Do People Who Can'T Overcome Doubt And Issues . . .

[Kenngo1969]

I hope what I'll say here won't offend you and you'll take it as a clarification.

The view you describe here is antithetical to any commitment to truth one can have.

With due respect, I wonder how such a sweeping statement can, in any way, be a springboard to further understanding and discussion. Perhaps it would be more useful for you to say, "It is antithetical to my perception of truth," or "It is antithetical to the perception of many of truth." There is little doubt that your paradigm differs from mine, and that's fine; however, If my paradigm, instead, it is antithetical to any commitment to truth, then what more needs to (or can) be said?

So what if I were to suffer because I didn't believe what was useful when I thought the useful was false?

What matters is what's useful to you, what makes you happy and gives you fulfillment. If it makes you happy and gives you fulfillment, then, to use Alma's analogy, you know it's a good seed that bears good fruit in your life. If it doesn't bear such fruit, you can discard it (easier said than done, admittedly, but that's a choice you'll have to make) and find another seed which does bear such good fruit. I don't think it's productive to talk in terms of true or false, or to conflate the tems true, false, useful, and not useful in the same discussion. At the risk of oversimplifying, useful = true; not useful = false.

So what if truth were to consume my happiness and I were to be ignored by the charity of others, even of God?

Perhaps I am simply unable to appreciate (to fully understand) your paradigm, but I don't know how truth can consume happiness. One's search for truth may consume one's happiness, perhaps, but if so, perhaps he ought to concern himself less with the destination than with simply enjoying the journey; and that's also why I believe it's more productive to think in terms of usefulness and fulfillment than in terms of "truth." As for being "ignored" by charity, charity by definition cannot ignore anyone. (Granted, the world is full of uncharity and of "man's inhumanity to man," and we can all do a better job of demonstrating charity for our fellow human beings.) One may feel ignored by God or by others, but I would suggest that such a condition is more a matter of perception than of anything else (and I say that as someone with a complicated psychological history and as someone who often struggles to understand precisely what I think God wants of me when it comes to finding my niche [His niche for me] in certain areas of my life.

How weak does it seem to those who doubt and take their doubt seriously the character of those who counsel to leave the tree intact, to not examine the roots? Seekers want to leave no tree unturned and burn the trees of rotten roots.

You misapply Alma's analogy here. If it's not a good seed, then a tree won't even exist whose roots you can examine; it won't bear fruit, period. I agree with you in one sense, though: it does take courage, if one lacks fulfillment and happiness, to discard the seeds he so fervently hoped that, if planted and cultivated, would lead to those things, and to continue the search for good seeds.

Who knows? Maybe we will end up being the poor in spirit who saw it as a duty to destroy what seemed worthy of destruction in us, to the point of leaving little to ourselves of ourselves?

I disagree with you to an extent here. If one has healthy self-regard and an appropriate sense of boundaries, then what one gives of oneself will enlarge the self rather than diminishing it. And if one finds oneself in a situation in which that enlargement is not occurring because the receiver of that gift doesn't reciprocate, there's nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that says one must continue to give of onesself until one is diminished in the manner you describe. There is the concept of "putting off the natural man" in Mosiah 3:19, but the purpose of doing that is not to diminish onesself in terms of identity: it's simply to enlarge one's spiritual qualities and capabilities while simultaneously putting off that which doesn't enlarge those things.

We could end up being the meek who sacrificed useful pretty lives and thought it more important to be strong. Maybe we mourn that we were in illusions and we'll be comforted that they are finally gone.

That's a false dichotomy. If it bears good fruit, then it's good; if it's good, then it's real; if it's real, then it gives one happiness and fulfillment. If I wonder how someone can find happiness and fulfillment by choosing a particular path, rather than calling that path an "illusion," I prefer to think that I simply don't understand that person's paradigm.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Jeremy is a believer, if not a theologically liberal one. But he can correct me if I'm wrong.

You are not wrong. Even if I get annoyed at some of the peripheral aspects of our culture sometimes. Many times. Okay, most times. >_>

[Glenn101]

I'm going to put in my last two cents worth on this topic. It is obvious that many people are struggling with their testimonies. Some are leaving the church because of those struggles.

God has prescribed the means by which He will reveal the truth to those who seek it. What ever the provopcation for our struggles, we still are and will be accountable to God for finding the truth.

It is the duty of those who do not struggle NOT to sit in judgement of those who do. That is, not to tell them why they are struggling. Most of them probably already know that point pretty well. But those who do not struggle have been given a comission to help those who do.

Matthew 18:12

12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

Glenn

Edited February 9, 2013 by Glenn101

[pmccombs1]

Like this right here….not following you. I’ve read the above like 3 times….once out loud to try and make sense of it, but I’m just not getting your point. Could you clarify? I don’t like responding until I feel like I understand.

Well, OK, let me try an analogy. If I am in free-fall, in desperation I might grasp at any thread, however thin and frayed, to arrest my descent. Now, take away the desperation. Suppose I already have some poor rope on which to dangle. Why ought I make a leap of faith to another if I can see some perceived defect or trouble with it? Others may try to explain the problems away, and that is why we have apologists, because when we think we see something wrong with the thing we're supposed to trust, it's hard to go by faith at that point. So we have to change the story somehow; maybe they aren't problems. Maybe the rope is strong. Maybe we only see poorly. But these voices, these apologists and witnesses and so forth, are on all of the frayed ropes. To which one shall we leap? And why?

Genuine does not always mean correct. And before you assume I’m throwing some specific experience under the bus, I’m right on in there in the midst of people who have been genuine…but not correct. I didn’t know it in the moment. I have had a variety of assumptions that were out of balance, askew, or just plain wrong. And often I believed I was following God in them. Many of them were corrected. Many more will be.

Yes, of course, the certain are bound to say this. I was using "genuine" as a synonym for "correct" in that instance, but I see what you mean. By many, you are regarded as the genuine who is also in error. And this is a central problem; it is one of epistemology. You can't justifiably know if you are correct or not. You can only feel certain.

Really? It means we’re human. To me, it’s not all that deep. We come up with different ideas, because we’re different. Sometimes we’re right, sometimes we’re wrong, most the time we’re a mix of both. In the end it won’t matter as much because as long as we’ve established a pattern in our lives of following God and trusting in His ways (as much as we have the opportunity to know it in this life), we’ll be fine and all will be corrected as much as we are will to take correction.

And furthermore, I disagree that chaos reigns over all.

Joseph Smith had this problem. He didn't know where to leap, or in which genuine authority to believe when it came to the truth about God. He learned he could ask God about it, and He ended up making a leap into thin air. Well, Joseph Smith isn't unique in his method of seeking truth, though we seem to understand him as some innovator in that regard. And you know, lots of people are leaping in many different directions, all of them inspired by God or so they say. The voice of God does not speak the same things to all people, and this is a problem for our way of knowing. And this is what I mean by chaos, it is that I can't predict what God will say to me or to anyone else. But I find that He is talking, and am intrigued by the many various and contradictory things He is saying. He has left us no way to prove if any of it is correct, only to feel certain that what He has spoken to us, as individuals, is the truth. What I'm saying is that I have no reason to prefer my own answers from God over those of another, equally genuine, who may not agree with me. Religious experience is basically similar in all truly devout people. This leads me to question, very reasonably, whether what I have received is "correct," or if it even originates from God.

[Stargazer]

What if it could be shown that 14 yr old Sis. Kimball was only sealed to him to unite their families and nothing beyond the sealing occurred between the two of them?

Also do you think dishonesty is always wrong?

Question to husband: "Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"

"Yes". -- telling the truth, because she is fat anyway

"No" -- telling the truth, because she is already fat, the dress doesn't change anything

You pick, which one would you prefer? They are both truth, and they are both lies.

[Alvino]

With due respect, I wonder how such a sweeping statement can, in any way, be a springboard to further understanding and discussion. Perhaps it would be more useful for you to say, "It is antithetical to my perception of truth," or "It is antithetical to the perception of many of truth." There is little doubt that your paradigm differs from mine, and that's fine; however, If my paradigm, instead, it is antithetical to any commitment to truth, then what more needs to (or can) be said?

I'm not saying your attitude is antithetical to what I believe is true but to a commitment to truth - to find and take responsibility for truth.

What matters is what's useful to you, what makes you happy and gives you fulfillment.

By "what matters" I suppose you mean "what matters most", right? That I reject and I think you should, too. You can believe that what is actually true will give you fulfillment, that's a possibility, but to say what REALLY matters is that we live a happy fulfilling life seems to me weak. (I promise I've been trying to find other adjectives that describe it in a way that makes me look less of the pretentious smug I'm making myself look like here - I don't want you to take me for that, really - but I can't)

If it makes you happy and gives you fulfillment, then, to use Alma's analogy, you know it's a good seed that bears good fruit in your life.

Of course being happy and fulfillment are, by definition, good fruits in your life. That isn't the issue. The issue is that what may make one happy may or may not be true and that I think we should be willing to sacrifice happiness and fulfillment if it means sacrificing one's commitment to truth.

If it doesn't bear such fruit, you can discard it (easier said than done, admittedly, but that's a choice you'll have to make) and find another seed which does bear such good fruit.

By "discard" you mean what exactly? There are many things I believe that don't make me feel all that good but I recognize as true. Should I discard them just because they make me feel not good or happy or fulfilled? Should I try to convince myself some things I suspect or know are false just because they can very likely make me happier and fulfilled? That's awful.

I don't think it's productive to talk in terms of true or false, or to conflate the tems true, false, useful, and not useful in the same discussion. At the risk of oversimplifying, useful = true; not useful = false.

How can one conflate the useful with the true if, according to you, the useful is the true?

Perhaps I am simply unable to appreciate (to fully understand) your paradigm, but I don't know how truth can consume happiness.

Here's a scenario:

Let's say my wife is cheating on me. You know this and you also know I don't know this. Let's also say you know, somehow, that I couldn't take the revelation that my wife is cheating on me well because I love her and I would get too depressed to be significantly happy for the rest of my days. However, you also know that if you don't tell me I will the same happy camper I've always been thinking my wife is loyal to me until the day I die.

Assume that no harm will come to me if you don't tell me (like me getting an STD thanks to my wife's rendezvous) or to anyone in my family.

You then take me aside and decide to tell me. Somehow, though, you have the power to make me forget what you just told me and let me continue living with the belief that my wife was loyal, or you can let me continue to go ahead and confront life with the knowledge you presented if I so desire.

Obviously, that is an incredible scenario. I'm not making the point that something like this could happen. The idea in that scenario is that one would probably value knowing the truth, no matter how hurtful it was or how unhappy it will make us; we want to know and let the chips fall where they may then.

Am I wrong? Should I value my happiness and fulfillment so much so that I would discard living with pain by choosing to live a lie?

The situation is different here, of course, because one probably doesn't know one's beliefs are true or false so clearly. Still, it seems to me one should value more whether one's happiness is based on truthful things instead of choosing to leave the inquiry aside just because it might reveal ugly truths that we won't like to hear.

One's search for truth may consume one's happiness, perhaps, but if so, perhaps he ought to concern himself less with the destination than with simply enjoying the journey; and that's also why I believe it's more productive to think in terms of usefulness and fulfillment than in terms of "truth."

Yes, we should concern ourselves with being happy and helping others be happy. If you think I'm denying that you are very wrong.

What I am denying is that one ought to leave some stones unturned because it might reveal ugly truths about what makes us happy.

As for being "ignored" by charity, charity by definition cannot ignore anyone. (Granted, the world is full of uncharity and of "man's inhumanity to man," and we can all do a better job of demonstrating charity for our fellow human beings.) One may feel ignored by God or by others, but I would suggest that such a condition is more a matter of perception than of anything else (and I say that as someone with a complicated psychological history and as someone who often struggles to understand precisely what I think God wants of me when it comes to finding my niche [His niche for me] in certain areas of my life.

Metaphors, Kenngo.

You misapply Alma's analogy here.

Right. That's how new ideas are created, brother. That's not to say I don't get Alma's analogy.

If it's not a good seed, then a tree won't even exist whose roots you can examine; it won't bear fruit, period.

I never spoke of seeds. You spoke of roots. For what I was trying to convey with the metaphor, this is irrelevant.

I disagree with you to an extent here. If one has healthy self-regard and an appropriate sense of boundaries, then what one gives of oneself will enlarge the self rather than diminishing it.

Might not have been clear but you didn't get what I was saying there. I did not talk about "giving oneself" as sacrificing oneself but taking out or purging what one discovered were parts of one's character and persona built on rotten roots. Just never mind this.

That's a false dichotomy.

That's not a dichotomy, actually.

If it bears good fruit, then it's good; if it's good, then it's real; if it's real, then it gives one happiness and fulfillment.

If you think this here is good reasoning this will be a rather short conversation.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Alvino

[DBMormon]

One chooses to believe or disbelieve religious assertions based on the weight of evidence.

I would also add.....

One chooses to believe or disbelieve religious assertions based on the weight of evidence, though their conclusion is not always where the side with the most evidence is found.

[Storm Rider]

That's a false dichotomy. If it bears good fruit, then it's good; if it's good, then it's real; if it's real, then it gives one happiness and fulfillment. If I wonder how someone can find happiness and fulfillment by choosing a particular path, rather than calling that path an "illusion," I prefer to think that I simply don't understand that person's paradigm.

Would you say that truth is relative? It sounds like that is what you are supporting or it may be a definitional problem with truth. I believe in absolute truths; if it is not absolute truth it is not eternal. If something works for you, that does not mean it is truth, it is just something that works for you. However, it is shaky ground upon which to build a life philosophy. A drug addict finds that some drugs work for him, but he is also dependent upon them. However, they work for him/her; they find contentment in their use. There are many things that people find "work" for them, but that does not mean they are true. Does this make sense?

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not saying your attitude is antithetical to what I believe is true but to a commitment to truth - to find and take responsibility for truth.

I don't believe either one of us (in contrast to you, apparently ) lacks a commitment to find truth, or to "take responsibility for" truth (whatever that means.) We simply use different (probably irreconcilable) paradigms. You can tell me my paradigm is the wrong one, and I could reciprocate, but that's not likely to do either one of us much good.

By "what matters" I suppose you mean "what matters most", right? That I reject and I think you should, too. You can believe that what is actually true will give you fulfillment, that's a possibility, but to say what REALLY matters is that we live a happy fulfilling life seems to me weak. (I promise I've been trying to find other adjectives that describe it in a way that makes me look less of the pretentious smug I'm making myself look like here - I don't want you to take me for that, really - but I can't) [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969].

Oh, come on! You could do it if you were so disposed! I know you could! You'd simply have to try HARDER! All you have to say is that, from your perspective, we use irreconcilably different paradigms. (I disagree with that, because I know plenty of people who have at least as much respect for, say, the Scientific Method as you apparently do, but yet they don't see that as a reason to discard the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ). But for purposes of our discussion, I'll accept that our paradigms are different. (It's a pity you can't do me the courtesy of doing the same! Oh, well! What do I care? Here in cyberspace, I don't even know that you're a real person, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that you think I have a PollyAnna-ish view of the world! )

Of course being happy and fulfillment are, by definition, good fruits in your life. That isn't the issue. The issue is that what may make one happy may or may not be true and that I think we should be willing to sacrifice happiness and fulfillment if it means sacrificing one's commitment to truth.

And, although, admittedly, those were the only good fruits I mentioned previously in our discussion, if they were the only good fruits the Gospel of Jesus Christ has borne in my life, you would have a point. Alas, they're not, so I don't think you do.

By "discard" you mean what exactly? There are many things I believe that don't make me feel all that good but I recognize as true. Should I discard them just because they make me feel not good or happy or fulfilled? Should I try to convince myself some things I suspect or know are false just because they can very likely make me happier and fulfilled? That's awful.

Oh, I know! I'm just delusional! You're right! It's awful! There are plenty of smart people (some even smarter than you ... I know! Hard to imagine, right? ), many of whom likely have unflinchingly considered the things you consider to be "dealbreakers," who haven't seen fit to discard the Gospel of Jesus Christ because of them. I wish I could fly without the aid of a machine, dang it! I really wish I could just sprout wings and take to the skies! But I'm not going to disregard the law of gravity just because being able to fly would make me happier!

How can one conflate the useful with the true if, according to you, the useful is the true?

Touche. I'm not going to debate semantics with you. My overall points, given the paradigm I'm using, still stand. Your mileage varies. From your perspective, I'm driving a sturdy, economical Ford Focus while you've got a Dodge Viper with a V-12 engine. Bully for you! (Don't get too many traffic tickets ... and remember: not even a Dodge Viper can outrun PhotoCop or a police helicopter! )

Here's a scenario:

Let's say my wife is cheating on me. You know this and you also know I don't know this. Let's also say you know, somehow, that I couldn't take the revelation that my wife is cheating on me well because I love her and I would get too depressed to be significantly happy for the rest of my days. However, you also know that if you don't tell me I will the same happy camper I've always been thinking my wife is loyal to me until the day I die.

Assume that no harm will come to me if you don't tell me (like me getting an STD thanks to my wife's rendezvous) or to anyone in my family.

You then take me aside and decide to tell me. Somehow, though, you have the power to make me forget what you just told me and let me continue living with the belief that my wife was loyal, or you can let me continue to go ahead and confront life with the knowledge you presented if I so desire.

Obviously, that is an incredible scenario. I'm not making the point that something like this could happen. The idea in that scenario is that one would probably value knowing the truth, no matter how hurtful it was or how unhappy it will make us; we want to know and let the chips fall where they may then.

Am I wrong? Should I value my happiness and fulfillment so much so that I would discard living with pain by choosing to live a lie?

Thanks for admitting your scenario is pointless! Of course I wouldn't keep the truth from you if I knew your wife had a deadly disease, but that's hardly the same as your doubting the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. As long as we're trading pointless scenarios, here's one for you: if the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ isn't true, I doubt there's a God, so I'm admitting at the outset I doubt (based on my paradigm) that this scenario could ever happen. (But, as I said, as long as we're trading pointless scenarios ... What are the consequences of my living an "untrue" Gospel of Jesus Christ? "Oh, he wasted tens of thousands of hours, and hundreds of thousands of dollars over his lifetime trying to help his fellow man, trying to encourage him, to assuage his longings physical and spiritual, believing in that ridiculous story about Joseph Smith, Gold Plates, and Angels! How awful!"

But if there is a God, and if he wants to judge my motives because He thinks my methods are wrong, (i.e., that I should have believed and followed, e.g., Roman Catholicism as opposed to Main Branch Mormonism), I'll take all the punishment he sees fit to give me. And if there isn't a god, what does it matter? If there isn't a god, there is neither an afterlife nor a judgment for me to be concerned about. In the first case, I'll happily deal with the consequences when I get there, and in the second case, there are no consequences other than being out a few hundred thousand dollars (with which could have, e.g., bought a Dodge Viper and racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in traffic tickets! Dang! ) and a few dozen thousand hours spent trying to help my fellow man! Win-win!

[Kenngo1969]

Would you say that truth is relative? It sounds like that is what you are supporting or it may be a definitional problem with truth. I believe in absolute truths; if it is not absolute truth it is not eternal. If something works for you, that does not mean it is truth, it is just something that works for you. However, it is shaky ground upon which to build a life philosophy. A drug addict finds that some drugs work for him, but he is also dependent upon them. However, they work for him/her; they find contentment in their use. There are many things that people find "work" for them, but that does not mean they are true. Does this make sense?

I'm not going to sit in judgment of someone else because we have a few core beliefs that might differ. What one is and what one does matters far more than what one believes, and I believe God works the same way. In the judgment, He's not going to be asking people to discard their entire paradigms simply because those paradigms differ in a few insignificant details from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He's not going to say, "You were wrong. Here's a new paradigm. Deal with it." He's going to say, "You were mostly right. Now, let's talk about a few of the details ..." Yes, there are plenty of people in the world who think that lying, stealing, cheating, et cetera (along with the short-term gains those actions get them) are what make them genuinely happy and fulfilled. Sooner or later, they're going to have to look in the mirror (and/or at God) and realize the difference between temporary fulfillment and satisfaction, and the non-counterfeit analogues to those fleeting feelings. In that case, their conversation with God is going to be a lot longer, and He's going to have to acclimate them to a totally different paradigm by degrees. That will be a much harder process.

[Questing Beast]

@Kenngo: I think the "judgment" is even simpler than that. "God" is only interested in how a person behaves according to what they believed at the time. There is absolutely no difference in the people who kill for "God" and those who save life for "God", if the people involved are committed to doing what seems right to them at the time. Equally there is no difference in any number of religions as long as the participants are committed to living their religions. And no religions at all makes no difference if the person who is "irreligious" remains true to his/her view of what is right. It's how much we lie to ourselves that is the concern, not what the lies materially might happen to be....

[Kenngo1969]

@Kenngo: I think the "judgment" is even simpler than that. "God" is only interested in how a person behaves according to what they believed at the time. There is absolutely no difference in the people who kill for "God" and those who save life for "God", if the people involved are committed to doing what seems right to them at the time. Equally there is no difference in any number of religions as long as the participants are committed to living their religions. And no religions at all makes no difference if the person who is "irreligious" remains true to his/her view of what is right. It's how much we lie to ourselves that is the concern, not what the lies materially might happen to be....

You're not the first person to suggest that Latter-day Saints would kill for God. You're a day late and a dollar short, parroting the famous Tal Bachman, who, in Helen Whitney's documentary, said he believed so fervently at one time that if his mission president had asked him to strap on a bomb, he would have done it. I return to my original question. If I spend time, talent, and resources doing good for my fellow beings in the name of God, I would expect something tangible to result. The fruits of those who do so are tangibly different than someone who, by contrast, kills for God (and dies in the process). As I said regarding devout Latter-day Saints after hearing Bro. Bachman's contribution to the documentary, "Read your scriptures, strap on a bomb; it's all the same to us!"

P.S.: And if you believe, along with Will Bagley, that Brigham Young was directly responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, more power to you. I do not. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Alvino]

I don't believe either one of us (in contrast to you, apparently ) lacks a commitment to find truth, or to "take responsibility for" truth (whatever that means.) We simply use different (probably irreconcilable) paradigms. You can tell me my paradigm is the wrong one, and I could reciprocate, but that's not likely to do either one of us much good.

What I said doesn't imply you don't have a commitment to truth. It just says it is in opposition to a commitment to truth.

Oh, come on! You could do it if you were so disposed! I know you could! You'd simply have to try HARDER! All you have to say is that, from your perspective, we use irreconcilably different paradigms. (I disagree with that, because I know plenty of people who have at least as much respect for, say, the Scientific Method as you apparently do, but yet they don't see that as a reason to discard the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ). But for purposes of our discussion, I'll accept that our paradigms are different. (It's a pity you can't do me the courtesy of doing the same! Oh, well! What do I care? Here in cyberspace, I don't even know that you're a real person, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that you think I have a PollyAnna-ish view of the world! )

As your statements above seem to show, you are not understanding what I'm saying so it' pretty hard to see how you can see what my paradigm is. Paradigms are revealed by methods, approaches, assumptions, etc. very little of which you know about me.

This conversation really shouldn't go like this.

And, although, admittedly, those were the only good fruits I mentioned previously in our discussion, if they were the only good fruits the Gospel of Jesus Christ has borne in my life, you would have a point. Alas, they're not, so I don't think you do.

OK. Mention other ones, then, so as to make your approach not a betrayal to a pursuit of truth. As you admit, if I were guided by what you have been saying thus far, my diagnosis would seem to be the correct conclusion to draw from what you have been saying here.

Oh, I know! I'm just delusional! You're right! It's awful!

Kennog, do you not see the difference between what your beliefs and attitudes tend go against if they were consistent and what you actually go against? I'm not saying you are delusional or that even people who put "looking at the roots" aside are delusional at all.

There are plenty of smart people (some even smarter than you ... I know! Hard to imagine, right? ), many of whom likely have unflinchingly considered the things you consider to be "dealbreakers," who haven't seen fit to discard the Gospel of Jesus Christ because of them.

So?

I wish I could fly without the aid of a machine, dang it! I really wish I could just sprout wings and take to the skies! But I'm not going to disregard the law of gravity just because being able to fly would make me happier!

Touche. I'm not going to debate semantics with you. My overall points, given the paradigm I'm using, still stand.

It's all right if you believe that but I'm bringing criticisms you are not addressing.

Thanks for admitting your scenario is pointless!

No, it is not factual, not pointless. Seriously, Kennog, you don't know what a thought experiment is?

Responding to the rest you wrote is hardly profitable when you have already misunderstood so much of what I've said. I'm sorry.

[cinepro]

You're not the first person to suggest that Latter-day Saints would kill for God. You're a day late and a dollar short, parroting the famous Tal Bachman, who, in Helen Whitney's documentary, said he believed so fervently at one time that if his mission president had asked him to strap on a bomb, he would have done it. I return to my original question. If I spend time, talent, and resources doing good for my fellow beings in the name of God, I would expect something tangible to result. The fruits of those who do so are tangibly different than someone who, by contrast, kills for God (and dies in the process). As I said regarding devout Latter-day Saints after hearing Bro. Bachman's contribution to the documentary, "Read your scriptures, strap on a bomb; it's all the same to us!"

P.S.: And if you believe, along with Will Bagley, that Brigham Young was directly responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, more power to you. I do not. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Believing that God won't ask you to kill someone isn't the same as not being willing to do it if He asked (via his Prophet).

[Stroopwafel]

Recently, in fact, just last week, I made a decision to repair the brakes and muffler on my car (1500$) instead of selling it (or junking it) and going for buying a new car. Two days later, while taking my family out for dinner, my car clutch clunked one last time and the car stalled in the middle of a street. A new clutch will cost another 2000$ (European prices....sigh). Now the conundrum. Do I stick with my investment or cut my losses?

Don't know if that perfectly fits to spiritual decisions, but as far as business decisions go... have you ever heard of the sunk cost fallacy?

I have typically found that an intellectually honest person doesn’t invite people he knows he disagrees with to challenge his intellectual honesty, since the truth isn't centered on his honesty but on the object of his intellectual process, which an intellectually honest person seeks.

Thank you for that!

[glitterNgold]

Those whose faith in the Restored Gospel and in the Church has cooled or completely tanked often bristle at the thought that their crisis is in some way related to sin.

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

I have a secret longing to drink tea so yeah, you are right. Oh, and I went skiing with DD this past Sunday instead of going to church. We had a great time together. I wouldn't trade that for 3 hours in church.

[rongo]

I have a secret longing to drink tea so yeah, you are right. Oh, and I went skiing with DD this past Sunday instead of going to church. We had a great time together. I wouldn't trade that for 3 hours in church.

Way to quote only the "bookends" of my long post, without ellipses. You overlooked my caveat that I am not arguing the "just want to sin" angle, and the actual point of the post.

[Ahab]

I have a secret longing to drink tea so yeah, you are right. Oh, and I went skiing with DD this past Sunday instead of going to church. We had a great time together. I wouldn't trade that for 3 hours in church.

Dudley Doright? Who is DD?

[glitterNgold]

Way to quote only the "bookends" of my long post, without ellipses. You overlooked my caveat that I am not arguing the "just want to sin" angle, and the actual point of the post.

Oh sorry.