Can someone explain to me the big fuss with the Kirtland Egyption Papers?

[ttribe]

Can my belief be inflammatory to you? If I believe something is illogical or if it's just spin, is that really inflammatory to you?

There are a lot of intelligent, educated people in the world that have a variety of disagreements on politics, religion, etc. I see it as a matter of perspective. That's why I can call something illogical but I'm not going to rent my clothes if I can't force you to agree it's illogical. I can still respect you as a reasonable, logical person, just with a different perspective. It's much more close minded to force your logic on another and make a broad statement like all people are unreasonable who don't see it like me.

Your belief is not inflammatory. Your assertion is.

BTW, DCP didn't "force" his logic on anyone. He stated that the evidence is compelling (again, nothing about convincing) and opined that it is unreasonable to call it otherwise. I do hope you can see the difference between "compelling" and "convincing".

[Benjamin McGuire]

I agree with cinepro. I started researching FARMS and other sites to answer various questions, as a fiercely loyal LDS. Before long I'd read about Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, BOM historicity, Lamanite DNA, polyandry, peepstones, witnesses seeing physical objects with spiritual eyes, Swedenborg, Thomas ****, common source material for Paul and Moroni, Kinderhook plates, 19th century topics in the BOM, Jospeh and Sydney "do you see what I see?" section 76, etc. If there were no FARMS or apologists, I might have been able to convince myself it was all anti-Mormon lies. Instead now I've completely lost my testimony of the restoration. Thanks a lot, guys.

Of coursed, the corrolary also exists. There are a lot of LDS who are intelligent, rational, highly educated, who get exposed to all of this, come to different conclusions, and still have strong testimonies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, this experience isn't universal or perhaps even the most likely result of such an encounter.

Ben M.

[Bender]

Benjamin McGuire Posted Today, 10:40 AM

Of coursed, the corrolary also exists. There are a lot of LDS who are intelligent, rational, highly educated, who get exposed to all of this, come to different conclusions, and still have strong testimonies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, this experience isn't universal or perhaps even the most likely result of such an encounter.

But a common one. I to had the same type of experience as robuchan. He states in another post

I don't know why two people read the same material and come to different conclusions.

I had to grapple with this as well. IMO I had already concluded that the church was true which created a lot of bias on how I read and interpreted the evidence. Until I recognized that I didn't know the church was true, and even more important that I was willing to accept if it wasn't true was I able to become unbiased enough to evaluate the evidence more fairly. I think this may be the main problem as why people can come up with different conclusions based on the same available evidence. Kind of like how so many well educated people can look at the evidence for an old earth and interpret it as evidence for a young earth.

[cinepro]

Of coursed, the corrolary also exists. There are a lot of LDS who are intelligent, rational, highly educated, who get exposed to all of this, come to different conclusions, and still have strong testimonies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, this experience isn't universal or perhaps even the most likely result of such an encounter.

Ben M.

I will raise Michael Shermer's observation that in such cases (people with apparently irrational beliefs maintaining those beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence), the person usually formed those beliefs at a time when their critical thinking skills weren't fully developed (i.e. as a child or teenager), and then then they use their mature thinking skills to justify their earlier formed beliefs.

Just a possibility.

[PacMan]

OK, I obviously was being sarcastic but there is some truth behind it. I was able to dismiss all "that stuff" for years and years because I only heard it from "anti-Mormon" sources. Granted I didn't dig very deep, but when I did I assumed it was simply Satanic anti-Mormon lies. Once I started reading apologetic responses and accurate history told by faithful LDS which 90% of the time agreed on the facts, just gave a different spin (generally what seemed to me as an extremely illogical spin), that was when my testimony slowly started to be chinked away.

Then your testimony was rather flimsy to start with. Nice thing for you, is nothing was really lost.

[Chris Smith]

Then your testimony was rather flimsy to start with. Nice thing for you, is nothing was really lost.

If you think that people who lose their faith do not experience deep, soul-searing loss and sorrow, then you have not made a sincere effort to understand their experience.

[robuchan]

Then your testimony was rather flimsy to start with. Nice thing for you, is nothing was really lost.

Not fair at all.

I'm life time multi-generational Mormon. I did the mission, BYU, temple marriage, etc. I didn't do it luke warm. I worked hard on my mission and loved it. I read and pray (still do). I consider myself a spiritual person that has numerous experiences with the Spirit. I've served in responsible priesthood callings. I do my home teaching. I have weekly FHE (still do). I was an effective teacher of the gospel and bore strong testimony. I loved (still do) the gospel of Jesus Christ. I was a defender of the faith.

I had a strong testimony in any quantifiable and non-quantifiable way. In fact I was the guy telling others their testimony was flimsy if they fell away. That's insulting and hurtful for you to say that to me.

[Mormon Questioner]

Then your testimony was rather flimsy to start with. Nice thing for you, is nothing was really lost.

Talk about inflammatory. That is an incredibly rude and unfair statement.

I guess it dragged me out of my lurking.

I too basically had the same experience. Lifelong member, had a testimony, but also discovered some issues. Used sites like this to understand how believing members can know this and still believe. Generally found reasonable enough answers to allow me to put those issues on the shelf, but at the same time discovering lots of other issues that I hadn't even known existed.

Over much time, much soul searching, much prayer, and much study, discovered that my shelf was overburdened, and it collapsed. This site definitely contributed to my current disbelief.

Honestly it is three things:

- Lack of true dialog. I have found (especially over the last few years) that this site is less willing to actually discuss the issues, and more willing to simply attack those who are raising them. Too many exasperated posts about how the poster should use the search and that the issue is not worth discussing because it has been discussed before. Only to find that most of the posts about that issue have the same dismissal in them. The problem with this is that if I want to find an in depth discussion about these issues, I generally have to go elsewhere, and that is not going to support the aims of this site.

- Lack of satisfying apologetics. Users are simply often pointed to FAIR articles, or they have their own ideas attacked. Too often is the response simply "well I know our doctrine/history/ideas are unsupportable, but so are yours". This is the old "well why would you believe in Christ when his story is as hard to believe as Joseph's". There is also very little middle ground on this board anymore, everything is black and white, and no middle ground is reached on too many discussions. I understand that this seems "right" to the true believers among you, as why compromise on the gospel? But that is not apologetics, that is proselyting, and people don't come to here for that.

- General tone and tenor. This site has gone downhill over the years. Where in the past believers and non-believers mingled with respect, today there is too much attacking from both sides. For someone like me who is looking for answers to very difficult and deep questions, it is no longer a friendly place, not like it used to be years ago.

There are a lot of LDS who are intelligent, rational, highly educated, who get exposed to all of this, come to different conclusions, and still have strong testimonies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, because we all suffer from confirmation bias. (even me). It is very difficult to change our current paradigms even in the face of evidence, because we will look for evidence that supports our current biases. That was why it took me MANY years to lose my testimony, because I would look for the evidence, no matter how flimsy, that supported my current assumptions. It was a very painful experience to have my paradigms finally collapse. It is not because I am smarter or more inquisitive than you, it is because of the way I am made. I need evidence for things, I am an analytical person. That evidence can be spiritual or physical, but if spiritual it must be unequivocal. That is how I am made. For someone different than me, they may find it much easier to accept things on faith.

Bottom line is sites like this, and books like Shaken Faith can have a positive or a negative impact. I came here years ago thinking this site would help me maintain my testimony in the face of doubts and concerns. In reality at first it did help, but in the long run, and especially the way the site has changed, it definitely didn't help me maintain my testimony. Quite the opposite.

[Deborah]

Until I recognized that I didn't know the church was true, and even more important that I was willing to accept if it wasn't true was I able to become unbiased enough to evaluate the evidence more fairly.

But once you made the decision it might not be true, you changed your bias; I think it's a fallacy to say you were then able to evaluate evidence more fairly. You just evaluated it from a different bias.

[Bender]

Deborah Posted Today, 03:28 PM

But once you made the decision it might not be true, you changed your bias; I think it's a fallacy to say you were then able to evaluate evidence more fairly. You just evaluated it from a different bias.

I understand you might like to think so, but not true. I still had bias in favor of the church, just less so. You don't go from one to the other from just realizing it might not be true. That statement also leaves the same room that it might be true, and that was still the preference.

[Deborah]

I understand you might like to think so, but not true. I still had bias in favor of the church, just less so. You don't go from one to the other from just realizing it might not be true. That statement also leaves the same room that it might be true, and that was still the preference.

I disagree; once you start questioning then it's easier to not give the benefit of any doubt on the side of the church. The history to me has always been dubious as far as finding faith because there is too much we don't know and it's too easy to misinterpret what little we have.

[Bender]

Deborah Posted Today, 06:36 PM

I disagree; once you start questioning then it's easier to not give the benefit of any doubt on the side of the church. The history to me has always been dubious as far as finding faith because there is too much we don't know and it's too easy to misinterpret what little we have.

Well we disagree then. In the end you can believe what ever you want. History is murky, but your showing your own very biased position that unless you already believe it true you can't give the benefit of the doubt to the church on issues that are unclear.

[Deborah]

Well we disagree then. In the end you can believe what ever you want. History is murky, but your showing your own very biased position that unless you already believe it true you can't give the benefit of the doubt to the church on issues that are unclear.

That's my point.

[USU78]

I will raise Michael Shermer's observation that in such cases (people with apparently irrational beliefs maintaining those beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence), the person usually formed those beliefs at a time when their critical thinking skills weren't fully developed (i.e. as a child or teenager), and then then they use their mature thinking skills to justify their earlier formed beliefs.

Just a possibility.

In another thread, it's asserted that the typical atheist wins his/her freedom from theism during the years 10-14 or thereabouts, learning for the first time that the Junior Primary religion of his/her earlier childhood is both unsatisfying and unuseful for answering the more important existential questions just then for the first time imposing themselves upon his/her experience.

And he/she never really develops a more mature understanding of the problem of pain and other thorny questions of life that theism is actually quite capable of satisfying. Thus he/she remains stuck in perpetual smart-alecky adolescence, unable to acquire compassion and depth of understanding mature theism could have endowed him/her with.

[Bender]

Deborah Posted Today, 07:44 PM

That's my point.

Which point? That we disagree, that you can believe what ever you want, that history is murky, or your very biased position that anyone unsure of whether the church is true can't give the benefit of the doubt to the church. BTW if you have sufficient doubt on any issue you shouldn't give the benefit to any side. Just remain as open minded as possible and hope more information comes forth.

[cinepro]

In another thread, it's asserted that the typical atheist wins his/her freedom from theism during the years 10-14 or thereabouts, learning for the first time that the Junior Primary religion of his/her earlier childhood is both unsatisfying and unuseful for answering the more important existential questions just then for the first time imposing themselves upon his/her experience.

And he/she never really develops a more mature understanding of the problem of pain and other thorny questions of life that theism is actually quite capable of satisfying. Thus he/she remains stuck in perpetual smart-alecky adolescence, unable to acquire compassion and depth of understanding mature theism could have endowed him/her with.

I don't know about that. Shermer's hypothesis isn't focused on theism, but instead covers the panoply of dubious beliefs, from astrology to homeopathy to remote viewing. Certainly, there must be something to account for the brilliant minds that so forcefully argue for silly propositions.

[Deborah]

Which point? That we disagree, that you can believe what ever you want, that history is murky, or your very biased position that anyone unsure of whether the church is true can't give the benefit of the doubt to the church. BTW if you have sufficient doubt on any issue you shouldn't give the benefit to any side. Just remain as open minded as possible and hope more information comes forth.

The point is that you are less likely to give the benefit of the doubt than someone who has received a spiritual confirmation of the doctrine and the truthfulness of the church and decides that that is the most important consideration. Once you decide to start questioning even the testimony you once had you've opened the door to let in more doubt. How do you get to the point of "sufficient doubt"? By constantly feeding it.

The idea that somehow one is closed minded because they contine to believe, is a fallacy. The difference is they become more open minded to other possiblities the evidence hasn't shown yet. I am always amazed anyway how people throw away years of testimoy because of something in the historical record that upsets them. History is too full of holes to rely on for testimony. It's always nice when something comes along to confirm what you believe, but on the other hand I certainly wouldn't let something that causes doubt throw out all the beautiful doctrine and scripture we have as a result of God visiting a boy in the grove. History is biased from the start depending on who's writing it. It's the Rashomon effect. The truth is in there but it's probably only a part of what you see in different bits and pieces and may even be none of the pieces.

[Bender]

Deborah Posted Today, 09:01 AM

The point is that you are less likely to give the benefit of the doubt than someone who has received a spiritual confirmation of the doctrine and the truthfulness of the church and decides that that is the most important consideration. Once you decide to start questioning even the testimony you once had you've opened the door to let in more doubt. How do you get to the point of "sufficient doubt"? By constantly feeding it.

Exactly why the bias from spiritual confirmation is usually to high for the person to look at any other evidence objectively enough. Until I realized that the spiritual is not a reliable source of learning truth, I was way to biased like yourself. I think you misunderstand what doubt is. Doubt is a good thing. It is an admission that ones does not know. Questioning is also a good thing. It means one is looking for answers to those questions if possible. Now if one is willing to accept where the evidence leads them(if it is sufficient) then I think one is sufficiently objective enough to analyze the evidence and is more likely to come up with a more accurate view of what the evidence means.

Also questioning can help to lessen doubt as one seeks answers to those doubts or uncertainties they have. Questioning is a much better way to try and discover truth then telling yourself you know something is true over and over again until you think you know it is true(ex testimony bearing to strengthen testimony). People do this all the time in many religions like the LDS as well as even non-religious beliefs. I now realize this is a mistake.

The idea that somehow one is closed minded because they contine to believe, is a fallacy. The difference is they become more open minded to other possiblities the evidence hasn't shown yet. I am always amazed anyway how people throw away years of testimoy because of something in the historical record that upsets them.

It depends on how badly they want to believe. If there not willing to give up a belief no matter what anyone shows them then they are more closed minded not open minded.

History is too full of holes to rely on for testimony. It's always nice when something comes along to confirm what you believe, but on the other hand I certainly wouldn't let something that causes doubt throw out all the beautiful doctrine and scripture we have as a result of God visiting a boy in the grove. History is biased from the start depending on who's writing it. It's the Rashomon effect. The truth is in there but it's probably only a part of what you see in different bits and pieces and may even be none of the pieces.

History can be murky, but first you need to take the steps I talked about above to help one to be as unbiased as possible. Then you can look at all the evidence together to see what it says. BTW it is not all historical. This is the main problem I had when I wasn't willing to change my beliefs based on the information we have, and it seems to be the problem I see with apologetics in general, and with others like yourself. Theres nothing bad about being wrong, only the unwillingness to admit and change your beliefs accordingly.

[Stargazer]

I didn't say there were no helpful uses for the book. Certainly, it's good to have a well-presented apologetic resource that can be given to LDS and save them from spending countless hours wading through the internet looking for the crucial bit of info that they need.

But the danger is that someone might just have a concern with one or two issues, and then have several others they were totally unaware of dropped at their feet.

Better get it all out at once then.

[Deborah]

I think you misunderstand what doubt is. Doubt is a good thing. It is an admission that ones does not know. Questioning is also a good thing.

I do understand what doubt is and I never said I haven't doubted. However, to give priority to the doubts over the spiritual is the wrong way to approach doubts.

If there not willing to give up a belief no matter what anyone shows them then they are more closed minded not open minded.

I suppose if one only has a belief in something that would be the case. However, some things that cannot be seen with evidence are more than belief and faith is certainly much more than belief. Some things I know for certain and it is those things which sustain me through the doubts.

[cinepro]

Better get it all out at once then.

I actually subscribe to Bushman's "inoculation" theory and feel that such knowledge should be incorporated into the Sunday School and priesthood/RS lessons as the topics naturally arise.

[Bender]

Deborah Posted Today, 02:14 PM

I do understand what doubt is and I never said I haven't doubted. However, to give priority to the doubts over the spiritual is the wrong way to approach doubts.

I never suggested you haven't doubted, only that I think it's wrong to think of doubting as a bad thing. As I said before spiritual experiences are very unreliable way to think you can learn truth, which when someone convinces themselves that they do know from these experiences they are usually to biased to reliably evaluate other evidence in regards to their what they think they have learned from their spiritual experiences.

I suppose if one only has a belief in something that would be the case. However, some things that cannot be seen with evidence are more than belief and faith is certainly much more than belief. Some things I know for certain and it is those things which sustain me through the doubts.

Yes some things we can convince ourselves are certain. Especially through the spiritual, which I see is not unique to our LDS religion, but all to wide spread. That doesn't mean that the spiritual is not important. It can give us a lot of meaning in life, it's just not that good at discovering objective truths. I don't worry to much about what beliefs we all have anymore. There fine to have, and I have my own. I think I grown a little by accepting that there is nothing wrong with changing them when needed, and I think if God exists he would probably agree with that.

[USU78]

Certainly, there must be something to account for the brilliant minds that so forcefully argue for silly propositions.

Like anthropogenic global warming and adoption by homosexual couples, par example?

[cinepro]

Like anthropogenic global warming and adoption by homosexual couples, par example?

Those could be included as well.

And the idea isn't that there are some ideas that are so illogical that everyone who believes them categorically must be using unsound thinking processes. There are even people who believe in things that are true for bad reasons. The point of the article was that sometimes we believe in things for illogical reasons, and then when we develop our logical thinking skills, we apply them to defend our illogical belief instead of moving beyond our illogical belief.

[Cooper]

Talk about inflammatory. That is an incredibly rude and unfair statement.

I guess it dragged me out of my lurking.

I too basically had the same experience. Lifelong member, had a testimony, but also discovered some issues. Used sites like this to understand how believing members can know this and still believe. Generally found reasonable enough answers to allow me to put those issues on the shelf, but at the same time discovering lots of other issues that I hadn't even known existed.

Over much time, much soul searching, much prayer, and much study, discovered that my shelf was overburdened, and it collapsed. This site definitely contributed to my current disbelief.

Honestly it is three things:

- Lack of true dialog. I have found (especially over the last few years) that this site is less willing to actually discuss the issues, and more willing to simply attack those who are raising them. Too many exasperated posts about how the poster should use the search and that the issue is not worth discussing because it has been discussed before. Only to find that most of the posts about that issue have the same dismissal in them. The problem with this is that if I want to find an in depth discussion about these issues, I generally have to go elsewhere, and that is not going to support the aims of this site.

- Lack of satisfying apologetics. Users are simply often pointed to FAIR articles, or they have their own ideas attacked. Too often is the response simply "well I know our doctrine/history/ideas are unsupportable, but so are yours". This is the old "well why would you believe in Christ when his story is as hard to believe as Joseph's". There is also very little middle ground on this board anymore, everything is black and white, and no middle ground is reached on too many discussions. I understand that this seems "right" to the true believers among you, as why compromise on the gospel? But that is not apologetics, that is proselyting, and people don't come to here for that.

- General tone and tenor. This site has gone downhill over the years. Where in the past believers and non-believers mingled with respect, today there is too much attacking from both sides. For someone like me who is looking for answers to very difficult and deep questions, it is no longer a friendly place, not like it used to be years ago.

Yes, because we all suffer from confirmation bias. (even me). It is very difficult to change our current paradigms even in the face of evidence, because we will look for evidence that supports our current biases. That was why it took me MANY years to lose my testimony, because I would look for the evidence, no matter how flimsy, that supported my current assumptions. It was a very painful experience to have my paradigms finally collapse. It is not because I am smarter or more inquisitive than you, it is because of the way I am made. I need evidence for things, I am an analytical person. That evidence can be spiritual or physical, but if spiritual it must be unequivocal. That is how I am made. For someone different than me, they may find it much easier to accept things on faith.

Bottom line is sites like this, and books like Shaken Faith can have a positive or a negative impact. I came here years ago thinking this site would help me maintain my testimony in the face of doubts and concerns. In reality at first it did help, but in the long run, and especially the way the site has changed, it definitely didn't help me maintain my testimony. Quite the opposite.

For what it's worth - I agree with you Questioning. I've also noticed that if you make too tough of a point here they tend to ignore it. They think they are not being obvious, but alas they are.

Coop