Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[Marcus]

What would you trust to determine if a post is primarily or entirely generated by AI?

An abundance of em dashes and bulleted lists along with vocabulary uncharacteristic of the author.

Oh Shades. Bless your heart.

Am I wrong?

I would call it more insufficient or inadequate, so yes, I suppose that your list qualifies as the wrong thing to trust "to determine if a post is primarily or entirely generated by AI."

[Limnor]

Finding the answer in postmodernists was a thing, and now it's a big thing for the new MI. Kierkegaard was the guy for that teacher. When he got to the the part on Nietzsche, he took a few days off and let his buddy teach the class, as Nietzsche was his guy, and for him the gospel was all about Nietzsche. Later on, after those classes drifted into the past, I discovered there was commotion among Mormon intellectuals about Heidegger and Derrida even more so. Is Mormonism compatible with all these guys? Seems like they've got some things to figure out.

So that guy's interpretation of Alma 32 was based on Kierkegaard. I found it quite inspiring at the time, he was a very good teacher. The only class I ever took where I sat on the front row. I'm very tired at the moment and so I can't think of any details. If something comes to me I'll let you know.

Something I’ve been thinking about, and again I’m asking sincerely with no games, is why rejecting Joseph leads to rejecting Jesus as well. I think I understand that Mormonism ties the two so tightly that they feel like a single package, but I’m not sure that’s required.

Even the teaching of Kierkegaard, for example, at BYU seems off, although I suppose “partial-Kierkegaard” is a method. He treats the relationship to Christ as an inward, existential thing that doesn’t depend on an institution or a founding prophet, so I can understand the a partial Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” application to Alma, but not the rest.

What I’m wondering is if that complete rejection is due to the reliance on seeing Jesus “through” Joseph, or maybe because similar epistemic tools are used for both, so when Joseph fails the other feels suspect too?

How do you see that phenomenon?

[Gadianton]

I'd start first with, how did Kierkegaard manage to be a devout Lutheran who loved the Athanasian Creed and invent existentialism? At the time he wrote either/or he didn't have any issues with the ultra-conservative, stuffy, intellectual state religion of Denmark. Years later he did, and the predictable rebel streak ensued. But I don't believe he rejected the creeds themselves or the church, only the obvious corrupt political stuff. Kierkegaard was stuffy intellectual, not a free-spirited saved-by-grace former crackhead who drove a Trump truck. Either/or is an Apollonian critique of Apollo rather than a Dionysian rebellion.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is the one I reported:

You've made a wonderful effort, and I appreciate your thought process, but the conclusion you've reached is incorrect.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that "reasoned faith" is inadequate both as a form of reasoning due to its avoidance of evidence and as a type of faith because it claims to be rational. In that case, you are merely presenting a false dichotomy, as you are presuming that reason and faith cannot coexist. Do you believe that reason must solely equate to empirical evidence? It can also signify coherence, consistency, and explanatory power.

Why are you dismissing the concept of reasoned faith, portraying it as if it were elusive or insubstantial, when in fact, that couldn't be further from reality. Many defenders offer wellorganized arguments that remain clear and understandable.

And then you introduce a self-contradiction, you claim that reasoned faith is unstable, yet you acknowledge that it is adaptive. Adaptability is not always a lack of clarity, it can also signify strength and resilience. In my conclusion, I would like to summarize this for you. You are right to think that some individuals employ faith rhetorically to avoid difficult questions. However, it is incorrect to view faith and reason as opposites, they can actually complement one another. For thousands of years, humans have utilized both reason and faith to understand life on Earth.

Here is ChatGPT’s verdict with no prompt other than, “Is this AI-generated?”:

Short answer: **It is very likely AI-generated.**

Here’s why:

1. **Style and tone**
The passage has the classic hallmarks of LLM writing. It is overly formal, smooth, and “balanced” in a way humans rarely sustain across multiple paragraphs unless they are editing carefully. Phrases like
*“that couldn’t be further from reality”*
*“in my conclusion, I would like to summarize this for you”*
read like generic template transitions rather than natural speech.

2. **Repetitive argumentative structure**
It keeps restating the same point—that faith and reason coexist—in multiple slightly rephrased ways. This is common in AI responses that try to “cover all bases”.

3. **Mechanical coherence**
Each paragraph follows a neat rhetorical formula:
identify claim → critique it → offer alternative → restate theme.
Humans tend to be more irregular, especially when disagreeing.

4. **Tell-tale phrasing**
Expressions such as *“you are merely presenting a false dichotomy”* and *“why are you dismissing…”* are typical of AI-generated rebuttals trying to sound academic or diplomatic.

None of this is **proof**, but the probability is high.

The HoH is a liar and fraudster. SHADES, DO YOU ABIDE HIS DECEPTIONS?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

The HoH is a liar and fraudster. SHADES, DO YOU ABIDE HIS DECEPTIONS?

The sheer scale of Loran's deception is frankly hard for me to believe. From his silly narrative about driving across the Pacific with his sons in a station wagon, Loran's apparent shift from a traditional Democrat to a raging MAGA/incel and Loran's strange shift from an anti-Mormon newcomer who then inexplicably falls in love with DCP's videos, the whole story is truly staggering.

I refuse to believe that Loran could maintain such a series of blatant lies for such an extended period. I, for one, will choose to believe Loran.

[Limnor]

I'd start first with, how did Kierkegaard manage to be a devout Lutheran who loved the Athanasian Creed and invent existentialism? At the time he wrote either/or he didn't have any issues with the ultra-conservative, stuffy, intellectual state religion of Denmark. Years later he did, and the predictable rebel streak ensued. But I don't believe he rejected the creeds themselves or the church, only the obvious corrupt political stuff. Kierkegaard was stuffy intellectual, not a free-spirited saved-by-grace former crackhead who drove a Trump truck. Either/or is an Apollonian critique of Apollo rather than a Dionysian rebellion.

So I had to look up Apollonian vs Dionysian (and Nietzsche, who I’ve heard about but never studied). You’re right—at least from my power point deep reading—Kierkegaard should be considered an Apollonian critic rather than a rebel looking to burn everything down. He sought reform from within. So now I can’t tell if you meant something deeper with that comparison.

There may be some parallels between the form of Christianity Kierkegaard was seeking to reform, one that had become more social than an inward transformation, and Mormonism. With some very different theological views, naturally.

I’m wondering about the connections. Is there a connection, philosophically, regarding the people who leave Mormonism that end up leaving Jesus too?

If I’m understanding Kierkegaard correctly, the “inner transformation” he talks about doesn’t reject orthodoxy “as such,” he just refuses to let orthodoxy carry the weight of faith. The escape he might offer is not from doctrine but from the idea that doctrine can serve as a substitute for the inward transformation.

Outside Mormonism, Christianity isn’t affected by Joseph. It stands or falls with an individual’s encounter with Christ inwardly, at least as Kierkegaard describes. In his model, orthodoxy can be true or false, but it can never be the thing that saves—only the transformation of the self before God can do that.

So I’m curious if the tendency to throw Jesus out with Joseph happens because, in Mormonism, Jesus isn’t typically encountered apart from the Church’s claims. Once Joseph and the institution fall, there’s nothing left to sustain belief because the person hasn’t experienced that inward thing Kierkegaard thinks is the whole point of Christianity.

I wonder if that might explain why some reject Jesus entirely. That is, they were never given a version of Christianity that didn’t depend on Joseph in the first place.

[Gadianton]

There's a lot in your post. I think it was a good post. For me it's going to be tough to lock inward transformations down to particular creeds or religions while denying it to others, or even making sure the inward transformation paces a given creed. So much about inward transformations seem to happen in the face of breaking the rules. It's almost as if the heart can only be tested in the face of the rules becoming inadequate in some way.

As far as why Mormons ditch Jesus when they leave Mormonism, it's a good question, one that has come up quite a bit on the board. Is it really true? I know several Mormons who left and became "Christians" so to speak. To the extent it is true, I don't know. I've seen some good theories. Analytics once pointed out that Mormons are obsessed with truth, and so they can feel duty bound to break with their faith over the truth, where a lot of religions prioritize tradition.

I tend to think that Mormonism has been influenced enough by humanism that it's hard to go back. Case in point, the three degrees of glory. We like to make fun of the Mormon afterlife around here, but, at the same time, the basic premise that you reap what you sow, yet there are also all kinds of second chances, means that there is a general fairness in the afterlife with many gradations. With Christianity, you've either got extreme bliss with God or a literal lake of fire in hell for all of eternity. It's just absurd and unbelievable if you've been exposed to more humanistic ideas prior. And even becoming Gods -- it's hokey for sure, but, eternal progression has that humanist backbone to it; achieving greater things and having an important job to do. In Christianity, you go to heaven and what, Jesus shares his bliss with you? It's a static scene. I mean, what's the point? Mormonism has kind of a fascinating if fumbling storyline to it, which makes it comparable to sci fi space opera, which makes it relatable to modern people. I think if you grew up with that storyline, going back to Jesus just kind of floating around up there radiating bliss else burn in hell seems primitive.

In my case, my trajectory was more about questioning the Bible and God directly, I didn't follow the normal path of leaving because I found out about all the nonsense in the early church. That added insult to the injury but by that time I was already out.

[Limnor]

I agree that inward transformation is difficult, maybe even impossible, to align to any particular creed. I think Kierkegaard would say it can happen within a tradition or in breaking away from it, depending on what reveals the self most honestly.

I’m also not sure how universal Kierkegaard really is. His entire frame of reference is Christianity and Western thought, so even when he talks about “inwardness” or “the self,” he’s doing it through that lens.

The truth-obsession might fit. When the claims fail, everything tied to them can feel like they’ve failed too. Kierkegaard would probably say that’s the risk of grounding faith in claims rather than inwardness.

I can also see the humanistic point you’re making. If you grow up with eternal progression and a graded afterlife, the heaven/hell binary can feel restrictive and disconnected from anything you can meaningfully do.

So if you set aside the whole “not burning forever” thing, the question is “what is actually beneficial about heaven?” We live our lives growing, achieving, facing challenges, striving. Maybe “rest” from that?

Most of the traditional imagery seems to appeal to comforting people who have suffered loss or pain. But once those are removed, what’s left? Is it consciousness? Creativity? Or just the absence of suffering? Is that enough?

Still thinking about it, but your comments are useful.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Limnor,

Have you ever done a dive into Sufism? There are surprising similarities between the two approaches of inward personal refinement and their ultimate relationship with the divine.

[Limnor]

Limnor,

Have you ever done a dive into Sufism? There are surprising similarities between the two approaches of inward personal refinement and their ultimate relationship with the divine.

Quick comparison (not a deep dive, just 30 minutes this morning of Wikipedia-level study). Sufism seems to teach that God is “present” and “closer than the jugular vein,” but not literally indwelling. It’s more like the heart becomes a mirror that reflects the divine light. That feels similar to how Mormonism talks about the Holy Ghost—not God living inside you, but God somehow being intimately present.

Kierkegaard doesn’t delve into the “how” God lives in believers (literally or metaphorically), but there is something appealing about the idea of a God who actually wants to dwell in His people, even if the practicality is hard to imagine. I mean, really—God dwelling in a person? In me? If He knows me as well as people say, He might want to pick someone a little more righteous.

There are other faith systems in which the God dwells within adherents, and I’ve wondered if I had grown up in India, for example, would Hindu Bhakti be the “truth” to me?