Three Powerful Books

[_honorentheos]

Arguments for a creator God can only go so far. Don’t you get that? You’re asking a believer/believers to do the impossible. Especially where it is rather obvious that God is not going to reveal Himself on Fox News or CNN.

Hi MG,

If you look at the statements in purple where we differed by 2 steps or more, you assigned absolute certainty (100) to the following:

There is an active intelligent force to whom responsibility for the existence of the Universe as we observe it could be assigned.

God loves us.

The culture of Mormonism is a good environmental in which to raise a family.

These also happen to be the most subjective and inaccessible statements we examined. They seem like the best candidates for taking a middle ground given there is hardly evidence of such high quality for their being absolutely certain.

You've argued multiple times and in multiple ways that you are finding the middle ground on issues where others are pushing for extreme positions. What we observe when assigning probability to statements is, instead, you and I align relatively closely when it comes to statements where we are examining historical evidence accessible to everyone. But you swing hard to the extreme end of certitude when it comes to questions of the value of belief (God loves us, the Church is a good place to raise a family) or the foundational question of god-belief.

At a minimum, I hope this exercise causes you to reevaluate the claim you are finding the middle ground on issues related to the claims of the Church. It seems more accurate to say that, while you grapple with the evidence in an apparently sincere way to not ignore it, the results will be skewed by the adamant immoveable belief the church is wholesome and brings one closer to God. That's not a position one arrives at without bias doing the heavy lifting.

[_Lemmie]

....you really don’t get it and yet you’re positive that you do....

And you don’t have a damn thing to offer besides criticism. Which I believe to be unwarranted.

Where’s a mirror when you need one?

Honor’s post right before this was excellent. Above is just a trivial example of the case for your bias that honor laid out very clearly and sincerely. This has been an enlightening thread.

[_mentalgymnast]

At a minimum, I hope this exercise causes you to reevaluate the claim you are finding the middle ground on issues related to the claims of the Church. It seems more accurate to say that, while you grapple with the evidence in an apparently sincere way to not ignore it, the results will be skewed by the adamant immoveable belief the church is wholesome and brings one closer to God. That's not a position one arrives at without bias doing the heavy lifting.

I won’t dispute that. As we attended church today and participated in the sacrament and recommitted to following the Savior...serving and loving others...sacrifice...living a morally clean life, worshipping God, etc., I again saw the church as being good and bringing me/us closer to God. All ritual with no ‘real’ substance? That’s always one possibility. But the fruits of these covenants and the lives that I see lived according to the precepts of the Gospel are VERY tangible...even if intangible in some respects.

Such as trying to describe that as ‘evidence’ to a non-believer.

As Lemmie said, this has been an interesting and enlightening thread. And I appreciate your participation and stirring thoughts. I do wish there was a way to bridge the divide between us when it comes to religion vs. non-belief, but I don’t see that as a real possibility.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

I do wish there was a way to bridge the divide between us when it comes to religion vs. non-belief, but I don’t see that as a real possibility.

Regards,
MG

That's interesting as to me the solution seems obvious. The real probability of a subjective statement like "God loves us" should align with the evidence, meaning it should be more accurate to assign it a 50, plus or minus depending.

Is there a being that fits the description of God stated? You hope there is, but given the evidence is it really, honestly 100% certain, no doubt about it, zero chance that isn't true? Really?

Can we honestly say the Mormon church is a good place to raise a family when we see examples across the spectrum of people who would likely have been better off had they not had Mormon influencing them? Sure, it probably helps with something aspects of life, and every family is different. But if there are Daybells and Lafferty's, teen suicides over masturbation and gender identity, should this really be 100%?

[_Themis]

Hi Themis, you really don’t get it and yet you’re positive that you do. Not sure where to tango with you from here. I was up front and as honest as I could be with Honor and explained the position/predicament I see ourselves to be in...and now you’re calling me ‘chicken’. Further discussion on the ‘purple’ items in Honor’s questionnaire, by default, would not go anywhere. We’d end up pretty much where we started.

I've seen you many times unable to articulate why you take certain positions. You read certain friendly sources and like it, but lack of being able to articulate why you like it, which tells us you don't understand them well enough. This is why you try to retreat when asked good questions.

Arguments for a creator God can only go so far. Don’t you get that? You’re asking a believer/believers to do the impossible. Especially where it is rather obvious that God is not going to reveal Himself on Fox News or CNN.

When looking at Joseph smith and his claims, we don't need to look at the question of whether a creator God exists or not. If the papyri had indeed translated into the story of Abraham as Joseph claimed he did, the best explanation would be supernatural sources. Same with the Book of Mormon. We should see a lot of evidence if they really existed. If we had the only good explanation is a supernatural source. Joseph could have never translated anything on his own, including translating french to English. Even that would need supernatural sources.

And you don’t have a damn thing to offer besides criticism. Which I believe to be unwarranted.

I don't take cheap shots at people. I just try to ask good questions, but I can understand some don't like that. It's a common trait with people holding not well thought out positions.

[_mentalgymnast]

Can we honestly say the Mormon church is a good place to raise a family when we see examples across the spectrum of people who would likely have been better off had they not had Mormon influencing them? Sure, it probably helps with something aspects of life, and every family is different. But if there are Daybells and Lafferty's, teen suicides over masturbation and gender identity, should this really be 100%?

To be clear, I think I said 90-100%. Be that as it may, anomalies should not be the judge of whether or not something is either true or right. The anomalies my be due to circumstances, free will, or other conditions that should not, in and of themselves, act as a barometer/litmus test as to what absolute knowledge/truth is.

I listened to a talk today. I think there is a direct connection between the message of this talk and what we observe in places like this board. It’s hard to listen to because it may cut deep. There will be a myriad of reasons that can be concocted as to why this message is ‘wrong’, but I’ll throw it out there anyway.

https://youtu.be/NSEsLtwKzvw

I wouldn’t doubt that there may be those that won’t make it through the first few minutes. There will be those that will dispute the validity of the thesis that primary questions are the most important. The thing is, I came to this realization a few years ago on my own. This talk came along later. I strongly believe that the thesis ‘holds water’.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Can we honestly say the Mormon church is a good place to raise a family when we see examples across the spectrum of people who would likely have been better off had they not had Mormon influencing them? Sure, it probably helps with something aspects of life, and every family is different. But if there are Daybells and Lafferty's, teen suicides over masturbation and gender identity, should this really be 100%?

To be clear, I think I said 90-100%.

Yes, with the caveat that some people are willing to live the lifestyle taught by the church. That's essentially saying it's a good place to raise a family for everyone but some people might not be happy with following the rules. As is, it is being treated with certainty that Mormonism presents a good way to raise a family.

Be that as it may, anomalies should not be the judge of whether or not something is either true or right. The anomalies my be due to circumstances, free will, or other conditions that should not, in and of themselves, act as a barometer/litmus test as to what absolute knowledge/truth is.

Oh, I agree. I just think looking at Mormon families compared to all the ways out there and treating the ideal Mormon upbringing as a model is biased. For example,...

I listened to a talk today. I think there is a direct connection between the message of this talk and what we observe in places like this board. It’s hard to listen to because it may cut deep. There will be a myriad of reasons that can be concocted as to why this message is ‘wrong’, but I’ll throw it out there anyway.

https://youtu.be/NSEsLtwKzvw

This talk is about remaining true to the Church. It makes no genuine attempt to explain the facts for doing so other than if one has accepted a Mormon worldview it makes a case for keeping it. It's all predicated on accepting the Mormon worldview first, though. It's hard to feel offense towards a person in a great and spactious building pointing at people outside it with mock concern for their well being while the overt intent of the talk is to discourage those inside from leaving.

I wouldn’t doubt that there may be those that won’t make it through the first few minutes. There will be those that will dispute the validity of the thesis that primary questions are the most important. The thing is, I came to this realization a few years ago on my own. This talk came along later. I strongly believe that the thesis ‘holds water’.

Again, it seems to me you keep calling immoveable beliefs made inaccessible to scrutiny "questions". No one is seeking truth who is doing what the video describes. It's just confirming biases.

So, you up for discussing evidence yet?

[_mentalgymnast]

Again, it seems to me you keep calling immoveable beliefs made inaccessible to scrutiny "questions". No one is seeking truth who is doing what the video describes. It's just confirming biases.
So, you up for discussing evidence yet?

The first of the primary questions Elder Corbridge asks is whether or not there is a Father in Heaven. This would also be the primary ‘purple’ from your questionnaire as far as I can surmise. Everything else, in one way or another, hinges on that.

First...do you agree?

If so, how would you determine what evidence for a Father in Heaven would meet your criteria for acceptable evidence?

What would I have to either show or demonstrate to you?

Regard,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Again, it seems to me you keep calling immoveable beliefs made inaccessible to scrutiny "questions". No one is seeking truth who is doing what the video describes. It's just confirming biases.
So, you up for discussing evidence yet?

The first of the primary questions Elder Corbridge asks is whether or not there is a Father in Heaven. This would also be the primary ‘purple’ from your questionnaire as far as I can surmise. Everything else, in one way or another, hinges on that.

Actually, that is not what Corbridge says:

The primary questions are the most important. Everything else is subordinate. There are only a few primary questions. I will mention four of them.

1. Is there a God who is our Father?
2. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior of the world?
3. Was Joseph Smith a prophet?
4. Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth?

He includes 3 and 4 as primary questions, he doesn’t say 2, and then 3 and 4 rely on 1.

But honor already pointed that out

It's all predicated on accepting the Mormon worldview first... No one is seeking truth who is doing what the video describes. It's just confirming biases.

[_honorentheos]

The first of the primary questions Elder Corbridge asks is whether or not there is a Father in Heaven. This would also be the primary ‘purple’ from your questionnaire as far as I can surmise. Everything else, in one way or another, hinges on that.

Actually, that is not what Corbridge says:

The primary questions are the most important. Everything else is subordinate. There are only a few primary questions. I will mention four of them.

1. Is there a God who is our Father?
2. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior of the world?
3. Was Joseph Smith a prophet?
4. Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth?

He includes 3 and 4 as primary questions, he doesn’t say 2, and then 3 and 4 rely on 1.

But honor already pointed that out

It's all predicated on accepting the Mormon worldview first... No one is seeking truth who is doing what the video describes. It's just confirming biases.

Thank you, Lemmie.