mentalgymnast wrote:Water Dog wrote:Few critics are genuinely seeking truth, and this is reflected in their arguments and illegitimizes them. And some believers suffer from such bias as well, but they are far more likely to be honest about their bias, openly, and with themselves.
Me thinks you may have something there. Can't prove it though. Just a gut feeling after reading through literally reams of material.
Regards,
MG
In one way, I'd agree with you. But it requires seeing that the subject of investigation differs between most Mormon believers and most critics.
It's taken time for me to realize that in Mormonism orthopraxy is significantly more important than orthodoxy. The pews in any given ward on any given Sunday include people whose beliefs span an incredible spectrum from complete apathy towards the teachings of correlated Mormonism to the ultra-conservative/fundamentalist. And there is a lot of tolerance for someone holding unconventional beliefs...so long as they perform in accordance with the expected behaviors. From birth, (where this last year we saw unorthoprax attempts at a baby blessing lead to troubles for a poster) through youth, one's choice of a spouse, how and where one marries, what one watches for entertainment, etc., etc., to what one is buried in, the religion of Mormonism is particularly concerned with what one does.
I think, then, that when critics and believers engage in discussion they often are seeking the truth of two different things. Because, frankly, it is immaterial to the critic HOW to be Mormon, while to the believer how to be Mormon is the essence of seeking truth. Over my time on this board this was made clear to me best in watching never-mo's engage with Mormonism, often initially respectfully, expecting discussion and debate that might be mutually edifying and philosophically rewarding only to be met with frustration. It is a clash of different cultures, not different beliefs or understandings.
I speculate that what is often described as the breaking of one's shelf of suspended disbelief is the moment when the former Mormon ceases to feel obligated to engage in Mormon orthopraxy. At that moment, the truth of Mormon history ceases to be compelling reason to dress, eat, and act in accordance with Mormon teachings. It's not that the understanding of Mormon history changed itself, it's that it's relation to how one lives their life changes.
I say all of that because at a very real level I think believers are engaged in pursuing truth of a kind that is meaningless to critics and non-Mormons except as an exercise in anthropology. Unless one is seeking to understand what it means to BE Mormon, truth seeking as Mormon believers engage in it is simply uninteresting or even inaccessible to the non-orthoprax. While the Mormon can engage Mormon history til the sun goes down seeking motive and method for more edifying and involved participation and understanding of LDS orthopraxy. That doesn't mean the believer isn't engaged in seeking truth, it's just a unique kind of truth that requires a certain perspective to value.
Where I disagree with Water Dog's statement is in devaluing the type of truth the critic is engaged in seeking, and which probably seems dismissive of the types of truth a believer values. If a critic seeks and finds sufficient reason to place the Book of Mormon fully in a 19th century context and discusses the reasons for this being the case, it's just as valid a form of truth seeking. It just happens to be of a kind that appears contradictory to the truth seeking process of the Mormon seeking to better understand how to be Mormon.
in short, it's not a case of answering the same question differently or one side engaging it more earnestly than the other. Both sides are asking different underlying questions that are not explicitly understood by both sides when engaging in discussing a particular topic.