501 replies to this topic

[why me]

reelmormon, on 20 April 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

aren't we supposed to pray if these things are not true? and the holyghost shall manifest the truth of it unto you.  the truth if it's not true.... lol  just kidding play on words... Moroni 10:3-5

Yea, but reading the comments by the mormon haters, I knew that they didn't pray over it nor did they read the book. Or if they did pray, it was a mocking prayer. When the heart is full of contention, difficult for the holy ghost to manifest himself.

[DBMormon]

why me, on 20 April 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

The problem is: there isn't any one answer to the issues you have listed in your post. And the critics would be the first to argue what is said about these issues by the church with their own interpretations and accusations. And you would find yourself back to square one with how the church should acknowledge what they did just a little differently to accommodate the critic interpretation. It would never end.

However the creditability of the three witness and the other 8 witnesses are pretty much intact. The never denied what they saw or felt with their hands. However, when reading the critic sites one would get the impression that these men were duped, tricked and all denied their testimony. Not true. What should the church do? Accommodate the critics and their interpretation?

I don't need answers provided - just an acknowledgment of awareness of it.
Awareness is all I have asked... answers as most have stated are better provided by other organizations.  FAIR SHIELDS FARMS ect...

Edited by reelmormon, 20 April 2012 - 05:34 PM.

[Cobalt-70]

why me, on 20 April 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

This is not true at all. If this were true, it could be claimed that the lds were in a cult. The prophet has direct revelation for the church. However, each member can receive revelation for his or her life and for their family. And this revelation is often personal. The prophet can speak for the church when he claims revelation or speaks as a prophet. Most of what the prophet says during the day or for that matter any GA is personal opinion.

But there is a hierarchy. The father (never the mother, unless the father is absent) might be "the Prophet" of the family. But any knowledge received from God by the father is suspect to the extent that it contradicts knowledge received by "the Prophet" of the church. Ultimately, "the Prophet" of the church is said to have all the keys, including the right to define knowledge for the family and the individual. Thus, in this epistemology, knowledge and power are the same thing.

I say this epistemology conflicts with the mystical epistemology, because under the "follow the Prophet" epistemology, mystical experiences can be subversive--something that Joseph Smith soon found out after he moved from New York to Kirtland in early 1831, and he had to deal with people, other than himself, who were receiving revelations through their own seer stones.

[Cobalt-70]

Brade, on 20 April 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

I agree that those two modes can be in conflict, but I don't go as far as to say that they are inherently paradoxical (that is, with each other), and I think they can work together nicely.  I thought you were going to go a different direction, one which I've outlined before.  I think your first category can be further divided into two types.

They can only work together if one dominates the other. Either the hierarchy is supreme, or mystical experience is supreme, but not both. Today, the hierarchy is supreme, as it has been since early 1831.

Quote

The first type of mystical experience is that one gets direct propositional content from God.  Propositions are, in a sense, beamed directly into the mind, grasped and assented to.  The second type is indirect.  One has an ineffable mystical experience whilst performing a religious activity and the association between the mystical experience and the religious activity somehow picks out specific religious claims and grants the subject reason to believe that the claims are true.

Most people in the Church describe experiences of the second type - e.g. "I had a powerful feeling while reading the Book of Mormon, therefore I know the Book of Mormon is true").  My own experiences were only ever associative in this way.  In fact, it seems to me that a lot of Church material advances the second type as being the nature of most mystical experience (this isn't clear cut, as the language used by people to describe any such model is usually vague and ambiguous).  The problem with this indirect, associative model is sorting out why certain propositions in the environment at the time of any putative experience of this sort should be given preference over any others.  For example, why, upon having a powerful experience while reading King Benjamin's speech, should I conclude that the Book of Mormon is what the Church claims it is and not that merely some general non-religious-specific principles, like charity, are right?

Mormon leaders have made general comments about the first idea. This would be Smith's reference to "pure knowledge," and the contents of his dreams or visions like the First Vision and the visit of Moroni. Once in a while, you hear Mormons have dreams or visions, but it is very rare now. Most of our canon came the other way. In D&C 9, Smith acknowledged that his revelations worked by him figuring out ideas in his own mind, and then receiving a yes or no answer. It is, for sure, an imperfect epistemology, because "maybe," and "you're close, but let me suggest something slightly different..." are excluded as possible answers.

Edited by Cobalt-70, 20 April 2012 - 06:40 PM.

[Xander]

why me, on 20 April 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

Yea, but reading the comments by the mormon haters, I knew that they didn't pray over it nor did they read the book. Or if they did pray, it was a mocking prayer. When the heart is full of contention, difficult for the holy ghost to manifest himself.

Or when your mind is so full of judgment.

You're in no position to state, as a matter of fact, that these people didn't sincerely pray or read. This is just something Mormons like to tell themselves when faced with the undeniable fact that most people who take up the Mormon test of truth, don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries. I told myself the same thing when I was on my mission. Those who join are only those who really prayed and really read. But this is circular reasoning.

Heck I remember in the beginning I wanted the Church to be true so badly, that I deluded myself into thinking any little feeling I had at the time must have been God's answer. I thought the Joseph Smith experience was so cool, I wanted to experience something like it as well. I couldn't wait to go home and pray about it and I had absolute confidence that I'd receive some kind of undeniable experience. In hindsight, I felt nothing that had to be classified as "spiritual."

I confronted my bishop about this and then again when I was at the MTC, but I was always told that God's time isn't necessarily our time, and so he will answer me when he gets around to it. In the meantime, they had no problem with my belief that the Church was true, being based on other things (i.e. the Mormon family made me feel good, I liked the way they treated me, etc).

[selek1]

Xander, on 20 April 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Or when your mind is so full of judgment.

Pot, meet kettle.

Quote

You're in no position to state, as a matter of fact, that these people didn't sincerely pray or read.

True.  Such a pronouncement would be a subjective judgement and may or may not be either substantive or accurate.

We, as Latter-day Saints are not (as a general rule) in a position to judge the sincerity of another's heart.

statement

Quote

This is just something Mormons like to tell themselves when faced with the undeniable fact that most people who take up the Mormon test of truth, don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries.

This statement, too, is an unjustifiable pronouncement of opinion as fact.

There is simply no rationale, objective, scientific means by which you could know this.   Your statement is simply a regurgitation of useful propaganda- though I have no doubt that you are sincere in the hatred behind it.

In point of fact, you can not know that Why Me's statement is "just something Mormons like to tell themselves" nor is the idea that "most people don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries" an undeniable fact.

Both are talking points and statements of (anti-)faith rather than objective truths or facts.

In other words- your complaints are as untenable and unfalsifiable as are Why Me's.  If she is standing in quicksand, then so are you.

Quote

Heck I remember in the beginning I wanted the Church to be true so badly, that I deluded myself into thinking any little feeling I had at the time must have been God's answer. I thought the Joseph Smith experience was so cool, I wanted to experience something like it as well. I couldn't wait to go home and pray about it and I had absolute confidence that I'd receive some kind of undeniable experience. In hindsight, I felt nothing that had to be classified as "spiritual."

  I agree with your self-assessment: there's definitely some self-delusion occuring; primarily in the idea that your position is any more objeectively "true" now than it was when you were a believer.

Edited by selek1, 20 April 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[why me]

Xander, on 20 April 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Or when your mind is so full of judgment.

You're in no position to state, as a matter of fact, that these people didn't sincerely pray or read. This is just something Mormons like to tell themselves when faced with the undeniable fact that most people who take up the Mormon test of truth, don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries.

I actually go by the tone of the posts. If the post is mocking or bashing, I can state that the prayer did not occur or that the poster was so full of vinegar to warrant my conclusion. Unfortunately, a judgement must be made.

Mormons know that if prayers of request are made with sincerity, with an open heart and soul, an answer to a prayer will come and it may not be a burning of the bossom or with any other feeling. But with an experience. But since there is a promise by god in the book of mormon that the answer is yes, then mormons must believe that the feeling or experience will constitute a yes. The person praying just must recognize it. It may not been sooner than latter but latter than sooner. But the heart must sincerely be open. .

Edited by why me, 20 April 2012 - 08:09 PM.

[why me]

selek1, on 20 April 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

In other words- your complaints are as untenable and unfalsifiable as are Why Me's.  If she is standing in quicksand, then so are you.

Except that my quicksand is slower in the submerging. Reading Xander's posts and the spirit which they are seemingly made, one can wager a good guess that if he were never a member and prayed about the book which such a spirit as in his posts, his heart may not be open for the holy ghost to testify or show the truth. He may need an Alma, the younger experience or an experience of Paul to change his mind.

And that was my point to. There was a reason that the lord needed to interfere with the younger Alma and with Paul with the way that he did. Too much vinegar in the blood and not enough sugar.

[selek1]

why me, on 20 April 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Except that my quicksand is slower in the submerging. Reading Xander's posts and the spirit which they are seemingly made, one can wager a good guess that if he were never a member and prayed about the book which such a spirit as in his posts, his heart may not be open for the holy ghost to testify or show the truth. He may need an Alma, the younger experience or an experience of Paul to change his mind.

And that was my point to. There was a reason that the lord needed to interfere with the younger Alma and with Paul with the way that he did. Too much vinegar in the blood and not enough sugar.

Actually- my first impulse was to suggest that Xander was up to his chin in a semi-solid substance other than quicksand, but I decided to be nice.

And you are quite correct: while we cannot objective KNOW what is in another's heart, we can make educated guesses based on conduct, statements made, and the arguments they put forward.

[Log]

selek1, on 20 April 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

And you are quite correct: while we cannot objective KNOW what is in another's heart, we can make educated guesses based on conduct, statements made, and the arguments they put forward.

Only if you've been there.

[Xander]

Quote

True. Such a pronouncement would be a subjective judgement and may or may not be either substantive or accurate.
We, as Latter-day Saints are not (as a general rule) in a position to judge the sincerity of another's heart.

And yet this is what you do regularly without fail.  Whyme's quip is but one example of many that could be pointed out, as is your attempt to defend him while simultaneously conceding that he doing precisely what I said he was doing. Surely you can come up with something better than "you do it too"? You're clearly less concerned that a fellow Mormon is engaging in baseless judgment of others and you're clearly more concerned about the fact that an ex-Mormon is pointing it out.

Quote

This statement, too, is an unjustifiable pronouncement of opinion as fact

Wrong. I already pointed out that as a faithful member who once tried to make sense of these facts, I rationalized along the same lines. Of course we liked to tell ourselves these things. It made the problem magically disappear because it required no real explanation beyond judging the rest of the world as insincere. It is a standard Mormon response to the uncomfortable fact that most people do not join the Church, despite having gone through all the motions with the missionaries.

Quote

There is simply no rationale, objective, scientific means by which you could know this.

Sure there is. Why me is a Mormon, and he naturally follows Mormon teaching. LDS doctrine states  that God will answer in the affirmative, only those who are sincere. Therefore, my argument is perfectly sound. Here is a recent excerpt from the Liahona:

Quote

To all who wonder if such a thing can be—who might ask, “Is it possible that God speaks to us today?”—with all my heart I invite you to “come and see” (John 1:46). Read the word of God as found in the scriptures. Listen to general conference with an ear willing to hear the voice of God given through His latter-day prophets. Come, hear, and see with your heart! For if you seek “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, [God] will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Moroni 10:4). By and through this power, I know that Jesus Christ lives and directs His Church through a living prophet, even President Thomas S. Monson.

Given this theological premise adopted by Mormons everywhere, the only logical way to make sense of this is to conclude that those non-LDS who claim to have prayed and/or read, didn't really do so sincerely. You see, according to Mormon doctrine, problems receiving an answer can never be due to a deficiency with the proposed system, because that would make God a liar. The deficiency must therefore be found in presumed weaknesses of those involved in the process. And as Mormon doctrine states, only those with a sincere heart will be told the truth about Mormonism. The Elders never tell a prospective convert that prayer will "maybe" help them, if they're lucky enough to catch God on a day when he isn't too busy. No. They in fact guarantee that an answer will come so long as you read and pray with a sincere heart.

Quote

In point of fact, you can not know that Why Me's statement is "just something Mormons like to tell themselves" nor is the idea that "most people don't receive the answers promised by the missionaries" an undeniable fact.

Wrong again. The latter is clearly an undeniable fact, as most people who read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, don't end up getting baptized - and most of those who do, end up leaving at some point. The only evidence you have against it is with the very same psychoanalyses you just discredited. So which is it going to be? The first statement is based on my own experience in the Church. I spent enough time in the Church, in enough missions, with enough missionaries, in enough states and in enough countries, to know that this is a common rationale by Mormons. It isn't based on anything more than Mormon scripture and the assumption that this scripture must be true.

Quote

Both are talking points and statements of (anti-)faith rather than objective truths or facts.

Nonsense. Why Me's judgment is a necessary judgment based on the Mormon premise explained above. All I did was point out the fact that he is in fact judging based on nothing but the Mormon's desire to make sense of the fact that most people who do pray, don't join the Church. Billions of non-Mormons pray to God every day, and yet it is funny how none of them are ever told by him to go find his one True Church. Either it must not be that important to God, or they have no real communication with God. Thanks to Mormon doctrine, LDS members are required to pass judgment on others. The irony here is that you don't even seem to realize it, and that it is why you and why me continue to label everyone else a "hater." Why do you think we hate? Because the Church tells you so. Years ago there was a thread on this forum discussing whether or not a person could leave the Church for intellectual reasons. Without exception, the group of Mormons here went on their personal rants about how every apostate they know in real life left the Church because they wanted to sin on some level. Of course, this is also how the Church tells you to think about apostates. So you just accept it, assume that false caricature and act accordingly as judges, all the while pretending to be some kind of victim.

Case in point. All I did here was point out why why me's statement was a judgment on others. No Mormon here would have spoken up because he is a fellow believer, and the unspoken rule here is that apologists don't turn on their own. But now that I've brought the matter to the table for examination, the only way you're willing to address it is by attacking me.

Quote

I agree with your self-assessment: there's definitely some self-delusion occuring; primarily in the idea that your position is any more objeectively "true" now than it was when you were a believer

Wrong. Now I base my beliefs on what's actually true, whereas before I based them on what I wanted to be true. I still want the church to be true sometimes, but it isn't.  And I no longer have to perform mental gymnastics with myself just to make it through the day. It was a very tough decision and process to endure, and until you go through it yourself, all you're doing is passing judgment on that which you know nothing about. But that's OK I guess, since your religious teaching requires that you judge others accordingly.

Edited by Xander, 20 April 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[why me]

Log, on 20 April 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Only if you've been there.

It is good to use the sociological imagination when considering tone, result and experience.

Sociologists differ in their understanding of the concept, but the range suggests several important commonalities.
Mills defined sociological imagination as "the vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society." Sociological Imagination: The application of imaginative thought to the asking and answering of sociological questions. Someone using the sociological imagination "thinks himself away" from the familiar routines of daily life. (Glidden A12)

http://en.wikipedia....cal_imagination

If church members would use the sociological imagination when investigating lds history, it can be very faith promoting because it does allow one to think themselves away from the more familiar routines and it draws a correlation between experience and our wider society. It also primes our imagination to go into the past and view that wider society based on the experience of the people who lived at that time.

[Log]

My point is if you haven't experienced what Xander has, you are unable to accurately guess at, or judge, the contents of his heart, because you quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

Another way to illustrate my point is this: I, being male, cannot accurately guess what it feels like to experience giving birth.  Screaming means there's some kind of pain involved, I guess, but that's the end of my educated guesses.

Edited by Log, 20 April 2012 - 11:16 PM.

[Xander]

Quote

And you are quite correct: while we cannot objective KNOW what is in another's heart, we can make educated guesses based on conduct, statements made, and the arguments they put forward.

But that isn't what you're doing. You make judgments, not guesses, and you do so in absolute terms based on expectations, not conduct. In LDS thought, once the identity has been pin-pointed as apostate, then all else can be dismissed because that person is just bitter, immoral, hateful, etc.

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism,

The most frequent causes of apostasy are failure to maintain strict standards of morality, taking personal offense (real or perceived), marrying someone who is of another faith or who is irreligious, neglecting to pray and maintain spirituality, or misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church.

Since there is simply no rationale, objective, scientific means by which the Church could know this, all that is left is baseless judgment and/or a need to believe it is true. And if the Church leads by example, it encourages all members to judge accordingly.

Edited by Xander, 20 April 2012 - 11:22 PM.

[why me]

Log, on 20 April 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

My point is if you haven't experienced what Xander has, you are unable to accurately guess at, or judge, the contents of his heart, because you quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

Another way to illustrate my point is this: I, being male, cannot accurately guess what it feels like to experience giving birth.  Screaming means there's some kind of pain involved, I guess, but that's the end of my educated guesses.

Here is more from the same website:

The sociological imagination is the ability to see things socially and how they interact and influence each other. To have a sociological imagination, a person must be able to pull away from the situation and think from an alternative point of view. It requires to "think ourselves away from our daily routines and look at them anew". To acquire knowledge, it is important to break free from the immediacy of personal circumstances and put things into a wider context, rather than following a routine. The actions of people are much more important than the acts themselves.

Although this comes from the wiki, it actually originates with anthony giddens textbook: Sociology.

In order to experience or empathize for the wife giving birth, one can use their sociological imagination and begin the inquiry of imagination of what it must be to experience it. This leads to a better understanding.

Edited by why me, 20 April 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[selek1]

Part One:

Xander, on 20 April 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

You're clearly less concerned that a fellow Mormon is engaging in baseless judgment of others and you're clearly more concerned about the fact that an ex-Mormon is pointing it out.

Yet another mind-reading failure.  As usual, your supposition is 180^O off from reality.

Quote

I already pointed out that as a faithful member who once tried to make sense of these facts, I rationalized along the same lines.

That YOU rationalized along these lines does not mean that every Mormon does.  Nor does it prove that the rationalization is universally false.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion.

As such, your attempt to dismiss it as "just something Mormons tell themselves" is a statement of faith, not fact.

Quote

It is a standard Mormon response to the uncomfortable fact that most people do not join the Church, despite having gone through all the motions with the missionaries.

In point of fact, you are simply regurgitating the same propaganda point, hoping that the accusation will stick.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion.

Quote

Sure there is. Why me is a Mormon, and he naturally follows Mormon doctrine.

I'm not sure if this is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy or just an inept attempt at well-poisoning.

In either case, you cannot simply disqualify WhyMe because he/she is a Mormon- any more than someone can be dismissed out of hand for being non-Mormon.

Quote

Given this theological premise adopted by Mormons everywhere, the only logical way to make sense of this is to conclude that those non-LDS who claim to have prayed and/or read, didn't really do so sincerely.

Nonsense. This is yet another mind reading failure, and a bigoted, baseless assertion.

You are deliberately and hatefully painting a false dichotomy- an either/or decision that lies only the blackest depths of a rigid, hateful, uncritical mind.

The Latter-day Saints as a people are not bound by this false dichotomy, no matter how much you project your methods upon us.

Quote

You see, according to Mormon doctrine, problems receiving an answer can never be due to a deficiency with the proposed system, because that would make God a liar.

  Yet another false dichotomy, offered for polemical purposes.

Faithful Mormons are not constrained to see the lack of an immediate answer as either 1) proof of an insincere heart, or 2) as a problem with "the system".

Nor was WhyMe attempting to make such an argument.

Despite your attempt to straighjacket us with your own preconceptions, we are open to many other possibilites.

Quote

The deficiency must therefore be found in presumed weaknesses of those involved in the process.

Sorry- but this is your particular tar baby- not ours.

Quote

And as Mormon doctrine states, only those with a sincere heart will be told the truth about Mormonism.

True.  But we don't assume that a qualifier is also a guarantee.

We accept- and teach- that only those who ask in sincerity and faith will receive an answer.  We do not, however, presume to put God on speed-dial.  

Nothing in Mormon thought or theology implies that God is is some sort of vending machine who responds to every prayer/quarter with an instant/automatic answer.

That requirement is one that you insist on imposing us in order to advance your agenda.

It is not something we teach or believe.

Quote

The Elders never tell a prospective convert that prayer will "maybe" help them, if they're lucky enough to catch God on a day when he isn't too busy. No. They in fact guarantee that an answer will come so long as you read and pray with a sincere heart.

Again- this is a false characterization, made out of malice and spite.

And as they say in my neck of the woods, "That dog just won't hunt."

[selek1]

Part Two:

Quote

The latter is clearly an undeniable fact, as most people who read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, don't end up getting baptized.

That most people who read the Book of Mormon and pray about it don't get baptized is a matter of debate and qualification.

Even granting that questionable premise, however, your statement is simply logically untenable.

There are myriad reasons why a potential convert might fail to be baptized. That they failed to receive Moroni's promise is only one possibility.

That being the case, your assertion that a failure to be baptized is automagically proof that Moroni's promise failed is a non sequitor.

You simply have no logical, empirical, or objective basis to make such a claim.

Quote

The only evidence you have against it is with the very same psychoanalyses you just discredited.

Wrong again.

Quote

So which is it going to be? The first statement is based on my own experience in the Church. I spent enough time in the Church, in enough missions, with enough missionaries, in enough states and in enough countries, to know that this is a common rationale by Mormons.

The problem with this statement is two fold:

First, you're shifting the goal posts. You didn't argue that it was a common rationale among Mormons. You argued that it was "just something Mormons told themselves." Your argument above represents a retreat from the latter position.

Second, your own credibility is questionable. You are clearly a hostile witness in every sense of the word- and have been proven incorrect and ideologically blinded on a number of points before hand.

You have demonstrably revised your rationales and accounts on more than one occasion.

As such- and in the absence of objective evidence to support your claims- we are simply under no obligation to take your interpretation and recollections as proof of what you claim.

Quote

Nonsense. Why Me's judgment is a necessary judgment based on the Mormon premise explained above.

As has been amply demonstrated, this is false. While you insist that we must choose one of your poisoned pellets or the other, it simply isn't so. We are not bound by the false dichotomy you insist upon.

Quote

All I did was point out the fact that he is in fact judging based on nothing but the Mormon's desire to make sense of the fact that most people who do pray, don't join the Church.

Incorrect and false. You attempted to impose your interpretation of that evidence upon us.

Neither WhyMe nor the rest of the faithful Latter-day Saints are bound by your interpretation.

In point of fact, you are deliberately mischaracterizing WhyMe's position. He/she (and I really should get that question clarified) is not and has not argued that the lack of an answer to prayer is automatic or irrefutable evidence of an insincere heart.

Quote

Yea, but reading the comments by the mormon haters, I knew that they didn't pray over it nor did they read the book. Or if they did pray, it was a mocking prayer. When the heart is full of contention, difficult for the holy ghost to manifest himself.

His/her argument is instead that mockery, derision, and hateful comments towards Moroni's promise automagitally disqualify them from its fulfillment.

The mockery and condescension offered- not the lack of an answer- are the evidence of an insincere heart.

Quote

Billions of non-Mormons pray to God every day, and yet it is funny how none of them are ever told by him to go find his one True Church.

Again- this bit of attempted mind-reading is something you cannot possibly know.

Not being God, you cannot possibly know what he is (or is not) telling people.

Quote

Either it must not be that important to God, or they have no real communication with God.

This is another false dichotomy, identical in scope and substance to the first- and just as meaningless.

Quote

Thanks to Mormon doctrine, LDS members are required to pass judgment on others.

This is a deliberate falsehood. Call For References.

Quote

The irony here is that you don't even seem to realize it, and that it is why you and why me continue to label everyone else a "hater." Why do you think we hate? Because the Church tells you so.

Utter rot. I consider you a "hater" because you consistently choose the least charitable and most hateful interpretation of the evidence.

I consider you a "hater" because you routinely condescend to, insult, dismiss, and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

I consider you a "hater" because mockery, derision, condescension, and slander are your only recourse.

I consider you a "hater" becuase you consistently and deliberately assume the worst in others around you.

I consider you a "hater" because you consistently accuse others of the very behaviors you embody.

I don't consider you a hater because we disagree- but because you consider everyone who disagrees with you to be "less" than you.

Quote

Wrong. Now I base my beliefs on what's actually true, instead of what I want to be true.

Yet another statement of faith and unfounded self-congratulations.

Quote

I don't have to perform mental gymnastics just to make it through the day.

Nor do I- nor do most people of my acquaintance.

Your insinuation is that the faithful are required to perform such gymnastic is based upon prejudice, rather than fact.

Unfortunately, that particular intellectual promontory doesn't make you special or right.

It simply makes you complacent.

Edited by selek1, 20 April 2012 - 11:34 PM.

[why me]

Xander, on 20 April 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

But that isn't what you're doing. You make judgments, not guesses, and you do so in absolute terms based on expectations, not conduct. In LDS thought, once the identity has been pin-pointed as apostate, then all else can be dismissed because that person is just bitter, immoral, hateful, etc.

Thus, I exercise my sociological imagination to think myself away from my familiar routines to see things anew. And then, through critical inquiry, I can make an educated guess.

[Xander]

Part one

Quote

Yet another mind-reading failure. As usual, your supposition is 180 off from reality.

Let's see. Whyme passes judgment on people who claim to have read and prayed. You offer no objection to that. I point out that he is judging others and then suddenly you decide to object by claiming I'm a hypocrite. I'm content to let the readers decide how much "mind-reading" is needed here in determining what's really troubling you.

Quote

That YOU rationalized along these lines does not mean that every Mormon does. Nor does it prove that the rationalization is universally false.

I didn't say that now did I? That I rationalized along those lines as a faithful member is just consistent with the fact that Mormons generally follow their religious teaching (that insincerity is a reason God doesn't answer us). And it is consistent with virtually everything I've heard from other former members who bear their own testimonies about their experiences. Does this constitute scientific proof? Of course not. But virtually nothing on these forums is scientifically proven, including the rhetoric that oozes from your own posts. But you have no problem with LDS folks asserting facts that have not been proven beyond all doubt. You know, things like "the fact is, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God." Or the "fact that the church is true," etc.  Funny how these frequently asserted statements are never qualified or downgraded as mere faith statements. I highly doubt you're going to stand up during the next testimony sacrament and complain that everyone keeps saying the Church is true. I mean, it is a point of fact that they have no objective, empirical proof for this assertion. Right?

Quote

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion.

It would help if you understood what an assertion was becuase I never asserted this.

Quote

As such, your attempt to dismiss it as "just something Mormons tell themselves" is a statement of faith, not fact

That's a non sequitur. It is a fact that Mormons like to tell themselves these things that their Church has taught them to be true. Why wouldn't they? When the Church assures them that God only speaks about Mormonism's truths to the truly sincere (meaning everyone else who prays is insincere) it places them in an elite class in the eyes of their Church and God. It also conveniently explains away the sad fact that most people who read and pray with the missionaries, do not end up joining the Church. People in general would rather blame others for their own woes, instead of entertaining the possibility that some variable in their religious worldview has gone amiss.

Quote

In point of fact, you are simply regurgitating the same propaganda point, hoping that the accusation will stick.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion that I am hoping for such a thing. It isn't a "propaganda point" to state facts. Just because they are uncomfortable to you, doesn't make them less factual. Of course you're free to prove me wrong by providing a rational explanation as to why anyone (let alone most of the hundreds of thousands) being taught by the missionaries would receive an answer that the Church is true, and yet refuse to be baptized at some point.  I suppose it is technically "possible" that some evil anti-Mormon kidnapped the investigator's family and threatened to kill them if he or she ever joined the Church. That I suppose, would count as an example you're looking for, but I think it highly unlikely. Even so, you'd have to come up with a few hundred thousand crazy scenarios like this one (where people who know the Church to be true insist on not joining it for "other" reasons) before your argument could ever hope to approach plausibility. These are the kinds of mental gymnastics I waved bye-bye to a long time ago.

Quote

I'm not sure if this is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy or just an inept attempt at well-poisoning.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion that my anecdote was intended to be either. It was simply evidence to support my premise that Whyme's judgment wasn't born in a vacuum. He is acting precisely as one might expect a faithful, apologetic-minded Mormon to act; by following LDS teaching on the subject. Thus, those critics who claim to have prayed, are really lying about their sincerity. This is perfectly consistent with the kind of thinking that is shaped through Mormon teachings about apostates.

Edited by Xander, 21 April 2012 - 02:19 AM.

[Xander]

Part Two

Quote

Nonsense. This is yet another mind reading failure, and a bigoted, baseless assertion.

Ah, I was wondering how long before you threw that word out there. In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion that I am a bigot.  To say my assertion is baseless is just stunning.. I've quoted your own scripture in detail and even provided an excerpt from your Church's publication. And yet taking this teaching to its logical conclusion makes me a bigot?

You see, this kind of rhetoric is easy to spew, but making an argument to the contray requires some actual thinking. If my assertion isn't logical, then you need to explain why. So far all you have done is assert.

Now to be clear, my argument is that Moroni's promise teaches members that sincerity is a necessary requirement before obtaining an answer from God. Thus, when people pray and do not receive an answer, they are frequently told that they are lacking some degree of faith and/or sincerity. This is a logical inference from the scripture and a standard teaching in Mormonism. For you to sit there and deny this, as a Mormon apologist no less, is truly embarrassing for the Church. Good call on pseudonymous posting.

Quote

The Latter-day Saints as a people are not bound by this false dichotomy, no matter how much you project your methods upon us.

It isn't a false dichotomy, and you haven't even begun to explain how it must be. My "method" for determining Mormon teaching involves taking Mormon scripture, Mormon teachings and my experience as a Mormon, together into consideration. Yours involves... what? Your say-so? Latter-day Saints are supposed to be bound by LDS teaching, and this is precisely what is taught. If there is some other apologetic spin on this scripture I don't know about, then by all means enlighten us. Either way, the apologists don't make doctrine - much to their chagrin - the church does.

Quote

Faithful Mormons are not constrained to see the lack of an immediate answer as either 1) proof of an insincere heart, or 2) as a problem with "the system".

Who said anything about being "constrained"? And who said anything about what Mormons must see? I'm telling you that this is taking this teaching to its logical end, no matter who does it. This is really simple. If people do not receive answers, then the fault can only be found with them or with the proposed method. What's left, if God cannot be at fault?

Quote

Nor was WhyMe attempting to make such an argument.

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your suggestion that I ever said he was. You're having a difficult time keeping up, huh?

Quote

Despite your attempt to straighjacket us with your own preconceptions, we are open to many other possibilites.

If you could step outside your victim role for two seconds and drop all of this "persecuted me" jargon, then maybe you'd see that I've never tried to "straightjacket" anyone into anything. I'm telling you what Mormonism teaches. That you choose to interpret these teachings in another way is your prerogative.

Quote

Sorry- but this is your particular tar baby- not ours.

Ours? Who the heck are you anyway? You do not speak for the Church. I let the Church speak for itself. What I say in this thread resonates with every Mormon and ex-Mormon I know. You haven't even begun to offer a variant interpretation of these scriptures; all you've done is accuse me of trying to coerce others into believing a skewed interpretation, as if I never genuinely believed this interpretation to be a valid representation of Mormon teaching. Frankly, I'm shocked that this teaching seems so alien to you. Sincerity is a key factor in receive an answer from God. This has always been standard Mormon teaching. It is taught every day to prospective converts throughout the globe. I never thought I'd have to "straightjacket" a fellow LDS believer into a well established tenet such as this. I think you're arguing against every nano-comment just for the sake of arguing.

Quote

True. But we don't assume that a qualifier is also a guarantee.

It is guaranteed when coupled with "faith in Christ," which provides a double-whammy for Christians who claim to pray about the Church; apologists can say that not only were they insincere, but they also lacked faith in Christ. Either way, the point here is that judgment is required by Mormons; judgment you supposedly condemned.

Quote

We accept- and teach- that only those who ask in sincerity and faith will receive an answer. We do not, however, presume to put God on speed-dial.

Uh, isn't that what I just said with my own experience? I know being the victim is exhausting, but please try to pay attention. I said I was told that God answers when he gets around to it, even years after I was baptized.

Quote

Nothing in Mormon thought or theology implies that God is is some sort of vending machine who responds to every prayer/quarter with an instant/automatic answer

In point of fact, you have no objective, empiral proof of your assertion that I ever said anything about God providing an "automatic" answer. Though now that you bring it up, that is precisely what missionaries tell their investigators. Do you think for a second that a missionary is going to let a prospective convert slip through their fingers after the initial prayer, because they're just not sure if those good feelings they felt was God answering them? As a former missionary, I can tell you that we were taught to tell these people that good feelings was synonymous with God's answer. We would immediately pull out Galatians 5:22 and start going down the list asking them if this is what they felt. If they said yes to any of them, we'd go "You see, that's God telling you the Church is true."

Quote

That requirement is one that you insist on imposing us in order to advance your agenda.
It is not something we teach or believe.

It is something taught by every missionary in the field yesterday, today and probably tomorrow. That you do not understand this is unfortunate.

Quote

Again- this is a false characterization, made out of malice and spite.

It is a fact, based on Mormon teachings and scriptures. It is standard MTC protocol to get the investigator to pray as soon as possible to get an answer from God. Because only then can that person be "dunked" and put on Church membership lists. When I was serving in Spain and Anaheim, we were told to get the investigator to commit to baptism by the end of the second discussion. Recently I was told by the sister missionaries that times have changed, and now they are instructed to push for a commitment during the first discussion. I recommend you go sit in on a class at the MTC one day or talk to your local missionaries; and spend less time reading online apologetics which is the only endeavor I see that's trying to get others to accept an agenda-driven interpretation of Mormon teachings and practices.