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

[selek1]

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.

This is- to be perfectly blunt and objective- a personal attack on Xander.

We will, however, see who gets thread-banned first.

Despite the fact that Xander's last dozen posts have been nothing but hateful attacks on individual posters and generic and bigoted screeds against the Church and Mormons in general, he has thus far been given plenty of rope with which to hang himself.

Only time will tell...

[Xander]

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

You owe me an apology

An apology for using your own line of questioning? I don't get it. Are you actually trying to find a way to be offended? By the way, how do you know that I said anything at all? How do you know you're you? How do you know that you're not tripping on bad acid someone slipped you last night? How do you know anything? How do you know you're not really a bat having a bad dream as a human? How do you know? huh? huh?

[selek1]

JeffK-

I've tried to PM you several times in the past couple of weeks. Is your mail box full or disabled?

[Xander]

This is- to be perfectly blunt and objective- a personal attack on Xander.

We will, however, see who gets thread-banned first.

Despite the fact that Xander's last dozen posts have been nothing but hateful attacks on individual posters and generic and bigoted screeds against the Church and Mormons in general, he has thus far been given plenty of rope with which to hang himself.

Only time will tell...

Utter nonsense. I've attacked no one. All I have done is try to challenge the group-think rhetoric.

You and Jeff K however have made blanket attacks against all critics with the usual pop-psychoanalysis that you believe is self-evident through personal observation! We're all a bunch of insincere liars who have no interest in what's really true, right? That's what you two said long before I ever said two words that could possibly be interpreted as an "attack" on anyone.

But you're the eternal victim, as always. Never forget that.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Xander

[mfbukowski]

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.

No I don't think I created God any more than I created you. The point is that we only know what others know because we have shared experiences- and those experiences are linguistically communicated, and we cannot ever escape that socially constructed world of language, using language itself.

So all we can speak about is what we both have experienced.

No one doubts that "reality exists" but it is a simple fact that we cannot talk about it without language- which is constantly interpretive. Look how hard it is to discuss anything on this board and understand each other. All we do largely is talk about misunderstandings.

Religion is about what we cannot speak about unless we have shared experiences, and millions have had religious experiences. But if you have not had such an experience, it is like explaining the taste of an apple scientifically- it can't be done.

So we are all caught up in that social reality created by language except for what is most important to us personally- personal choice, personal wordless interaction and what gives our individual lives meaning. That is what religion is for.

Edited March 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Jeff K.]

Nope, only that critics who are insincere and dogmatic Xander. Guess you messed up again.

[Xander]

The point is that we only know what others know because we have shared experiences- and those experiences are linguistically communicated, and we cannot ever escape that socially constructed world of language, using language itself.

So all we can speak about is what we both have experienced

Not quite. All we can really speak about is what we experience and what others say they've experienced. There is no reason to take for granted that what you're hearing from someone else is truthfully spoken. For example, General Authority Paul H. Dunn loved to make up stories for the purpose of triggering testimony-building emotions, and I've come to accept this as a part of Mormon culture. I've heard my companions retell experiences we both shared in ways that I don't even recognize as reality. Mormon myths like the three Nephites, bullet-proof garments, etc, all derive from this social phenomenon. And on some days it seemed like members would try to "one up" each other by telling the more impressive "spiritual experience" during testimomy meetings. This is what is expected from the more "spiritual" members, and this determines how far up the ladder one goes. A returned missionary, for example, is expected to come back with a ton of "spiritual" experiences. I found myself engaging in hyperbole during my homecoming talk, because the pressure was really that high. Especially for someone like me who was a recent convert. I had given up my family for the Church and everyone knew it, so they assumed I was that much more "spiritual" than the guy who went on a mission so his girlfriend would marry him.

Religion is about what we cannot speak about unless we have shared experiences, and millions have had religious experiences.

LOL! Yes, I'm sure you're right. That's why missionaries cannot speak about their religion to atheists.

But if you have not had such an experience, it is like explaining the taste of an apple scientifically- it can't be done.

All humans have the same senses. These are the only means by which we perceive the world around us. This is science, but not rocket science. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to explain your spiritual experience to another human being, his/her religious background notwithstanding.

So we are all caught up in that social reality created by language except for what is most important to us personally- personal choice, personal wordless interaction and what gives our individual lives meaning. That is what religion is for

People decide for themselves what meaning they want life to have. It doesn't have to come from religion.

[mfbukowski]

An apology for using your own line of questioning? I don't get it. Are you actually trying to find a way to be offended? By the way, how do you know that I said anything at all? How do you know you're you? How do you know that you're not tripping on bad acid someone slipped you last night? How do you know anything? How do you know you're not really a bat having a bad dream as a human? How do you know? huh? huh?

You are really just showing your ignorance of these issues- you can't even come up with a coherent criticism of what I have actually said. You don't even understand it.

[selek1]

Utter nonsense. I've attacked no one.

Such denials are foolish when we've got the written record at our finger tips:

Insults from (roughly) your last dozen posts:

"group-think rhetoric"

"But you're the eternal victim, as always. Never forget that."

"They (LDS leaders) were racists."

"And the persecution complex lives on.... "

"Obviously truth doesn't mean as much to you as it does to me"

" the Church is more important to them (believers) than the truth"

"Some people don't really care what's "true." It all depends on how tied to the church a person is."

"the Church expects irrationality from its members."

"The Church projects a negative image of man's ability to reason."

"Political correctness must prevail over truth."

Rules Violations:

Godwin's Law violation: comparing the Church to the KKK.

"For me, it was encountering facts that essentially proved Joseph Smith could not have been a true Prophet." From the Board Guideline: Topics We Don't Allow- Personal topics such as "Why I Left the Church" threads.

"You and Dan both have deferred to John Gee on all matters relating to the BoA"

This falls afoul of the following:

• Proselyting or "witnessing" from either side. Preaching doesn't create a discussion.
  
• Personal Squabbles. If you have a bone to pick with someone else, this is not the place to do it.
  
• Mocking each others' beliefs
  
• Psychoanalyzing others
  
• Attempting to provoke people
  
• Do not post anything else you know is meant to do nothing more than push others' buttons
  

[mfbukowski]

Not quite. All we can really speak about is what we experience and what others say they've experienced. There is no reason to take for granted that what you're hearing from someone else is truthfully spoken. For example, General Authority Paul H. Dunn loved to make up stories for the purpose of triggering testimony-building emotions, and I've come to accept this as a part of Mormon culture. I've heard my companions retell experiences we both shared in ways that I don't even recognize as reality. Mormon myths like the three Nephites, bullet-proof garments, etc, all derive from this social phenomenon. And on some days it seemed like members would try to "one up" each other by telling the more impressive "spiritual experience" during testimomy meetings. This is what is expected from the more "spiritual" members, and this determines how far up the ladder one goes. A returned missionary, for example, is expected to come back with a ton of "spiritual" experiences. I found myself engaging in hyperbole during my homecoming talk, because the pressure was really that high. Especially for someone like me who was a recent convert. I had given up my family for the Church and everyone knew it, so they assumed I was that much more "spiritual" than the guy who went on a mission so his girlfriend would marry him.

What does this have to do with anything?

All humans have the same senses. These are the only means by which we perceive the world around us. This is science, but not rocket science. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to explain your spiritual experience to another human being, his/her religious background notwithstanding.

Yep, thanks for repeating the sense of what I said. There is also no reason we cannot say something tastes like an apple- IF they have tasted apples too. But what if they have not?

People decide for themselves what meaning they want life to have. It doesn't have to come from religion.

I didn't say it has to come from religion. Religion is only one of the ways.

But yes the whole point is that "people decide for themselves"! That is precisely what I was saying. The choice is their personal subjective choice and does NOT come from observing what gives other people meaning in their lives.

You are so eager to jump down my throat that you don't even read what I have written. Keep it up. Your credibility is dropping through the floor.

[Xander]

Insults from (roughly) your last dozen posts:

None of those comments are personal attacks against anyone, and for you to pretend otherwise just reinforces my earlier statement that some folks here don't know to to distance themselves from the usual persecution complex. Nothing I said is untrue and many of those comments were in response to equally insulting remarks that were specifically directed towards me. If it were, then you'd attempt to refute instead of whining about the fact that I have the audacity to speak such truths.

I never compared the Church to the KKK, and for you to suggest otherwise ruins your credibility. I said it is not unreasonable to want to hold past leaders accountable for racism and used a politician's affiliations and racist views as an example of understandable scrutiny. Does anyone here really doubt that past leaders were racists? I mean good grief selek, are you going to sit there and tell me Orson Hyde, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, etc etc were not racists by our modern sense of the term?? Of course they were. This is indisputable and I don't know any apologist who has disputed it beyond saying the word racism meant something different back then and that their feelings were typical of their time, etc. Maybe so, but none of this changes the fact that people are upset with Bott for simply stating his opinion that blacks were blessed by not having the priesthood, and then they turn around and sustain an organization that has taught its members to think in those terms. As recently as 1949 the Church released a statement saying this doctrine was based on another doctrine about the preexistence.

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure"

This was published by the church in 1951 and Randy Bott is a product of such indoctrination. If his views are racist, then how is it that those who taught him these things, are not also racist? Just because the Church's news room sent out a quick denunciation of "racism" in general, doesn't do enough to thwart more than a century of official doctrine. As far as we know, whoever wrote that release (it wasn't Monson!) is assuming a completely different definition for the word racism. In the 50's LDS authorities like Mark E. Peterson was teaching members that Negros were "cursed" because of their preexistent behavior and that they can enter the celestial kingdom only as servants. In the late 60's Spencer W. Kimball taught a racist understanding of the Book of Mormon, saying the Indians (Lamanites!) were becoming lighter in skin tone the more they repented. During that same time LDS leaders like Ezra Taft Benson were opposing the civil rights movement.

So yes, the more you guys draw attention to this issue, the worse it is going to be for the Church. The moderator's powers of censorship don't work beyond this forum.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

You are so eager to jump down my throat that you don't even read what I have written. Keep it up. Your credibility is dropping through the floor.

I'm not jumping down your throat, and I did read what you wrote. At least in the post I was responding to. That's probably why you didn't respond to everything I said.

[rodheadlee]

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.

Because we love you and want you to come home.

[Minos]

Anyone telling others they don't care about truth is an insult and will result in removal from the thread. The thread has gone downhill ever since.