The exchange between Juliann and cksalmon is of interest:
cks:
As someone said Schryver put it, this is indicative of "working backwards from a testimony." David is not, it would seem, open to even the remote possibility that he is wrong. Per this worldview, as I understand David's comment, it is simply not even (logically?) possible that Mormonism is wrong. No evidence (preponderant or not) can touch that sort of worldview commitment. It's unassailable by even whatever evidence one might deem "objective."
This constitutes an insight into LDS belief claims, with utterly no offense meant, of which I was not completely aware until now.
Juliann:
You are describing your own position.
We have had discussions on this board about having the Book of Mormon proven a fraud, etc. and it has consistently been said it would matter. Certain things are necessary to maintain our theology. That is why there is such a battle for the Book of Mormon. Your insight is demonstrably incorrect.
Multiple LDS have said that certain things must remain in place for them to believe.
Though I’m not preachy about my position, in truth, however, I’m actually a pretty staunch universalist, with a belief that all human beings will eventually progress to the exaltation envisioned within Mormonism.
And who would ever have guessed that Juliann is a universalist:
I think there is ample support for this position and I share it. I don't think exaltation was ever supposed to be a race. You are just supposed to get there, thus parables such as the workers in the vineyard.
Ray A wrote:I believe David did say when he was on here last that he had lost, or was losing interest in apologetics.
I don't know if this is his position
I spent a fair amount of time with David back in November. (Among other things, he had Bill Hamblin and me give a fireside to his Institute students at the Longfellow Park Chapel adjacent to Harvard.) I didn't pick up anything from him that would suggest much of a shift, if any, on the matter.
Does David realize that, by his logic, EVERY religion can be true?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Daniel Peterson wrote:I spent a fair amount of time with David back in November. (Among other things, he had Bill Hamblin and me give a fireside to his Institute students at the Longfellow Park Chapel adjacent to Harvard.) I didn't pick up anything from him that would suggest much of a shift, if any, on the matter.
I've been to the Longfellow Park Chapel (my grad school carrel-mate was the bishop when I visited).
Anyway, last time I talked to David (a few months ago), he told me that he had indeed lost a lot of interest in apologetics. I don't know exactly what he meant by that, but that's what he told me.
