Debate In Mormonism

[ldsfaqs]

Don't some of us (myself included) accept a local Flood instead of the official LDS doctrine of a Global Flood?

One can still lean toward a local flood, but accepting the Churches doctrine on the matter. For example, there are many examples in scriptures in which a mass statement is made, but in fact the actual thing only occurred locally.

Further, exceptions to the rule do not make the rule.

What about those who reject (not me) the official doctrine of God the Father once being a mortal man?

Well, first it's not actually official doctrine, it's unofficial doctrine. Meaning it's sometimes taught, but not officially promoted as actual doctrine. The only doctrine as to the subject that is officially promoted is that we can become like God. Further, the unofficial teaching is that the Father was once a mortal as "Christ" was once a mortal.

Anyway, this one LDS are free to believe one way or the other, there is no official pronouncement on the subject.

[selek1]

Why all the hate?

What "hate"? We disagree with your characterization, and are not shy about saying so.

That's hardly "hate". Be careful that you do not conflate "contradiction" with "persecution".

Frankly, I think you are over-stating the case- differences in opinion and disagreement do not amount to dissension within the Church- let alone to "conflict".

Do you guys really not know a single thing that any prominent LDS apologist thinks that is in disagreement with the publicly given correlation? I didn't give a reference because I thought this was a given. Here is one, Daniel Peterson states that he wishes there were more history in the manuals, he even tried to add it when working on them for the church, but it was removed.

And yet Peterson can hardly be classified as "disaffected" which is the buzzword that Larsen and the rest keep tossing around.

The sole example you provide is not evidence of the condition you (and they) allege exists- and is actually strong evidence to the contrary.

Despite any disagreements he has with the results of the Correlation Committee, Peterson was and remains a faithful Latter-day Saint.

Do you feel that everything given out by correlation is 100% perfect?

I'm sorry- but when did this become the litmus test by which one judges another's faith/loyalty/fidelity to the Church? And by whose authority was it made so?

To be perfectly blunt, this question smells like a "gotcha"- deliberately invidious and presenting a false dichotomy.

Why is suggesting that apologists are not in lock step with the church anti-mormon?

In and of itself, it is not. Using the question to drive a wedge and to create the false proposition of dissension/conflict within the Church, on the other hand, most assuredly is.

Was that your intent? Can you see why others might take it that way?

----------------------------------------------

Having listened to the podcast, I can only conclude that it's an agenda-driven hit piece. They spend much of the podcast bashing what everyone else does and spleen-venting about how virtuous and how persecuted they were on various boards (particularly this one).

It's filled with pat, calorie-free psycho-babble and mind-reading rather than with anything substantive.

Neither of these conditions is a surprise; John Larsen, Ann (Nanna P), Jason (Dr. Shades), Thayne (Nom de Cypher), and Chris (Froggie) simply cannot be considered unbiased sources for all things Mormon- let alone as the "all stars" that Larsen paints them.

Their agenda colors everything they do, and the arguments presented are nothing more than self-congratulation, followed by a rehash of the long-discredited, (but favorite nonetheless) Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon nonsense.

Contrary to what these individuals advocate, fondly wish, and deeply desire, disagreement within the Church does not equate to dissension within the Church, let alone to "conflict" within the Church.

Do you feel that we shouldn't evaluate church policies, doctrine with out own "mental prowess" and just go with what correlation gives us w/o thinking?

Who here has espoused such a position? This sort of "free-thinking apostate vs. duped-brainwashed-follower" dichotomy is a favorite concoction of anti-Mormon demagogues- but it's not a position any faithful Mormon endorses.

The rare small differences of opinion with individuals of a group is not a "pattern" of something, such as the thing you are claiming.

True- but it is nonetheless the fondest wish of people such as Larsen.

It is vital (if not critical) to their self-image as "truth tellers" and "crusaders against evil".

Without that windmill to tilt at, their quest looks increasingly like Rocinante instead of Seabisquit.

Edited November 6, 2011 by selek1

[BCSpace]

Don't some of us (myself included) accept a local Flood instead of the official LDS doctrine of a Global Flood?

One can still lean toward a local flood, but accepting the Churches doctrine on the matter.

One cannot. The instant one "leans" away from the doctrine, one is not in lockstep.

What about those who reject (not me) the official doctrine of God the Father once being a mortal man?

Well, first it's not actually official doctrine, it's unofficial doctrine. Meaning it's sometimes taught, but not officially promoted as actual doctrine. The only doctrine as to the subject that is officially promoted is that we can become like God. Further, the unofficial teaching is that the Father was once a mortal as "Christ" was once a mortal.

We've already proven this wrong several times so you've just provided another example of an apologist who is not in "lock step" with the Church.

[CV75]

(accepting what you just said) The statement "I'm questioning God's existence" means "I'm seeking whether or not God exists." "Doubt" in the normal sense is what I'm arguing must be there to question critically. Is that clearer?

To me, "I'm questioning God's existence" also means "I'm seeking God’s existence." But if you want to address "I'm seeking whether or not God exists," I can discuss only that.

....Faith in what? As I've been saying, in WHATEVER you happen to have faith in, you can't question the object of your faith almost by definition (unless you stop having faith at least for the moment you are questioning it).

I see “faith” as an assurance of or an expectation for things that are not seen, which are true. Otherwise I consider the term “belief” to more accurately describe such an attitude toward anything else, seen/unseen, true/untrue. Usually “faith” and “belief” can be used synonymously. It is said that faith and doubt cannot occupy the same object, so by your usage, I can accept that belief and doubt cannot be shared in the same object.

I think one can suspend belief if he doesn’t have a lot invested in the object; to me, faith implies that one has much is invested in it and has no reason to suspend faith.

This doesn't respond to what I've been saying either. The point is that, whether with the assistance of the Spirit or not, by definition you can't question critically ANYTHING without, by definition, leaving faith in that thing.

You can't question critically whether or not your Apple computer is good without leaving your faith that Apple computers are always good aside. You can question whether a given PC computer is good or not without leaving your faith that Apple computers are always good since the object of your faith is NOT the object of your assessment.

Then, you can't be said to be able to critically assess God's existence or the truth of Mormonism intellectually EVEN IN PRINCIPLE without leaving your faith aside (obviously, at least while you are critically assessing these claims).

By narrowing down what you seem to mean by “question” and “faith” you have narrowed down what you mean by “critical” as well. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I do not see how a narrower approach can meet the level of discipline required of sound critical assessment; I think to do so we need to look at all the angles. I think that someone can critically seek greater understanding of the object of his faith or belief without leaving his faith/belief in it—this is what is done in any field of study. If by “critical” you mean an adverse or disapproving attitude, I think you might be speaking of one’s orientation in applying critical (analytical) assessment with a critical (adversarial) attitude, the attitude toward the object of assessment, rather than in the critical assessment process itself.

You seem to conclude that one cannot critically assess God’s existence intellectually without leaving faith in His existence aside, but you also seem to add the qualification of leaving faith aside at least while assessing God’s existence. I think analytical assessment of things like God's existence by a person who believes in Him can be done with the proper discipline. I think 1 Corinthians 2 reflects this.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

If believing in a massive but regional flood puts me(and a great many Saints) incluing Hugh Nibley outside the Kingdoms doors then I'm in good company.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth

There is only one time when being in lockstep is appropriate. When in a military parade.

[elguanteloko]

To me, "I'm questioning God's existence" also means "I'm seeking God’s existence." But if you want to address "I'm seeking whether or not God exists," I can discuss only that.

"I'm seeking God's existence" is terribly ambiguous, CV.

Brother, I'm speaking of the justification of God's existence as the object of your questioning or seeking. When you seek whether or not God exists you try to determine if God exists or not but you do NOT try to find God (since to do this you could already be implying you are assuming God's existence which is what is trying to be determined in the first place). If you say "I'm seeking God's existence" you may or may not be talking about already assuming God's existence.

Is what I'm trying to say to you so obscure that you keep missing the point? God can either exist or not and to intellectually address this you must leave your "assurance" aside.

On the faith issue, if I say "I truly trust my son that he didn't eat the cookies" it would be rather contradictory if I went and checked whether or not he really did eat the cookies or not.

Is anyone else besides CV75 not getting this obvious idea?

[CV75]

"I'm seeking God's existence" is terribly ambiguous, CV.

Brother, I'm speaking of the justification of God's existence as the object of your questioning or seeking. When you seek whether or not God exists you try to determine if God exists or not but you do NOT try to find God (since to do this you could already be implying you are assuming God's existence which is what is trying to be determined in the first place). If you say "I'm seeking God's existence" you may or may not be talking about already assuming God's existence.

Is what I'm trying to say to you so obscure that you keep missing the point? God can either exist or not and to intellectually address this you must leave your "assurance" aside.

On the faith issue, if I say "I truly trust my son that he didn't eat the cookies" it would be rather contradictory if I went and checked whether or not he really did eat the cookies or not.

Is anyone else besides CV75 not getting this obvious idea?

As ambiguous (neutral) as "I'm seeking God's existence" may seem, I did agree to narrow my comments to only address "I'm seeking whether or not God exists," so hopefully this won't continue to be a problem.

I do not accept that setting aside faith is prerequisite to applying one’s intellect. Someone who believes God exists can still come up with and analyze the reasons for believing that God does not exist. While he may not exercise a personal investment in the conclusions, he can certainly think through and understand the analysis. He retains his intellectual honesty by accepting what to him are the stronger conclusions that God does exist, based on a concurrent/parallel analysis, or by advocating for God’s non-existence based on one set of criteria and for His existence based on another set, making it clear where he lands personally and why.

Conversely, people don’t have to set aside their intellect to explore what are considered to be matters of faith.

Using your example, you might check on whether your son ate the cookie if you accepted the challenge to provide evidence to someone who does not trust him or you. But I agree that you would not double-check to satisfy your own belief, since for you, it is already firmly, indisputably established.

So intellectual honesty^FAITH and intellectual honesty^DOUBT are not a matter of process or discipline, but how an individual’s more fundamentally orients his intellect. Faith and doubt do not mutually co-exist in the same mind on the same subject; one will override the other and affect how a person applies his wherewithal to anything he has control over using, including his intellect.

Edited November 6, 2011 by CV75

[BCSpace]

BCSpace:

If believing in a massive but regional flood puts me(and a great many Saints) incluing Hugh Nibley outside the Kingdoms doors then I'm in good company.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth

You and me both on this issue.

There is only one time when being in lockstep is appropriate. When in a military parade.

This being a war, this imagery is appropriate for members of the Church which does expect us to be in lockstep with it's doctrines. For those of us out of lockstep like you and me, the question is how much out of lockstep and on which official doctrines can one be and still be on the road to eternal life?

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

I might not be on the streight and narrow way all the time, but I do try to cross its path every once in a way.

[elguanteloko]

As ambiguous (neutral) as "I'm seeking God's existence" may seem, I did agree to narrow my comments to only address "I'm seeking whether or not God exists," so hopefully this won't continue to be a problem.

Then I don't know why you mentioned "I'm seeking God's existence" when it doesn't help in any way. But whatever.

I do not accept that setting aside faith is prerequisite to applying one’s intellect.

And who said it was? Not me. I'm saying something much more specific.

Someone who believes God exists can still come up with and analyze the reasons for believing that God does not exist.

I never said they couldn't. You aren't following what I'm saying here.

While he may not exercise a personal investment in the conclusions, he can certainly think through and understand the analysis.

Why not a 'personal investment'? Take the whole of reasons for accepting God's existence. If a Mormon is going to analyze and see if they (the reasons) work, how is he going to do this if he isn't even ready to admit that he is wrong if the evidence indicates that he is? "I'm going to see whether X or Y but I will not accept X as an answer." Not very intellectually honest, is it?

Now, you could say that IF you have a,b,c,d, then you will have X but still say you don't accept either a or b or c or d and, therefore, not X. This, again, would miss the point since I'm speaking about any fact that gets to be questioned. For example, if you don't accept "a" that doesn't mean you can't critically examine "a" now instead of X itself. The point is that to really be said to consider or critically examine something, if you aren't even willing to accept to change if strong evidence for X or against non-X is presented, then you can't be said to be critically examining or considering the issue.

He retains his intellectual honesty by accepting what to him are the stronger conclusions that God does exist, based on a concurrent/parallel analysis, or by advocating for God’s non-existence based on one set of criteria and for His existence based on another set, making it clear where he lands personally and why.

This is a clear example of why you aren't getting it. I ask you to think in the reasons for God's existence and you think saying "but I could have other ones i rely on" makes the questions I'm making not applicable. ...I'm speaking of all the intellectual reasons for having faith and having belief in God you identify. These things don't arise from nothing and we can think whether or not ALL reasons we can grasp for accepting God's existence have merit or not.

Let's say you have 3 reasons to accept God's existence. If, intellectually, reason 1 and reason 2 are demolished, you only have reason 3. Saying you have 'other' reasons for accepting God's existence misses the point entirely. Pick your reasons and those are the ones I'm talking about. IOW, whatever you reasons happen to be, those are the ones I'm saying one should be open to discard them; if not (if you are NOT willing to abandon one of those), then you aren't really critically analyzing that one. Same with having 2 reasons or 3 or 4 or 5, etc.

If you are not open and consider the very real possibility that your reasoning might be completely flawed, then any attempt at seriously considering any issue seems to me impossible. If one isn't open to the possibility that his reasons for believing God exists are flawed and is willing to change his position if this is the case, then it seems silly to say that one is seriously considering this issue.

Using your example, you might check on whether your son ate the cookie if you accepted the challenge to provide evidence to someone who does not trust him or you.

Once again, I've never even spoke of checking anything for matters of challenges. This is like bringing evidence from your favorite think-tank to support your views... we couldn't say you are really considering the issue until you hear the other side and check the value of their arguments from the inside.

But I agree that you would not double-check to satisfy your own belief, since for you, it is already firmly, indisputably established.

I'm not even implying that you have to think it is indisputably established but merely not willing to change if the evidence indicates. You can think something is disputable and still not willing to change if the evidence is presented. Very different things.

Edited November 7, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

Why not a 'personal investment'? Take the whole of reasons for accepting God's existence. If a Mormon is going to analyze and see if they (the reasons) work, how is he going to do this if he isn't even ready to admit that he is wrong if the evidence indicates that he is? "I'm going to see whether X or Y but I will not accept X as an answer." Not very intellectually honest, is it?

Good point, Elguanteloko.

...This is a clear example of why you aren't getting it. I ask you to think in the reasons for God's existence and you think saying "but I could have other ones i rely on" makes the questions I'm making not applicable. ...I'm speaking of all the intellectual reasons for having faith and having belief in God you identify. These things don't arise from nothing and we can think whether or not ALL reasons we can grasp for accepting God's existence have merit or not...

Didn't we previously establish that faith is not based on intellectual reasoning as much as emotional reasoning?

When you set a very difficult goal - one that others say you'd never achieve because of the current situation of things... is going after that despite obstacles, intellectual or emotional reasoning?

You mentioned that "these things don't arise from nothing."

Yet, doesn't Atheism teach that there was a nothingness & it exploded, which led to the amazing order in this world & universe?

Do things arise from nothing or not?

Better yet, which illusions are we better off believing?

(We all believe illusionally - atheists too... because we're limited & selective in our awareness.)

[elguanteloko]

Didn't we previously establish that faith is not based on intellectual reasoning as much as emotional reasoning?

I don't think so. I don't think you can have any faith in something you believe to be false or even implausible. If you are undecided you could probably have a little bit and if you simply believe it is false you can't. "Wanting something to be true" is not faith, btw. Wanting God to exist isn't having faith in God.

You mentioned that "these things don't arise from nothing."

Yet, doesn't Atheism teach that there was a nothingness & it exploded, which led to the amazing order in this world & universe?

"These things" doesn't mean "All things". "Atheism" doesn't teach anything of cosmology, btw.

Do things arise from nothing or not?

I don't know but I'm open to either of these.

Better yet, which illusions are we better off believing?

(We all believe illusionally - atheists too... because we're limited & selective in our awareness.)

The best we can do is to follow the best we can see being the best.

[HeatherAnn]

I agree HeatherAnn. As we can see from this thread, it is a very thin line that can be hard to find and even if done well others respond fairly strong to any mention of another potential perspective.

So true!

Sometimes I get so annoyed when some are so defensive & seem in denial about any other perspective other than the one that their pioneer ancestors who were related to so-&-so, taught. Sometimes I get annoyed by people being judgmental with a sense of fear & shame, like I witnessed today at church.

Then I remember that I've done the exact same things. Maybe that's partly why it's so annoying. I don't know.

I think it depends on how much we have riding on believing in the church (or any belief system). If our social life, our marriage, our very income (career) depends on it... I don't think there's going to be much motivation for considering different perspectives.

One of the GAs mentioned that anybody who's not willing to seek it relentlessly, is not worthy of the truth.

[HeatherAnn]

I don't think so. I don't think you can have any faith in something you believe to be false or even implausible. If you are undecided you could probably have a little bit and if you simply believe it is false you can't. "Wanting something to be true" is not faith, btw. Wanting God to exist isn't having faith in God.

If faith is not "wanting somethign to be true" - then, what is faith?

"These things" doesn't mean "All things". "Atheism" doesn't teach anything of cosmology, btw.

Atheism just ignores the unresolved matter of the origins of the universe?

How can it ignore that & deny Theology like Creationism?

I don't know but I'm open to either of these.

Interesting... I think I am too, in a mind-boggling kind of way.

The best we can do is to follow the best we can see being the best.

I agree! And I think that is the essence of God, my Atheist friend.

[ldsfaqs]

Thanks Selek1..... For properly recognizing my discussion with the OP.

Now if I could just figure out why the Mods have it out for me simply because I'm critical of something someone says sometimes, namely when they act like they are someone "big" in the Church, as if that makes them better to me, and me actually in the wrong, when they are the ones in the wrong? Completely odd.

[Storm Rider]

Didn't we previously establish that faith is not based on intellectual reasoning as much as emotional reasoning?

Heather, I disagree that faith is based on emotions. Is knowing, enlightenment, spiritual guidance emotion? Are all feelings emotion? When the Holy Spirit opens my mind to truth, I don't classify it as emotion. It is something greater that strikes to the very core of my being. I come to know things without learning it from reason or reading a book, a study, an analysis, or anything else created by man.

To call faith an emotion seems to degrade and misrepresent what the Holy Spirit is or does. Emotions can be manipulated easily and through divers means. The knowledge that comes from the Holy Spirit cannot be manipulated. Even those that appear as an angel of light cannot duplicate the work of the Spirit. They work by cunning and false reasoning.

No, spirituality is not emotion.

[cdowis]

Don't some of us (myself included) accept a local Flood instead of the official LDS doctrine of a Global Flood?

I would call it a working hypothesis. In my attempts to reconcile doctrine with science, I am willing to accept both sides until the answer becomes more clear. Perhaps science tells me a local flood, while religion tells me that the earth was baptized. So I work with both ideas until something brings me closer to that answer. Perhaps a different understanding of the scriptures, or some scientific discovery.

We have discussed the "no death before Adam", and came up with a working hypothesis or interpretation that this only refers to the sixth day of creation, not the previous five days. While not orthodox right now, like the location of the Hill Cumorah, it may eventually become more widely acceptable as a possibility.

From time to time, I take such issues off my shelf of doubt to look at it and see if I have any new insights.

Edited November 7, 2011 by cdowis

[CV75]

If you are not open and consider the very real possibility that your reasoning might be completely flawed, then any attempt at seriously considering any issue seems to me impossible. If one isn't open to the possibility that his reasons for believing God exists are flawed and is willing to change his position if this is the case, then it seems silly to say that one is seriously considering this issue.

Abandoning faith that God exists is not prerequisite to being willing to admit or to actually admitting that one is wrong about that. The conclusion must be arrived at, at which point error is admitted and faith abandoned. The conclusion is gotten through analysis and assessment of evidences, and for the purposes of this discussion, that entails intellectual discipline alone. There has to be skill, ability and interest in applying an intellectual discipline long before willingness to admit error or abandoning faith.

A strictly intellectual process does not require an abandonment of faith so much as its disciplined segregation or compartmentalization from the process. At some point the person applying the intellectual process cannot help but reintegrate his emotional, social, physical and spiritual attributes with the intellectual conclusions. That is when intellect, faith and doubt realize their relationship.

Edited November 7, 2011 by CV75

[shalamabobbi]

I wonder if el is consistent in his application of skepticism to the idea that certain "sins" are not really sins after all and we can do as we please without the worry of eternal consequences.

What proof is there in el's world view that such is the case? Why would he choose one side over the other in such an argument, and be skeptical of the other side only?

Of course there is no motivation behind such a view, and el is being entirely impartial and objective..

[ERayR]

So true!

Sometimes I get so annoyed when some are so defensive & seem in denial about any other perspective other than the one that their pioneer ancestors who were related to so-&-so, taught. Sometimes I get annoyed by people being judgmental with a sense of fear & shame, like I witnessed today at church.

Then I remember that I've done the exact same things. Maybe that's partly why it's so annoying. I don't know.

I am also annoyed at those who have become "enlightened" and think the whole church and everybody in it ought to fall in line.

I think it depends on how much we have riding on believing in the church (or any belief system). If our social life, our marriage, our very income (career) depends on it... I don't think there's going to be much motivation for considering different perspectives.

One of the GAs mentioned that anybody who's not willing to seek it relentlessly, is not worthy of the truth.

Perhaps they have considered and rejected. It may be "obvious" to you but not to them. Another consideration is that what is "obvious" to you may be so only because you don't have all the information and don't realize that it is you who are lacking.

[SeattleGrunge]

Thanks Selek1..... For properly recognizing my discussion with the OP.

Now if I could just figure out why the Mods have it out for me simply because I'm critical of something someone says sometimes, namely when they act like they are someone "big" in the Church, as if that makes them better to me, and me actually in the wrong, when they are the ones in the wrong? Completely odd.

I wasn't acting like I was someone big in the church, just clarifying that I dedicate several hours a week to the church and my bishop sees me as a worthy person, thus countering your claims of my anti-mormon intentions.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Let's get specific. Given that God will not force you to believe(We call it Agency), what evidence would you require to believe?

[BCSpace]

We have discussed the "no death before Adam", and came up with a working hypothesis or interpretation that this only refers to the sixth day of creation, not the previous five days.

Sure. 2 Nephi 2:22 has everything created AND THEN placed into the garden state of no death.

There is yet another fairly big issue we had a few years ago. Some LDS (not me) did/do not believe that Satan being a literal spirit brother of Jesus is LDS doctrine.

There is also politics, which unfortunately this board is too immature overall to discuss, in which there is a huge dichotomy and has tremendous bearing on what significant foundational doctrines of the Church one truly accepts and is willing to apply in real life.

Edited November 7, 2011 by BCSpace

[HeatherAnn]

Heather, I disagree that faith is based on emotions. Is knowing, enlightenment, spiritual guidance emotion? Are all feelings emotion? When the Holy Spirit opens my mind to truth, I don't classify it as emotion. It is something greater that strikes to the very core of my being. I come to know things without learning it from reason or reading a book, a study, an analysis, or anything else created by man.

To call faith an emotion seems to degrade and misrepresent what the Holy Spirit is or does. Emotions can be manipulated easily and through divers means. The knowledge that comes from the Holy Spirit cannot be manipulated. Even those that appear as an angel of light cannot duplicate the work of the Spirit. They work by cunning and false reasoning.

No, spirituality is not emotion.

Stormrider,

First off, I appreciate your respectful tone.

I actually don't believe faith is 100% emotion either... but I was referring to a previous discussion about faith.

I believe faith is inseparably connected to hope & love.

Love (God is love)... is hoping & striving for what is best through trial & error (FAITH).

We love best... by harmonizing both intellect & emotion.

I do think that many confuse faith with emotion, though. I know I did.

My entire life, I've based big & little decisions on promptings of the spirit.

Well, lucky for me, I think it worked out ok... until I felt the spirit about my ex-boyfriend, while being married to my husband.

That's when I realized that spiritual feelings may be more than emotion... but often we throw in our own interpretation & related emotional baggage & hopes... & we have to be careful. That's why it's imperative we weigh spiritual feelings/experiences with common sense.

[elguanteloko]

A strictly intellectual process does not require an abandonment of faith

I gave reasons why it does. You can address them, you know?