Complex?

[Dr Exiled]

Missionaries are asking people to agree with their position. At least that's what I was doing when I was out there and it seems pretty clear that's what they're doing today.

It's ok to admit that missionaries and the church as a whole want people to believe their narrative.

Missionaries AREN'T asking people to agree with their position. They do encourage people to seek the truth and ask God for answers to questions.

Regards,
MG

I guess semantics strikes again. Carry on.

Incidentally, for those not caught in a semantic snare because of some need to portray the missionary effort as just people innocently talking in all innocence and mercy, blah, blah, blah, the missionaries believe that their position on God, Jesus, the Book of Mormon etc. is the correct one from the emotional experience they supposedly had and obviously, painfully so, want the world to agree with them by having the same controlled experience that they are taught to control for the targets. If you don't get the same controlled experience, then you didn't do it correctly, they'll say, blah, blah, blah, or weren't sincere, blah, blah, blah, or had sins that you wanted to continue, blah, blah, blah.

The above is obvious to the world at large but not to the those caught up in motivated reasoning.

[malkie]

Missionaries AREN'T asking people to agree with their position. They do encourage people to seek the truth and ask God for answers to questions.

Regards,
MG

I guess semantics strikes again. Carry on.

Incidentally, for those not caught in a semantic snare because of some need to portray the missionary effort as just people innocently talking in all innocence and mercy, blah, blah, blah, the missionaries believe that their position on God, Jesus, the Book of Mormon etc. is the correct one from the emotional experience they supposedly had and obviously, painfully so, want the world to agree with them by having the same controlled experience that they are taught to control for the targets. If you don't get the same controlled experience, then you didn't do it correctly, they'll say, blah, blah, blah, or weren't sincere, blah, blah, blah, or had sins that you wanted to continue, blah, blah, blah.

The above is obvious to the world at large but not to the those caught up in motivated reasoning.

I wonder if/how the practice of missionary work might change if there were no push for people to agree with the missionaries' position. Would there still be a "numbers" push, or would MPs be satisfied with reports of the quality of discussions (real discussions, that is) in which "people {} seek the truth and ask God for answers to questions".

[MG 2.0]

I guess semantics strikes again. Carry on.

Incidentally, for those not caught in a semantic snare because of some need to portray the missionary effort as just people innocently talking in all innocence and mercy, blah, blah, blah, the missionaries believe that their position on God, Jesus, the Book of Mormon etc. is the correct one from the emotional experience they supposedly had and obviously, painfully so, want the world to agree with them by having the same controlled experience that they are taught to control for the targets. If you don't get the same controlled experience, then you didn't do it correctly, they'll say, blah, blah, blah, or weren't sincere, blah, blah, blah, or had sins that you wanted to continue, blah, blah, blah.

The above is obvious to the world at large but not to the those caught up in motivated reasoning.

I wonder if/how the practice of missionary work might change if there were no push for people to agree with the missionaries' position. Would there still be a "numbers" push, or would MPs be satisfied with reports of the quality of discussions (real discussions, that is) in which "people {} seek the truth and ask God for answers to questions".

Again, I don't think there is any "push for people to agree with missionaries' position'. That was what Exiled was trying to push.

On the other hand, I see critics expending a great deal of energy to push people to agree with them...and if they don't, shame on them for being dupes, etc.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

And here, by contrast, is an unpretentious but nearly perfect chiastic selection from Joseph Smith's own place and time. It was surely written naturally without any conscious attempt at chiasmus by a non-Mormon woman in 1831. She lived about fifteen miles from Fayette, New York where the Book of Mormon dictation had been completed less than two years earlier. First, the passage in which the chiasmus is found (original spelling preserved):

. . . and now my dear young freinds who think you have latly experenced the love of God in your hearts and who once like your unworthy cousen was persuing the follys and vanitys of this vain world let me ask you if you ever found any thing to be compared with joy and satisfaction you now experence no methinks i hear you say i never knew what real happiness was before o could the whole world but know the comfort and satisfaction the saint enjoys in one hours communion with God how soon would this vain world lose its charms . . .

And here is the chiastic portion from above, arranged below for easy recognition without any cherry-picking and without omitting a single word from the relevant portion:

and who once like your unworthy cousen was persuing the follys [1]

---and vanitys of this vain world [2]

------let me ask you if you ever found any thing to be compared with joy [3]

---------and satisfaction [4] you now experence

------------no methinks i hear you say i never knew [5]

---------------what real HAPPINESS [6] was before

------------o could the whole world but know [5]

---------the comfort and satisfaction [4]

------the saint enjoys [3] in one hours communion with God

---how soon would this vain world [2]

lose its charms [1] . . .

This comes from my Mormon Parallels entry 370, https://09630705-d10a-4916-94e1-927ced7 ... 35e333.pdf, with an illustration of the original handwriting of one Betsey Searl in North Lansing, Tompkins County, New York on May 9, 1831. For other examples of American chiasmus, see Mormon Parallels entry 193 (Gilbert Hunt) which I link in an earlier reply on this thread. (And again I would emphasize that the latter entry illustrates in color coding of Alma 36 that a vision of God is omitted in a faith-promoting chiasmus diagram because it does not fit the needed symmetrical pattern claimed.)

A lovely example! Clearly, Smith was of his time, and wrote his story accordingly. in my opinion not as eloquently as your Fayette citizen, but still. He tried.

[sock puppet]

The story of Abinadi seems to be a good example of Joseph plagiarising (or “inspired by” if you prefer) a source that he had available to him. See Here for the specific side by side comparison.

And then you’ve entire sections of The Bible that have been directly copied into The Book of Mormon, including errors that were made in the KJV Bible at the time it was put together, and which are found in The Book of Mormon verbatim - which is the smokiest of smoking guns. There is no explanation for those errors etc appearing in The Book of Mormon except that it was lifted, directly, from a KJV Bible that Joseph or another had at hand.

And so it is that DCP exemplifies a fine attribute of Joseph Smith, Jr.: plagiarism.

[MG 2.0]

Imagine how much more productive the scene would be if instead of being apologists holding to dogma, they were scholars of religion able to suspend their preconceptions and hold to truth. I hadn’t heard about these sources on Biblical parallelism in Mr Smith’s day. It’s a wonderful revelation! It’s things like this that keep me going back to the book; it’s at the very least complex and fascinating.

This is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested. When you have "suspended your preconceptions' and "held to truth"...what is that truth?

Flesh it out in a way that the average guy might say, "My gosh, that's the truth! Why did I not recognize it before!"

Who knows, you might have a potential convert here. I'm open.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Imagine how much more productive the scene would be if instead of being apologists holding to dogma, they were scholars of religion able to suspend their preconceptions and hold to truth. I hadn’t heard about these sources on Biblical parallelism in Mr Smith’s day. It’s a wonderful revelation! It’s things like this that keep me going back to the book; it’s at the very least complex and fascinating.

This is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested. When you have "suspended your preconceptions' and "held to truth"...what is that truth?

Flesh it out in a way that the average guy might say, "My gosh, that's the truth! Why did I not recognize it before!"

Who knows, you might have a potential convert here. I'm open.

Regards,
MG

Ego, don't feed the troll. MG never answers questions from others. I've been trying to get MG to just answer this simple question, but he never will.

If I'm any example, even though I was born into the LDS Church, I did NOT take its doctrines seriously until I went through a lengthy investigation process over a long period of time. I had Mormon parents.

MG,

What other religions (out of thousands) were also subjected to a rigorous, thorough and "lengthy investigation process over a long period of time" by you?

*Bump for MG*

[Dr Exiled]

I guess semantics strikes again. Carry on.

Incidentally, for those not caught in a semantic snare because of some need to portray the missionary effort as just people innocently talking in all innocence and mercy, blah, blah, blah, the missionaries believe that their position on God, Jesus, the Book of Mormon etc. is the correct one from the emotional experience they supposedly had and obviously, painfully so, want the world to agree with them by having the same controlled experience that they are taught to control for the targets. If you don't get the same controlled experience, then you didn't do it correctly, they'll say, blah, blah, blah, or weren't sincere, blah, blah, blah, or had sins that you wanted to continue, blah, blah, blah.

The above is obvious to the world at large but not to the those caught up in motivated reasoning.

I wonder if/how the practice of missionary work might change if there were no push for people to agree with the missionaries' position. Would there still be a "numbers" push, or would MPs be satisfied with reports of the quality of discussions (real discussions, that is) in which "people {} seek the truth and ask God for answers to questions".

It's sales techniques as Pres. Benson said were fine to use. It's a tithing investment scheme where numbers analysis of the converts/tithing paid number is a key number and probably everything revolves around that number. I think that means that regardless of what comes before, the ultimate goal is to increase tithing paid per convert and member. So, perhaps that means truth is whatever makes that happen. But there is a deep seated emotional rejection of being a virus or perhaps part of a ponzi scheme virus and knowing that the leadership wanted an attack on the targets like a virus would do. So, get with the program soldier, spartan. Shut up and sell, sell sell. I think that's why there was a deep rejection of the sales scheme by missionaries, at least when I was out there and in the fold. We had to periodically sell the missionaries on the sales when we were barnstorming around with the mission president.

So, to answer your question, yes, perhaps something real would result if there weren't the pressure to get people to join. Sales took over whatever "real" there was.

[MG 2.0]

MG never answers questions from others.

Sure I do. But just as IHQ, Marcus, and others selectively answer questions from me...I do the same. By the way, I do have an answer to your repeated question.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Imagine how much more productive the scene would be if instead of being apologists holding to dogma, they were scholars of religion able to suspend their preconceptions and hold to truth. I hadn’t heard about these sources on Biblical parallelism in Mr Smith’s day. It’s a wonderful revelation! It’s things like this that keep me going back to the book; it’s at the very least complex and fascinating.

This is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested. When you have "suspended your preconceptions' and "held to truth"...what is that truth?

Flesh it out in a way that the average guy might say, "My gosh, that's the truth! Why did I not recognize it before!"

Who knows, you might have a potential convert here. I'm open.

Regards,
MG

I am interested if you care to elaborate. I seem to have difficulty getting people around here to express their 'truth'.

Regards,
MG