" don't distinguish themselves primarily via emotion.

Regards,
MG

MG,

Are all spiritual experiences equally valid?

I don't know. As I said, a person can only verify the experiences that have been unique to them. I just don't see how it is possible to verify the same for others, although there may be times when it appears to be obvious that another person/group may be either in a purely emotional state or frenzy. But even then, I think it is incumbent on "the other" to try and stay away from pre-judgment based upon our own state of being and perceptual inclinations.

If there is a God in heaven who desires to communicate in some form or another with his created beings, my guess is that it is done by and through his own means and by his own good pleasure. He chooses the time and the place. I am suspicious of those that pick the time and the place to have a spiritual experience, even within church settings. In the LDS church, and other churches, I think that people tend to "over rate" what they refer to as actual spiritual experiences.

But then again, when all is said and done, we can only speak to/for ourselves.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I agree. But if the spiritual experience is interpreted as affirmation of Mormonism's truth claims, the contra evidence is that which belies the efficacy of those Mormon truth claims.

That's true. But as I've mentioned, one can only speak for themselves and not for someone else. I have a cousin (and her husband) who is disaffected from the church, because of intellectual/historical concerns, and I trust implicitly when she tells me that she has had spiritual experiences concerning God's/Christ's love in greater measure than she did when she was fully active in the LDS church. Who am I to disagree with her and make light of or doubt her experience?

Although, to be clear, to the best of my knowledge, she hasn't had any spiritual confirmations that the LDS church isn't true.

Regards,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

I don't know. As I said, a person can only verify the experiences that have been unique to them. I just don't see how it is possible to verify the same for others, although there may be times when it appears to be obvious that another person/group may be either in a purely emotional state or frenzy. But even then, I think it is incumbent on "the other" to try and stay away from pre-judgment based upon our own state of being and perceptual inclinations.

If there is a God in heaven who desires to communicate in some form or another with his created beings, my guess is that it is done by and through his own means and by his own good pleasure. He chooses the time and the place. I am suspicious of those that pick the time and the place to have a spiritual experience, even within church settings. In the LDS church, and other churches, I think that people tend to "over rate" what they refer to as actual spiritual experiences.

But then again, when all is said and done, we can only speak to/for ourselves.

Regards,
MG

But isn't that what we are doing when we ask potential converts to accept Joseph Smith Jr as a prophet? Aren't we asking these people to evaluate his spiritual experiences? To paraphrase the other thread "it all boils down to whether or not Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith."

In fact our church asks up to convince other people that these spiritual experiences are true and lets them know that unless their spiritual experiences conforms to ours that it isn't really a spiritual experience.