Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[ERayR]

Quote

Ok then ErayR, are the prophets "lying for the Lord" when they say they don't know the answer to these questions? If they aren't lying, then why is Teddy able to receive answers from God and the prophets aren't? Please provide a simple and direct answer.

NO!

Ask teddyware.

[ERayR]

Talk about a knee-jerk overreaction. So just excommunicate the individual. Don't ban his entire race for 130 years.

If you had only been around to give them sage and reasoned advice I am sure the Church would have been a billion strong by now.

[ERayR]

you think people quit the Church solely for historical reasons?

Nope I think they quite because of a number of reasons amongst which is they never learn to discern relevancys from irrelevancies.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope I think they quite because of a number of reasons amongst which is they never learn to discern relevancys from irrelevancies.

Or they think they know more than they do.

[canard78]

Or they think they know more than they do.

I'm curious. Do you presume that those who leave have less information and would stay if they had your information?

Isn't it possible that the paradigm you accept and adopt based on your information could be unacceptable to someone else, even with the same information?

Some people are not unaware but rather choose to be unwilling to work with the paradigm that they thought they has. The FAIR version of Mormonism is very different to the Preach My Gospel version.

Edited July 30, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

If you had only been around to give them sage and reasoned advice I am sure the Church would have been a billion strong by now.

At least. I reckon 2 billion.

That riposte is a little worn thin. Never mind 'Godwin's Law,' we should have 'Arc Steadier's Law.' That usually makes an appearance on this board before Godwin does.

[ERayR]

At least. I reckon 2 billion.

That riposte is a little worn thin. Never mind 'Godwin's Law,' we should have 'Arc Steadier's Law.' That usually makes an appearance on this board before Godwin does.

Steadying nothing. Simply observing.

[ERayR]

I'm curious. Do you presume that those who leave have less information and would stay if they had your information?

Nope. Only that they don't understand what is relevant and what is not.

Isn't it possible that the paradigm you accept and adopt based on your information could be unacceptable to someone else, even with the same information?

Yes for the same reason.

Some people are not unaware but rather choose to be unwilling to work with the paradigm that they thought they has. The FAIR version of Mormonism is very different to the Preach My Gospel version.

Yes it is a matter of choice.

Not so different. The differences are in the eye and often misunderstanding of the beholder.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm curious. Do you presume that those who leave have less information and would stay if they had your information?

I'm saying that it is not possible to obtain enough information to determine definitively that Mormonism is a humbug. There are reasonable arguments that can be made to the contrary. Putting what you know in the balance, you can choose to disbelieve, but in the final analysis, that's all it will be, a choice, not a compulsion.

To put it another way, while I don't believe it is possible at present to physically and definitively prove the truthfulness of Mormonism, neither do I believe it has been definitively disproven, nor do I believe it will ever be.

It's my conviction that, from a dispassionate, disinterested perspective, it will always be an open question (that is, until the day comes when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord). Otherwise, there would be no reason to exercise faith and go to God in humble prayer for a spiritual manifestation.

In the sacrament meeting talk I delivered Sunday, I gave this admonition:

Do not let what you don't know or understand overshadow what you do. Remember the Lord's message to Oliver Cowdery:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.

"Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?

"And now, behold, you have received a witness; for if I have told you things which no man knoweth, have you not received a witness?" (Doctrine and Covenants 22-24).

Edited July 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

I'm saying that it is not possible to obtain enough information to determine definitively that Mormonism is a humbug. There are reasonable arguments that can be made to the contrary. Putting what you know in the balance, you can choose to disbelieve, but in the final analysis, that's all it will be, a choice, not a compulsion.

To put it another way, while I don't believe it is possible at present to physically and definitively prove the truthfulness of Mormonism, neither do I believe it has been definitively disproven, nor do I believe it will ever be.

It's my conviction that, from a dispassionate, disinterested perspective, it will always be an open question. Otherwise, there would be no reason to exercise faith and go to God in humble prayer for a spiritual manifestation.

Mormonism could have fallen just a few years after it was founded if the some of the 11 witnesses would have came forward and said that it was a fraud. Or if sidney would have come forward when his daughter refused to be a plural wife of Joseph Smith and claimed authorship of the book complete with a rough draft. Or if Emma would have come forward when she was angry about polygamy and spilled the beans. Or if the 116 pages would have turned up...having absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the book.

But nothing like this happened and yet, if it were a fraud, some of these things should have happened.

But none of this happened.

Edited July 30, 2013 by why me

[Bikeemikey]

I'm saying that it is not possible to obtain enough information to determine definitively that Mormonism is a humbug. There are reasonable arguments that can be made to the contrary. Putting what you know in the balance, you can choose to disbelieve, but in the final analysis, that's all it will be, a choice, not a compulsion.

To put it another way, while I don't believe it is possible at present to physically and definitively prove the truthfulness of Mormonism, neither do I believe it has been definitively disproven, nor do I believe it will ever be.

It's my conviction that, from a dispassionate, disinterested perspective, it will always be an open question (that is, until the day comes when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord). Otherwise, there would be no reason to exercise faith and go to God in humble prayer for a spiritual manifestation.

That may be true ... Are you also willing to stipulate that what evidence we do have seems increased stacked against the churches history. Most are choosing to stay and believe inspite of that ... Myself included.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[canard78]

Nope. Only that they don't understand what is relevant and what is not.

Or what is relevant to you is not relevant to them. We can't all find the same things relevant.

Yes for the same reason.

Yes it is a matter of choice.

Not so different. The differences are in the eye and often misunderstanding of the beholder.

But again, you bring it back to their limited understanding. "If people only saw what I saw they'd agree with me." People can understand and see the exact same thing as you but draw a different conclusion.

[pmccombs1]

I'm saying that it is not possible to obtain enough information to determine definitively that Mormonism is a humbug.

... if it were a fraud, some of these things should have happened.

"Humbug" and "fraud" are not the same thing!

Sometimes I listen to my kids as they get deeper and deeper into arguments about made-up stuff. Wow, they can really get invested in the stories they tell each other, and they don't seem to remember at all that they were just playing at make-believe. I have sometimes wondered if religion isn't just a more serious, grown-up version of the same game. As far as religion goes, I bet surprisingly little of it is fraud. But I worry that a great deal of it is humbug.

[canard78]

I'm saying that it is not possible to obtain enough information to determine definitively that Mormonism is a humbug. There are reasonable arguments that can be made to the contrary. Putting what you know in the balance, you can choose to disbelieve, but in the final analysis, that's all it will be, a choice, not a compulsion.

To put it another way, while I don't believe it is possible at present to physically and definitively prove the truthfulness of Mormonism, neither do I believe it has been definitively disproven, nor do I believe it will ever be.

It's my conviction that, from a dispassionate, disinterested perspective, it will always be an open question (that is, until the day comes when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord). Otherwise, there would be no reason to exercise faith and go to God in humble prayer for a spiritual manifestation.

I absolutely agree. There is always limited information. And at the end we make a choice. That's why I questioned the attitude of "they think they know more than they do." Thanks for the clarification.

[canard78]

Mormonism could have fallen just a few years after it was founded if the some of the 11 witnesses would have came forward and said that it was a fraud. Or if sidney would have come forward when his daughter refused to be a plural wife of Joseph Smith and claimed authorship of the book complete with a rough draft. Or if Emma would have come forward when she was angry about polygamy and spilled the beans. Or if the 116 pages would have turned up...having absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the book.

But nothing like this happened and yet, if it were a fraud, some of these things should have happened.

But none of this happened.

And the fact that none of it happened is not proof that it is not fraud. There is no conclusive prof either way. Most of the thriving religions have it that way. Ours is just more recent.

Can you prove there was no visit to the earth from Krishna? Can you prove Mohammed didn't get carried up to heaven? Can you prove Mary wasn't seen at Lourdes?

[pmccombs1]

"religious worldview" ? how would my view of God and my relationship with him be weakened if Joseph Smith, whom I've never met and know only through documents, let's say fathered a child with someone other then Emma? who cares, i've got my own life to live and answer for. I LOVE history and even have a degree in it but I have to have two feet living in 2013 Canada, not the 1830's and 40's United States of America

The challenge is this: God isn't actually here among us. Our relationships with him are therefore of a different quality than the relationships we have with other people or things that we experience in a "temporal" way.

It certainly seems possible to have a personal relationship with God, but what happens when an institution begins to act as a proxy for God? You may say that this isn't a good thing, and that the LDS church doesn't do it. However, it is natural for people to cling to the thing that is most real, and as the church presumes to represent God on the earth, it is unsurprising that the faith of many will stand or fall with perceptions of the Church. If the Church doesn't stand in for God, then what is its use? What is this authority narrative all about? People need to be able to sort that out and see just where the Church fits into the picture.

[Scott Lloyd]

That may be true ... Are you also willing to stipulate that what evidence we do have seems increased stacked against the churches history.

No.

Most are choosing to stay and believe inspite of that ... Myself included.

The bulk of what I hear that is supposed to be negative is not all that troublesome to me, to be honest.

Like the seer stone in the hat thing. I mentioned here on the board somewhere the other day, that seems to me to be a really petty thing to get anxious over.

So a lot of it is a matter of making a subjective judgment about the import or implications of what one hears, and that is a matter of choice.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I absolutely agree. There is always limited information. And at the end we make a choice. That's why I questioned the attitude of "they think they know more than they do." Thanks for the clarification.

Facts don't often speak for themselves. Most of the time they must be analyzed, evaluated and a subjective determination reached regarding their import, significance, magnitude, context or credibility. In the process, they must be weighed against other known facts. So what a person might view as a set of facts that are destroying his faith might in reality be an array of opinions he has reached regarding what he has heard. See my post #592 above.

That's what I meant by a person leaving the Church because he thinks he knows more than he does.

And the judgments we make about what we hear are always a matter of personal choice.

Edited to add:

This quote attributed to Mark Twain just occurred to me, and I can't resist throwing it in as applicable in this instance:

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

"Humbug" and "fraud" are not the same thing!

Actually, they are not all that different in meaning.

From Wikipedia:

In English the word Humbug refers to a person or thing that tricks, deceives, talks, or behaves in a way that is deceptive, dishonest, false, or insincere, often a hoax or in jest.

[Scott Lloyd]

Or what is relevant to you is not relevant to them. We can't all find the same things relevant.

But again, you bring it back to their limited understanding. "If people only saw what I saw they'd agree with me." People can understand and see the exact same thing as you but draw a different conclusion.

And in doing so, they make a choice.

[bcuzbcuz]

And the fact that none of it happened is not proof that it is not fraud. There is no conclusive prof either way. Most of the thriving religions have it that way. Ours is just more recent.

Can you prove there was no visit to the earth from Krishna? Can you prove Mohammed didn't get carried up to heaven? Can you prove Mary wasn't seen at Lourdes?

My wife and I just returned home from two weeks in Sicily. Our first night there, a ceremony for the Saint Carmen was held in the village. In the bay, lit by the full moon, a parade of thirty boats rowed past the village, all adorned in lights and accompanied by an orchestra in two boats and the local Catholic priest, in another boat, standing beside a statue of Carmen, reciting verses honoring Carmen and Maria, mother of Christ. People along the beach cheered, lit fireworks, and prayed as the boat carrying the statue passed by. An elderly lady wept quietly as the words of the priest reached her ears. I asked one of the locals why she wept and he responded, "We take our religion very seriously here."

Spiritual witness is not something peculiar to Mormonism. True believers, no matter which stripe or scale, have recieved their own witness. None of it can be proven.

[ERayR]

Or what is relevant to you is not relevant to them. We can't all find the same things relevant.

That may be. I consider the Book of Mormon and the restoration as the two most relevant things in the whole narrative. If you accept that then the rest is irrelevant. Can you come up with something more relevant than those two? If so why is it more relevant?

But again, you bring it back to their limited understanding. "If people only saw what I saw they'd agree with me." People can understand and see the exact same thing as you but draw a different conclusion.

I don't think it is beyond anybody's understanding no matter how limited. I don't care if they see the exact same things I do. It is not about any issue in history. It's aboutdenying personal revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Spiritual witness is not something peculiar to Mormonism.

That anyone can be subject to the influence of the Holy Ghost is axiomatic in Mormonism.

[Duncan]

The challenge is this: God isn't actually here among us. Our relationships with him are therefore of a different quality than the relationships we have with other people or things that we experience in a "temporal" way.

It certainly seems possible to have a personal relationship with God, but what happens when an institution begins to act as a proxy for God? You may say that this isn't a good thing, and that the LDS church doesn't do it. However, it is natural for people to cling to the thing that is most real, and as the church presumes to represent God on the earth, it is unsurprising that the faith of many will stand or fall with perceptions of the Church. If the Church doesn't stand in for God, then what is its use? What is this authority narrative all about? People need to be able to sort that out and see just where the Church fits into the picture.

sounds like what you are saying is that it's possible to go to Church and miss the Gospel, I totally get that! and you're right we need to see where and what both are and fit together

[ERayR]

Spiritual witness is not something peculiar to Mormonism. True believers, no matter which stripe or scale, have recieved their own witness. None of it can be proven.

Hence the need for each to get their own.