Finding Zarahemla?

[charity]

Here is a passage of English: Hw

[William the Conqueror]

Let's just say I'm used to having my low expectations of anti-Mormons fulfilled.

I'm most glad I'm not disappointing you Bill. Maybe I can bring it down a few more notches.

[YH8]

Cognitive dissonance applies in situations where a person must make some kind of determination of what their behavior means in terms of what their beliefs are.

. . .

Cognitive dissonance does not even come close to describing faith-doubt questions.

If cognitive dissonance is related to making sure that attitudes and beliefs are in line with behaviors then surely it is related to faith/doubt questions. "Behaviors" can include evidence. For example, if my attitude/belief is that the LDS Church is true/false and I am presented with contrary evidence, I will likely experience cognitive dissonance unless I adapt; accept/reject contrary evidence and adjust accordingly. Maybe not a "pure" example, but related nonetheless.

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel

True, Zarahemla would be more difficult to explain away as coincidence, but I would still want corroborating evidence that Uncle Dale included and no major problems. Hopefully the evidence is such that a consensus can be reached among the community of scholars similar to sites in the Near East. My point has always been: names without context is extremely problematic.

You still don't get it. I'm not talking about specific examples or trying to prove the BOM is true. I'm trying to emphasize an epistemological point. So, I'll try one more time.

I believe the only way to identify the name of an ancient ruin is through some type of written text that provides us with a phoneticly readable version of that name.

So, do you know of any other way to identify the ancient name of a city?

If we can come to a consensus on this issue, we can move to the next point.

[William the Conqueror]

You still don't get it.

That is another famous line of yours Bill.

[solomarineris]

Cognitive dissonance does not even come close to describing faith-doubt questions

Can you dig iiiiit.... (I guess not), because all of your claims (I'm not saying most; I'm saying all!) are; "hearsays", presuppositions, inuendos.

Sorry, if I come across arrogant but believe me, after living in this culture for almost 30yrs I've seen absolutely no evidence which will support the validity of your claims. The Holy Gost influence is out of question; there's no such element that will make itself manifest, whatever you feel is is coming from one's cranial capacity, influencing nobody else. If that were the case unfaithful people like me drop dead every minute as we see in Korihor example. Because I see absolutely no reason why God of Mormon should refrain punishing me like in the time of BoM.

[charity]

YH8, I am not saying there is no such thing as faith-doubt questions. I am saying it is incorrect to call competing ideas cognitive dissonance. Is tithing a true principle instituted by God or is it a scheme by greedy men to get my money so they can drive Rolls Royces around are competing ideas. This does not constitute cognitive dissonance.

You can argue all you want about competing ideas, JUST DON'T CALL IT COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. Now, I am through yelling. It does not make you look educated to use terms in in correct ways. And it makes you look stubbornly ignorant to insist that you will use a term incorrectly because you want to.

[YH8]

You can argue all you want about competing ideas, JUST DON'T CALL IT COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. Now, I am through yelling. It does not make you look educated to use terms in in correct ways. And it makes you look stubbornly ignorant to insist that you will use a term incorrectly because you want to.

Spare me, please?

Does this satisfy your thirst for pristine accuracy . . .

Cognitive Dissonance = eliminating discrepancy between attitudes/beliefs and behavior and resultant intellectual discomfort.

As such, one's attitude/belief is in the truth/falsity of LDS Church because all evidence confirms one's belief/attitude and one's behavior is following/not following LDS Church. Cognitive dissonance (intellectual discomfort) arises when presented with contradicting evidence regarding one's attitude/belief about about LDS Church. Under such circumstances either one's attitude/belief (LDS truth/falsity) or one's behavior (following/not following LDS Church) must change in order to alleviate one's cognitive dissonance. Attitude/belief is easiest most econimical to change/modify. Thus in this scenario, the TBM/TBAM (True Believing Anti-Mormon; belief in falsity of LDS Church) continues to follow/not follow because the contradicting evidence is fundamentally flawed.

Maybe, my problem is trying or wanting to convince you that I'm right. Oh well.

[charity]

YH8, Giving me the definition while continuing to apply the term wrongly is not satisfying, no. I think your problem is in trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. You may get it in, but you have ruined the square peg in the meantime. When language is used precisely, then people can communicate on a high level. When language is used imprecisely, then people end up talking at cross purposes, not understanding each other.

This board is supposed to be dialogue and discussion, not cocktail party conversation. I have noticed other message boards muck around with loose language, and consequently the quality of the discussion is fairly low.

[Bob Bennett]

Sorry, if I come across arrogant but believe me, after living in this culture for almost 30yrs I've seen absolutely no evidence which will support the validity of your claims. The Holy Gost influence is out of question; there's no such element that will make itself manifest, whatever you feel is is coming from one's cranial capacity, influencing nobody else. If that were the case unfaithful people like me drop dead every minute as we see in Korihor example. Because I see absolutely no reason why God of Mormon should refrain punishing me like in the time of BoM.

If I haven't experienced it, it simply cannot be. Yes, you do come across as arrogant.

Why should we expect all apostates to have a Korihor experience? They certainly didn't in the Book of Mormon. Korihor (and Sherem) were the exceptions rather than the rule. The Book of Mormon describes thousands if not millions of apostates, none of whom were struck dumb. Why do you feel that your lack of a Korihor experience in any way demonstrates the untruthfulness of the Book of Mormon?

[Dale]

I have never been presented with any evidence from any Meso-American city that Zarehemla did not exist. It would be nice if an ancient map dating to Book of Mormon times were found. But until such an item can be produced I am ok with believing in real Nephites & Lamanites. I am ok with pointing out possible locations of Book of Mormon events based on a study of the english text itself.

I am not sure the Nephite, or Lamanite culture can be described as a culture faithful to it's old world roots. Hebrew if the preserved, and popular language would still be in use today. If the Nephites & Lamanites got into using Mayan glyph's ect over it's historic language I doubt the name Zarahemla would match up to the stranger names the city may have been called.

[why me]

Ouch, Pahoran.

[Moksha]

Cognitive dissonance does not even come close to describing faith-doubt questions.

Charity, maybe this useful concept has lost meaning here, but for the rest of the world, it it the inner conflict that arises, when what you have been lead to believe does not jive with the truth. For instance, think of how a Child feels when first told there is no Santa Claus. That is cognitive dissonance. As to whether it can be used here without Pahoran jumping on it is another matter.

[juliann]

Charity, maybe this useful concept has lost meaning here, but for the rest of the world, it it the inner conflict that arises, when what you have been lead to believe does not jive with the truth. For instance, think of how a Child feels when first told there is no Santa Claus. That is cognitive dissonance.

Speaking of the outside world, this psychobabble term is a double edged sword that cuts both ways....and the "outside world" would be able to see that. That is why antis replace the church with another group...leaving the church does not make them more intelligent, it does not make them more open minded, it does not change their worldview at all. So they are left having to bridge the gulf between the big words, empty promises and unfulfilled expectations.... and the small world they still live in. Nothing is going to change for them until they leave their worldview...so they gather for hearty rounds of backslapping to keep reality at bay. Cognitive dissonance? You betcha.

[Serious]

Charity, maybe this useful concept has lost meaning here, but for the rest of the world, it it the inner conflict that arises, when what you have been lead to believe does not jive with the truth. For instance, think of how a Child feels when first told there is no Santa Claus. That is cognitive dissonance.

Speaking of the outside world, this psychobabble term is a double edged sword that cuts both ways....and the "outside world" would be able to see that. That is why antis replace the church with another group...leaving the church does not make them more intelligent, it does not make them more open minded, it does not change their worldview at all. So they are left having to bridge the gulf between the big words, empty promises and unfulfilled expectations.... and the small world they still live in. Nothing is going to change for them until they leave their worldview...so they gather for hearty rounds of backslapping to keep reality at bay. Cognitive dissonance? You betcha.

May I quote you? Oops, I already have! Good post.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I just had to comment on Moksha's post, which reads:

Charity, maybe this useful concept has lost meaning here, but for the rest of the world, it it the inner conflict that arises, when what you have been lead to believe does not jive with the truth. For instance, think of how a Child feels when first told there is no Santa Claus. That is cognitive dissonance. As to whether it can be used here without Pahoran jumping on it is another matter.

You know what I recommend? I recomment reading a little bit about Cognitive Dissonance.

1) Cognitive Dissonance has nothing to do with "the truth". Absolutely nothing. Cognitions have nothing to do with facts. Absolutely nothing. A Cognition is an awareness of a belief.

If I have a ball, and the ball is red, my recognition that the ball is red is a cognition. If you come along, and tell me that the ball is green, my recognition that you believe the ball is green is a cognition. These two cognitions stand in opposition to one another, and can cause cognitive dissonance. How I resolve that dissonance (which I would think would be near instantaneous) would be based largely on whether or not I believed my own eyes as opposed to yours. It might be different under any number of plausible circumstances - if I were red-green color blind (and I know that this isn't a good way to describe colorblindness), I might reconsider your opinion. If I knew that you were colorblind and I was not, I would simply assume that you were mistaken. But, none of the responses to any possible cognitive dissonance has anything to do with "the truth". In fact, if we encounter the truth, and we recognize it as the truth, that would be an instant resolution of possible cognitive dissonance - and certainly the elimination of opposing cognitions. Cognitive dissonance occurs when we know two things and have no way of determining which recognition is of more value. The ball could really be blue, but the cognitive dissonance would still occur because of the two opposing cognitions - the recognition that I believe the ball is red, and the recognition that you believe the ball is green. Of course, cognitions usually come in long chains, and they are weighted, and usually, we have weightier systems on one side than the other. Most of the time, conflicting cognitions cause no cognitive dissonance simply because we resolve it instantly. Most people do not live in a state of cognitive dissonance (which is an unhealthy and unpleasant state to be in).

2) Cognitive Dissonance is not a universal occurence. Studies have shown that not everyone experiences cognitive dissonance. There are individuals who can hold to multiple competing cognitions and not feel any need to resolve them.

This is one of the reasons why many of the conclusions drawn from cognitive dissonance theory are not held by everyone. If you tell a kid that Santa Clause doesn't exist, he can quite easily believe that Santa is going to bring him a present on Christmas Day and that he doesn't exist - without experiencing even the least bit of cognitive dissonance.

3) Cognitive Dissonance is like hunger. It has to be resolved. We eventually resolve it when we encounter it, and in the resolution, something changes.

We might reject our former cognitions (even a whole system) and replace them with the new cognitions (Juliann mentioned this - although I think that her final comment isn't really descriptive of cognitive dissonance). We might strengthen the former cognition until it is weighter (more valuable) than the new one. But, when no change occurs, there was no dissonance. If we encounter new information and simply shrug it off, or ignore it, there is no dissonance. "The truth", again, is irrelevant. Whether this is because the new cognition is simply not seen as being valuable enough to compete, or whether we are simply unaffected by dissonance, it isn't there. And most people who enocunter competing cognitions resolve them so quickly that dissonance doesn't actually occur. The change might be immediate - and so change isn't an indicator of the occurence of cognitive dissonance, but cognitive dissonance isn't resolve without change.

4) People don't normally exist in a state of cognitive dissonance. Juliann said: "Nothing is going to change for them until they leave their worldview...so they gather for hearty rounds of backslapping to keep reality at bay." If they are keeping reality at bay, they are not experiencing cognitive dissonance. And again, it has nothing to do with "the Truth".

Ben

[charity]

I am just about to quit trying to educate the masses here. I retired from teaching college students. Maybe I should retire from trying to teach anti's what cognitive dissonance really means.

Too bad. I think anti's are a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. Their appearance on message boards so rabidly trying to tear down the Church, its leaders, its doctrine, is their attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance over leaving the Church. They left (literally or figuratively) and that has set up a dissonant state. They have to convince themselves they were right to leave, so they scream and shout how wrong it all was to begin with in order to resolve the dissonance.

Of course, they say that the doubts started first. Chicken or the egg.

[solomarineris]

You can argue all you want about competing ideas, JUST DON'T CALL IT COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. Now, I am through yelling. It does not make you look educated to use terms in in correct ways. And it makes you look stubbornly ignorant to insist that you will use a term incorrectly because you want to.

Shouting won't help here, I know exactly what I am saying, and nobody illustrates better this behavior than our beloved Prophet GBH, if you care to read his published interviews with media, he does put such ambiguity in LDS core beliefs, so much so that we have nowhere to turn for advice in doctrinal matters. Just google his remarks, you will see that they are filled with incompatible, conflicting answers to true LDS faith. If you think this behaviour does not reflect in most members

I say you are living in your own fantasy-land.

I'm by no means linguist, no more than average layman who happens to speak five-six languages.

perhaps none perfectly, but believe me I can understand what is said and written, that in itself does not need further interpretation.

Regards

[charity]

I give up. Cognitive dissonance seems to be beyond the ken of too many. Use the term incorrectly all you want. It makes you sound uneducated to those who know, but you probably won't even know you just dropped a notch in their opinion. But a word to the wise, if it is someone you do want to impress? Don't use it.

[why me]

I am just about to quit trying to educate the masses here. I retired from teaching college students. Maybe I should retire from trying to teach anti's what cognitive dissonance really means.

Too bad. I think anti's are a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. Their appearance on message boards so rabidly trying to tear down the Church, its leaders, its doctrine, is their attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance over leaving the Church. They left (literally or figuratively) and that has set up a dissonant state. They have to convince themselves they were right to leave, so they scream and shout how wrong it all was to begin with in order to resolve the dissonance.

Of course, they say that the doubts started first. Chicken or the egg.

Although your statement was a generalization, I would have to agree with you. There seems a need for justification for decisions made. But also there is perhaps a validation process to it all.

Some people seem to need validation for their decisions and these people can search for such a validation among like minded people for security.

[charity]

I think you are right about the validation process. But a decision should not be made so that others can bolster you in it. The decision should be capable of standing alone.

I think of Paul, and of Joseph Smith. They knew they had seen a vision, and it didn't matter who spoke against them.

[solomarineris]

I think of Paul, and of Joseph Smith. They knew they had seen a vision, and it didn't matter who spoke against them.

Don't give up. Instead of looking at the "style", see if there's any "substance" whatever is said or experienced. I will not argue against the validity of your testimony, it is simply useless to assert otherwise. You think what you think; The only difference is in olden times we could crucify many Korihors with a strike of pen. Nowadays it doesn't work that way and if you think the times of proselyting is getting worse watch it what happens in few decades.

Long live Internet.

[cinepro]

Their appearance on message boards so rabidly trying to tear down the Church, its leaders, its doctrine, is their attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance over leaving the Church. They left (literally or figuratively) and that has set up a dissonant state. They have to convince themselves they were right to leave, so they scream and shout how wrong it all was to begin with in order to resolve the dissonance.

I am still an active member, and I haven't left (and I'm not an "anti"), but I am critical and have my doubts, so I'll share my thoughts your comments.

First, I openly admit to having an incredible amount of "cognitive dissonance" (to whatever agree my elementary mind can comprehend such a complicated subject ).

For many who have traveled down the same path that I am, there is that one terrible moment when your mind finally admits to the small possibility that the Church might not be what you thought it was. When you say to yourself "The Church might not be 'true'!" Once this door is opened, the next step is to ask "If the Church isn't what I thought it was, then what is it?!"

Thus begins a journey to answer the question. And judging from the myraid different places people find themselves on this journey, there doesn't seem to be one answer. But in all of this, there is the awful task of trying to reconcile what you thought the Church was, with what are now experiencing. This includes a reflection on all of my lifelong experiences growing up in the Church, the way it has effected my life for good and bad, and trying to see which things weren't exactly what I thought they were.

But certainly there are many apparent contradictions, and there isn't one, tidy answer that satisfactorily reconciles all the "data" into a neat package wrapped up with a bow.

That is one of the reasons I can't "leave it alone", or just go back to being a quiet, faithful, believing ward member. I feel compelled to understand just what is going on, and trying to fit all the pieces into the puzzle. That includes figuring out what is a piece, and what isn't (i.e. what is true, and what isn't), but I'm finding plenty of "untruth", misdirection, and sleight of hand from both the believers and the non-believers.

The day may come when I make peace with my "dissonance", and find that I no longer feel the desire to hash out the "pieces" and put them into place. This stage of my life will certainly be marked by a notable decrease in my participation in online discussion groups and my collecting and study of books related to LDS doctrine or history.

But for now, I've learned to actually enjoy this state of not knowing, of being able to look at something and realize I don't have enough information to figure it out, and to live with this state of "dissonance". So I don't find the idea of "cognitive dissonance" to be a bad one. As a TBM, this wasn't the case; "dissonance" was uncomfortable, disturbing, and definitely to be avoided. I don't know how it is for other TBM's, but that was just my experience.

[charity]

Cinepro, could this be similar to what happens to every child with their parents? When you are a little kid, you think your parents are perfect, can do no wrong, have all the answers. Then comes the disillusionment of teenage years, when you think your parents never get anything right. But when you mature you come to an adult understanding. They aren't perfect. But they have wisdom from experience that you lack. And no matter what, you love them.

Maybe we look at the Church the same way. When we are first in the Church, in our enthusiasm, we think the Church, the leaders, are all perfect. They have and give all the answers. Maybe some of us become "teenagers" and begin to think nothing is right about the Church. When we are teenagers we take some little fault our parents have an blow it up all out of proportion. We can do this with the Church. Some leader disappoints us, or we hear that something was quite the way we thought it was.

The question then becomes, do we mature? Or do we do what happens in some families? The trauma of the teenage years is so hard, we cause rifts that can forever prevent us from getting to the adult stage with our parents. Maybe that happens with the Church.

I hope with you, that as you are making your way through the "teenage" years, that nothing happens to cause a separation so permanent that you can't come at some in the future, into accepting the Church as you would your parents.

[Scottie]

Charity, what word would you use instead of cognitive dissonance ?