The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_Themis]

So what. Don't read my post and don't respond to them. In fact just place me on ignore.

I have read a lot of your posts, and what I see is a lot of text with little substance. Sorry if that offends you, but that I don't think I am the only one with this impression. Now I did not see anywhere that I remember that you ever really answered this question. With the amount of text I would again have to go through, it seems a lot easier for you to either retype or post what you have said on the issue. Why should I go through a bunch of text for something I strongly suspect is not there?

If you truly believe I offer nothing of value why do you respond?

Just willing to see if you can back up what you claim, or see if you can critically think about them.

If you enjoy bashing Christians try to find something more productive.

I have never bashed Christians. If you think I have, then CFR.

[_Alfredo]

This is always the big problems for those who want to interpret their experiences as coming from some divine being, and why they avoid these kind of questions.

No. It's not the tallest wall.

The tallest challenge is to question the presupposition that the Mormon paradigm can be unconditionally trusted to have the ultimate answer to any question... even the question which raises critical conditions for this trust.

You can try to guide them there...

But as soon as they realize you're attempting to establish critical conditions for their dependency, without fail, their brain stops............................................

...because, no.

There are no conditions for complete trust in Mormonism.

...and apologists will never acknowledge there could be any legitimate problem in accepting this.

It's too mentally and physically disturbing to break the trust in this ultimate answer. They will continually be forced to preserve the emotional stability unconditional trust provides. They've leaped into the self-serving cycle, heart first, and continue to do what humans do best.

It's clearly no big surprise to anyone but apologists that the best way to protect emotional attachments to unconditional trust, is to rely on the paradigm which forever serves itself with its own answers.

[_Alfredo]

Bump
for Alfredo to fix his argument or correct his position

Don't worry. I'm stunned and thrilled you can even follow my argument. I'll give my own flavor of response, but in essence, I agree with Themis and Dad of a Mormon:

Self evident is a lame excuse to avoid criticisms of the meanings we may attach to the spiritual expereince. It still requires interpretation, and if it is self evident then we should not have so much disagreement.

Calling it "self-evident" doesn't mean that isn't an interpretation.

It also might just save time to ignore my argument and ask you to answer or dispute one simple question...

In what possible sense do you mean "self-evident" which applies to all spiritual confirmation of the Mormon paradigm, but does not apply to a single spiritual dis-confirmation of the same paradigm?

[_Alfredo]

Subgenius,

In answering the above question...

I hope you don't already believe that spiritual experiences are too personal to sufficiently examine. Otherwise, lol, good luck answering a question which undeniably establishes sufficient examination is required to trust a single one of them...

But what the hell am I thinking... You've already proven my point by accepting something could be "self-evident".

...what a silly question to ask when you've already admitted that you accept the one idea which completely rejects the usefulness of any "sufficient examination".

[_Alfredo]

and if it is self evident then we should not have so much disagreement.

Just find it relevant again to push one of your thoughts even further for everyone...

Imagine a debate between two people who disagree about what is "self-evident". Each disagrees on the condition that their own account of what is "self-evident" is true.

Which one do you trust to settle the question?

Apologists, the answer is trust neither. Even when they claim they depend on God.

So, I agree. Evidence of disagreement between claims to self-evident truth is, in fact, evidence against those same claims.

[_Franktalk]

So, I agree. Evidence of disagreement between claims to self-evident truth is, in fact, evidence against those same claims.

No that can't be a reasonable conclusion. Both people could be false, or one may be true, but both can't be true. And by extension a set larger than two.

[_Alfredo]

So, I agree. Evidence of disagreement between claims to self-evident truth is, in fact, evidence against those same claims.

No that can't be a reasonable conclusion. Both people could be false, or one may be true, but both can't be true. And by extension a set larger than two.

What the “F”, Franktalk.

You're the only faithful fighter in this thread and you don't understand that I realize everyone could be wrong, or that only one could be true?

You must've been completely ignoring our posts. Of course, you must have read that my case was a strong inference, based on the variety of experience. There's no way you didn't actually comprehend that I was referring to the lack of methodology to choose between ANY religious experience.

Do you want to tell me that now you get it, because you do realize that the argument against religious experience is that there is no reasonable way to choose between any of these possibilities...

If that's really what you think, then I am suspicious that, based on the content of your previous posts, you've yet to realize the burden you bear to argue against reason itself. You can't reason within the Mormon paradigm to that sufficient point at which you realize that when you allow yourself to be properly convinced by reason, everything points to the idea that Mormonism serves itself, and will always provide you the answers which avoid and demonizes the reasoning which defeats it.

I'm sorry. If you believe lots of black and white things, there are many black and white things we can say about you.

You're arguing against plain and simple functional reason at this point and you refuse to logically and meaningfully distinguish yourself from the crowd of intense believers who completely disagree, at all.

Roll those dice harder, Brother Frank.

Oh, and lol, you seem to forget that there are millions of mind-sucking serious religious cultures and paradigms throughout history. But damn, you've only been around for less than a few centuries and barely tip the scale as the most serious religion of modern history. Jesus Christ, all this horrible cultural analysis anxiety is descending upon me when I think about it...

[_Franktalk]

The tallest challenge is to question the presupposition that the Mormon paradigm can be unconditionally trusted to have the ultimate answer to any question... even the question which raises critical conditions for this trust.

Can someone have any question answered. I think the answer is yes. But it is the manner of the answer that many have problems with. I think the early seeker may get a revelation or even a few but we live the gospel and our life is in many ways is scripture. Many things we do are in essence a pattern of the message of God.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Hos 6:3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

Are we not told to search the scriptures?

2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If the Holy Ghost gives us all things why do we have scripture?

The Holy Ghost is a guide to truth but not all truth. I really think you have the whole spiritual thing messed up in your head.

[_Themis]

Can someone have any question answered. I think the answer is yes. But it is the manner of the answer that many have problems with. I think the early seeker may get a revelation or even a few but we live the gospel and our life is in many ways is scripture. Many things we do are in essence a pattern of the message of God.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Hos 6:3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

Are we not told to search the scriptures?

2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If the Holy Ghost gives us all things why do we have scripture?

The Holy Ghost is a guide to truth but not all truth. I really think you have the whole spiritual thing messed up in your head.

Your problem is you just state things as fact instead of explaining why it is fact, and giving compelling reasons for others to think that it is accurate. You also contradict LDS scriptures. Moroni 10:5

Now how again to you discern between the two? :)

[_Alfredo]

Franktalk,

This wall is still well above your head, it seems. You don't get the scope of my argument.

Did you not realize that the thrust of my argument was to point out that there are no critical conditions for presupposing trust in the entire Mormon paradigm, meaning there is unconditional and circular trust in any idea which serves Mormonism.

Seriously, you fail to grasp the point of anything we're explaining if you continually misinterpret the critical conditions we raise as against trust in the internal consistency of this paradigm, after you presuppose you can trust all of it, regardless.


We're still on completely different pages. Will you acknowledge this and work with us to a mutual understanding instead of talking past us?

I am not asking whether you believe the Mormon paradigm can be trusted to explain this critical attack or that.

I'm pointing out that those discussions are fruitless because you already presuppose the Mormon paradigm can explain any criticism. It's not the scope at this moment to figure whether the paradigm is internally consistent or not.

So, is it not awfully suspicious you can't bring yourself to consider any possible critical conditions for this unconditional trust without attempting to explain the criticism within the paradigm that already explains anything and always in its own favor?

And is it not profusely suspicious that you produce this explanation, in every instance, by mysteriously relying on the same unconditional presupposition in question and never explaining why you presupposed it to begin with?

(For example, your response to the critique of religious experience is to unconditionally trust the Mormon paradigm's model of religious experience. But when asked why you trust this model which states that God will always provide, your only defense is to restate trust in the model. It's incredibly lame to respond to the criticism of "God provides" by simply repeating the unsupported and self-serving statement that you can simply trust God will provide the answer to why you can always trust God.)

Do I need to visualize this circle for you?

Do you understand the concept of circular reasoning?

Can you apply it to relationship between the presupposition that a Mormon idea can always be trusted and the defense of this same presupposition?