Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[KevinSim]

On the flip side, kudos for you entering and explaining your experiences without being disrespectful.

Rivendale is right, Doc; you do deserve those kudos.

[KevinSim]

I’m pretty sure there are plenty of optimistic atheists.

I'm not sure there are any conscientious ones who have thoroughly thought things through.

Your slant that it is only a belief in a deity that gives you cause for optimism suggests a deep dissatisfaction with your earthly existence, only alleviated by the hope that something better awaits when you’re dead, is…well…very pessimistic!

I never said anything about an after-life.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That’s literally not what you said. I see we’re not quite to the point where you’re keeping your story straight.

Of course that's literally not what I said. I was adding details to show you the two stories were not mutually exclusive. What does any of that have to do with a good faith discussion of matters regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

If we’re going to have a good faith discussion ref LDS truth claims, we’re going to have to have consistent statements with agreed upon terminology. Are you ready to examine and deconstruct LDS truth claims in this manner?

- Doc

[Marcus]

I’m pretty sure there are plenty of optimistic atheists.

I'm not sure there are any conscientious ones who have thoroughly thought things through.

wow, what an unnecessary escalation. have you met mentalgymnast, by any chance?!!

[Gadianton]

I hadn't read anything on this thread until today, and now I've reviewed most of it.

I do have to thank Kevin for not being as annoying about his faith as MG. This is a forum for critique and debate though, so got to cover where I think he's going wrong.

The biggest weakness I see is that the pursuit of the truth all happens strictly with the Church's dictated model, a model that very few people outside of the Church would accept, and so never deviating from that framework shows that 99% of pursuit has been assumed away at the outset of the journey.

What if I were to come to the board asking people how they would feel if nobody knew what my name was and spoke to me by saying, "hey you!" -- how disrespectful and hurtful would that be? God has a name, and it's Yahweh. Very few people know this, and in fact, there is only one religion that insists on using God's name when talking to him. Someone might point out that they have a sister with a speech impediment who grew up with people who referring to her as "you", and who isn't offended by being spoken to that way. That might make me think about it for a moment, but that's mainly people who didn't know what her name was. That's not the case here, as many are people who have the Bible and no excuse. And even if she was okay with it otherwise, God still pronounces his wishes clearly in the Bible, and sure, people are in different places in life, but it doesn't change the fact that God and most people take their identity seriously. I may have had other doubts in life, after all, we only have the tetragrammaton. What if my name is Pete, but my best friends were always calling me "Pote"? Wouldn't that be just as offensive as calling me "you?" I struggled with that for a long time, but then read some of the latest scholarship coming out and there really is no doubt that it's Yahweh. So, yeah, it's clear that when I'm talking to God I'm using his name, just as he's always insisted that I do.

The whole framework of God telling you which church is right or the Book of Mormon true through a personal manifestation is primarily a Mormon thing that nobody else believes. If you accept that criteria, you've already accepted Mormonism. Some people will say that they prayed and God said "no". I don't buy that they are serious, they almost certainly reject the model, but it's too easy to puncture holes in the model on its own terms. Protracted theorizing about how the model holds up under all of these diverse circumstances just reveals the buy-in of the model (or Mormonism) is supreme. Kevin is one of a few who have had a fantastic experience. Many, many others out there still promote the model with as much vigor as Kevin without having had that extreme physical experience. My mother always admitted she'd never had a fantastical experience, but was every bit as convinced of Mormonism as Kevin. I don't know of a more devout believer. That Kevin had that experience is 1% of the journey if that. That Kevin theorizes deeply and exclusively(?) about the Mormon truth criteria shows the buy-in already taken place, independent of the outcome of the experiment.

[KevinSim]

It certainly does not follow that there always has to have been some conscious entity in the universe that has free will. The universe could perfectly well have been nondeterministic right from the start, but simply not yet have had in it any living creatures in it complex enough for the idea of free will, or the lack of it, to have had any meaning.

Chap, are you suggesting that at any given time the non-determinism in the universe might cause a planet or a moon to materialize out of nothing? If not, then how can the universe be considered non-deterministic? What does it do that is non-deterministic?

[Marcus]

I read his comment as noting that, in his starting conditions, he is unable to NOT assume his conclusion. in other words, he has no capacity to reach a conclusion not already dictated by how he currently lives. indoctrination dies hard.

Marcus, I was certainly indoctrinated.

ok.

Does it logically follow that I must believe everything everyone tried to indoctrinate me on?

This question is irrelevant to my point, which was that assuming one's conclusion as a starting postion is a strategy that defeats the purpose of thinking logically.

[Chap]

It certainly does not follow that there always has to have been some conscious entity in the universe that has free will. The universe could perfectly well have been nondeterministic right from the start, but simply not yet have had in it any living creatures in it complex enough for the idea of free will, or the lack of it, to have had any meaning.

Chap, are you suggesting that at any given time the non-determinism in the universe might cause a planet or a moon to materialize out of nothing? If not, then how can the universe be considered non-deterministic? What does it do that is non-deterministic?

I was replying to this post of yours:

[...] I started thinking atheistic thoughts back on my mission in 1979. But is that really the simplest explanation? If there is no God, then how did we get our free will, our non-determinism? Non-determinism cannot come out of a completely deterministic universe. Somebody with free will has to have existed in this universe from the moment of the Big Bang. If it wasn't God, then who was it?

Rather than trying to get you to give a clear explanation of exactly what you mean by "non-determinism" and "free will" I decided to look at your argument in your terms. Your structure seems to be something like this:

(a) We have free will and "non-determinism"
(b) "Non-determinism cannot come out of a completely deterministic universe"
(c) For the universe to be "non-deterministic" from the beginning, a being with free will must have been there right from the start.

I don't think that is a very coherent or well stated argument, but I did you the courtesy of trying to address it.

Now you come up with the nonsensical suggestion that I might believe that the thing you call "non-determinism" might "cause a planet or a moon to materialize out of nothing". It would clearly be a waste of time for me to continue to reply to you as if we were in a serious discussion.

[Kishkumen]

Dean Robbers,

Why do you think that a fair portion of those who prayed about the Book of Mormon and claimed to have received a negative answer might not have interpreted something as that negative answer? Given the wide range of things people interpret to be divine communication, I imagine that a person might take any number of things as a negative answer from God.

[Gadianton]

Dean Robbers,

Why do you think that a fair portion of those who prayed about the Book of Mormon and claimed to have received a negative answer might not have interpreted something as that negative answer? Given the wide range of things people interpret to be divine communication, I imagine that a person might take any number of things as a negative answer from God.

Duly sanctified Reverend,

What I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, there aren't many people who have prayed about it and have even claimed to receive a negative answer. I think this is a very small number of people. I don't recall being told by a single person on my mission that they'd prayed and God told them it was not true. Most people after some reflection, reading, or speaking with friends or religious leaders, reject the very premise that God will confirm the truth through prayer by sending positive and negative feelings. As I tried to illustrate, it would be akin to you saying that you're remaining Mormon after studying the history of the Sabbath day, finding that indeed, our Sunday was the Sunday of Jesus' day. In such a scenario between you and an Adventist missionary, even if you retain that our Sunday is the real Sunday, more importantly, you probably don't believe the entire proposition of which Church is right is leveraged upon the answer to who worships on the original Sabbath day.

Did you have a good feeling about those three passages you read in the Book of Mormon? Great! You know the Book of Mormon is true, which means Joseph Smith is a prophet, which means the LDS Church is the only true Church on earth, which means Rusty Nelson is a prophet, which means you owe Ensign Peak 10% of your income, no tea, coffee, and on and on...

Consider the hard "yes" people. People who are zapped with a burning in the bosom upon praying about the Book of Mormon. Since the religion pointing to salvation is the most important thing in life, maybe a one-time answer of that magnitude is justified, but often times these people get similar answers to inquiries about potential spouses and job offers. Now consider the hard "no" people. Consider Jane, who says she prayed and God struck her violently with the word "No!" I don't believe Jane. Or at least, if she really believed she felt that hard "no" at the time, I think she can be convinced that she's interpreting her surroundings, as you suggest. The reason why, is that I will start pressing Jane on the other churches she's going to pray about it. While the HG confirming the only true church on the face of the earth might possibly be a one-time deal, surely discomfirming one of many thousands of churches can't justify such an equally solitary answer. Okay, God violently told Jane the Book of Mormon is false, wow, what church are you going to pray about next, because surely he won't leave you hanging, right?

I doubt you will find many people who accept the Mormon premise, but claims that God said "no" to Mormonism, but then after reviewing several other churches, finally answered "yes" to another church, and then went on to pray about job offers and spouses in the unique Mormon way, with burnings or peaceful feelings as confirmations. Especially when that other church's theology might not be really compatible with finding truth that way. Most Bible-based churches want you to believe because the beliefs are well-grounded in the Word, not because you felt good.