MG wrote:My belief is that those that are intellectually inclined have to dig deeper and longer in order to find the truth. I think this is what the Apostle Paul was referring to when he said that some would be ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
Bailing out isn't the answer in my opinion. I speak from experience. I almost did.
Bailing out would have been the answer, a fantastic answer, had you grown up in one of the thousands of faiths besides Mormonism. If you were bailing out of any other faith to join Mormonism, you'd be saying bailing out is the only answer. So bailing out isn't the answer for a small handful of people on this planet, most live in Utah and Idaho, and it IS the answer for everyone else who lives on the planet.
You're also implying that you were intellectually inclined, had to dig deeper and longer, and that you found the truth. Because you found the truth that was there, that Mormonism is the only true church on the face of the earth, you didn't bail. So we just take your word for it? In the thousands of posts you've made on this forum, we haven't seen much of anything interesting that came from this deep searching you did all those years ago. Maybe you lost your notes?
"...gain control of land that FARMS owned..." -- Bill Hamblin
"Why did FARMS own land to begin with?" -- Me
In the thousands of posts you've made on this forum, we haven't seen much of anything interesting that came from this deep searching you did all those years ago. Maybe you lost your notes?
This is a good point and might actually lead to the kind of conversation MG claims he wants to have.
If I recall correctly, MG has acknowledged difficulty reconciling Joseph Smith’s claims to speak directly for God with some of his morally troubling actions. MG has essentially explained that Joseph may have experienced something real but was limited by his own imperfect humanity.
The trouble is, how does one then separate real revelation from Joseph’s own additions? Is there some objective mechanism to help with that?
What might be most interesting for discussion might be an explanation of how MG worked through that issue. What convinced him that he was dealing with imperfect revelation rather than something that wasn’t revelation in the first place?
...And spiritual autism is slandering people with autism.
YES IT IS. Why mentalgymnast continues to push such a repugnant take is unfathomable. He could just admit he screwed up and move on, but no, he has to continue to bring it up and continue to be obnoxious about it. But, that's what those who troll do.
...And spiritual autism is slandering people with autism.
YES IT IS. Why mentalgymnast continues to push such a repugnant take is unfathomable. He could just admit he screwed up and move on, but no, he has to continue to bring it up and continue to be obnoxious about it. But, that's what those who troll do.
Fibber, that’s some pretty disgusting behavior. Have you no shame?
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
I have had long conversations with Don and the pinnacle of his final piece of evidence for choosing theism has to do with the ultimate question regarding creation. It has been a while but essentially he said science can't answer the ultimate question but religion does. That has no convincing powers for me because essentially it is refusing to admit we don't know and claiming religion does. To me that is disingenuous, thought stopping and disrespecting to future inhabitants of our world.
That's a valuable and interesting insight. I agree that it is disingenuous. Religions do not provide an answer to the ultimate question. Religions provide complex theories based on nothing other than a need to justify the existence of their organisation. And it is fair to say that science has answered the ultimate question, but Don and others don't like the answer, so they opt for something irrational and call it faith. And the fact is that science has answered the question about Mormonism's claim of authentic origins, again not the answer Don wanted to hear so he has to ignore it, reframe the evidence or the question.
Look I get that a hope for an afterlife gives people comfort and hope in this life. But once that hope becomes institutionalised in an organised religion it becomes poisoned and tribal and open to being abused. Jesus himself taught against organised religion.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
MG wrote:My belief is that those that are intellectually inclined have to dig deeper and longer in order to find the truth. I think this is what the Apostle Paul was referring to when he said that some would be ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
Bailing out isn't the answer in my opinion. I speak from experience. I almost did.
Bailing out would have been the answer, a fantastic answer, had you grown up in one of the thousands of faiths besides Mormonism. If you were bailing out of any other faith to join Mormonism, you'd be saying bailing out is the only answer. So bailing out isn't the answer for a small handful of people on this planet, most live in Utah and Idaho, and it IS the answer for everyone else who lives on the planet.
You're also implying that you were intellectually inclined, had to dig deeper and longer, and that you found the truth. Because you found the truth that was there, that Mormonism is the only true church on the face of the earth, you didn't bail. So we just take your word for it? In the thousands of posts you've made on this forum, we haven't seen much of anything interesting that came from this deep searching you did all those years ago. Maybe you lost your notes?
What insights! No, you should obviously not take my word for it.
And yes, I lost my notes…forgetful and senile person that I am.
I have had long conversations with Don and the pinnacle of his final piece of evidence for choosing theism has to do with the ultimate question regarding creation. It has been a while but essentially he said science can't answer the ultimate question but religion does. That has no convincing powers for me because essentially it is refusing to admit we don't know and claiming religion does. To me that is disingenuous, thought stopping and disrespecting to future inhabitants of our world.
That's a valuable and interesting insight. I agree that it is disingenuous. Religions do not provide an answer to the ultimate question. Religions provide complex theories based on nothing other than a need to justify the existence of their organisation. And it is fair to say that science has answered the ultimate question, but Don and others don't like the answer, so they opt for something irrational and call it faith. And the fact is that science has answered the question about Mormonism's claim of authentic origins, again not the answer Don wanted to hear so he has to ignore it, reframe the evidence or the question.
Look I get that a hope for an afterlife gives people comfort and hope in this life. But once that hope becomes institutionalised in an organised religion it becomes poisoned and tribal and open to being abused. Jesus himself taught against organised religion.
IHQ, I appreciate the insights that you have that my run in opposition/conflict with Don Bradley’s experience and knowledge. Your voice is heard and respected also. You have put…at the very least if not more…time, thought, energy, and intellectual seriousness into these things as any Mormon scholar or thinker.
The facts stand independent of any one person, right?
YES IT IS. Why mentalgymnast continues to push such a repugnant take is unfathomable. He could just admit he screwed up and move on, but no, he has to continue to bring it up and continue to be obnoxious about it. But, that's what those who troll do.
Fibber, that’s some pretty disgusting behavior. Have you no shame?
I would if I felt I was in the wrong.
For board peace and safety, however, I will acknowledge that my thoughts and opinions could very well be in error and that I ought to be more cognizant of respecting opposing points of view.
By not saying anything.
Thank you to both you and Marcus for your efforts to keep me on the straight and narrow…very narrow…path to board tranquility and happiness.
I have had long conversations with Don and the pinnacle of his final piece of evidence for choosing theism has to do with the ultimate question regarding creation. It has been a while but essentially he said science can't answer the ultimate question but religion does. That has no convincing powers for me because essentially it is refusing to admit we don't know and claiming religion does. To me that is disingenuous, thought stopping and disrespecting to future inhabitants of our world.
That's a valuable and interesting insight. I agree that it is disingenuous. Religions do not provide an answer to the ultimate question. Religions provide complex theories based on nothing other than a need to justify the existence of their organisation. And it is fair to say that science has answered the ultimate question, but Don and others don't like the answer, so they opt for something irrational and call it faith. And the fact is that science has answered the question about Mormonism's claim of authentic origins, again not the answer Don wanted to hear so he has to ignore it, reframe the evidence or the question.
Look I get that a hope for an afterlife gives people comfort and hope in this life. But once that hope becomes institutionalised in an organised religion it becomes poisoned and tribal and open to being abused. Jesus himself taught against organised religion.
It's ironic that the church, allegedly built on truth and to offer spiritual comfort, relies on dismissing verifiable evidence to preserve its own survival.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
That's a valuable and interesting insight. I agree that it is disingenuous. Religions do not provide an answer to the ultimate question. Religions provide complex theories based on nothing other than a need to justify the existence of their organisation. And it is fair to say that science has answered the ultimate question, but Don and others don't like the answer, so they opt for something irrational and call it faith. And the fact is that science has answered the question about Mormonism's claim of authentic origins, again not the answer Don wanted to hear so he has to ignore it, reframe the evidence or the question.
Look I get that a hope for an afterlife gives people comfort and hope in this life. But once that hope becomes institutionalised in an organised religion it becomes poisoned and tribal and open to being abused. Jesus himself taught against organised religion.
It's ironic that the church, allegedly built on truth and to offer spiritual comfort, relies on dismissing verifiable evidence to preserve its own survival.
Of course there are others that might disagree with your assessment…but for board civility, peace, and harmony we can leave your comment independent of all opposing views.
Not from me anyway!
As it should be. It took me so long to see the light. Thanks Wang for your help and example of goodness, truth, and righteousness.
