For those who felt deceived

[why me]

Maybe God just needs you to be in the LDS church, and all the spiritual witnesses are just designed to get you in the LDS church, and don't really mean the church is "true" in terms of the only church with the real authority if the priesthood of JC.

One of the most striking examples of a "testimony" was of a fundamentalist mormon woman bearing her testimony of the practice of "the principle". IIRC, it was on mormonstories. I guess God just needed her to be a polygamist, and wasn't really telling her that her fundamentalist beliefs were "true".

Who knows the will of god. But then again, I cannot say just what this woman was feeling and why she was feeling it. I just know that the lds church has its story about how the gospel was restored. And for a restoration story it does make sense. I can only go by that. Plus, when one looks at the early beginnings and the people involved and what happened to these people and how none denied their witness (the 11) or experience (Emma Smith), one has to stand all amazed.

[Honorentheos]

And -- by far most relevantly -- to different degrees.

Dr. P., the issue isn't who knows you better. It is that you don't know yourself well enough to be able to say what it would take to cause you to see the LDS faith as not being "true".

Your view of yourself can not be anything but subjective. You see yourself through a rose-colored belief window where you apply your idealized version of you to how you would react. Your answer regarding what it would take is based on your view of yourself, (possibly as a intellectual academic who values evidence as a theory. But again, I am not claiming to know you either). It is simply that you do not know how you would really act.

Again, for the dense, it is not that he knows and you don't. You both don't know. He doesn't know you well enough while you see yourself through a tainted window. It's just how it is. At present, there is quite a bit of evidence that hasn't swayed you because of other evidence that you feel gives a satisfactory explanation. AL is only suggesting that this may be a pattern that you can't break.

The honesty example I described in my previous post is caused by people placing a high value on honesty and not wishing to see themselves as doing something that they do not value. Because of this, their conscious mind misses how much they really stretch the truth.

So again, it is not that anyone on the internet knows you better than you may know yourself. You simply under estimate how much you really know about how you would actually act, too.

Absolute rubbish.

I also have unique access to my memories, to my thinking on innumerable subjects, to my tastes in literature and music and art, to my preferences and aversions, and so on and so forth.

All of which currently have to do with how it feels to be Dr. P. None of the above are objective matters about you that reflect how you would really act (instead of how you imagine you would act.) All of the above oare subject to either your idealization (memories) or "feelings". And the above as you are viewing them are internal. How you would act under certain circumstances is not of the same family.

As for your revelation that ethics isn't mathematics, this is both trivially obvious and irrelevant to anything I've said.

And your view that a person who accepts Q as unethical must equally disparage P is wrong.

Otherwise, you are suggesting that there is no difference between a person walking up to someone on the street and refrains from spilling their guts about themselves and a husband hiding a serious debt problem from his past that is still owed from his wife. Or from Enron execs not disclosing the issues with their profitablity. Does a belief in Christ as divine and having foreknowledge paralyse a person from making important decisions about what is honest and what is not? God forbid.

You are simply misusing math to make a bad point.

All non-disclosure is not ethically equal.

Both Tarski and Teancum appear to understand my argument correctly. You evidently don't.

One does not have to accept P and Q as being two ends of the same stick. I reject your P.

Q is still relevant to this discussion.

And apparently you don't like fat/bald jokes.

[beastie]

Dr. P., the issue isn't who knows you better. It is that you don't know yourself well enough to be able to say what it would take to cause you to see the LDS faith as not being "true".

I'm reading an intriguing book devoted to this concept called "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert A. Burton.

I'm already familiar with studies that show how adept the human mind is at fooling ourselves, but this adds even more information.

[beastie]

Who knows the will of god. But then again, I cannot say just what this woman was feeling and why she was feeling it. I just know that the lds church has its story about how the gospel was restored. And for a restoration story it does make sense. I can only go by that. Plus, when one looks at the early beginnings and the people involved and what happened to these people and how none denied their witness (the 11) or experience (Emma Smith), one has to stand all amazed.

When a rationalization can just as easily be applied to both sides of the equation, it's worthless in differentiating between the two claims. IOW, the fundamentalist, being quizzed about your testimony, could reply:

"I cannot say what this man was feeling and why he was feeling it."

Moreover, the claims of whatever fundamentalist group she adheres to obviously makes sense to her - just as the LDS restoration story makes sense to you.

I also don't understand why you find the witness stories so amazing. There are tons of people who insist they've been kidnapped by aliens and probed, and yet can produce no evidence of this fact. Do you find this amazing as well?

[Pahoran]

Dr. P., the issue isn't who knows you better. It is that you don't know yourself well enough to be able to say what it would take to cause you to see the LDS faith as not being "true".

Your view of yourself can not be anything but subjective. You see yourself through a rose-colored belief window where you apply your idealized version of you to how you would react. Your answer regarding what it would take is based on your view of yourself, (possibly as a intellectual academic who values evidence as a theory. But again, I am not claiming to know you either). It is simply that you do not know how you would really act.

Again, for the dense, it is not that he knows and you don't. You both don't know. He doesn't know you well enough while you see yourself through a tainted window. It's just how it is. At present, there is quite a bit of evidence that hasn't swayed you because of other evidence that you feel gives a satisfactory explanation. AL is only suggesting that this may be a pattern that you can't break.

The honesty example I described in my previous post is caused by people placing a high value on honesty and not wishing to see themselves as doing something that they do not value. Because of this, their conscious mind misses how much they really stretch the truth.

So again, it is not that anyone on the internet knows you better than you may know yourself. You simply under estimate how much you really know about how you would actually act, too.

All of which currently have to do with how it feels to be Dr. P. None of the above are objective matters about you that reflect how you would really act (instead of how you imagine you would act.) All of the above oare subject to either your idealization (memories) or "feelings". And the above as you are viewing them are internal. How you would act under certain circumstances is not of the same family.

And your view that a person who accepts Q as unethical must equally disparage P is wrong.

Otherwise, you are suggesting that there is no difference between a person walking up to someone on the street and refrains from spilling their guts about themselves and a husband hiding a serious debt problem from his past that is still owed from his wife. Or from Enron execs not disclosing the issues with their profitablity. Does a belief in Christ as divine and having foreknowledge paralyse a person from making important decisions about what is honest and what is not? God forbid.

You are simply misusing math to make a bad point.

All non-disclosure is not ethically equal.

One does not have to accept P and Q as being two ends of the same stick. I reject your P.

Q is still relevant to this discussion.

And apparently you don't like fat/bald jokes.

This is ridiculously tedious.

Honorentheos, every plausibly civil discussion begins from the premise that each party speaks for himself, and in good faith. For anyone to presume that he knows better than another party what that party "really" thinks or believes is the very height of arrogance and incivility. You are defending not only the indefensible, but the offensively reprehensible as well.

Given that you have nothing to say, this might be an opportune moment for you to shut up.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

I take it the COB evidence locker contains rubbings from the gold plates, Moroni's fingerprints lifted off the Smith cabin roof, and the original 'bow' which held the U&T.

The kettle is not the less black because it is the pot calling it so.That being said, and to be more correct, there are more witness statements and explanations of angels and gold plates than the evidence Dale has, which again, is weak evidence.

Maybe God just needs you to be in the LDS church, and all the spiritual witnesses are just designed to get you in the LDS church, and don't really mean the church is "true" in terms of the only church with the real authority if the priesthood of JC.

I can't really argue with God, though, can I? (But to be more precise, Mormonism promises different things and has different, and I think, most extensive, opportunities for others to be saved as well.)

One of the most striking examples of a "testimony" was of a fundamentalist mormon woman bearing her testimony of the practice of "the principle". IIRC, it was on mormonstories. I guess God just needed her to be a polygamist, and wasn't really telling her that her fundamentalist beliefs were "true".

So?

I'm reading an intriguing book devoted to this concept called "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert A. Burton. I'm already familiar with studies that show how adept the human mind is at fooling ourselves, but this adds even more information.

The subtitle to the book used to be "Or, why you shouldn't hear me out on anything." I've been reading "Why Atheists and Agnostics are Fooling Themselves" by Ouroboros.

[beastie]

The subtitle to the book used to be "Or, why you shouldn't hear me out on anything." I've been reading "Why Atheists and Agnostics are Fooling Themselves" by Ouroboros.

You seem to think the book is targeting religion in particular. It's not.

We are all suspect to this phenomenon.

(edit: missed this:

beastie

One of the most striking examples of a "testimony" was of a fundamentalist mormon woman bearing her testimony of the practice of "the principle". IIRC, it was on mormonstories. I guess God just needed her to be a polygamist, and wasn't really telling her that her fundamentalist beliefs were "true".

So?

Either God is confused, or these spiritual testimonies aren't worth much in terms of ascertaining some objective "truth".

[Daniel Peterson]

This is ridiculously tedious.

Honorentheos, every plausibly civil discussion begins from the premise that each party speaks for himself, and in good faith. For anyone to presume that he knows better than another party what that party "really" thinks or believes is the very height of arrogance and incivility. You are defending not only the indefensible, but the offensively reprehensible as well.

Given that you have nothing to say, this might be an opportune moment for you to shut up.

I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree.

[beastie]

This is ridiculously tedious.

Honorentheos, every plausibly civil discussion begins from the premise that each party speaks for himself, and in good faith. For anyone to presume that he knows better than another party what that party "really" thinks or believes is the very height of arrogance and incivility. You are defending not only the indefensible, but the offensively reprehensible as well.

Given that you have nothing to say, this might be an opportune moment for you to shut up.

After reading this summary, I'm left wondering whether you or DCP actually read his posts.

[Daniel Peterson]

After reading this summary, I'm left wondering whether you or DCP actually read his posts.

Given your supposed perplexity about whether I actually read his posts, I'm quite certain that you didn't read (or, at least, didn't understand) mine. Or, alternatively, that you're striking a pose.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dr. P., the issue isn't who knows you better. It is that you don't know yourself well enough to be able to say what it would take to cause you to see the LDS faith as not being "true".

The issue is that I'm more likely to have a sense of that than Amor-L or you are.

Self-knowledge isn't perfect, it's true. But knowledge of others is even less so.

Your view of yourself can not be anything but subjective.

I think your argument here rests upon an equivocation. Yes, it's necessarily the case that my knowledge of myself is "subjective," in the sense that I'm the subject. But that doesn't make Amor-L's very limited knowledge of me, since it's not subjective in that sense, objective in the sense that it's free of bias and untainted by ambiguity and ignorance. Amor-L is presumably every bit as biased as the typical human, but he's also considerably more ignorant about me than I am.

You see yourself through a rose-colored belief window where you apply your idealized version of you to how you would react.

????????

Your answer regarding what it would take is based on your view of yourself, (possibly as a intellectual academic who values evidence as a theory. But again, I am not claiming to know you either).

My knowledge of myself is based on years of personal acquaintance with me, as well as on reading everything I've ever written (both published and unpublished), having heard everything I've ever said, and being aware of every thought that's ever crossed my mind. Am I biased? Most likely. Am I more biased than you or Amor-L? Not that I can see. Amor-L's knowledge of me is based upon his having read some posts of mine, and perhaps even (though this isn't certain) something I've published -- and having very likely read them with strong prejudice.

It is simply that you do not know how you would really act.

I have a much firmer basis for prediction than does Amor-L.

So again, it is not that anyone on the internet knows you better than you may know yourself. You simply under estimate how much you really know about how you would actually act, too.

And how, exactly, do you know that? I haven't actually laid out how I would act. Nor have I attempted to do so.

Your pronouncements on what I "underestimate" are precisely worthless, since I haven't provided an estimate at all. You're operating in an even greater vacuum of information than is Amor-L, yet you're equally confident in your judgments.

And your view that a person who accepts Q as unethical must equally disparage P is wrong.

I disagree. And, apparently, so does Tarski and so does Teancum, whom I was addressing,

You are simply misusing math to make a bad point.

I've used no math. But your mistaken impression that I have reinforces my sense that you've missed my point.

[beastie]

Given your supposed perplexity about whether I actually read his posts, I'm quite certain that you didn't read (or, at least, didn't understand) mine. Or, alternatively, that you're striking a pose.

You quite explicitly agreed with Pahoran, who stated that:

For anyone to presume that he knows better than another party what that party "really" thinks or believes is the very height of arrogance and incivility.

You subsequently responded to honor's post in which he carefully explained that is not what he was asserting.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You seem to think the book is targeting religion in particular. It's not.

We are all suspect to this phenomenon.

I don't think the book is necessarily targeting religion, only that you are reading with an eye to that end yourself.

Either God is confused, or these spiritual testimonies aren't worth much in terms of ascertaining some objective "truth".

Please see everything else I have said in this thread.

[beastie]

I don't think the book is necessarily targeting religion, only that you are reading with an eye to that end yourself.

You read my statement with extreme bias.

The statement I made specifically had to do with how the idea that honor was expressing, which is, very simply, that none of us actually know our own selves as well as we think we do, in particular in regards to predicting future actions, is explored in an interesting fashion in this book. The fact that none of us know ourselves, or our future behavior, as well as we think we do is a very generic statement that has universal applications, not "religion-specific" application.

From that one brief statement, you have managed to determine that I am using the book to target religion. That would be an amazing feat of mind-reading, had it been accurate. Since it wasn't, it merits: FAIL.

Please see everything else I have said in this thread.

I've read every post on this thread so far. If you said anything that resolved the dilemma I expressed, it must not have been insightful enough to attract my attention. If you think it's worth repeating, do so, but I'm not going to reread everything you've said on this thread.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You read my statement with extreme bias.

So you don't apply anything in that book to religious thought?

The statement I made specifically had to do with how the idea that honor was expressing, which is, very simply, that none of us actually know our own selves as well as we think we do, in particular in regards to predicting future actions, is explored in an interesting fashion in this book. The fact that none of us know ourselves, or our future behavior, as well as we think we do is a very generic statement that has universal applications, not "religion-specific" application.

So you don't apply anything in that book of yours to religious thought?

From that one brief statement, you have managed to determine that I am using the book to target religion. That would be an amazing feat of mind-reading, had it been accurate. Since it wasn't, it merits: FAIL.

So you don't apply anything in that book to religious thought?

I've read every post on this thread so far. If you said anything that resolved the dilemma I expressed, it must not have been insightful enough to attract my attention. If you think it's worth repeating, do so, but I'm not going to reread everything you've said on this thread.

I see no need to repeat myself for you, sorry. Feel free to make the effort to get to know my position before dismissing it.

[beastie]

So you don't apply anything in that book to religious thought?

I've barely begun the book, but since, so far, its application appears to be quite generic and universal, I'm sure some of it will seem applicable to religious thought, just like some may be applicable to political thought.

Of course, that's not what you first insinuated about the book and my reading of it, is it? You appear to be backtracking.

[Ray Agostini]

This is a sincere question for those who left the church because you felt that the church hid something from you, or who advocate the church be more forthcoming about what you consider the negatives. Assuming you were able to learn these things sooner, what difference would it have made on whether you left the church or not. I don't see how it makes any difference if some of the things that turn you away from the church are learned earlier or later. Perhaps you can explain it.

Going back to the OP, and speaking entirely for myself, I think it's very probable I would have left the Church even without learning of the problems. There's something to be said of what I felt was a very "rote" and insular lifestyle and beliefs. It wasn't much different when I was a Catholic. Looking at the "big picture" religious exclusivism just didn't seem right to me. Or I should say, exclusive religious claims. That alone would have bothered me enough to not take it seriously. At one point I became a fan of Mahatma Gandhi, who held universalist ideas in spite of his strict Hindu heritage, and could see a wider application to "core" religious values, encapsulated in "do unto others....". While not a Christian, Gandhi adopted many of the teachings of Jesus, such as non-violence, and sayings like "an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind". But beyond Gandhi I found the writings of Leo Tolstoy to be of much more value, and then eventually Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson's mind just disembowled any narrowness of mind I felt. "Question with boldness", he said, "even the existence of a god".

For the last two years of consistent activity (ending in 1987), and coupled with reading those vile apostate publications like Dialogue and Sunstone, this was a double whammy. Yet I didn't stop exploring Mormonism, trying to find a niche that could accommodate the growing disparity.

Do I regret my Mormon experience? I think I'm on record as always saying no. In fact, I still think it shapes who I am today to a large extent. Could I ever literally believe it again?

No chance.

I extracted the good, and consigned the rest to the garbage bin.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've barely begun the book, but since, so far, its application appears to be quite generic and universal, I'm sure some of it will seem applicable to religious thought, just like some may be applicable to political thought.

Of course, that's not what you first insinuated about the book and my reading of it, is it? You appear to be backtracking.

I don't mind backtracking a little if it means I don't have to see you using your new book as a tool against religion all the time.

[Daniel Peterson]

You subsequently responded to honor's post in which he carefully explained that is not what he was asserting.

On the contrary: HTh has suggested that he may know better than I do whether my (unannounced!) expectation of what it would take for me to leave the Church is accurately estimated. And Amor-L has announced that he knows better than I do what I'm thinking, though HTh apparently disagrees, contending instead that Amor-L is merely just as well placed to know what I think as I am. A transparently absurd notion.

[Daniel Peterson]

a very "rote" and insular lifestyle and beliefs.

Just for the record: My experience in Mormonism, from the first moments that it began to seriously catch my attention, has been anything but rote and insular. I find Mormonism exhilarating. Enormously liberating and enlightening.

[Ray Agostini]

Just for the record: My experience in Mormonism, from the first moments that it began to seriously catch my attention, has been anything but rote and insular. I find Mormonism exhilarating. Enormously liberating and enlightening.

I am quite aware of that, Dan.

As my late mother always used to say, "Each to his/her own order". And understanding.

Deborah asked for some explanations in the OP - so I gave mine, though a bit belated.

[Honorentheos]

This is ridiculously tedious.

Sorry the discussion is not to your liking.

Honorentheos, every plausibly civil discussion begins from the premise that each party speaks for himself, and in good faith. For anyone to presume that he knows better than another party what that party "really" thinks or believes is the very height of arrogance and incivility.

Hmmm. I'm not sure how I could be more clear that I am not talking about what anyone is thinking. Thinking is a purely subjective process. Only the person doing the thing can know what they are thinking. So you are right about the above, yet wrong with this statement -

You are defending not only the indefensible, but the offensively reprehensible as well.

...because this is not my position.

It's about action, which is external, and based on much more than the mere issue of thought.

Given that you have nothing to say, this might be an opportune moment for you to shut up.

Regards,

Pahoran

There are none more deaf than those who won't hear. I sense whether I were to shut up or not has no bearing on your ability to understand the point.

I think I owe AmorLibertas a very serious apology. I had suggested that, while the points being made were valid, keeping the discussion impersonal was in everyone's best interest. And yet, here we are with the above.

Funny.

[Honorentheos]

On the contrary: HTh has suggested that he may know better than I do whether my (unannounced!)...

pause

Oh, a confession (in what is unquestionably Joseph's own handwriting) in a letter or court affidavit that is unquestionably dated to the 1830s or early 1840s, that the Book of Mormon is not ancient scripture, or that he didn't see God the Father, Jesus Christ, or any angels would be sufficient. For example.

Alright, and go!

...expectation of what it would take for me to leave the Church is accurately estimated. And Amor-L has announced that he knows better than I do what I'm thinking, though HTh apparently disagrees, contending instead that Amor-L is merely just as well placed to know what I think as I am. A transparently absurd notion.

Again, I contend that you do not know what it would take to convince you that the church were not true. The fact it hasn't happened yet means there is no objective standard by which you could measure this.

You can believe what you want beyond that. It's as real as the document you proposed above in post 854.

Unannounced of course.

[Honorentheos]

I've used no math. But your mistaken impression that I have reinforces my sense that you've missed my point.

Post 870

If P, then Q.

If you don't want Q, don't assert P.

Perhaps you could instead make your point more clear?

I'm considering if we should start a thread that compares the Christ example you gave with the current AIG non-disclosure issues and see how the average LDS partisipant would view your case if the church were not directly implicated.

Then assert "If P, then Q."

Any predictions on the likely reaction?

[Honorentheos]

I'm reading an intriguing book devoted to this concept called "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert A. Burton.

I'm already familiar with studies that show how adept the human mind is at fooling ourselves, but this adds even more information.

Thank you for the suggestion, even if it wasn't intended as such. I've been wanting more material on this recently and haven't heard of this book.