Conscientious Alternative to Mormonism

[_KevinSim]

It happened here. It was in the Terrestrial forum, not the Celestial.

You pulled the same schtick at LDS & Evangelical Conversations, here.

You've proven yourself unwilling to actually put non-Mormon epistemologies to the test, so there really isn't much point in going the rounds with you. And I do think you're being insincere. This all seems like some kind of round-about game to try and get non-Mormons to see the inadequacy of their epistemologies by posing as a sincere investigator of their religions (or lack thereof).

MsJack, you've pointed to some of the places where I've posted; why not go even further and point to my couple of comments on the blog at "http://mormonexpression.com/blogs/2012/03/13/the-vanguard/#disqus_thread"?

Look, I have nothing to hide. The truth is that the original place I wanted to post was "mormonexpression.com", but in the process of getting started there someone on Mormon Discussions suggested I post here, and I accepted his invitation. Some time back Fred Anson recommended that I read The Case for Christ as a means of discovering why Biblical Christians believe the Bible is inspired. Anson was willing to discuss the book with me, but only on the condition that I stop making posts on the Internet. That was an unacceptable condition for me, and I told him so, at which Anson theoretically stopped corresponding with me. But I wanted to talk about the book with somebody; hence the thread I started on this Terrestrial Forum about The Case for Christ that you pointed to. But you can hardly ding me for my criticisms of that book; the vast majority of posters on that thread also found Strobel's book's reasonings pretty flawed.

After that I've been posting to a number of threads on this forum, and also have been posting to blogs on Mormon Expression. In the thread that I mentioned Christian J said s/he was curious if the thread's author "would agree that Mormon baggage can taint an Ex-Mos ability to jump to other religious traditions (esp. Protestant Christianity)." Christian J followed that with, "As per the follow discussion: http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2012/02/27 ... -christian", which you'll note is the second forum you pointed to. I'm interested in the assertion that "Mormon baggage" might "taint an Ex-Mos ability to jump to other religious traditions," so I responded to that post. I was also interested in the assertion at "be-positive-be-christian" that there are "ways of looking at Christianity that are different from how literalists look at it, that don't have the problems that literalists have," so I asked about those alternate ways of looking at Christianity on the "be-positive-be-christian" website.

Why is any of this an indication that I'm insincere, or that I'm "unwilling to actually put non-Mormon epistemologies to the test", or that I've been "posing as a sincere investigator of" non-Mormon faiths as opposed to actually being a sincere investigator of said faith? I've never made a secret of the fact that I am a devout Latter-day Saint, but I was completely sincere in my statement that I've tried to keep an open mind when presented with non-Mormon viewpoints. I'm not going to take seriously a "non-Mormon epistemology" that involves me sticking a finger at random into a dictionary, and making conclusions based on the word my finger lands on, but I'm fulling willing to put any epistemology that makes sense to any test that makes sense.

[_KevinSim]

It happened here. It was in the Terrestrial forum, not the Celestial.

You pulled the same schtick at LDS & Evangelical Conversations, here.

You've proven yourself unwilling to actually put non-Mormon epistemologies to the test, so there really isn't much point in going the rounds with you. And I do think you're being insincere. This all seems like some kind of round-about game to try and get non-Mormons to see the inadequacy of their epistemologies by posing as a sincere investigator of their religions (or lack thereof).

MsJack, you've pointed to some of the places where I've posted; why not go even further and point to my couple of comments on the blog at "http://mormonexpression.com/blogs/2012/03/13/the-vanguard/#disqus_thread"?

Look, I have nothing to hide. The truth is that the original place I wanted to post was "mormonexpression.com", but in the process of getting started there someone on Mormon Discussions suggested I post here, and I accepted his invitation. Some time back Fred Anson recommended that I read The Case for Christ as a means of discovering why Biblical Christians believe the Bible is inspired. Anson was willing to discuss the book with me, but only on the condition that I stop making posts on the Internet. That was an unacceptable condition for me, and I told him so, at which Anson theoretically stopped corresponding with me. But I wanted to talk about the book with somebody; hence the thread I started on this Terrestrial Forum about The Case for Christ that you pointed to. But you can hardly ding me for my criticisms of that book; the vast majority of posters on that thread also found Strobel's book's reasonings pretty flawed.

After that I've been posting to a number of threads on this forum, and also have been posting to blogs on Mormon Expression. In the thread that I mentioned Christian J said s/he was curious if the thread's author "would agree that Mormon baggage can taint an Ex-Mos ability to jump to other religious traditions (esp. Protestant Christianity)." Christian J followed that with, "As per the follow discussion: http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2012/02/27 ... -christian", which you'll note is the second forum you pointed to. I'm interested in the assertion that "Mormon baggage" might "taint an Ex-Mos ability to jump to other religious traditions," so I responded to that post. I was also interested in the assertion at "be-positive-be-christian" that there are "ways of looking at Christianity that are different from how literalists look at it, that don't have the problems that literalists have," so I asked about those alternate ways of looking at Christianity on the "be-positive-be-christian" website.

Why is any of this an indication that I'm insincere, or that I'm "unwilling to actually put non-Mormon epistemologies to the test", or that I've been "posing as a sincere investigator of" non-Mormon faiths as opposed to actually being a sincere investigator of said faith? I've never made a secret of the fact that I am a devout Latter-day Saint, but I was completely sincere in my statement that I've tried to keep an open mind when presented with non-Mormon viewpoints. I'm not going to take seriously a "non-Mormon epistemology" that involves me sticking a finger at random into a dictionary, and making conclusions based on the word my finger lands on, but I'm fully willing to put any epistemology that makes sense to any test that makes sense.

[_MsJack]

why not go even further and point to my couple of comments on the blog at "http://mormonexpression.com/blogs/2012/03/13/the-vanguard/#disqus_thread"?

Because I hadn't seen them.

Why is any of this an indication that I'm insincere, or that I'm "unwilling to actually put non-Mormon epistemologies to the test", or that I've been "posing as a sincere investigator of" non-Mormon faiths as opposed to actually being a sincere investigator of said faith?

In the first thread that I linked to, Aristotle gave you advice on learning about other Christianities. He said:

1) Get a modern Bible translation and start reading it. This will force you to see and think about things differently. A lot of Mormonism is built on the cadences and the specific verbiage of the KJV, and that's how people process Mormonism. It helps if it is a study Bible, but it's not necessary. I generally recommend the Oxford Annotated Study Bible because the translation is good and it doesn't have denominational commitments.

2) Visit several churches of different types. As a warning, the different worship styles may be off-putting at first, but people are usually very friendly. When I was looking into Christianity I visited Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, and a non-denominational Evangelical church. Don't feel any pressure to join or give money, it's understood that you are a guest. If/when you find one that you like give it a try for a few weeks to get a better idea. One warning, as hard as it may be to fathom for many Mormons, but hardly anyone outside of the LDS church knows anything about Mormons.

You rebuffed his honest suggestions, often splitting hairs on the terminology he chose in order to do so (example: "I'm not interested in finding a congregation I like. I want to find the group of people God wants me to associate with"---so say you're visiting other churches until you find one that God wants you to associate with then!)

When I began studying Mormonism, do you know what my Mormon friends told me to do? (1) Read the Book of Mormon, (2) Visit LDS wards, (3) take the missionary discussions, and (4) Pray about it. Those are pretty standard instructions that Mormons give to investigators. Yet you've proven yourself unwilling to do any of those things in regards to other forms of Christianity.

I'm fully willing to put any epistemology that makes sense to any test that makes sense.

And there's the rub. Any time someone suggests an epistemology to you, you find a reason to say that it doesn't make sense. Had I taken your approach, I never would have prayed about the Book of Mormon, because even if God told me it was true, a true Book of Mormon would not automatically mean the LDS church was true (as my LDS friends were fond of asserting). Instead I showed a little graciousness to my LDS friends and tried what they were saying even though I felt it had problems. That's what sincere people do.

And that's why I don't think you're being sincere.

[Guest]

My conscience demands that I work towards permanent good, good that isn't going to go away when I die, good that's going to have lasting effect. Does this clear things up a little?

Do you see how self-centered that is?

Self-centered?! Lulu, how can you say self-centered?

I'm convinced that there are many things in a solitary life that can be called good, but when I think of good I typically think of something done by one (or more) person for the service of another person. Or even for the service of animals, perhaps. It might even be determined that it's a good thing to take good care of the planet, to go green! So how can you call the demands of my conscience that I do good self-centered? Doing good has the potential for being pretty much as little self-centered as possible.

I'll assume you mean "why" do I "call" or "say" that.

To begin to answer that question let's start with the # of times you say "I" and "my" in your post.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I've read posts by a lot of people who scoff at the idea that anyone in their right mind would take seriously the claims of the LDS Church. If the LDS Church really is so bad, then what is the conscientious alternative to it? If believing God lives and that God has chosen Monson as His spokesman to the world is really such a bad idea, then what should people with a conscience do instead?

Sorry I'm late to the game.

Pooping.

Pooping is a legitimate alternative to Mormonism.

- VRDRC

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What do the 6,000,000,000 minus 14,000,000 do? How have they gotten by without a prophet dictating an ethical code by which to live?

Hey now... Let's not short the other 840,000,000 million people on our planet, too.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explor ... on+current

- VRDRC

[_Jaybear]

KEVIN: Beastie, point me to one single post someone's made explaining an alternative to Mormonism that involves working toward preserving forever some good things.

Kevin,

Your conscientious alternative to Mormonism is to follow your own conscience. If your conscience tells you that you should work towards "preserving forever some good things", then you can do that as a Mormon, christian, buddist, or secular humanist.

This isn't obvious to you, because you have managed to convince your self that you are a good person who does good things BECAUSE you are Mormon. I am guessing that some of the "good" things that you do include seeking LDS converts, baptizing dead people, giving money to the LDS Church, working to prevent gay people from getting married. If that is how you define "good things" then clearly is no conscientious alternative to the LDS Church.

[_Buffalo]

KEVIN: Beastie, point me to one single post someone's made explaining an alternative to Mormonism that involves working toward preserving forever some good things.

Kevin,

Your conscientious alternative to Mormonism is to follow your own conscience. If your conscience tells you that you should work towards "preserving forever some good things", then you can do that as a Mormon, christian, buddist, or secular humanist.

This isn't obvious to you, because you have managed to convince your self that you are a good person who does good things BECAUSE you are Mormon. I am guessing that some of the "good" things that you do include seeking LDS converts, baptizing dead people, giving money to the LDS Church, working to prevent gay people from getting married. If that is how you define "good things" then clearly is no conscientious alternative to the LDS Church.

There are things you can do that will make you a good Mormon, and things that you can do that will make you a good person. The parts that overlap can all be done outside the church.

[_lulu]

KEVIN: Beastie, point me to one single post someone's made explaining an alternative to Mormonism that involves working toward preserving forever some good things.

Kevin,

Your conscientious alternative to Mormonism is to follow your own conscience. If your conscience tells you that you should work towards "preserving forever some good things", then you can do that as a Mormon, christian, buddist, or secular humanist.

This isn't obvious to you, because you have managed to convince your self that you are a good person who does good things BECAUSE you are Mormon. I am guessing that some of the "good" things that you do include seeking LDS converts, baptizing dead people, giving money to the LDS Church, working to prevent gay people from getting married. If that is how you define "good things" then clearly is no conscientious alternative to the LDS Church.

"Preserving forever some good things" isn't a very Buddhist idea. But I agree that Kevin could use a heavy dose of Buddhism.

[_KevinSim]

In the first thread that I linked to, Aristotle gave you advice on learning about other Christianities. He said:

1) Get a modern Bible translation and start reading it. This will force you to see and think about things differently. A lot of Mormonism is built on the cadences and the specific verbiage of the KJV, and that's how people process Mormonism. It helps if it is a study Bible, but it's not necessary. I generally recommend the Oxford Annotated Study Bible because the translation is good and it doesn't have denominational commitments.

2) Visit several churches of different types. As a warning, the different worship styles may be off-putting at first, but people are usually very friendly. When I was looking into Christianity I visited Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, and a non-denominational Evangelical church. Don't feel any pressure to join or give money, it's understood that you are a guest. If/when you find one that you like give it a try for a few weeks to get a better idea. One warning, as hard as it may be to fathom for many Mormons, but hardly anyone outside of the LDS church knows anything about Mormons.

You rebuffed his honest suggestions, often splitting hairs on the terminology he chose in order to do so (example: "I'm not interested in finding a congregation I like. I want to find the group of people God wants me to associate with"---so say you're visiting other churches until you find one that God wants you to associate with then!)

I looked up rebuff at "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebuff?s=t" where it effectively said that the word means to reject or refuse; I did neither, at least for his suggestion that I get "a modern Bible translation and start reading it." Instead I tried to find out why Aristotle wanted me to read a modern version of the Bible. I pointed out that according to Wikipedia there are five English translations of the Hindu holy book, the Rigveda. MsJack, have you read all five translations?

As I said to Aristotle, maybe you have; maybe you will surprise me and have read them all. In which case my argument won't work. But I kind of doubt you have. Please satisfy my curiosity and let me know whether you have or not.

But if it turns out that you have not read all five translations then, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you have read four of the five, say all but the Ravi Arya and K.L. Joshi version. If that were the case and someone were to come to you and tell you that Hinduism made more sense than Christianity, and that the way to find that out was to read the Arya and Joshi version, would you immediately go out and buy the Arya and Joshi version and start reading it? Or would you rather ask that someone why s/he thought there was something so special about the Arya and Joshi version?

As I pointed out, I have read the King James Version of the Bible from cover to cover at least three times. It is a very large book, requiring quite an investment of time to read it completely. Why should I think that there was something in a modern version of the Bible that would stand out to me that I didn't see one of the three times I'd previously read the KJV?

I'm not entirely innocent here. When Aristotle Smith recommended that I get "a modern Bible translation and start reading it," and added that that "will force you to see and think about things differently," I should have said, and therefore, what? What is it about a modern version forcing me to see and think about things differently, that would make it more likely that I would understand the will of God in my life?

As far as Aristotle's recommendation that I visit "several churches of different types" goes, perhaps I rebuffed that. But I just now did a bit of research on denominations and faith groups available for visiting in Utah County, where I live, or close by in Salt Lake County, which is a bit more densely populated. My sources are "http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Salt-Lake-County-UT.html", "http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Utah-County-UT.html", "http://www.mavensearch.com/synagogues/C3341", "http://www.yellowbook.com/yellow-pages/?what=churches+jehovahs+witnesses&where=utah", "http://www.utah-faiths.org/usc/default.htm", "http://wiccan.meetup.com/cities/us/ut/salt_lake_city", and "http://www.examiner.com/religious-diversity-in-salt-lake-city/buddhist-and-hindu-temples-salt-lake-city-area".

I put together a list, that was pretty long, long enough that I decided not to include it in this post, but I think I'll post it separately to this forum. That list will have the name of one denomination/group on each line, preceded by two numbers; the first column is the number of congregations in Utah County while the second column is the number of congregations in Salt Lake County.

There were 18 denominations/groups represented in Utah County; each of those denominations were also represented in Salt Lake County, and in addition 33 other denominations were represented. In all there were 29 congregations in Utah County and 167 in Salt Lake County, making 196 altogether.

MsJack, to follow Aristotle Smith's recommendation, would it be enough to visit one congregation per each denomination/group, or would I need to visit all 196 congregations?

I noticed too that there are no Zoroastrian congregations in Utah at all. To be complete should I locate the nearest Zoroastrian congregation and drive to it out of state?

My sincerity is on trial here so I'll tell the complete truth. My wife and I are extremely good matches for each other in many ways; theology is not one of them. I'm very much interested in reasoning things out theologically; she is not interested in that kind of reasoning at all. This is not to say she doesn't have a theology; she very definitely has her beliefs; it's just that she thinks stating her beliefs should be enough, and everybody in the family should just align with her, pretty much because she's the mom, and thinks arguing about faith matters is unproductive.

Before I married her I used to visit other churches a lot. In order to maintain peace with my wife I have cut that down considerably. After we moved to Utah I started up a friendship with a local Baptist pastor. There were a few Wednesdays that my wife was up in Provo that I managed to slip away and visit my friend's Wednesday night services. Does that sound like someone who is insincere about investigating other faiths?

Let me point out, too, that after posting the above-mentioned response to Aristotle Smith's post, I never got a response from him. So why is it that the person who wants to carry on the discussion is branded insincere, and the person who ignored the attempts to carry it on is said to be on the moral high ground?