Radio Free Mormon & Backyard Professor Take Elder David A. Bednar to the Limit

[drumdude]

I’ve been seeing more of this kind of relativism thinking from Mormons. I guess it’s the only logical place to retreat to when all the facts objectively go against the claims of Mormonism. There is no Zarahemla, there were no Hebrews in the pre Colombian Americas.

So Mormons are left simply saying “it’s all relative and subjective and there is no objective truth to anything.”

You are confusing relativism with me acknowledging that there are divergent points of view. Nowhere in that acknowledgement did I suggest that each of the divergent points of view were true. At most, I spoke to relative conviction and suitability to various kingdoms rather than to relativity of truth.

You also confused your opinion with facts in relation to no Zarahemla or Hebrew in pre-Columbia America. These negatives cannot objectively be proven as fact. At best, they can only be subjectively "proven" in the sense that one may opine that the burden of proving the positive hasn't been met.

Perhaps your penchant for confusion also contributed to your falsely assuming "all the facts objectively go against the claims of Mormonism."

Whatever the case, this is all beside the point I was making.

Thanks, Wade Englund

You’re misunderstanding my point.

The arguments you’re employing can be used to support any conspiracy theory. There is mainstream consensus on Book of Mormon truth claims, and going against them is as foolhardy as believing the world is flat.

You can believe a conspiracy theory if you like, but you should at least be self aware enough to realize how ridiculous it is. It’s on the same level as flat earth, Atlantis, and Scientology.

We will find Zarahemla at the exact same time we raise Atlantis from the bottom of the sea.

Which is why I said you must be a relativist who thinks no belief is more justified than any other.

[malkie]

Wade, can you give us an example of:

• someone who has discovered there is life after physical death
• an afterlife event that has been shown to "awaken a desire ... prompt a change"

Or are you talking only about people who have come to believe such.

1) There are a number of scriptural accounts (New Testament, Book of Mormon, and D&C) where, after his death, Jesus Christ appeared to many people living on earth. There are also scriptural accounts where Moses, Elijah, Moroni, Peter, James, and John appeared to men on earth sometime afer their physical death. The spirits of the dead were also seen rising from their graves by many shortly after Jesus' death. And, prophets have also seen visions of loved-ones and others who have passed on. Etc.

Also, if the afterlife is a reality (I firmly believe that it is), then those on earth who disbelieve in life after death, will suddenly discover that there is life after death. I don't know of any accounts where this has been documented.

2) I took your second question two ways:

a) There are scriptural accounts of people living on earth who experienced changes prompted by the appearance of those who were dead--most notably Christ's appearance to people living on the American continent shortly after his death, and Christ's appearance to Saul, who was given the name of Paul.

b) As for those who have died who thereafter experienced an awakening and change, I can't think of any explicit examples. However, it is strongly implied in revelations regarding the gathering of Israel on both sides of the veil as well as the preaching of the gospel to, and the redemption of, the dead--particularly D&C 137 and 138.

Thanks, Wade Englund-

I don't see that "scriptural accounts" necessarily count for much - all sorts of religions have scriptural accounts of all sorts of things that I expect you might find unconvincing.

I know that this was not part of my original reply to you, Wade, but I was rather hoping for something that was both verifiable and a bit more current than from 200 - 2000 years ago.

You seem to speak so confidently about afterlife events having an effect - but nothing contemporary, I wonder.

[wenglund]

I suspect that I will only be vindicated in the eyes of those who earnestly engage in the learning process as suggested.

Wow. That's um, a high level of confidence you've got. The fruits of reading talks like Bednar's maybe?

I'd say for myself that I'll only be vindicated if a) I'm right and b) if I'm able to communicate my ideas effectively and of course c) my readers are able to correctly assess my ideas. Sure, my assessors could be wrong, but 2/3s of that equation has to do with me. I've been wrong many times in the past and there's always room for improvement to communicate better. I guess for me, being vindicated on any point is an uphill battle.

It sounds like for you, that you've achieved that godly level of understanding where you're always right about everything, you communicate perfectly, and you can sit back and the failure is always the reader should they disagree with you. That really is a lesson the Church teaches and you've got that one down pat.

You might be right that the "teach them correct principles and let them govern" is the glass-half-full version of what I'm talking about. I've always thought of that as a nice libertarian ideal as I myself am a libertarian, although now it does seem to give the teacher an easy out. Well, something to think about.

First, I took your assertion about vindication to be specific to my statement: "What some of us mistook for thesis statements, were simply declarations of beliefs intended to prepare the soil of the heart, mind, and soul, into which the seeds of faith were planted."

As such, my response to you was specific to that statement, rather what you mistook as a general assumption about my supposedly thinking I had "achieved that godly level of understanding where [I'm] always right about everything, communicate perfectly, and can sit back and the failure is always the reader should they disagree with [me]." I said nothing of the sort.

Second, previously to the post in which you suggested that I would be vindicated, I had admitted to the mistake of initially assuming Bednar's talk was a thesis paper (as other's had suppose), but that I had changed my mind after listening to the entire talk. This hardly sounds like someone claiming to always be right.

And, previous to your post, I had pointed out several reasons why I believed Bednar's talk was an attempt to teach people HOW to think, rather than a series of arguments in support of WHAT to think. And, I had also taken the position that, rather than arguing, myself, for Bednar's declarations of beliefs, I extended the same invitation as him, for people to determine the truth of those declared beliefs for themselves, using the self-learning and testing methods he intimated in his talk.

In fact, I had explicitly stated: "My intent here isn't to convert, but rather, as with Elder Bednar and Austin Farrer, to provide an impetus for belief to flourish among those who wish it to be so." I also gave good reason for taking that approach.

Thus, when you used the future tense "will be vindicated," I understood this to include the reasons I had given for believing Bednar's talk was as I stated above, as well as my intent as stated above.

Again, it is a mystery how it is that you interpreted my response as some sort of dogmatic claim to being right and omniscient, let alone that I believe I "communicate perfectly, and can sit back and the failure is always the reader should they disagree with that is a mystery." But, maybe that is because your own teachers taught you WHAT to think (which to me is the "easy way out") rather than HOW to think. Something to consider.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Marcus]

…Again, it is a mystery how it is that you interpreted my response as some sort of dogmatic claim to being right and omniscient, let alone that I believe I "communicate perfectly, and [ I ] can sit back and the failure is always the reader should they disagree with that is a mystery."

No, it’s not a mystery at all. I do wonder if you are really being sincere, because your description of your thought processes outlines a type of [mis]understanding that is illogical in the extreme. It’s difficult to imagine what would cause an educated person in this century to speak like this, unless they are enamored of the most bizarre fringe theories currently in existence.

[Marcus]

Wade Englund
Hello. Good to see you also.

Thanks for confirming my point. One man's happiness is another man's ridiculousness,

That was not my point at all. You entirely misunderstood me if this is what you came away with.

Sadly, I don’t think he sees room for all people to find happiness in their own way. He must ridicule another’s choices to justify his own.

[wenglund]

I don't see that "scriptural accounts" necessarily count for much - all sorts of religions have scriptural accounts of all sorts of things that I expect you might find unconvincing.

I know that this was not part of my original reply to you, Wade, but I was rather hoping for something that was both verifiable and a bit more current than from 200 - 2000 years ago.

You seem to speak so confidently about afterlife events having an effect - but nothing contemporary, I wonder.

This is the rub that Bednar alluded to in his talk. The critics ask for evidence for spiritual claims, and when they are given the evidence, they reject it as not verifiable and as unreasonable because it is derived through spiritual means. Whereas the believer views such rejections as unreasonable because the evidence for spiritual claims can only be derived through, and verified by, spiritual means.

And, while there are scriptural accounts and interpretations of scriptures of other religions that I would find unconvincing, I didn't suggest those to you. I only suggest those scriptural accounts that I believe can be "verified" using the methodology I find reliable for growth in spiritual faith intimated by Bednar--i.e. Alma 32 in conjunction with Moroni 10. I believe this because they have been "verified" to me and others by way of that methodology. I can can only be held to account for what I believe, and not what other religions may believe.

Think of it as analogous to you asking me for evidence for my secular belief on how to reduce poverty. I would cite evidence and reports from sources I trust and deem verifiable, even though there are a plethora of philosophical, political, and economic sources that propose different beliefs and evidence on the same topic, which I find unconvincing. I should only be held to account for my secular beliefs and evidence and methodologies, and not the secular beliefs and so forth of other people.

Said another way, whether secular or religious, the divergence in beliefs within a broad ideational category (religion, philosophy, politics, and economics) is not reasonable grounds, in itself, to reject all or a select set of beliefs and evidence.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[wenglund]

…Again, it is a mystery how it is that you interpreted my response as some sort of dogmatic claim to being right and omniscient, let alone that I believe I "communicate perfectly, and [ I ] can sit back and the failure is always the reader should they disagree with that is a mystery."

No, it’s not a mystery at all. I do wonder if you are really being sincere, because your description of your thought processes outlines a type of [mis]understanding that is illogical in the extreme. It’s difficult to imagine what would cause an educated person in this century to speak like this, unless they are enamored of the most bizarre fringe theories currently in existence.

Okay.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Marcus]

No, it’s not a mystery at all. I do wonder if you are really being sincere, because your description of your thought processes outlines a type of [mis]understanding that is illogical in the extreme. It’s difficult to imagine what would cause an educated person in this century to speak like this, unless they are enamored of the most bizarre fringe theories currently in existence.

Okay.

Thanks, Wade Englund

So, your response to my question as to whether you are being sincere is “okay.”

Okay.

[Marcus]

…Said another way, whether secular or religious, the divergence in beliefs within a broad ideational category (religion, philosophy, politics, and economics) is not reasonable grounds, in itself, to reject all or a select set of beliefs and evidence.

No, this is an illogical position to take. For example, if this were true, the fact that there is a divergence between a belief in a flat earth and another belief in a somewhat spherical earth would mean that there are no reasonable grounds to

1) reject both beliefs (I.e. you must believe in both a flat earth and a round earth),

and also

2) you cannot reject either one of the beliefs on any other grounds, simply because both may“exist” in people’s minds.

This is fallacious reasoning.

[wenglund]

Wade Englund
Hello. Good to see you also.

Thanks for confirming my point. One man's happiness is another man's ridiculousness,

That was not my point at all. You entirely misunderstood me if this is what you came away with.

When you spoke of the "ridiculousness of Mormonism", I understood you to suggest that my source of happiness (i.e. my LDS beliefs) is ridiculous to you. In other words, one man's happiness (mine), is another man's ridiculousness (yours).

If this isn't what you meant, then I would be pleased were you to clarify and correct.

Thanks, Wade Englund