What (If Anything) Would Convince You That The Church Is Not What It Claims To Be?

[mfbukowski]

... but for me, the only things I care about are those within the realm of science, ....

Ah yes, that is so typical for all of us isn't it. It is ultimately emotional isn't it- what we "care about".

Science does something and gives meaning to your life that nothing else does. Trust me, I get that completely, but for me it isn't science that does that.

Pretty much the only thing I care about is God.

[zerinus]

Then I assume nothing could convince you otherwise.

I guess so.

[citizen28]

There's nothing here I disagree with. But all this is besides the point. It is not about what "IS" but the way you see it- it is an issue of a point of view

The entire point is that the scientific realm only describes a small portion of what is going on. An analogy might be the old flatland analogy. It is certainly true that all flatlanders can see all there is which exists in two dimensions, but cannot understand what happens in three or four dimensions much less -what is it that we now think exist- 11?

If I were speaking to a flatlander, I could clearly agree with all they said about their two dimensional world.

The problem is that science ignores the subjective, and it is in the subjective that we live and breathe and find meaning and make choices in our lives.

I have been over this so many times here that those who understand me, which incidentally are the LDS here, are bored with it, and those who don't understand me still don't get it.

I am convinced it is a major psychological gulf in the way different people see the world which is unbridgeable. You notice in my siggy the point that it is impossible for science to capture the subjective point of view. Incidentally that was written by an atheist. Some people understand that and some don't, and I guess it doesn't necessarily correlate with if you are a theist or not, but I have found virtually all practicing LDS get it.

I was driving down the freeway once and I saw a huge triangular object- like a sign or something which was shiny and caught my eye- but I couldn't figure out what it was. I was in flatland in regard to that object.

It was not easy to get to- I had to do some driving to get near it. When I did, I realized it was not a flat sign at all, but a pyramid.

And besides that, it was a sports arena.

Seeing it from one point of view, I had no idea what I saw, but what I saw was not "wrong"- I just did not have good enough vantage point to see what the "reality" of that triangular object was.

After I stepped inside the pyramid, I had seen it from all angles and I knew much more.

All I am saying is that science is like that. It only sees things from one point of view. But there is a lot more to "reality" than what science sees

http://www.longbeach...onspyramid.html

I assume the reason that LDS might grasp onto this concept is that they believe that something important exists in the metaphysical realm whereas I do not. In fact, keeping religious concepts in the metaphysical realm might be the only way to protect them from scientific inquiry. For me (as you might expect) the definition of reality is things that can be measured. I'm certainly not the first or last person to hold this point of view, nor the best articulator of it, but I assume you've heard this kind of stuff over and over.

What kind of God do you believe in? Do you believe he exists outside the subjective realm? On what evidence (if any) do you place your belief?

[citizen28]

Ah yes, that is so typical for all of us isn't it. It is ultimately emotional isn't it- what we "care about".

Science does something and gives meaning to your life that nothing else does. Trust me, I get that completely, but for me it isn't science that does that.

Pretty much the only thing I care about is God.

The reason I care about it is because it makes the most sense to me. The metaphorical Spirit has confirmed it both "in [my] heart and in [my] mind."

[mfbukowski]

I assume the reason that LDS might grasp onto this concept is that they believe that something important exists in the metaphysical realm whereas I do not. In fact, keeping religious concepts in the metaphysical realm might be the only way to protect them from scientific inquiry. For me (as you might expect) the definition of reality is things that can be measured. I'm certainly not the first or last person to hold this point of view, nor the best articulator of it, but I assume you've heard this kind of stuff over and over.

What kind of God do you believe in? Do you believe he exists outside the subjective realm? On what evidence (if any) do you place your belief?

If you only believe in what can be measured, that's ok just realize that that means you can only believe in what mankind has created since we create measurement.

I would liken God scientifically to an undiscovered species. We know there are undiscovered species, but you really can't tell me anything about them. I think that in principle some day God will "reveal" himself in a tangible scientific way.

What I am certain about is that there is some kind of intelligence directing my life because I see it's effects in my life. Additionally I have had experiences where I know I was communicating mentally with a being far above me in intelligence who knew all things. I am absolutely certain about those experiences- as certain as I am that I am typing on a keyboard- perhaps in some ways more certain. I cannot explain them, and they are totally subjective, as are most things which are important in life.

[mfbukowski]

The reason I care about it is because it makes the most sense to me. The metaphorical Spirit has confirmed it both "in [my] heart and in [my] mind."

Good. I have no problem with that then. Follow that path. Perhaps you need to learn something from that path.

[zerinus]

I assume the reason that LDS might grasp onto this concept is that they believe that something important exists in the metaphysical realm whereas I do not.

So let me turn your own question round to you: "What (if anything) would convince you that Mormonism is what it claims to be?"

[mfbukowski]

If you only believe in what can be measured, that's ok just realize that that means you can only believe in what mankind has created since we create measurement.

Incidentally of course I believe that God is a man in that context. So believing in only what man has created is believing in what God has created.

That's not limiting God, it's exalting man.

[citizen28]

So let me turn your own question round to you: "What (if anything) would convince you that Mormonism is what it claims to be?"

I was asked that question earlier, and this was my reply:

For me to believe would probably require me to trust personal experience over reproducable empirical data, and perhaps more importantly the desire to believe Mormon truth claims. I much prefer a universalist God who heals all the causes of human unhappiness in the afterlife (though has limited or no power in our current world, except maybe to comfort people), to the God of the standard Mormon narrative.

[Jeff K.]

If Paul's road to Damascus never occurred and he was therefore fraudulent in his conversion, would I reject the importance of charity and christianity?

[citizen28]

If you only believe in what can be measured, that's ok just realize that that means you can only believe in what mankind has created since we create measurement.

What is the difference between you perceiving (measuring) God (and thus by your logic, creating him) and a someone else perceiving physical reality in the natural world? I believe reality exists independent of mankind's perception of it, but of course that can't be proven.

[selek1]

Citizen 28,

Have you perceived yet that every one of your positions is predicated on your own preferences, presumptions, and comfort level?

There is not a single objectively verifiable fact to be found in your reasoning (and I suspect that we both agree that the very concept is an illusion to begin with).

"In my view"

"I'm more intellectually satisfied and even inspired by the explanations offered up by science "

"I think"

"Ideas are emotionally satisfying to me when they make sense, and the naturalistic worldview has suited me best thus far." Again, emphasis mine.

"For me"

"I assume"

" it makes the most sense to me" (emphasis mine)

" I much prefer"

Confirmation biases aside, why are your preferences superior to our own?

For all that you frequently reference materialism and rationalism in a reverential tone- your perceptions and paradigm are no more rational or objective than any of ours.

So far all of your aguments have boiled down to your preferences, biases, and comfort zone.

How is that approach any more reasonable than ours?

[Xander]

For me, it was encountering facts that essentially proved Joseph Smith could not have been a true Prophet. It has been demonstrated quite conclusively that he could not translate ancient documents. Of course there are a number of other irrefutable facts that undermine the Church's claims, but this is one was enough to do it.

Of course everyone is different. Some people don't really care what's "true." It all depends on how tied to the church a person is. The more the Church is involved in a person's life, the harder it will be for evidence to have any effect on that person's beliefs. I've heard some apologists like Pacman tell me that no amount of evidence could ever convince him the Church wasn't what it claimed to be. This in and of itself proves to me that the Church expects irrationality from its members. And it all makes sense if you think about it. The Church projects a negative image of man's ability to reason. Anything the Church says is presumed to be "God" and anything else is the "arm of the flesh" or the "reasoning of men," and we're told that God's ways aren't our ways so naturally it isn't supposed to make much sense to us. In the meantime, just take it on "faith." Well, why should I when I know it isn't true?

I have a firm testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not what it claims to be. I know it. I know it for a fact. It isn't something I "believe" or accept on "faith." It is something that has been proven to me and I came to this conclusion by accident; as an apologist who was digging for more information to refute the critics. Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents, and this cuts to the heart of a foundational LDS claim. He also didn't know how to properly interpret the deficient KJV rendering of Rev 1:6. He also couldn't tell the truth about polygamy, etc. The laundry list of evidence is long, but people will either accept it or rationalize it away with philosophical rants about how truth is just relative.

For me, truth matters. So I couldn't in good conscience continue going to Church.

[Xander]

So far all of your aguments have boiled down to your preferences, biases, and comfort zone.

LOL!

Project much?

[Stargazer]

I have no objective way to explain away the evidence of my experiences. It wasn't just some cozy warm feeling. Things happened that could only be explained away by someone who willfully refused to believe it. Like denying the sun at noonday, although it isn't quite that strong, yet.

I'd be interested to find out what your experiences were, although I understand if you're uncomfortable sharing them.

Well, I've posted here about a number of my experiences, and I guess I'm comfortable restating them in this thread, but I don't want to re-type it all. So, here's a list of some of the posts I've made describing some of these experiences.

What are the odds that suddenly out of a clear blue sky distant relatives who have never even heard of each other should start submitting family names for temple work at the same time, whereas the information had been available for years previously and nothing much had been done? It seemed quite indicative of an outside agent instigating it.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57022-anne-frank-recently-baptised-for-dead-for-the-9th-time/

Experience I have had about myself being called to a leadership position in the Church, and later another man whom I knew being called.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56831-so-are-they-all-lying-or-just-delusional/

This is a brief mention about a talk I gave in Sunday School way back in 1970 when the Spirit told over and I ended up giving an entirely different talk from the one I had prepared. This doesn't sound all that impressive, because, after all, people give extemporaneous speeches all the time. But this was the third or fourth talk I had ever given, and the words spilling out of my mouth were not my words. At the conclusion of the talk I sat down completely dumbfounded wondered what had just happened. Except that I knew exactly what had just happened. Any description of the event kind of loses something in the translation. But I was there. I experienced it.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56501-talk-in-sacrament-meetingthat-slipped-your-mind/

What about the Gift of Tongues?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56206-is-there-enough-revelation/

A little bit on how I got my testimony of the Church and the Book of Mormon:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56063-thank-you-for-allowing-me-here/

[Xander]

Confirmation biases aside, why are your preferences superior to our own?

Great question. As Mfbukowski likes to remind everyone, your experience means nothing to me and my experience means nothing to you and neither of us will ever know what it is like to be a bat!

So the million dollar question is...

Why in the bejeezus do Mormons insist on bearing their testimony to others?

When former LDS try to share their experiences, we get stone walled with this "how do you know you're not living in the Matrix" reasoning, but when Mormons have an experience they hold dear, they can't wait to share it in hopes that it will drive the spirit into all those listening.

So to use your own reasoning, why should I care what experiences you have had? Mormons are far more interested in trying to convert me, than I am in trying to get them to leave their faith.

[Bill Hamblin]

For me, it was encountering facts that essentially proved Joseph Smith could not have been a true Prophet. It has been demonstrated quite conclusively that he could not translate ancient documents. Of course there are a number of other irrefutable facts that undermine the Church's claims, but this is one was enough to do it.

Of course everyone is different. Some people don't really care what's "true." It all depends on how tied to the church a person is. The more the Church is involved in a person's life, the harder it will be for evidence to have any effect on that person's beliefs. I've heard some apologists like Pacman tell me that no amount of evidence could ever convince him the Church wasn't what it claimed to be. This in and of itself proves to me that the Church expects irrationality from its members. And it all makes sense if you think about it. The Church projects a negative image of man's ability to reason. Anything the Church says is presumed to be "God" and anything else is the "arm of the flesh" or the "reasoning of men," and we're told that God's ways aren't our ways so naturally it isn't supposed to make much sense to us. In the meantime, just take it on "faith." Well, why should I when I know it isn't true?

I have a firm testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not what it claims to be. I know it. I know it for a fact. It isn't something I "believe" or accept on "faith." It is something that has been proven to me and I came to this conclusion by accident; as an apologist who was digging for more information to refute the critics. Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents, and this cuts to the heart of a foundational LDS claim. He also didn't know how to properly interpret the deficient KJV rendering of Rev 1:6. He also couldn't tell the truth about polygamy, etc. The laundry list of evidence is long, but people will either accept it or rationalize it away with philosophical rants about how truth is just relative.

For me, truth matters. So I couldn't in good conscience continue going to Church.

Funny ... I studied precisely the same things and came to an entirely different conclusion.

For me, truth matters. So I couldn't in good conscience quit going to Church.

[Xander]

Why do you do that?

How do you know you are not dreaming right now?

LOL!

Did you think to ask yourself that when you had your "spiritual experience" confirming to you that God decided he wanted to "restore" his lost religion to the earth after 1800 years, and that he wanted its founder to practice polygamy, etc?

[Jeff K.]

Why bear testimony? Because it can be a conduit for the Holy Ghost. For those who reject such a possibility, no amount of explaining will convince, they will always have a reason not to believe and the Holy Ghost will not waste its time with them.

[Xander]

Funny ... I studied precisely the same things and came to an entirely different conclusion.

For me, truth matters. So I couldn't in good conscience quit going to Church.

Obviously truth doesn't mean as much to you as it does to me, Bill. And no, you haven't studied the same things. You and Dan both have deferred to John Gee on all matters relating to the BoA, which means you're both way behind.

And as I said above, it all depends how important the Church is to that person's life. You've clearly invested a great amount of time and effort into the Church and its defense over the years. Don't you work for the Church? For some people, their universe implodes if they even entertain the possibility that the Church cannot be true. This causes confirmation bias to work in overdrive, and gives evidence less of a chance to work its magic.

To prove I'm more interested in what's true, let's see if you're willing to answer this simple question:

Joseph Smith lie about polygamy. Yes or no?

It is an irrefutable fact that he did, but getting believers to admit this has been like pulling teeth. Why? Because the Church is more important to them than the truth. If they have no problem coming to gripes with the truth, then they'd just concede the point and admit that they still have faith despite what's actually true.

Here is another one. John Gee's latest FAIR presentation was entirely wrong. Yes or no?

Or how about this one. Kerry Muhlestein was entirely wrong when he said a papyrus translated to say "Abraham upon his couch", yes or no?

Or how about this one. Joseph Smith was entirely wrong when he interpreted the ambiguous KJV rendering of Rev 1:6 to prove that God the Father has a father. Yes or no?

Believing something based on faith is fine so long as you admit that's what you're doing. But you cannot say at the same time you are just as interested in the truth when certain truths conflict with a predetermined faith, because when this happens, you always go with faith and put what's true on the backburner. This is generally how religious people deal with uncomfortable truths that undermine their presuppositions about reality.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Xander

[Bill Hamblin]

Obviously truth doesn't mean as much to you as it does to me, Bill. And no, you haven't studied the same things. You and Dan both have deferred to John Gee on all matters relating to the BoA, which means you're both way behind.

And as I said above, it all depends how important the Church is to that person's life. You've clearly invested a great amount of time and effort into the Church and its defense over the years. Don't you work for the Church? For some people, their universe implodes if they even entertain the possibility that the Church cannot be true. This causes confirmation bias to work in overdrive, and gives evidence less of a chance to work its magic.

To prove I'm more interested in what's true, let's see if you're willing to answer this simple question:

Joseph Smith lie about polygamy. Yes or no?

It is an irrefutable fact that he did, but getting believers to admit this has been like pulling teeth. Why? Because the Church is more important to them than the truth. If they have no problem coming to gripes with the truth, then they'd just concede the point and admit that they still have faith despite what's actually true.

Here is another one. John Gee's latest FAIR presentation was entirely wrong. Yes or no?

Or how about this one. Kerry Muhlestein was entirely wrong when he said a papyrus translated to say "Abraham upon his couch", yes or no?

Or how about this one. Joseph Smith was entirely wrong when he interpreted the ambiguous KJV rendering of Rev 1:6 to prove that God the Father has a father. Yes or no?

Believing something based on faith is fine so long as you admit that's what you're doing. But you cannot say at the same time you are just as interested in the truth when certain truths conflict with a predetermined faith, because when this happens, you always go with faith and put what's true on the backburner. This is generally how religious people deal with uncomfortable truths that undermine their presuppositions about reality.

It is perplexing that you are unable to realize that two intelligent, informed and sincere people of good will can study the same historical question and come up with radically different conclusions. It is the norm in historical studies. Instead, you must attribute differences of opinion to ignorance, lies, mercenary interest, and psychological instability. Which, more than anything else, makes it impossible to have a coherent civil conversation. Which is why you are at the very top of my ignore list, to which I now return forthwith.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Jeff K.]

Intelligence is one of the tools for finding truth. Xander, alas is a man whose tool box is empty, and so is unable to find truth, even when it falls like an avalanche around him.

To Xander, the truth is only true if it attacks people of faith. He would sell any ounce of integrity cheaply in order for the most slender of opportunities. It is one reason his credibility is so shallow and he is so easily dismissed. Intelligence dare not penetrate his core belief system, it would shrivel and die and sad lonely death next to his dogmatic anguish.

[mfbukowski]

duplicate- error

Edited March 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

LOL!

Did you think to ask yourself that when you had your "spiritual experience" confirming to you that God decided he wanted to "restore" his lost religion to the earth after 1800 years, and that he wanted its founder to practice polygamy, etc?

Personal insults and ridiculing testimonies? I see, the usual behavior.

You owe me an apology

[Xander]

It is perplexing that you are unable to realize that two intelligent, informed and sincere people of good will can study the same historical question and come up with radically different conclusions.

Please point to where I said such nonsense. I'm confident I never said this, and I'm confident you know this.

It is the norm in historical studies

Is this your answer to my question, did Joseph Smith lie about polygamy? If so, then you proved my point. Thanks in advance.

Instead, you must attribute differences of opinion to ignorance, lies, mercenary interest, and psychological instability.

I "must"? That's nonsense. However, in the case of some, these certainly apply. Mormons here certainly make no hesitation in assuming the motives and insincerity of all those who come to different conclusions than "I know the Church is true." I direct you to recent comments my Jeff K and Scott Loyd who flat out state that critics are essentially lying when they claim to be interested in the truth.

But back to your point, it all depends on what the subject is. This is why I asked specific questions which have definitive answers. If you cannot concede what historians from both sides have conceded (Joseph Smith did in fact lie about polygamy) then you cannot expect to be taken seriously when you say you have just as much interest in truth as those who have no problems conceding this point.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Xander