Don't know what to call this thread... The End of Mormonism?

[_Alfredo]

Well, I was just banned from my favorite forum for reminding one too many apologists of something which they often forget... being they defend a very serious and involved religion which practices an extreme and clearly evident form of harmful indoctrination. Undoubtedly, pushing the right buttons too hard is just too much dissonance for any apologist who wishes to be respected as a balanced and reasonable intellectual, the sort of which the Church and its culture systematically suppresses in children with ideas about Anti-Mormonism.

So, I hope I'm welcomed because I'd like to spend some time here picking fights.

I'm reasonably confident I've formulated an argument which subverts every response offered in defense of the first and foremost persuading evidence for the foundation of Mormon belief: The personal religious experience. You can find it here in The Celestial Forum: http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22559.

I'd love any comments or disputes which would aid me in developing this argument.

But how can I be so confident?!!? So radically comprehensive??!? Well, more or less because
apologists are so confident. Because from the beginning, the answer has always been their
personal experience. Put simply, you can overthrow the foundation of apologetics simply by questioning the starting point for every Mormon idea--past, present, and future.

I want to show this by first dividing Mormon apologetics into three categories:

1) Defend Mormonism as possible, given that Mormonism is true.
2) Defend Mormonism as true, by refuting negative argument.
3) Defend Mormonism as true, by giving positive argument.

I want to point out that apologist and critics are playing two different games. Because before getting worked up in a debate, the apologist often fails to mention that they're not interested in the logical purposes of any of these categories.

Many here know that when you struggle to the bottom of nearly every glorified evidential, epistemic, or theological argument defending Mormonism, you'll find that respectively...

1) Mormonism is defended as possible, but only because the apologist has made the prior determination that Mormonism is true.
2) Concerning negative argument, Mormonism can be defended as true against any argument by simply appealing to faith, which religious experience justifies in the face of seemingly damning evidence.
3) Concerning positive argument, the only contention that really matters--that anyone actually cares about--is the argument from religious experience.

They're only interested in serving the Church, which ultimately serves their own interpretation of their own particular religious experience. This is highly evident in conception of Anti-Mormonism. The critic's argument ultimately doesn't matter, because we already know it's been designed to deceive.

It has been made undeniably clear through Mormon doctrine, culture, teachings, and even the admission by Mormons, that religious experience is the best and only necessary evidence needed to justify Mormon belief... Mormonism stands or falls on the reliable interpretation of religious experience.

It's a closed system. The key for which is an understanding of religious experience independent of Mormon interpretation, as will probably be discussed in the thread which I've intended for formal debate. But to come to this understanding, proves to be the most difficult challenge facing the bulk of true believers. That is, to find the capacity to consider their religious experience from a perspective completely removed from Mormon doctrine and thought.

So, how do we change the game?

We move Mormonism onto the public stage. Facilitate the emergence of Mormonism, finally, on a level playing field. Where Mormons can't help but to face that their unique, we're-so-special-and-blessed feeling could possibly be not as unique as once thought, so that millions will have to the chance to make the first step out. The problem can never be solved until the Church is forced into an environment where they can no longer depend solely upon their epistemic elitism. So, this does sound like the end of "Mormonism". The end of the control being unique and special provides which creates a false sense of security in Mormonism's questionable foundation.

lol. Thoughts?

[_Nightlion]

lol. Thoughts?

Huh? eesh, I think a gnat just went up my nose. HONK!

[_bcspace]

Thoughts?

It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

[_Alfredo]

Thoughts?

It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

You have my full attention.

[_Shulem]

Ask bcspace what the name of the king is written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. Or ask him why Joseph Smith identified the god Anubis as a slave. I think you can discuss the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 with bcspace and find that he doesn't know what he is talking about any more than Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about when he claimed to translate ancient Egyptian.

Paul O

[_Some Schmo]

We move Mormonism onto the public stage. Facilitate the emergence of Mormonism, finally, on a level playing field. Where Mormons can't help but to face that their unique, we're-so-special-and-blessed feeling could possibly be not as unique as once thought, so that millions will have to the chance to make the first step out. The problem can never be solved until the Church is forced into an environment where they can no longer depend solely upon their epistemic elitism. So, this does sound like the end of "Mormonism". The end of the control being unique and special provides which creates a false sense of security in Mormonism's questionable foundation.

lol. Thoughts?

Wait... so you want to defeat the church by making it more popular/famous/visible? LOL

Kind of like lifting the rock so the bugs all scatter?

Gotta admit... I like the way you think.

[_Tator]

You don't sound like chicken Alfredo!

Welcome to the board.

[Guest]

We move Mormonism onto the public stage. Facilitate the emergence of Mormonism, finally, on a level playing field. Where Mormons can't help but to face that their unique, we're-so-special-and-blessed feeling could possibly be not as unique as once thought, so that millions will have to the chance to make the first step out. The problem can never be solved until the Church is forced into an environment where they can no longer depend solely upon their epistemic elitism. So, this does sound like the end of "Mormonism". The end of the control being unique and special provides which creates a false sense of security in Mormonism's questionable foundation.

lol. Thoughts?

Wait... so you want to defeat the church by making it more popular/famous/visible? LOL

Kind of like lifting the rock so the bugs all scatter?

Gotta admit... I like the way you think.

Yea. Sounds a bit absurd. But, it seems inevitable. It just needs to happen sooner.

I don't see any other way to dispel the we're-so-special spirit which prevents cold criticism from reaching their glorified and grandiose interpretations of "the world". I believe Mormons feel comfortable finding their experiences and views so unique because they feel comfortable with the fact that most of the world doesn't even begin to understand Mormon thought.

More people should know that anything which leads you to deny the church is an evil deception designed by the devil to distract humanity from becoming Gods.

[_Alfredo]

You don't sound like chicken Alfredo!

Welcome to the board.

sanks.

[_Some Schmo]

Yea. Sounds a bit absurd. But, it seems inevitable. It just needs to happen sooner.

I don't see any other way to dispel the we're-so-special spirit which prevents cold criticism from reaching their glorified and grandiose interpretations of "the world". I believe Mormons feel comfortable finding their experiences and views so unique because they feel comfortable with the fact that most of the world doesn't even begin to understand Mormon thought.

More people should know that anything which leads you to deny the church is an evil deception designed by the devil to distract humanity from becoming Gods.

I don't think it's so absurd. I think it aligns quite nicely with the idea I've always had that apologists are one of the church's biggest problems.

And before I forget, welcome to the board (meant to say that before).