Scott Gordon: Mormons Can Believe Whatever They Want

[_Chap]

Right on schedule, DCP shows up on the MD&DB to try to explain that what is being said on this thread is only an attempt to put "negative spin" on a perfectly benign LDS misunderstanding.

He, of course, takes the opportunity assure everyone that he strongly believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (it is really important for everyone understand that he believes strongly that the Book of Mormon is historical).
.....

I think you are missing the point that in the eyes of the average TBM, the degree of credit awarded for expressing belief in a proposition advanced by the CoJCoLDS is inversely related to the evidence for that proposition, and directly related to the strength with which you believe it.

So if you believe very very strongly in a proposition for which the evidence is very very weak - you win big-time. Well done, thou good and faithful servant!

[_DrW]

Right on schedule, DCP shows up on the MD&DB to try to explain that what is being said on this thread is only an attempt to put "negative spin" on a perfectly benign LDS misunderstanding.

He, of course, takes the opportunity assure everyone that he strongly believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (it is really important for everyone understand that he believes strongly that the Book of Mormon is historical).
.....

I think you are missing the point that in the eyes of the average TBM, the degree of credit awarded for expressing belief in a proposition advanced by the CoJCoLDS is inversely related to the evidence for that proposition, and directly related to the strength with which you believe it.

So if you believe very very strongly in a proposition for which the evidence is very very weak - you win big-time. Well done, thou good and faithful servant!

I think you are right.

[_bcspace]

In no scripture is socialism advocated according to LDS doctrine explaining the scriptures you might ostensibly refer to. LDS doctrine is clear on free market capitalism in saying what the LoC is not and what it's fundamental principles are.

Ex post facto manipulation of the scriptures is further proof that while collectivism was invented by "God," it took secularism to come up with capitalism, and "God" is lagging behind as usual.

The scriptures themselves state that no prophecy is of private interpretation and that the doctrine can only come from prophets and apostles (the Church organization) so you're out of luck there not being qualified to state what the scriptures mean.

[_Buffalo]

The scriptures themselves state that no prophecy is of private interpretation and that the doctrine can only come from prophets and apostles (the Church organization) so you're out of luck there not being qualified to state what the scriptures mean.

Who wrote that? Certainly not Peter. You've been reduced (as usual) to circular arguments.

You know who is really qualified to state what the scriptures mean? Not Utahan MBAs. PhDs in ancient scripture.

[_Darth J]

It really says all you need to know about Mormons that they need a self-appointed authority figure to tell them they have permission to believe whatever they want.

I suppose the idea that one is free to believe whatever one wants irrespective of being a Mormon has not occurred to them.

[_Yoda]

It really says all you need to know about Mormons that they need a self-appointed authority figure to tell them they have permission to believe whatever they want.

I suppose the idea that one is free to believe whatever one wants irrespective of being a Mormon has not occurred to them.

Unless they're a NOM.

[_Darth J]

It really says all you need to know about Mormons that they need a self-appointed authority figure to tell them they have permission to believe whatever they want.

I suppose the idea that one is free to believe whatever one wants irrespective of being a Mormon has not occurred to them.

Unless they're a NOM.

Oh, that's right. Then you have struck out to believe whatever you want so long as you keep it to yourself or just regurgitate faith-promoting talking points that you don't necessarily believe in Sunday school.

[_BartBurk]

Is this yet another evolving principle of the Gospel?

Is belief in the Book of Mormon no longer required to be considered a faithful member of the LDS Church?

If such belief is not required, then why waste so much credibility and good will insisting that the Book of Mormon is historical?

Is this where the Mopologists are trying to take the LDS Church?

If there are any Universal Unitarians out there, would you care to comment?

Do they ask in a temple recommend interview if you believe in the Book of Mormon? I believe all they ask is whether or not you believe in the restored gospel. I would say it is possible to believe in the restored gospel before you receive a testimony of the Book of Mormon. All members are at varying stages in their testimonies especially those who are born and raised in the church. So if a person has not gained a testimony the Book of Mormon is historical, but believes it is valid scripture it seems like they would be in good standing. It seems to me the general principle would be to testify about what you believe in and be quiet about the rest.

[_DrW]

Is this yet another evolving principle of the Gospel?

Is belief in the Book of Mormon no longer required to be considered a faithful member of the LDS Church?

If such belief is not required, then why waste so much credibility and good will insisting that the Book of Mormon is historical?

Is this where the Mopologists are trying to take the LDS Church?

If there are any Universal Unitarians out there, would you care to comment?

Do they ask in a temple recommend interview if you believe in the Book of Mormon? I believe all they ask is whether or not you believe in the restored gospel. I would say it is possible to believe in the restored gospel before you receive a testimony of the Book of Mormon. All members are at varying stages in their testimonies especially those who are born and raised in the church. So if a person has not gained a testimony the Book of Mormon is historical, but believes it is valid scripture it seems like they would be in good standing. It seems to me the general principle would be to testify about what you believe in and be quiet about the rest.

I understand what you are saying. But do you have any idea what it sounds like to someone who is not LDS (or more significantly, some one who was LDS)?

What you are saying is that, in order to be a true Mormon, one must convince themselves that a 19th century con man and adulterer was chosen of God to "translate" the contents of Golden Plates, which were not actually used in the translation process, (for good reason - because they never existed).

These folks have to convince themselves that, in spite of wholesale copying from the KJ Bible, and the many anachronisms and fatal chronological problems with Isaiah, Joseph Smiths later fraud, polyandry, and his public lies in denying that he had multiple wives, this man did indeed translate a historical record of the pre-Columbian population in the New World.

They must ignore the fact that there is so much evidence against this narrative that mainstream science won't touch it with a ten foot pole. In spite of all this, they really have to believe that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon is historical so that they can have the privilege of spending endless hours in boring Sunday meetings and donating a large proportion of their disposable income to a tax exempt business.

You seem to believe that this is a worthy goal and the relatively few folks who achieve it have really achieved something.

You will understand if I do not agree.

[_BartBurk]

Do they ask in a temple recommend interview if you believe in the Book of Mormon? I believe all they ask is whether or not you believe in the restored gospel. I would say it is possible to believe in the restored gospel before you receive a testimony of the Book of Mormon. All members are at varying stages in their testimonies especially those who are born and raised in the church. So if a person has not gained a testimony the Book of Mormon is historical, but believes it is valid scripture it seems like they would be in good standing. It seems to me the general principle would be to testify about what you believe in and be quiet about the rest.

I understand what you are saying. But do you have any idea what it sounds like to someone who is not LDS (or more significantly, some one who was LDS)?

What you are saying is that, in order to be a true Mormon, one must convince themselves that a 19th century con man and adulterer was chosen of God to "translate" the contents of Golden Plates, which were not actually used in the translation process, (for good reason - because they never existed).

These folks have to convince themselves that, in spite of wholesale copying from the KJ Bible, and the many anachronisms and fatal chronological problems with Isaiah, Joseph Smiths later fraud, polyandry, and his public lies in denying that he had multiple wives, this man did indeed translate a historical record of the pre-Columbian population in the New World.

They must ignore the fact that there is so much evidence against this narrative that mainstream science won't touch it with a ten foot pole. In spite of all this, they really have to believe that Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon is historical so that they can have the privilege of spending endless hours in boring Sunday meetings and donating a large proportion of their disposable income to a tax exempt business.

You seem to believe that this is a worthy goal and the relatively few folks who achieve it have really achieved something.

You will understand if I do not agree.[/quote]

I strongly believe that God writes straight with crooked lines. God could even use Mormonism as a way to draw someone closer to Christ. For example, I know a lot of Mormons who reject some aspect of traditional Trinitarianism and prefer a lay leadership. And yet they accept the atonement and the resurrection. Somehow the restoration of the gospel rings true to them. They may never accept what some Mormons have in regards to the Book of Mormon, but can still believe in Mormonism based on what they see as the fruits of the restoration. Those fruits may indeed convince them that it is worthwhile paying tithing and attending what others might see as boring meetings. To them the adventure of Mormonism is exciting and perhaps that makes the rest exciting as well! The opportunity to serve others and enjoy the fellowship within the LDS Church may make it worthwhile for them to keep seeking a testimony of the Book of Mormon even though they never get the traditional testimony that others receive.