People who consider themselves experts in a given topic are more likely to claim knowledge of made-up “facts” about that topic, a new study shows.
Over the past couple of years the church has been pushed into addressing it's shady past. They have released essays on topics regarding polygamy, race and the priesthood, multiple first vision accounts and the translation of the Book of Mormon to name a few. They even published a picture of Joseph's seer stone which happens to be more stone than seer.
If you read any comment section over the past couple of years, a common response from believers has been "nothing new here. I already knew this stuff."
Well, if it was already considered common knowledge, why would the church 1. Address these issues and 2. Make a big press release every time they release some "new" information?
The church is losing a great deal of its membership which is why it's being forced to be more open about its past. But the one thing that has baffled me now that the church readily admits everything the critics have been saying since Fawn Brodie and before is why aren't the majority of members leaving? Maybe because the greatest defense the church has always had was raising a bunch of "I know"-it-alls. "I know the church is true" allows its members to accept made up facts as truth rather than see the BS.
Sanctorian wrote:The church is losing a great deal of its membership which is why it's being forced to be more open about its past. But the one thing that has baffled me now that the church readily admits everything the critics have been saying since Fawn Brodie and before is why aren't the majority of members leaving? Maybe because the greatest defense the church has always had was raising a bunch of "I know"-it-alls. "I know the church is true" allows its members to accept made up facts as truth rather than see the b***s***.
Most still don't know these details. These essays are not read over the pulpits or found in the teaching manuals of the church. At least not yet. The essays don't actually cover many of the problems and what they do is not very accurate or detailed and of course is presented in as friendly a way as can be for church truth claims.
While most still don't know these details it is because they are not really that interested in finding out anything negative towards their beliefs. This can be promoted by the organization, but human nature probably plays the bigger role. I read somewhere about when facts and emotion conflict emotion wins most of the time. This is why many religious beliefs like Mormonism are not based on facts but emotional experiences people usually identify as spiritual. Most people are not brought up to view facts as more important then feelings when trying to ascertain objective reality.
I've wondered if I would have ever left the Church had the issues been more openly discussed and the Church even given an official, "We don't know why at this time" kind of answer. Hell, I'm not sure I would have left had I never went looking for the Church's response and found a FARMS review on a subject that made it clear there not only wasn't an answer but that it was being covered up with rhetoric and hostility towards anyone who dared bring it up.
It's hard to fathom in some ways now, but there was a time I sincerely placed the emotional connection I had to the Church and what it termed the Gospel at the highest levels. Facts that called that into question but which were dealt with sincerely and even with an acknowledgement of their problematic nature isn't likely to have tilted the scale to a point those evidences would begin to tumble off as they have.
There's truth in the idea that Mormons are sincere when they say they know the Church is true. Within their model of truth-finding, it's a 10 out of 10 in the certitude scale for many.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:I've wondered if I would have ever left the Church had the issues been more openly discussed and the Church even given an official, "We don't know why at this time" kind of answer. Hell, I'm not sure I would have left had I never went looking for the Church's response and found a FARMS review on a subject that made it clear there not only wasn't an answer but that it was being covered up with rhetoric and hostility towards anyone who dared bring it up.
It's hard to fathom in some ways now, but there was a time I sincerely placed the emotional connection I had to the Church and what it termed the Gospel at the highest levels. Facts that called that into question but which were dealt with sincerely and even with an acknowledgement of their problematic nature isn't likely to have tilted the scale to a point those evidences would begin to tumble off as they have.
I would have stopped believing. I tend to have a more analytical mindset then average so my interest is in looking at the facts and what they say. It was the apologetic sites that help to confirm the many facts I needed to conclude the church is not true as it claims.
There's truth in the idea that Mormons are sincere when they say they know the Church is true. Within their model of truth-finding, it's a 10 out of 10 in the certitude scale for many.
This is a major issue with Mormons attempting apologetics. On this board we have seen the condescending behavior of apologists. Instead of being able to address the historical issues, the battle tends to focus on which poster is a better sophist. On this board, I have yet to encounter a person defending Mormonism lacking an answer, the problem is, the answer provided does not answer the question(s).
lostindc wrote:This is a major issue with Mormons attempting apologetics. On this board we have seen the condescending behavior of apologists. Instead of being able to address the historical issues, the battle tends to focus on which poster is a better sophist. On this board, I have yet to encounter a person defending Mormonism lacking an answer, the problem is, the answer provided does not answer the question(s).
I think that condescention comes from a deeply hidden insecurity (as condescention always does). I think when the defense of one's position or philosophy becomes emotional, something else is going on.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
lostindc wrote:This is a major issue with Mormons attempting apologetics. On this board we have seen the condescending behavior of apologists. Instead of being able to address the historical issues, the battle tends to focus on which poster is a better sophist. On this board, I have yet to encounter a person defending Mormonism lacking an answer, the problem is, the answer provided does not answer the question(s).
I think that condescention comes from a deeply hidden insecurity (as condescention always does). I think when the defense of one's position or philosophy becomes emotional, something else is going on.
Oh for sure. For instance, one of the few reasons people purse advanced degrees is to boost self-esteem (this is a shot at myself). A confident person would feel little need to get a phd in say a social science instead of just self-study. There really is no need unless you plan to teach, and receive that extremely lucrative academic salary. This type of personality floods these types of message boards. The need for callings and academic degrees to provide some sort of argument from authority is just sad. The need to post on an Internet message board using many complicated terms is another sign of insecurity.
honorentheos wrote:I've wondered if I would have ever left the Church had the issues been more openly discussed and the Church even given an official, "We don't know why at this time" kind of answer. Hell, I'm not sure I would have left had I never went looking for the Church's response and found a FARMS review on a subject that made it clear there not only wasn't an answer but that it was being covered up with rhetoric and hostility towards anyone who dared bring it up.
It's a familiar story--one I lived. The FARMS Review did inestimable damage.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
lostindc wrote:Oh for sure. For instance, one of the few reasons people purse advanced degrees is to boost self-esteem (this is a shot at myself). A confident person would feel little need to get a phd in say a social science instead of just self-study. There really is no need unless you plan to teach, and receive that extremely lucrative academic salary. This type of personality floods these types of message boards. The need for callings and academic degrees to provide some sort of argument from authority is just sad. The need to post on an Internet message board using many complicated terms is another sign of insecurity.
Academics are, by and large, poorly adjusted people, psychologically speaking. I speak from plentiful experience.
Mormonism has bred a large cadre of semi- or self-trained know-it-alls and people who unwisely opine far outside the area of their actual expertise. That's why you see experts in Medieval Studies sharing their wisdom on the historical Jesus and the like.
It should, however, be fine to shoot the bull on a discussion board such as this one. If you take away my playground of bloviation, whatever will I do?
(faints)
Last edited by Guest on Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:It's a familiar story--one I lived. The FARMS Review did inestimable damage.
My disaffection was very rapid but I read some of these reviews when I was in that in-between place. They were just so petty and it was like something died inside me when I realized that this was apparently some of the best work that the 'faithful' side had to offer.
