501 replies to this topic

[Xander]

Quote

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

No it is a matter of fact and anyone who has served a mission understands this to be true. The only reason to question it is based in the false judgment you supposedly condemned. Meaning, you have to assume that most of those people weren't really praying or really reading. This seems highly unlikely. One should think that anyone willing to sit down for a few hours with missionaries from any Church, would be genuinely interested in what they had to say. There is no reason to assume they're going to lie to them when they accept the challenge to read and pray (which most do). That's an assumption apologists make whenever they are confronted with the uncomfortable truth that most people who pray about the Church don't get an answer in the affirmative (many claim an answer in the negative, but of course they're liars too).

Quote

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

Argument via assertion. I've already explained the logic, twice now. That you do not understand or accept it is unfortunate.

Quote

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.

You're suggesting that number of unbaptized folks who received an answer from God that the Church is true, is more than 50% (remember I said most) of those who have been taught? I served in two missions and cannot think of a single example when someone said they received an answer, but couldn't be baptized due to "other reasons" you assume to be so prevalent among investigators. I'm not denying that there are possible exceptions here. I'm just rejecting your suggestion that these exceptions cover more than 50%. In reality I'd say these cases are remote, representing less than 2%.

Quote

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

It is a logical induction of the facts that most people do not receive such an answer. Note that I said "most." It is now your job to explain your logic in assuming hundreds of thousands of believers in Mormonism, refuse to get baptized every year. Saying it is "possible" isn't an argument.

Quote

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

Allow me to introduce you to inductive logic.

Quote

Wrong again.

As you introduce me to argument via assertion again.

Quote

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.

Your failure to understand the meaning of the phrase is hardly my problem. Mormons do in fact like to tell themselves these things, and they like it for the reasons already explained. You seem to think these are mutually exclusive statements, when in fact they are not. Mormons like to tell themselves these things because 1. it serves as a convenient apologetic rationale and 2. it is standard Mormon teaching. There is no problem in my argument nor is there a shift in the goal posts.

Quote

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.

This is a false statement entirely. I've never been proven wrong by you or anyone else on this forum and I would happily admit it if I were. All you are doing here is using the frequently played card of poisoning the well and leaving it to a popularity contest on your home forum. I mean, really? Because I disagree with your worldview and offer a different perspective as a former member, to you this must be interpreted as "hostile" from the get-go. You'd probably be upset to know that there are a number of people on your side of the fence who disagree completely with your knee-jerk judgment of me. In any event, your reasons for doing this are not grounded in a rational, objective, scientific means by which you could know this to be true. It is a faith-based assertion and nothing more.

Quote

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

I've done no such thing.

Quote

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.

Who said anything about obligation? Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to that fact that what I say is true, and anyone who has served a mission knows that what I say is true.  You've done nothing to refute what I've said. All you have done is state that I have no deifinitive proof. Fine. You also have no definitive proof that most apostates are morally corrupt. But you have no problem with the Church teaching such nonsense. Suddenly your concern for logic and proof takes an extreme nosedive when it comes to your own beliefs. And you have the audacity to claim I'm a hypocrite? Wow.

Edited by Xander, 21 April 2012 - 02:31 AM.

[DBMormon]

Quote

   Cobalt - 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 disagree Cobalt.... The prophet tells us what the church as a whole should do.  The father may receive inspiration on what the family as a whole should do.... never taking away agency except in moments of protection from harm..... My individual  chioices in a family or in the church rely on Moroni 7:  way to judge is what brings me closer to Christ!

[DBMormon]

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."

Some of us have had spiritual experiences though, very profound ones and that is what makes this thread worthwhile to many.

[DBMormon]

Xander - I have sought truth.... though some here may dissagree and I am willing to follow both spiritual truth and historical truth regardless of what direction it takes me... while I have struggled with historical truth I have never had an issue with the spirtual ones.     I want you to know that some of them have been undeniable... ones that leave me knowing 1.) there is a God.   2.) he cares about callings in the LDS church, where people serve and how they bless others.  3.) The book of Mormon is the word of God....  anything else to me is up for debate but it has to fit into those three things I know spiritually

[wenglund]

Brade, on 20 April 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

I understand this post wasn't directed at me, but I feel the need to chime in here and say that, though I understand why you put it the way you did (because you believe the sort of thinking at issue is God's way), I do not.  It would be question begging to say to me "Brade, you abandoned God's way of thinking" since whether this mode of thought is indeed God's way is at issue.

I see what you are saying. To avoid begging questions that may be open to inter-faith dispute, think of my phrase "God's way" as shorthand for "the way the LDS generally view as God's way."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

I agree. These are things we are only in a position to judge of oursellves--though we can reasonably proffer general, plausible explanation for why the results of spiritual methodologies for some people may be different than what millions of LDS have experienced..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 21 April 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[wenglund]

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

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).

This seems to be a reasonable approach on the part of your church leaders since it was not only possible that you would eventually get a witness of the spirit, but that you might also come to know of the truth of the gospel by way of Alma 32, just as millions of others of us have.

However, If you didn't, then that might explain your current situation. Perhaps you didn't really lose faith (as we LDS understand it), you may not have had faith to begin with. Perhaps you, like Brade, never developed trust in what we LDS view as God's way, and so you were left with your trust in man's ways.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

just as I have done at times, in the most recent comments some have stated "this is my experience (didn't get an answer to my prayer about the truth of the church) and so I must assume that any answers others get are also not real" (didn't occur, or answered caused from another source then God)  I think this is a method we must all be carefull of.  I have always struggled knowing the issues historically that I see as an issue and yet many LDS smarter then me come accross them and they are no problem at all.  I listen to those on this board, Bushman, Terryl Givens, Dan PEterson and dozens of others and wonder how they can't see things my way???? and yet they don't.  just a thought... I know some of the spiritual experiences I have had could not have been coincidence nor vague... I wonder why God doesn't let all all have a vision on the way to Damascus.... certainly would make it easier but we must be careful to assume because we didn't and Saul/Paul did, that his experience wasn't real

Edited by reelmormon, 21 April 2012 - 02:59 PM.

[Log]

wenglund, on 21 April 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Perhaps you didn't really lose faith (as we LDS understand it), you may not have had faith to begin with. Perhaps you, like Brade, never developed trust in what we LDS view as God's way, and so you were left with your trust in man's ways.

Wade,

That's never a helpful thing to say, and it may not really ever be accurate either.

Consider: they're here.

Edited by Log, 21 April 2012 - 09:44 AM.

[wenglund]

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

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.

This is bizarre. Log essentially agreed with Kevin on this specific point, and yet Kevin reacts hyper-defensively as though Log is oppposed to him.

Experience has taugh me that when a person reaches this level of irrationality, there is little point in trying to reason with him or her, and I think the subsequent fruitless interactions with Kevin bear this out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Log, on 21 April 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Wade,

That's never a helpful thing to say, and it may not really ever be accurate either.

Consider: they're here.

Given that Brade has essentially said as much about himself here, and given that it was helpful to the discussion (at least between he and i), your emphatic statement, while perhaps well intended, is demonstrably false. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Wade,

If expressing triumphalism is ever helpful in anything other than gratifying one's pride, I'd like to hear what that thing is.  Please enlighten me.

Edited by Log, 21 April 2012 - 10:26 AM.

[Xander]

wenglund, on 21 April 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

This is bizarre. Log essentially agreed with Kevin on this specific point, and yet Kevin reacts hyper-defensively as though Log is oppposed to him.

Experience has taugh me that when a person reaches this level of irrationality, there is little point in trying to reason with him or her, and I think the subsequent fruitless interactions with Kevin bear this out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade seems to think I was responding to Log when in fact I was responding to Selek. How he made this mistake is truly bizarre, but my experience with wade's lack of comprehension has taught me that there is little point in trying to reason with him.

[Xander]

Part Four

Quote

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

You simply have no logical, empirical, or objective basis to make such a claim. I reject your apologetic interpretation of the evidence because it is rejected by virtually every Mormon I know.  But you have no tolerance for a difference of opinion, at least not when it comes to former members. Saying I have a "hateful interpretation of the evidence" makes absolutely no sense because my interpretation is exactly the interpretation taught by the Church.  You're just trying to poison the well with this divisive and emotionally charged rhetoric.

Quote

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

You simply have no logical, empirical, or objective basis to make such a claim. This is another falsehood which some apologists like to repeat to themselves. I think it started with Dan Peterson back in 2004, but a few others like you have just taken it as gospel fact without bothering to substantiate it. The fact is I have an long record of cordial debates with a wide variety of opponents. Only a tiny minority choose to take your tone of condescension and create a caricature of me that conforms to what the Church has told you to think about us. But again, this is all just rhetoric on your part. It is all you have really.

Quote

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

You simply have no logical, empirical, or objective basis to make such a claim. If this were true, I wouldn't have been invited to participate on this forum, nor would I have congenial friendships with other notable LDS scholars and apologists, here and elsewhere. The fact is, when you cherish a belief system that is demonstrably based on a number of falsehoods, your natural response to the evidence is indignation. Others respond with a simple, "we'll agree to disagree" approach. The more prideful apologists cannot accept that, however, and must always be putting on a show for a perceived audience that wants to see the evil apostates beaten down with rhetoric. But ultimately you can never refute my arguments, all you can really do is complain that I am just a horrible hater, and then use that as a convenient excuse for your inability to debate effectively.

Quote

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

You simply have no logical, empirical, or objective basis to make such a claim. On the contrary, it is you and your ilk who assume the worst of intentions among apostates, as supported by why me's initial statement that triggered this exchange.

But I do not assume the worst in everyone. In fact the exact opposite is true, but I suspect you have in mind a few instances where I have criticized some apologists for flat out lying or misrepresenting the evidence for the sake of apologetics. In each instance, my assertions derive from a logical, empirical and objective basis that have never once been refuted. My assertions were not assumed, they were shaped by the evidence.

Quote

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

You simply have no logical, empirical, or objective basis to make such a claim. The fact is you consider me a hater because you're taking for granted the Mormon teaching about apostates. You begin with the premise that we're all a bunch of Satan's helpers who only want to do harm and have no good intentions at heart.

Quote

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

No, it is based on experience and we see this take place every day on these forums.  It is a demonstrable fact in virtually every area of criticism.

Quote

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

I agree, the fact that I am right isn't based on a "particular intellectual promotory." But then, I never said it was.

[Xander]

reelmormon, on 21 April 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

Some of us have had spiritual experiences though, very profound ones and that is what makes this thread worthwhile to many.

I used to claim the same thing, and I genuinely believed it was true.

I suspect Paul H. Dunn did as well.

Or, as Selek would say, "You simply have no logical, empirical, or objective basis to make such a claim."

Edited by Xander, 21 April 2012 - 11:55 AM.

[why me]

Xander, on 21 April 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I suspect Paul H. Dunn did as well.

I suspect that he did too. I believe that the holy ghost used Paul H. Dunn to give meanings to truth and I believe that the Paul H. Dunn made some terrible mistakes in his stories. But this doesn't mean that the holy spirit could not testify to the truthful aspects of his talks. Eventually, Paul got caught and needed to attone. And he did. No one is perfect. Not even Xander.

[Xander]

why me, on 21 April 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

I suspect that he did too. I believe that the holy ghost used Paul H. Dunn to give meanings to truth and I believe that the Paul H. Dunn made some terrible mistakes in his stories. But this doesn't mean that the holy spirit could not testify to the truthful aspects of his talks. Eventually, Paul got caught and needed to attone. And he did. No one is perfect. Not even Xander.

Selek, you were asking about mental gymnastics? Well look no further.

God's spirit is supposed to be the spirit of truth, but now we learn from the apologists that it can also be used to inspire falsehoods. I mean, really?

Of course my point is that it doesn't really matter to me if someone claims to have had a "profound" (is there really any other kind?) spiritual experience. Just ask mfbukowski. We don't know what's it is like to be a bat, and we'll never know what it is like to experience what others experience. But we all share one thing in that we claim to have had experiences we chose to classify as "spiritual." I've heard this kind of stuff for more than twenty years from well meaning folks who gave no indication that they were anything but sincere in their belief. But many of these people no longer believe, and look back and explain their experiences in other ways.

And it is amazing what some people consider spiritual.

A few months ago a new member came to my home with the missionaries and explained that when the missionaries were knocking on his door, he wasn't home. But then they came back the next day when he came back from work after forgetting something at his house. To him, this was an amazing spiritual experience. He interpreted this to mean God made him forget his wallet so he could have his encounter with the missionaries.

My wife has the craziest "spiritual" experiences I've ever heard. Before we were married she told me a story about how she slept over at someone's house in Utah and then found out that a General Authority had slept in that same bed the night before. She claimed that the spirit was super strong that night because of this.

When we were dating she joked that I was so much older (9 years) than her and I joked back that my patriarchal blessing said I would find a "young" lady. To her this was a spiritual experience. My friend's mom liked to tell a story about how she saw a light from the sky shine down over the Atlanta temple, and then later found out that it was at that time the temple was being rededicated by an apostle. On my mission one convert liked to tell the story about how her husband slammed the door on the missionaries because he saw three huge men dressed in white accompanying them. The Three Nephites had nothing better to do that day I guess.

Do you get what I'm driving at? Experiences can be interpreted as spiritual if someone is dead set on interpreting them that way.

I've been around Mormon lore that is almost always explained as "spiritual" by well meaning, teary-eyed members for so long that I've become immune to the intended effects. If anything it just shows me how humans can make themselves believe pretty much anything they want. And of course this isn't something unique to Mormons. The Catholics and their group visions of Mary are another example.

Edited by Xander, 21 April 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[bu11fr0g]

What it can mean when people say they are inspired but wrong.
a- that they were not inspired but thought that they were
b- that they knew they were not inspired, and intended deception with good intent
c- that they knew they were not inspired, and intended deception with bad intent
d- that they were inspired but misinterpreted it
e- that they were inspired but the inspiration came from a false source
f-  that inspiration is suspect

[Log]

Alternatively:

Ignorant, lying, wicked, or insane.

[why me]

Xander, on 21 April 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

The Catholics and their group visions of Mary are another example.

I think that the vision of Mary by Bernedette to be pretty profund. Likewise what happened to the three children of fatima and the miracle of the sun. And the miracles attributed to the saints or perspective saints. I have never thought that god only works through the lds faith.