Do historical facts matter? or is LDS 'teflon' to them?

[_Tobin]

Believe in Joseph Smith and in the Book of Mormon if God tells you to; otherwise, DO NOT. Nobody is forcing anyone to believe it.

No, but for more than 20 years of my life, at the front end, the social cajoling I (and many like me) received growing up to believe that nonsense was suffocating. Only when I took the chance to give my self a little room to examine LDS claims, was I able to breathe, get a little oxygen to my brain, and recognize and call those claims what they are, b***s***.

I believe your parent's and the adults that raised you wanted the best for you, but true conversion can never come from social cajoling or being "born" a Mormon. All "Mormons" must either experience God for themselves or go on their merry way. Clearly you have made your choice, but it has nothing to do with the truth of the gospel or God. That is and has always been entirely up to you and between you and God. Blame your parents and peer group if you must, but that does not change things in the slightest.

[_thews]

You basically ignore everything I said in your response, so it is really not necessary to reply back to you on the points above.

I stated facts based on data. You claimed I ignored you, which I didn't, but understand Tobin, I do understand why you need to ignore the factual data. If you could respond with factual data, you would, but you can't.

If you don't have answers (which you don't), then dodge the data (facts) presented. You claim I'm dodging everything and then run away... lame response.

Again, I don't have to dodge anything. I simply stated, "So what?". You haven't answered the question.

What question? The data you didn't feel the need to respond to? Is "So what" a question, or the only response you can muster to appease your cognitive dissonance?

You believe God spoke to you... I get that. I also get the capacity for the human brain to be brainwashed, and I don't believe you even acknowledge this possibility. If you had the capacity for critical thought, you'd answer the factual data with something more than "is not" and flee.

And you would make the same claim about all those that God spoke with in the scriptures. As I said, you don't really believe in the Bible or that man has ever spoken with God. That is the point.

Don't tell me what I do or don't believe Tobin. I am a Christian and do believe in the Bible. Your ignorance of the facts that disprove your arguments leaves you with nothing but the "I'm rubber and you're glue" retort because it's all you have. If you wish to respond to the facts, then please do. Something like this:

I acknowledge the Book of Abraham is an incorrect translation by Joseph Smith of the papyrus and that he specifically stated it was a translation, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge there isn't only single piece of tangible evidence to prove on single story in the Book of Mormon true, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge that Joseph Smith used his power to have sex with many women and young girls, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge Joseph Smith used his seer stones to see evil treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon and those exact same seer stones were used to translate the golden plates, but (insert a coherent response here).

To the OP, you are covered in teflon and have nothing but ignorance of the facts to keep the fragile glue that keeps logic from entering the truth claims of Joseph Smith intact. It's called cognitive dissonance Tobin... forcing the round peg in the square hole because you actually believe God spoke to you. Enjoy your ignorant bliss, but quit pretending you're making any sense whatsoever by failing to address points presented based on factual data.

[_sock puppet]

Blame your parents and peer group if you must, but that does not change things in the slightest.

Only blame has been toward the LDS Church for fostering and encouraging its deceptions and the smothering environment into which I happened to be born. I do not blame my parents. They were unwitting pawns in the LDS Church's scam, and efforts to create another unthinking tithe payer.

[_Tobin]

You basically ignore everything I said in your response, so it is really not necessary to reply back to you on the points above.

I stated facts based on data. You claimed I ignored you, which I didn't, but understand Tobin, I do understand why you need to ignore the factual data. If you could respond with factual data, you would, but you can't.

LOL Again, you didn't respond to what I said so I'll simply state - there is nothing to talk to you about on the items above. You didn't cite any facts I hadn't already acknowledged. You didn't respond to what I said. And you haven't made any case about why I should assign any significance to the statements above nor why I should care at all. You can pretend to state you have facts all you want. The question is are they are important in determining any thing. So far, I don't see why a Mormon such as myself should care at all.

If you don't have answers (which you don't), then dodge the data (facts) presented. You claim I'm dodging everything and then run away... lame response.

Again, I don't have to dodge anything. I simply stated, "So what?". You haven't answered the question.

What question? The data you didn't feel the need to respond to? Is "So what" a question, or the only response you can muster to appease your cognitive dissonance?

It isn't cognitive dissonance when you acknowledge something and state it is unimportant. You might say the 'sky is blue', but if I don't see any correlation with the matter at hand - I DO NOT CARE that the 'sky is blue'. Understand?!? So again I'll ask, 'SO WHAT?'

You believe God spoke to you... I get that. I also get the capacity for the human brain to be brainwashed, and I don't believe you even acknowledge this possibility. If you had the capacity for critical thought, you'd answer the factual data with something more than "is not" and flee.

And you would make the same claim about all those that God spoke with in the scriptures. As I said, you don't really believe in the Bible or that man has ever spoken with God. That is the point.

Don't tell me what I do or don't believe Tobin. I am a Christian and do believe in the Bible. Your ignorance of the facts that disprove your arguments leaves you with nothing but the "I'm rubber and you're glue" retort because it's all you have. If you wish to respond to the facts, then please do. Something like this:

I acknowledge the Book of Abraham is an incorrect translation by Joseph Smith of the papyrus and that he specifically stated it was a translation, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge there isn't only single piece of tangible evidence to prove on single story in the Book of Mormon true, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge that Joseph Smith used his power to have sex with many women and young girls, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge Joseph Smith used his seer stones to see evil treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon and those exact same seer stones were used to translate the golden plates, but (insert a coherent response here).

To the OP, you are covered in teflon and have nothing but ignorance of the facts to keep the fragile glue that keeps logic from entering the truth claims of Joseph Smith intact. It's called cognitive dissonance Tobin... forcing the round peg in the square hole because you actually believe God spoke to you. Enjoy your ignorant bliss, but quit pretending you're making any sense whatsoever by failing to address points presented based on factual data.

Funny. You are all over the place with these statements. You deny people, including myself, can speak with God - yet now you believe people can speak with God. You say not to judge you, but I was just following your own statements on the matter. Then you judge me stating I'm covered in teflon because 'I'm ignorant of the facts' - facts that I've acknowledged by the way. LOL You have yet to explain why I, a believing Mormon (or any Mormon for that matter) should assign any significance to any thing you've stated nor why we should view them as anything other than grossly distorted representations or completely unimportant.

[_Chap]

You deny people, including myself, can speak with God - yet now you believe people can speak with God.

That underlined part wasn't in thews' post.

No-one denies that Tobin genuinely thinks he spoke with a deity. It's just that Tobin thinks he really did, whereas so far as I can see everybody else thinks Tobin really needs a little medical advice.

[_thews]

I stated facts based on data. You claimed I ignored you, which I didn't, but understand Tobin, I do understand why you need to ignore the factual data. If you could respond with factual data, you would, but you can't.

LOL Again, you didn't respond to what I said so I'll simply state - there is nothing to talk to you about on the items above.

Read the OP Tobin... it's about facts. When you state "there is nothing to talk to you about on the items above" it's because you can't even acknowledge the facts, so you must ignore them and play this dodge-ball to imply you've made some sort of point, which you haven't.

You didn't cite any facts I hadn't already acknowledged.

The only facts you did acknowledge is that Joseph Smith incorrectly translated the pagan papyrus and he had sex with many women and little girls. What you then did was claim it has no significance, followed by your spoon-fed retort to make the dissonance go away. Ok, so Joseph Smith used his power to cheat on his wife and have sex with little girls... no big deal to you. When you go on to say that the Book of Abraham was an "inspired" work, it's using your opinion that opposes the fact that Joseph Smith clearly stated (more than once) that he translated the papyrus. You also didn't acknowledge there never was an Urim and Thummim and Joseph Smith's seer stones were the only tools used to translate every single word of the Book of Mormon. LDSfaqs will tell you there's 7 different translation methods, which isn't true, but if you need some KoolAid toi force it to make sense, go ahead, but it isn't the truth and you didn't acknowledge it nor reference the facts presented. You also didn't acknowledge there is not one single piece of tangible proof regarding the historicity in Joseph Smith's tall tale... zero.

You didn't respond to what I said. And you haven't made any case about why I should assign any significance to the statements above nor why I should care at all. You can pretend to state you have facts all you want. The question is are they are important in determining any thing. So far, I don't see why a Mormon such as myself should care at all.

I responded to everything to what you said. You failed to acknowledge/answer the factual data presented. Feel free to take a second grade tactic of "did so" in stumbling to make a point, but the facts presented were not answered by you, and that's because you can't acknowledge them... they're unimportant to you. If I failed to answer a question you asked me that doesn't consist of "so what?" in its entirety, please state it simply and I'll answer it and acknowledge any factual data you present.

If you don't have answers (which you don't), then dodge the data (facts) presented. You claim I'm dodging everything and then run away... lame response.

Again, I don't have to dodge anything. I simply stated, "So what?". You haven't answered the question.

What question? Insert question here________________________________.

What question? The data you didn't feel the need to respond to? Is "So what" a question, or the only response you can muster to appease your cognitive dissonance?

It isn't cognitive dissonance when you acknowledge something and state it is unimportant. You might say the 'sky is blue', but if I don't see any correlation with the matter at hand - I DO NOT CARE that the 'sky is blue'. Understand?!? So again I'll ask, 'SO WHAT?'

Wow... you've been drinking the LDS KoolAid for so long this makes sense to you. You may not care, but to the OP this is exactly the point... you don't care that what you believe isn't true... it's "unimportant" to you, which is why you fail to acknowledge the facts, because they don't tell you what you need them to tell you.

You believe God spoke to you... I get that. I also get the capacity for the human brain to be brainwashed, and I don't believe you even acknowledge this possibility. If you had the capacity for critical thought, you'd answer the factual data with something more than "is not" and flee.

And you would make the same claim about all those that God spoke with in the scriptures. As I said, you don't really believe in the Bible or that man has ever spoken with God. That is the point.

You're really ignorant. I believe in God Tobin, so you're wrong. I don't believe God spoke to you, nor sent you a "message" in some burning in the bosom form. You were told beforehand what you would feel, so when you felt it, you believed it. You are brainwashed Tobin, but brainwashed people don't know they're brainwashed. Would you have felt this "burning" if wasn't told to you in advance? You'll never know, just as you won't know how you'd think if you didn't hear "I know the church is true" thousands of times.

Don't tell me what I do or don't believe Tobin. I am a Christian and do believe in the Bible. Your ignorance of the facts that disprove your arguments leaves you with nothing but the "I'm rubber and you're glue" retort because it's all you have. If you wish to respond to the facts, then please do. Something like this:

I acknowledge the Book of Abraham is an incorrect translation by Joseph Smith of the papyrus and that he specifically stated it was a translation, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge there isn't only single piece of tangible evidence to prove on single story in the Book of Mormon true, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge that Joseph Smith used his power to have sex with many women and young girls, but (insert a coherent response here).

I acknowledge Joseph Smith used his seer stones to see evil treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon and those exact same seer stones were used to translate the golden plates, but (insert a coherent response here).

To the OP, you are covered in teflon and have nothing but ignorance of the facts to keep the fragile glue that keeps logic from entering the truth claims of Joseph Smith intact. It's called cognitive dissonance Tobin... forcing the round peg in the square hole because you actually believe God spoke to you. Enjoy your ignorant bliss, but quit pretending you're making any sense whatsoever by failing to address points presented based on factual data.

Funny. You are all over the place with these statements.

And again you acknowledge no factual data with anything more than rhetoric.

You deny people, including myself, can speak with God - yet now you believe people can speak with God.

I didn't know you could only read at a second grade level... I never said nor implied the above, but the exact opposite.

You say not to judge you, but I was just following your own statements on the matter.

Ok, because you have trouble comprehending, I didn't say anything about judging me, it had to do with how LDS people ignore factual data.

Then you judge me stating I'm covered in teflon because 'I'm ignorant of the facts' - facts that I've acknowledged by the way.

You're easily amused if you laugh at you're own ignorance. You didn't acknowledge anything, but take the same tired tactic of the internet Mormon apologist by spinning in circles so often you're opponent just tires of conversing you. In a nutshell, you're ignorant and have not acknowledged any factual data.

LOL You have yet to explain why I, a believing Mormon (or any Mormon for that matter) should assign any significance to any thing you've stated nor why we should view them as anything other than grossly distorted representations or completely unimportant.

You'd have to acknowledge the facts in order to understand what you claim is or isn't significant. You believe in magical occult seer stones placed in a hat, which were previously used to "see" evil treasure guardians for hire. There never was an "Urim and Thummim" Tobin, but if you wish to prove me wrong bring your data, because I'll mop the floor with it.

[_Darth J]

You have yet to explain why I, a believing Mormon (or any Mormon for that matter) should assign any significance to any thing you've stated nor why we should view them as anything other than grossly distorted representations or completely unimportant.

In summary, the answer to the OP is yes: believing Mormons are impervious to fact.

[_brade]

Other religions, such as the Orthodox and RCC, have the advantage of the Dark Ages, lack of records, and centuries of time having deteriorated much of what there was. Religions starting since the Enlightenment have had a tougher go of it, certainly, such as Mormonism. It is easier to debunk because of a relatively recent historical record, much of it yet intact.

This. I don't know of another major religion whose foundational claims are so thoroughly challenged by the best available evidence as Mormonism.

[_brade]

Two 20 year-old boys come to your house and tell you that they have a sacred book that has a divine message from God. The book says that we should be honest and virtuous, that we should treat other people kindly. However, the book is based on the premise that Rodney Dangerfield is a Martian who became the President of the United States. The boys tell you to pray about the book. You read some parts from the book about kindness and compassion to others, pray about it, and feel very strongly that God wants us to act the way the book tells us to. A couple days later, you tell the two boys that you had this experience. The boys tell you this is proof that the book is a true story. Should you now accept as fact the proposition that Rodney Dangerfield was a Martian who became the President of the United States?

Bingo! This is what I call the Associative model of spiritual experience. Ultimately it turns on a slight of hand where subjects are supposed to believe very specific propositions about the world because they have a positive experience that has some proximate association with those propositions, but where their experience could solely be the product of sympathies to other, more general, propositions (e.g. "Be kind"). The fact that missionaries are taught to help people feel and recognize the spirit is, I think, strongly suggestive that this model is the bulk of Mormon epistemology.

Philosophers of other religions are wise to this naïve view and have, therefore, developed more robust epistemologies. The obvious problem what the Mormon associative model is that there is no necessary connection between the positive experiences people report and the proposition they adopt as a result. Other Christian philosophers have been smart enough to notice this and offer a model whereby the proposition they adopt as a result of there experiences are not reasoned to (in the faulty way advocated by church authorities), but instead are grasped directly. And this is why I think the feel-and-recognize-the-spirit strategy is symptomatic of the flawed associative model - if propositions where grasped directly then nobody would need to point out that you where feeling the spirit because the experience would be self-authenticating.

[_sock puppet]

Two 20 year-old boys come to your house and tell you that they have a sacred book that has a divine message from God. The book says that we should be honest and virtuous, that we should treat other people kindly. However, the book is based on the premise that Rodney Dangerfield is a Martian who became the President of the United States. The boys tell you to pray about the book. You read some parts from the book about kindness and compassion to others, pray about it, and feel very strongly that God wants us to act the way the book tells us to. A couple days later, you tell the two boys that you had this experience. The boys tell you this is proof that the book is a true story. Should you now accept as fact the proposition that Rodney Dangerfield was a Martian who became the President of the United States?

Bingo! This is what I call the Associative model of spiritual experience. Ultimately it turns on a slight of hand where subjects are supposed to believe very specific propositions about the world because they have a positive experience that has some proximate association with those propositions, but where their experience could solely be the product of sympathies to other, more general, propositions (e.g. "Be kind"). The fact that missionaries are taught to help people feel and recognize the spirit is, I think, strongly suggestive that this model is the bulk of Mormon epistemology.

Philosophers of other religions are wise to this naïve view and have, therefore, developed more robust epistemologies. The obvious problem what the Mormon associative model is that there is no necessary connection between the positive experiences people report and the proposition they adopt as a result. Other Christian philosophers have been smart enough to notice this and offer a model whereby the proposition they adopt as a result of there experiences are not reasoned to (in the faulty way advocated by church authorities), but instead are grasped directly. And this is why I think the feel-and-recognize-the-spirit strategy is symptomatic of the flawed associative model - if propositions where grasped directly then nobody would need to point out that you where feeling the spirit because the experience would be self-authenticating.

Not just the sales technique taught to LDS missionaries, but a problem that nags at the Moroni promise epistemology itself.