Duncan Posted January 28, 2012 Author Posted January 28, 2012 Curious what actions you think I'm trying to justify. Wife beating? Porn? Shoplifting? Starting a multi level marketing company? Go ahead, you've gone this far. Speak your mind.not everyone but some. I'll give you an example of a friend of mine. He used to look at pawno and its attendant um... activities...but he couldn't get over that or he was trying to be perfect and he stopped coming with his wife and their kids, I think his wife stopped coming just to keep peace. Anyways he used to bait me and email me and generally irritated me and then he turned all atheist and anti-mormon. he runs a website of which I couldn't be bothered to check out anymore because like his emails its riddled with spelling mistakes like the "Angle Moroni"
robuchan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 I wouldn't even venture to guess what you are seeking to justify. I am merely pointing out a very well worn truism. People generally interpret history in order to justify their own actions..... Remember the Alamo?My life would be a lot easier if I still believed. And my outward behaviors wouldn't be any different. But thanks for completely dismissing my intellectual struggles with the church as my desire to justify behavior. 1
Duncan Posted January 28, 2012 Author Posted January 28, 2012 My life would be a lot easier if I still believed. And my outward behaviors wouldn't be any different. But thanks for completely dismissing my intellectual struggles with the church as my desire to justify behavior.question for you and by extension all of us is would our behaviour be no different if we believed or not? if our behaviours don't change by what we believe then what is the point of us having that belief?
robuchan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 "Facts" have nothing to do with religous testimonies- all the facts in the world cannot prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth even existed much less that he was the Son of God with a virgin mother who was the savior of the world who redeemed us from sin.Every Christian on earth believes that with no historical evidence whatsoever.This is only because Jesus lived 2,000 years and not a lot of documentation of his life exists. If for some reason, there was a ton of documentation. News articles, TV recordings, hidden cameras, journals, court testimony, etc. Hypothetically, if all this existed, you could use this evidence to make a good case for or against Jesus as the savior of the world. I agree you can't prove something spiritual. For example, if you were to say something completely spiritual like "God exists". This can not be proven one way or another, at least with the information we have available. But as soon as you start attaching actual, tangible earthly events to this belief system, it becomes something that is provable. For example, "God exists, and he created the world in the year 4,000 BC and placed animals on the earth and made Adam and Eve." (not that anyone here believes this, let's just use this as an example) Now you have attached a worldly event that can be observed with scientific and historical evidence.LDS makes a lot of claims that are based on actual, tangible earthly events that can be evaluated with evidence. The Book of Mormon is an ancient record, written on gold plates, translated by Joseph Smith. This can be evaluated through a number of methods. It's not a spiritual assertion.
Jeff K. Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Jeff K., on 27 January 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:I wouldn't even venture to guess what you are seeking to justify. I am merely pointing out a very well worn truism. People generally interpret history in order to justify their own actions..... Remember the Alamo?My life would be a lot easier if I still believed. And my outward behaviors wouldn't be any different. But thanks for completely dismissing my intellectual struggles with the church as my desire to justify behavior.Life would be easier without pride, but I and many would have a hard time giving it up. In my youth, had I swallowed my pride, I could have returned to my parents, I made it on my own, barely, but it was in large part pride that kept me moving forward towards my own path.
robuchan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 question for you and by extension all of us is would our behaviour be no different if we believed or not? if our behaviours don't change by what we believe then what is the point of us having that belief?i don't care to get into that philosophy. And I suppose some of my behaviors might have changed, I don't know. But it's not material to Jeff's accusation, which frankly is ignorant and offensive. I attend church. I pay my tithing. etc.
robuchan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Life would be easier without pride, but I and many would have a hard time giving it up. In my youth, had I swallowed my pride, I could have returned to my parents, I made it on my own, barely, but it was in large part pride that kept me moving forward towards my own path.Do you think there are any other reasons besides sin and pride that someone could lose a testimony of the church? Marlin K Jensen says it's the greatest period of apostasy since Kirtland. College educated males in their 30's and 40's are dropping like flies. It's all sin and pride?
Jeff K. Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 My accusation is neither ignorant or offensive, especially if it is true. The truth being we always do that which we desire, and we often seek a rationalization for it. History is repleat with such things. History is also interpreted, the USSR for instance had its history to justify domination of Eastern Europe, one can see it in the film regarding Ivan the Terrible. People have committed heinous crimes using the Bible because they had heinous ends they sought, based on interpretation. How then is it so difficult for an individual to do the same?
robuchan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 My accusation is neither ignorant or offensive, especially if it is true. The truth being we always do that which we desire, and we often seek a rationalization for it. History is repleat with such things. History is also interpreted, the USSR for instance had its history to justify domination of Eastern Europe, one can see it in the film regarding Ivan the Terrible. People have committed heinous crimes using the Bible because they had heinous ends they sought, based on interpretation. How then is it so difficult for an individual to do the same?OK, nevermind. Sorry. I need to get more familiar with the posters here before I engage people in discussion.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 This is only because Jesus lived 2,000 years and not a lot of documentation of his life exists.That is irrelevant - it could have happened yesterday and there would still be doubters If for some reason, there was a ton of documentation. News articles, TV recordings, hidden cameras, journals, court testimony, etc. Hypothetically, if all this existed, you could use this evidence to make a good case for or against Jesus as the savior of the world. Uh uh. That's why all the Jews who were there and all the Romans who were eyewitnesses all completely converted. That's why the Jewish establishment all became Christians, right? There CAN BE NO EVIDENCE that Jesus is the "savior".I agree you can't prove something spiritual. For example, if you were to say something completely spiritual like "God exists". This can not be proven one way or another, at least with the information we have available. But as soon as you start attaching actual, tangible earthly events to this belief system, it becomes something that is provable.No it doesn't. Tangible earthly events have nothing to do with what cannot be proven. The "attachment" is what is being disputed. Even in the presence of alleged "miracles" there can always be doubt. Magicians and illusionists can perform alleged "miracles", or even the argument could be made that it was of "Satan"For example, "God exists, and he created the world in the year 4,000 BC and placed animals on the earth and made Adam and Eve." (not that anyone here believes this, let's just use this as an example) Now you have attached a worldly event that can be observed with scientific and historical evidence.Whether or not the world blinked into existence 4k years ago has nothing to do with whether or not God made it happen. If God appeared, and showed himself and said "I did it"- you might have a case. You would have a tangible observible thing claiming causality of another one. THAT could be tested.LDS makes a lot of claims that are based on actual, tangible earthly events that can be evaluated with evidence. The Book of Mormon is an ancient record, written on gold plates, translated by Joseph Smith. This can be evaluated through a number of methods. It's not a spiritual assertion.Of course it is- it claims to be an inspired scripture testifying of the divinity of Christ. We could find Zarahemla tomorrow with a welcome sign and it would still not prove that the BOM is the "word of God"
Jeff K. Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Jeff K., on 27 January 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:Life would be easier without pride, but I and many would have a hard time giving it up. In my youth, had I swallowed my pride, I could have returned to my parents, I made it on my own, barely, but it was in large part pride that kept me moving forward towards my own path.Do you think there are any other reasons besides sin and pride that someone could lose a testimony of the church? Marlin K Jensen says it's the greatest period of apostasy since Kirtland. College educated males in their 30's and 40's are dropping like flies. It's all sin and pride?Very few. Surprisingly many college educated males in their 30's and 40's are learning of the church and joining it, as the church continues to grow. I am not surprised at the impression (though I would love to see the entire discussion in context) given the size of the church.
robuchan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Of course it is- it claims to be an inspired scripture testifying of the divinity of Christ. We could find Zarahemla tomorrow with a welcome sign and it would still not prove that the BOM is the "word of God"I'll focus on this, because this is the crux of the argument. If you had video evidence of a secret camera of Joseph Smith spray painting some fake gold plates and giggling with Oliver about how they were going to play a huge prank on the world, and we started finding numerous anthropological and archaelogical findings on Ancient America people that all went 100% against the BOM, that would be pretty good evidence the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record, right? On the flip side, if we found numerous evidence supporting the BOM, maybe a companion gold plates that were translated that back everything up, maybe a Book of Lehi found in Jerusalem, etc, etc, evidences just came raining in, that would be great evidence the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. This is a provable fact. There is a lot of evidence available. Enough to make a very solid case, IMHO, that it is not an ancient record. You may disagree with the evidence. But you can't change the game and say it's not something that can be evaluated based on evidence. It is.
why me Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 This is only because Jesus lived 2,000 years and not a lot of documentation of his life exists. If for some reason, there was a ton of documentation. News articles, TV recordings, hidden cameras, journals, court testimony, etc. Hypothetically, if all this existed, you could use this evidence to make a good case for or against Jesus as the savior of the world. I agree you can't prove something spiritual. For example, if you were to say something completely spiritual like "God exists". This can not be proven one way or another, at least with the information we have available. Which could be the reason why Jesus was born in that time period. Also, he worked in such a small geographical area that outside accounts of his existence do not exist. What we are left with is a book called the bible telling us who he was and what he did.And of course, the mormons have also the book of mormon. All depending on faith. Now if they did have modern techology back then, we would either know that there is a god and behave accordingly or that there wasn't a god and behave accordingly.
Jeff K. Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Seems to me if Joseph Smith gave his life, that would be strong evidence of his belief.Evidence is interpreted. You have decided to interpret it one way. Regardless of what is found, you will of course not change your mind until you are ready to. I personally think its amazing that Lehi's journey so closely resembles some key geographic and (at the time) unknown geographies.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 I'll focus on this, because this is the crux of the argument. If you had video evidence of a secret camera of Joseph Smith spray painting some fake gold plates and giggling with Oliver about how they were going to play a huge prank on the world, and we started finding numerous anthropological and archaelogical findings on Ancient America people that all went 100% against the BOM, that would be pretty good evidence the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record, right? On the flip side, if we found numerous evidence supporting the BOM, maybe a companion gold plates that were translated that back everything up, maybe a Book of Lehi found in Jerusalem, etc, etc, evidences just came raining in, that would be great evidence the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. This is a provable fact. There is a lot of evidence available. Enough to make a very solid case, IMHO, that it is not an ancient record. You may disagree with the evidence. But you can't change the game and say it's not something that can be evaluated based on evidence. It is.It's not the crux, and you are describing a totally impossible hypothetical. Suppose we had a video of Jesus getting some herb on the sop that the soldier gave him which knocked him out for 3 days, or some conspiracy of his followers.And I am not changing the game. My entire belief in the church is based on personal revelation- nothing more nothing less.
why me Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 I'll focus on this, because this is the crux of the argument. If you had video evidence of a secret camera of Joseph Smith spray painting some fake gold plates and giggling with Oliver about how they were going to play a huge prank on the world, and we started finding numerous anthropological and archaelogical findings on Ancient America people that all went 100% against the BOM, that would be pretty good evidence the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record, right? Religious belief requires faith until proven otherwise and this goes for confirming or not confirming the belief's validity. Likewise if we had video evidence that Jesus was just a philosopher who lived at that time period who preached wonderful things but actually did not dp miracles and wasn't exactly who the gospel writers claimed he was and nor did he did he do what he did, can we say that he wasn't the son of god? I think so.But...it is all hypothetical. What we do have with the book of mormon are 12 people who saw the plates and many of those 12 felt the plates. And not one denied their experience. So what to do?
why me Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Religious belief requires belief and not evidence. What we do have is what other's claimed happened. This goes for the book of mormon and for the bible. For the book, these others lived at the beginnings of the first century. For the book of mormon, we have witnessed who saw the plates and never denied their spiritual experiences. In both cases, we still need faith. Edited January 28, 2012 by why me
robuchan Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 It's not the crux, and you are describing a totally impossible hypothetical. Suppose we had a video of Jesus getting some herb on the sop that the soldier gave him which knocked him out for 3 days, or some conspiracy of his followers.And I am not changing the game. My entire belief in the church is based on personal revelation- nothing more nothing less.It's a hypothetical to illustrate the point that this is something tangible and historical that can be proven with evidence. I showed what types of evidence would be required to say 100% surety one side or the other is right. We don't have that, but we have hundreds of supporting historical and scientific evidences that can be used to decide for yourself.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Now if they did have modern techology back then, we would either know that there is a god and behave accordingly or that there wasn't a god and behave accordingly.My point is it wouldn't make any difference. There were eyewitnesses to it all who didn't accept Jesus- if we had everything on video, it would still not be as good as being there.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 It's a hypothetical to illustrate the point that this is something tangible and historical that can be proven with evidence. I showed what types of evidence would be required to say 100% surety one side or the other is right. We don't have that, but we have hundreds of supporting historical and scientific evidences that can be used to decide for yourself.You are not understanding that we are talking about linguistic descriptions of spiritual events- there is no possible evidence which can demonstrate any of it with 100% surety.And of course you can use scientific evidence- but its interpretation will still be in the eyes of the beholder.
jorsen Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 You are not understanding that we are talking about linguistic descriptions of spiritual events- there is no possible evidence which can demonstrate any of it with 100% surety.And of course you can use scientific evidence- but its interpretation will still be in the eyes of the beholder.What do you do when Anti Mormon's talk about things such as polygamy and Joseph seeing an angel with a flaming sword commanding that revelation to be followed, and the stone in the hat and so forth?I try to understand these things, but all I am left with is my feeling of peace and genuine love and enjoyment of the gospel.I am currently struggling with this sort of topic. I absolutely love Science and believe in the Scientific Method, but I am struggling as I have a hard time truly chalking this church up as a fraud. I just cannot accept that as truth at this time.
Libs Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) "Facts" have nothing to do with religous testimonies- all the facts in the world cannot prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth even existed much less that he was the Son of God with a virgin mother who was the savior of the world who redeemed us from sin.Every Christian on earth believes that with no historical evidence whatsoever.Well, I think there most certainly could be facts presented (in fact there are some, the Bible which is not the least of those) that Jesus Christ, in fact, existed. There were even many witnesses to his miracles, as well as his death and resurrection. Faith is, generally, based on something...some kind of evidence, whether it is spiritual or physical (usually both). The Book of Mormon gives a spiritual witness to many who read it (I experienced that, myself), but it is also a physical, tangible work that most have difficulty attributing entirely to Joseph Smith, whom it was reported did not have the education or skills to put forth such a work. All of that is considered, by many, who put their faith in that book and the restoration (along with a lot of other historical claims). So, I don't think you can entirely dismiss "facts" or physical evidence, when speaking of faith. I think we all consider, at least, "some" facts, when deciding where to put our faith. Some facts make it easier to believe...others make it more difficult (for some). Edited January 28, 2012 by Libs
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 What do you do when Anti Mormon's talk about things such as polygamy and Joseph seeing an angel with a flaming sword commanding that revelation to be followed, and the stone in the hat and so forth?I try to understand these things, but all I am left with is my feeling of peace and genuine love and enjoyment of the gospel.I am currently struggling with this sort of topic. I absolutely love Science and believe in the Scientific Method, but I am struggling as I have a hard time truly chalking this church up as a fraud. I just cannot accept that as truth at this time.Were you there? I wasn't. I have had face to face interviews with people contemplating divorce- you talk to one and you are totally convinced they are right, then you talk to the spouse and suddenly everything is the direct opposite.And that is with a face to face with both parties, each speaking to their Bishop and doing their best to patch things up- it's impossible to tell what is "actually" going on. The fact is there is NO "actually"- there are only feelings, nuances etcWe are talking about human relationships- have you ever argued with your wife? Does she see things differently than you do? Who is "right"? No one! It all has to be worked out.Brian Hales is an expert on the polygamy issues- http://mormonscholarstestify.org/793/brian-c-halesStick to your testimony- nothing is provable either way. It is not supposed to be provable. We are talking about faith here.
mfbukowski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Well, I think there most certainly could be facts presented (in fact there are some, the Bible which is not the least of those) that Jesus Christ, in fact, existed. There were even many witnesses to his miracles, as well as his death and resurrection. Faith is, generally, based on something...some kind of evidence, whether it is spiritual or physical (usually both). The Book of Mormon gives a spiritual witness to many who read it (I experienced that, myself), but it is also a physical, tangible work that most have difficulty attributing entirely to Joseph Smith, whom it was reported did not have the education or skills to put forth such a work. All of that is considered, by many, who put their faith in that book and the restoration (along with a lot of other historical claims). So, I don't think you can entirely dismiss "facts" or physical evidence, when speaking of faith. I think we all consider, at least, "some" facts, when deciding where to put our faith. Some facts make it easier to believe...others make it more difficult (for some).Why don't you believe those who did NOT believe in Jesus?The Book of Mormon was totally inspired- I personally believe it is indeed historical- but it doesn't have to be to be spiritually "true"
Libs Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Doubt is, I believe, often a part of faith, the question is the patience of the spirit to wait for an answer. The feeling of truth and spirituality is often like mana, it lasts for a while but not forever until we mature enough to have the spirit with us always. That is why we pray and study the scriptures seeking insight. It is a manifestation of the spiritual, not the physical. History is an interpretation of the physical, an "ephemeral" interpretation of the physical. It cannot overcome the spiritual unless we replace the spiritual with the physical.Yes, I understand what you're saying and even agree with you, for the most part. I think it depends on how strong our spiritual testimony was, to begin with. If the physical evidence starts piling up against our spiritual witness, it can start getting difficult to hang on...
Recommended Posts