Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[Gadianton]

Hmm...I think I've gone into a bit of verbosity on this just recently. Doesn't matter. Some folks use the fact/truth that we can't possibly investigate through learning and experience ALL faiths that it's then just all "bubbles".

The cogs are turning, very slowly, but this is significant progress. You're correct, it's unrealistic to expect anybody to deeply live every faith or even a random sample of faiths, therefore you can't consistently expect anybody to investigate Mormonism at the expense of investigating anything else.

This is why people with a little bit of wisdom either shrug off religion as all the same and wrong, or embrace relativism and say all religion is basically good, and no faith is better than another.

[MG 2.0]

Hmm...I think I've gone into a bit of verbosity on this just recently. Doesn't matter. Some folks use the fact/truth that we can't possibly investigate through learning and experience ALL faiths that it's then just all "bubbles".

The cogs are turning, very slowly, but this is significant progress. You're correct, it's unrealistic to expect anybody to deeply live every faith or even a random sample of faiths, therefore you can't consistently expect anybody to investigate Mormonism at the expense of investigating anything else.

This is why people with a little bit of wisdom either shrug off religion as all the same and wrong, or embrace relativism and say all religion is basically good, and no faith is better than another.

Would this explain why you didn't take the Book of Mormon seriously from an early age and from there on out? I'm saying this not to be hurtful but to point out that IF the Book of Mormon could have been the 'key to faith' for you (belief in God) and you intentionally passed it by because in your mind it was simply one of many bubbles...what if it was/is the baby in the bathwater?

I would take you back to earlier in the thread when I brought up theories of the universe and how they can't all be true but that more than likely ONE of them is. You would, from the get go, toss them all out?

Why nihilism or bust?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

The cogs are turning, very slowly, but this is significant progress. You're correct, it's unrealistic to expect anybody to deeply live every faith or even a random sample of faiths, therefore you can't consistently expect anybody to investigate Mormonism at the expense of investigating anything else.

This is why people with a little bit of wisdom either shrug off religion as all the same and wrong, or embrace relativism and say all religion is basically good, and no faith is better than another.

Would this explain why you didn't take the Book of Mormon seriously from an early age and from there on out? I'm saying this not to be hurtful but to point out that IF the Book of Mormon could have been the 'key to faith' for you (belief in God) and you intentionally passed it by because in your mind it was simply one of many bubbles...what if it was/is the baby in the bathwater?

I would take you back to earlier in the thread when I brought up theories of the universe and how they can't all be true but that more than likely ONE of them is. You would, from the get go, toss them all out?

Why nihilism or bust?

Regards,
MG

Gad, in case you feel bad about perhaps having thrown out the Book of Mormon baby, here is a link to a list of other sacred texts, so that you can feel equally bad about having thrown them out too:

List of religious texts

The wikipedia page makes it clear that this list cannot be exhaustive. However, I suggest that you try to feel less guilty about "throwing out" any that are not currently listed there, as they are likely sufficiently obscure that you might spend a lifetime just looking for them, before throwing them out as well.

Still, bad on you for not privileging MG's favourite text when you had the chance.

[MG 2.0]

Would this explain why you didn't take the Book of Mormon seriously from an early age and from there on out? I'm saying this not to be hurtful but to point out that IF the Book of Mormon could have been the 'key to faith' for you (belief in God) and you intentionally passed it by because in your mind it was simply one of many bubbles...what if it was/is the baby in the bathwater?

I would take you back to earlier in the thread when I brought up theories of the universe and how they can't all be true but that more than likely ONE of them is. You would, from the get go, toss them all out?

Why nihilism or bust?

Regards,
MG

Gad, in case you feel bad about perhaps having thrown out the Book of Mormon baby, here is a link to a list of other sacred texts, so that you can feel equally bad about having thrown them out too:

List of religious texts

The wikipedia page makes it clear that this list cannot be exhaustive. However, I suggest that you try to feel less guilty about "throwing out" any that are not currently listed there, as they are likely sufficiently obscure that you might spend a lifetime just looking for them, before throwing them out as well.

Still, bad on you for not privileging MG's favourite text when you had the chance.

I went through the list. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ in addition to the Bible? Is that or is that not a matter of consequence?

Granted, lots of bubbles in the list.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Would this explain why you didn't take the Book of Mormon seriously from an early age and from there on out?

No MG, when I was nine years old, I admit it didn't occur to me that to be consistent about taking the Book of Mormon seriously I should be equally serious about taking the Koran seriously. A wild guess here is that I didn't take the Book of Mormon seriously as a child for the same reason you didn't. (and I still don't think you take it that seriously)

I would take you back to earlier in the thread when I brought up theories of the universe and how they can't all be true but that more than likely ONE of them is. You would, from the get go, toss them all out?

No MG. The two ventures aren't the same. First of all, getting to the truth of cosmology isn't a matter of lived experience. Second of all, and more important, it isn't a moral imperative to get to the truth of cosmology. That's good, since most of us aren't bright enough to make it to graduate school to be candidates in the first place.

Let's not forget that what we're really doing here is showing that your method is inconsistent with your beliefs. It certainly is possible that there is only one true religion and that a few million out of all humanity like you who grew up without any special talent or personal initiative just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Most religions don't care if life isn't fair, life isn't a "test" for them. Most religious people, in fact, believe they are privileged above all others for reasons that only God knows or that are totally circular. They don't care if that doesn't seem fair -- it makes them feel special. It's the entire point.

Mormonism is a modern religion, and has aped some modern views into their doctrines. Mormons waffle between feeling special because they were born Mormon and feeling special because of personal initiative. Mormons don't want to just be lucky. They want to have achieved something significant. This is why Mormons come up with stories about how they struggled and really had to dig deep in prayer and study and persistence, and it could be trials that last years until they arrive at their "testimony". But there's still bias. The deck still had to be stacked for any of that to happen, it wouldn't have happened if they'd been born in Africa. Dan would never have given Mormonism a second glance had he been born in Joseph Smith's time. And for every person who had a faith crisis and became Mormon, another person had a faith crisis and left Mormonism for another religion. And so now you're stuck with an explicit problem that most other religions don't have because most religions haven't opened the can of worms of making epistemology part of their doctrine. For life to be an unbiased test and for you to have succeeded, you would need to have found the Church under a variety of circumstances, or if not, then others who haven't found the Church must be given a handicap. You're stuck in the mud thinking there is a solution to the problem, a way anybody in any situation can reason their way through any bubbles in order to find Mormonism is right.

I went through the list. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ

Which is circular reasoning, congratulations.

[malkie]

Gad, in case you feel bad about perhaps having thrown out the Book of Mormon baby, here is a link to a list of other sacred texts, so that you can feel equally bad about having thrown them out too:

List of religious texts

The wikipedia page makes it clear that this list cannot be exhaustive. However, I suggest that you try to feel less guilty about "throwing out" any that are not currently listed there, as they are likely sufficiently obscure that you might spend a lifetime just looking for them, before throwing them out as well.

Still, bad on you for not privileging MG's favourite text when you had the chance.

I went through the list. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ in addition to the Bible? Is that or is that not a matter of consequence?

Granted, lots of bubbles in the list.

Regards,
MG

1. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ is totally inconsequential, unless we are approaching the list with that specific filter in mind - putting a thumb on the scale before even considering anything else.
2. If you're going to do this seriously, and without bias, I believe you have to consider initially that every item is potentially both a baby and a bubble. No prejudging without due diligence.

[Limnor]

I went through the list. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ in addition to the Bible?

Islam (Sunni and Shia) claims that ʿĪsā (Jesus) was the Christ. The term they use is al-Masīḥ, “the Messiah”

The Bahá’í Faith also recognizes Jesus as the Messiah, AND they claim that revelation is progressive.

Druze and Ahmadiyya Islam also claim Jesus as the Messiah.

[MG 2.0]

I went through the list. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ in addition to the Bible? Is that or is that not a matter of consequence?

Granted, lots of bubbles in the list.

Regards,
MG

1. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ is totally inconsequential, unless we are approaching the list with that specific filter in mind - putting a thumb on the scale before even considering anything else.
2. If you're going to do this seriously, and without bias, I believe you have to consider initially that every item is potentially both a baby and a bubble. No prejudging without due diligence.

Yes, there is a thumb on the scale. And yes, ideally one would have to go through the whole list and treat each one as a baby in order to remain strictly pluralistic. And also live out an ongoing and life enriching experience in every single one.

The escape hatch for many is to treat them all the same and remain a skeptical nonbeliever in regard to all of them.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...Let's not forget that what we're really doing here is showing that your method is inconsistent with your beliefs. It certainly is possible that there is only one true religion and that a few million out of all humanity like you who grew up without any special talent or personal initiative just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Most religions don't care if life isn't fair, life isn't a "test" for them. Most religious people, in fact, believe they are privileged above all others for reasons that only God knows or that are totally circular. They don't care if that doesn't seem fair -- it makes them feel special. It's the entire point.

Mormonism is a modern religion, and has aped some modern views into their doctrines. Mormons waffle between feeling special because they were born Mormon and feeling special because of personal initiative. Mormons don't want to just be lucky. They want to have achieved something significant. This is why Mormons come up with stories about how they struggled and really had to dig deep in prayer and study and persistence, and it could be trials that last years until they arrive at their "testimony". But there's still bias. The deck still had to be stacked for any of that to happen, it wouldn't have happened if they'd been born in Africa. Dan would never have given Mormonism a second glance had he been born in Joseph Smith's time. And for every person who had a faith crisis and became Mormon, another person had a faith crisis and left Mormonism for another religion. And so now you're stuck with an explicit problem that most other religions don't have because most religions haven't opened the can of worms of making epistemology part of their doctrine. For life to be an unbiased test and for you to have succeeded, you would need to have found the Church under a variety of circumstances, or if not, then others who haven't found the Church must be given a handicap. You're stuck in the mud thinking there is a solution to the problem, a way anybody in any situation can reason their way through any bubbles in order to find Mormonism is right...

Excellent summing up, Gad. It's the ultimate Texas sharpshooter's fallacy, hard at work. Given the underlying illogicality of a position like mentalgymnast's, it's little wonder he has to pretzel himself into such irrational knots in an attempt to support it. What amazes me is that he continues to disdain and preach to anyone who doesn't attempt the same nonsense.

[I Have Questions]

Let's not forget that what we're really doing here is showing that your method is inconsistent with your beliefs. It certainly is possible that there is only one true religion and that a few million out of all humanity like you who grew up without any special talent or personal initiative just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Most religions don't care if life isn't fair, life isn't a "test" for them. Most religious people, in fact, believe they are privileged above all others for reasons that only God knows or that are totally circular. They don't care if that doesn't seem fair -- it makes them feel special. It's the entire point.

That’s the best analysis of MG2.0ism I think I’ve seen.

I went through the list. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ

Which is circular reasoning, congratulations.

Priceless