Let's see where we can get with this

[_keithb]

East-Asia? We have always been at war with East-Asia!

huh?

It's a paraphrase from 1984.

[_keithb]

Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I actually read that book and Brave New World on my mission during personal study time. It was time well spent.

[_consiglieri]

Also, faith is not evidence. By definition, faith is a belief in the absence of evidence.

Or as Professor Van Helsing put it, faith means believing something you know is not true.

Some parts of Dracula are priceless.






Vincent Priceless, that is.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Fionn]

Hey all.

It appears to me "the critic" whomever that may include, seems to often be missing the boat in this whole "discussion" thing.

I'm fairly certain it happens on both sides of the aisle.

The critics position, as far as I can tell, seems to be "The Church is not true. It simply can't be true. it is proven false on too many fronts to be able to hold the claim that it is true."

This certainly reflects my thoughts on the matter. For me, Mormonism no longer holds water.

The LDS position seems to be, this is true at least for me, "I have faith that the Church is true. This means I hold my faith as the evidence that the Church is closer to being the true Church than any other organization on earth."

I understand that you have faith and are very sincere in it. I also understand how you esteem your faith to be the basis of your belief. I don't find that a particularly unusual quality in believers.

I

readily acknowledge I can't show you my faith. Faith is personal. in it I see evidence. But I can't show or demonstrate that evidence.

If it can't be shown or demonstrated, it can't be challenged. And if it can't be challenged, then it isn't much of a discussion, is it?

We could always just discuss the nature of faith, I suppose, and just stay away from the specifics, but that doesn't seem likely or necessarily interesting.

The critic, as it is, as the arguer must demonstrate his or her position. He/she is beholden to the notion that the Church is demonstrably false. in his/her mind it seems obvious to me, that the Church is false because many particular claims made by the Church shows either no evidence in support of it, or show contradicting evidence. The parameters are illy defined in most cases, so we're left quibbling about non-essentials it seems from my believing perspective. "did the Book of Mormon peoples really exist?" who knows? The critic may think he/she knows but it seems like he/she can't define what would be expected. Can't demonstrate that civilizations are all known and accounted for and that those that are known about are really understood. If that's not demonstrated then there's no support for the proposal that the Book of Mormon events never took place.

I like poker. I hate to fold before taking the last card. Drives me nuts. Also can mean I'm not always a successful gambler. But it pays off enough that I continue to risk and pay to see the last card. But when it comes to Mormonism, for me, I decided a long time ago that waiting for the final card wasn't worth it. Wasn't a risk worth taking.

I think the difference between you and me is that I wanted to fold. You don't. It's worth it to you to pay for the final card and hope you make the royal flush. I find the evidence persuasive. Overwhelmingly so. There are threads here all the time demonstrating this very thing. I weight that evidence highly. You don't.

You seem to want a more open, artistic interpretation of Mormonism. I'm all for that, but that isn't really representative of mainstream Mormonism is it? I ask this in all seriousness, not having stepped foot into a Mormon chapel except for funerals for the past 25 years, I really don't know.

We're coming from two separate paradigms. The critics is there is no such thing as faith. The believers is my faith supports my position. There's little if any attempt to address each other. There's little if any attempt to understand each other (and that's with the knowledge that many here are former believers).

Faith obviously exists, insofar as many people self-identify as having it. That isn't the question. The question is, is it a useful way for determining what is reality and what isn't. I don't think it is, but I have no problem with you thinking it does. I think it would be a rare poster on this board who doesn't understand what it means to be a person of faith. Many of us have been in your shoes, stem. Can you say the same? But most importantly, if facts are not interesting and impossible to know with 100% certainly, what the feezie are we actually going to talk about?

That's where we're at. Unless we can address the other side with a good idea of where they are coming from and what they wish to discuss, we'll be left quibbling, as it were, about things like is DCP a bad man? Does Pahoran hate Runtu? Are Mormon idiots? Can a Mormon become president?

You mean, like a message board?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Stem,

is DCP a bad man?

No

Does Pahoran hate Runtu?

No

Are Mormon idiots?

No

Can a Mormon become president?

No


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Themis]

Does Pahoran hate Runtu?

No

I am not sure about that one. Runtu is so easy to hate with all that clear minded reasoning and being so damn nice about it. Everyone hates that.

Can a Mormon become president?

No

Didn't they say that about a Catholic at one time? :)

[_stemelbow]

I'm fairly certain it happens on both sides of the aisle.

Sure.

This certainly reflects my thoughts on the matter. For me, Mormonism no longer holds water.

You’re not the only one, even if Chap tried to tell you otherwise.

I understand that you have faith and are very sincere in it. I also understand how you esteem your faith to be the basis of your belief. I don't find that a particularly unusual quality in believers.

Good.

If it can't be shown or demonstrated, it can't be challenged. And if it can't be challenged, then it isn't much of a discussion, is it?

That’s kind of how I see it. SP has started a series of threads that is in essence trying to discuss it. I don’t think it’ll get to where he’d like though. I feel its very near impossible to put my experiences that make up my faith into words for a critic. Each and every detail can be scrutinized. I’ve seen it time and time again.

We could always just discuss the nature of faith, I suppose, and just stay away from the specifics, but that doesn't seem likely or necessarily interesting.

Somewhat interesting. But you are right. It doesn’t deal with specifics.

I like poker. I hate to fold before taking the last card. Drives me nuts. Also can mean I'm not always a successful gambler. But it pays off enough that I continue to risk and pay to see the last card. But when it comes to Mormonism, for me, I decided a long time ago that waiting for the final card wasn't worth it. Wasn't a risk worth taking.

Alrighty then.

I think the difference between you and me is that I wanted to fold. You don't. It's worth it to you to pay for the final card and hope you make the royal flush. I find the evidence persuasive. Overwhelmingly so. There are threads here all the time demonstrating this very thing. I weight that evidence highly. You don't.

You seem to want a more open, artistic interpretation of Mormonism. I'm all for that, but that isn't really representative of mainstream Mormonism is it? I ask this in all seriousness, not having stepped foot into a Mormon chapel except for funerals for the past 25 years, I really don't know.

I don’t think I’m the best representative of mainstream Mormonism no. That’s probably a good thing though.

Faith obviously exists, insofar as many people self-identify as having it. That isn't the question. The question is, is it a useful way for determining what is reality and what isn't. I don't think it is, but I have no problem with you thinking it does. I think it would be a rare poster on this board who doesn't understand what it means to be a person of faith. Many of us have been in your shoes, stem. Can you say the same? But most importantly, if facts are not interesting and impossible to know with 100% certainly, what the feezie are we actually going to talk about?

I have no problem discussing the details of LDS truth claims. My issue, as I tried unsuccessfully to explain, is the critic often postures that if a certain truth claim is untrue then the whole kit and caboodle goes down the tubes. Its all a big ol’ hoax. I can’t buy that because Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, for instance. I don’t think all the truth claims made by the Church are necessarily true. I don’t see the Church as inerrant. In some instances there is evolution of thought and teaching in the Church. Critics in this way can play quite a role in helping us refine doctrine.

[_Fionn]

I have no problem discussing the details of LDS truth claims. My issue, as I tried unsuccessfully to explain, is the critic often postures that if a certain truth claim is untrue then the whole kit and caboodle goes down the tubes. Its all a big ol’ hoax. I can’t buy that because Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, for instance. I don’t think all the truth claims made by the Church are necessarily true. I don’t see the Church as inerrant. In some instances there is evolution of thought and teaching in the Church. Critics in this way can play quite a role in helping us refine doctrine.

For me, it's more like death by a thousand cuts. Any singular issue where bad judgement or unethical practices are showcased in early Mormonism didn't by themselves lead me to disbelief. Rather, it's many instances of bad behavior combined that tilt the scales. In other words, it isn't any one singular thing, but many issues combined together that lead me to believe Joseph Smith Jr wasn't a good man and therefore I am justified in walking away from the religion he created.

When I left Mormonism, I didn't care if it was true or not. I just knew it wasn't good for me and I had to leave it behind. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that I revisited the early history and foundational claims of Mormonism. So it is only with hindsight that I find my position justified. But even then, I find myself more fascinated by the history than disgusted by it. That said, there is enough troubling history there, I think, to justify the departure of anyone who is disturbed by these many historical issues.

As for evolution of thought, yes, this is something critics, both inside and outside of the church, can contribute to. However, like many other religions, Mormonism is very slow to change, especially if it sees that change as conforming to worldly standards. It is also unfortunate that sometimes the institutional church seems, initially, more interested in quashing dissent than taking it as an impetus to evolution and betterment of itself.

How likely do you think it is the institutional church will walk away from the "Book of Mormon as Truth" stance it now holds and more toward treating the book as an inspired fiction? Personally, I think changing to this stance would make life much easier for the church, at least in some ways. But, conversely, the church has invested so many years and so much energy propping up the truth claims of the Book of Mormon that it would take a major shift in leadership and philosophy for this to happen that is seems unlikely to ever happen. But who knows? Maybe in 50 years, NOMs will be the norm.

Sorry this was a bit rambly. I've got a cold and am a bit loopy this a.m.

[_Drifting]

I have no problem discussing the details of LDS truth claims. My issue, as I tried unsuccessfully to explain, is the critic often postures that if a certain truth claim is untrue then the whole kit and caboodle goes down the tubes. Its all a big ol’ hoax. I can’t buy that because Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, for instance. I don’t think all the truth claims made by the Church are necessarily true. I don’t see the Church as inerrant. In some instances there is evolution of thought and teaching in the Church. Critics in this way can play quite a role in helping us refine doctrine.

For me, it's more like death by a thousand cuts. Any singular issue where bad judgement or unethical practices are showcased in early Mormonism didn't by themselves lead me to disbelief. Rather, it's many instances of bad behavior combined that tilt the scales. In other words, it isn't any one singular thing, but many issues combined together that lead me to believe Joseph Smith Jr wasn't a good man and therefore I am justified in walking away from the religion he created.

When I left Mormonism, I didn't care if it was true or not. I just knew it wasn't good for me and I had to leave it behind. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that I revisited the early history and foundational claims of Mormonism. So it is only with hindsight that I find my position justified. But even then, I find myself more fascinated by the history than disgusted by it. That said, there is enough troubling history there, I think, to justify the departure of anyone who is disturbed by these many historical issues.

As for evolution of thought, yes, this is something critics, both inside and outside of the church, can contribute to. However, like many other religions, Mormonism is very slow to change, especially if it sees that change as conforming to worldly standards. It is also unfortunate that sometimes the institutional church seems, initially, more interested in quashing dissent than taking it as an impetus to evolution and betterment of itself.

How likely do you think it is the institutional church will walk away from the "Book of Mormon as Truth" stance it now holds and more toward treating the book as an inspired fiction? Personally, I think changing to this stance would make life much easier for the church, at least in some ways. But, conversely, the church has invested so many years and so much energy propping up the truth claims of the Book of Mormon that it would take a major shift in leadership and philosophy for this to happen that is seems unlikely to ever happen. But who knows? Maybe in 50 years, NOMs will be the norm.

Sorry this was a bit rambly. I've got a cold and am a bit loopy this a.m.

I find your contributions well considered and well put.
In terms of the Book of Mormon as fiction - the Church cannot do this no matter what it thinks. Too many members and leaders have testified of it's 'truthfulness'. Inspired fiction would mean they lied.

[_Yoda]

I find your contributions well considered and well put.
In terms of the Book of Mormon as fiction - the Church cannot do this no matter what it thinks. Too many members and leaders have testified of it's 'truthfulness'. Inspired fiction would mean they lied.

I agree.

It would be like stating that the Bible is inspired fiction. I don't see that one happening either.