Truth 101 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 I am coming in late on this discussion, but there are two lines of reasoning presented in arguments against the Church. The first and actually most common nowadays seems to be the secular, don`t believe in the myths of God and religion. That arm relies on science, reason and enlightenment. The second line is along the evangelical, Bible Answerman line of reasoning. The LDS message flies in the face of the Christian tradition.It sounds like Truth is from the secular arm and then he has a shotgun of issues that have to be tackled. All the secular arguments against the Church can be applied to whatever religion that you want to bring up. It is sad that so many evangelicals wouldn`t vote for Romney. They seemed to be saying that they were more afraid of Mormons than the liberal, socialistic message of what has become the Democratic Party. If the evangelicals would join with people of other faiths, even when they are not eye to eye on all points, we could do so much to help the nation and the world. Evangelical anti-mormons and secular anti-mormons can become strange bedfellows in their attacks against the Church. I doubt they would be caught dead with each other in any other circumstance.I personally study science, reason and enlightenment along with the scriptures to search for truth. Prayer and meditation is a source of truth. David Bokovoy`s recent book discusses using Higher Criticism as tools to help understand the gospel. His work has shown some impressive models to understand the translation of the PoGP and BOM.I will take on evolution. The Church has never officially taught against evolution. Duane Jeffries book clearly shows that with a number of First Presidency statements back to the early 1900`s. Evolutionary principles do not defeat the LDS religion. Much as Higher Criticism and the scriptures there are ways through the evolutionary questions. Individuals such as Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R McConkie teaching against evolution comes down to them teaching their own opinion. Another issue that becomes a stumbling block for many. Like evolution, the fact that our leaders speak for themselves on occasion, can help us formulate strategies for finding truth and overcoming challenges to our faith. Random thoughts from my brain, take them for what they are worth.Well it sounds like you at least know how to think for yourself. 1
Truth 101 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 Here's a few links for your reading enjoyment. http://en.fairmormon.org/Polyandryhttp://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Occultism_and_magichttp://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/"Amusing_recitals"_of_ancient_American_inhabitants http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology http://en.fairmormon.org/Topical_Guide/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyriyaaaaaaay.... links to a mormon apologist website, I'm really gonna take that seriously *end sarcasm*
webbles Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 yaaaaaaay.... links to a mormon apologist website, I'm really gonna take that seriously *end sarcasm*Well, since that mormon apologist website actually discusses all of your talking points, I don't see why you think that your talking points are actually going to be "new" or "shocking" to many on this forum. If you read the mormon apologist websites and then find points that aren't talked about or that aren't discussed completely, go ahead and discuss it here. Otherwise, you are just repeating old news.
Kevin Christensen Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 yaaaaaaay.... links to a mormon apologist website, I'm really gonna take that seriously *end sarcasm*Do you recall who posted this: Everything below is stuff I found from a website where a guy listed 33 reasons why he left so I just copy/pasted the ones I most agreed with. Below is the link.Just the sort of thing I can't help but notice. And why would any thinking person decide to trust their case to the objectivity of the prosection? Particularly when his credentials amount to "a guy" who provides evidence selected on grounds that "I agreed with." Joseph Smith made the excellent point that "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." That is, he's all in favor of wresting with opposing arguments. Just saying, Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 3
Coreyb Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Well it sounds like you at least know how to think for yourself.yes, most everyone here does. maybe you will realize that believing Mormons aren't all the "sheeple" that the folks at exmormon and the mormoncurtain paint them as.
justdreamin Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Well it sounds like you at least know how to think for yourself.I come from a very large family and it runs the entire gamut of LDS membership and participation. I have one sibling that's very passionate about the same types of things that you seem passionate about and just recently resigned from the church along with her immediate family. We frequently get into discussions about not only church history, but present day church issues. She doesn't understand how anyone can be committed to a religion, on any level, that is in any way corrupt. I understand her point of view. I also understand the point of view of another of my siblings who is fully committed to the church and it's teachings and not one bit of any additional information dissuades her belief. Although I understand them both, I don't personally agree with either of them.This is my point. If you believe the church, or even God, is corrupt and a fraud, that's your right in most places in the world at this particular time. If you think you're smarter than people who believe differently than you, well, you can do that too. But, why not let others also believe what they choose to believe in as well? If you don't feel they have all the "facts," how about giving them the benefit of the doubt that they must be happy with their choice and it works for them? Or how about just having compassion and empathy for those who don't agree with you? I don't believe you'll get the answers you are looking for by coming to a board like this and you're probably not going to convince anyone of anything. IMO, the best thing you can do is find a path that resonates with what you believe and don't worry about people who have already done that for themselves.
Truth 101 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) I come from a very large family and it runs the entire gamut of LDS membership and participation. I have one sibling that's very passionate about the same types of things that you seem passionate about and just recently resigned from the church along with her immediate family. We frequently get into discussions about not only church history, but present day church issues. She doesn't understand how anyone can be committed to a religion, on any level, that is in any way corrupt. I understand her point of view. I also understand the point of view of another of my siblings who is fully committed to the church and it's teachings and not one bit of any additional information dissuades her belief. Although I understand them both, I don't personally agree with either of them.This is my point. If you believe the church, or even God, is corrupt and a fraud, that's your right in most places in the world at this particular time. If you think you're smarter than people who believe differently than you, well, you can do that too. But, why not let others also believe what they choose to believe in as well? If you don't feel they have all the "facts," how about giving them the benefit of the doubt that they must be happy with their choice and it works for them? Or how about just having compassion and empathy for those who don't agree with you? I don't believe you'll get the answers you are looking for by coming to a board like this and you're probably not going to convince anyone of anything. IMO, the best thing you can do is find a path that resonates with what you believe and don't worry about people who have already done that for themselves.That was pretty wise. But sometimes I just need my daily dose of trollihol and it's easy here At least you understand where I'm coming from. Edited March 30, 2014 by Truth 101
Truth 101 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Do you recall who posted this:Just the sort of thing I can't help but notice.And why would any thinking person decide to trust their case to the objectivity of the prosection?Particularly when his credentials amount to "a guy" who provides evidence selected on grounds that "I agreed with."Joseph Smith made the excellent point that "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." That is, he's all in favor of wresting with opposing arguments.Just saying,Kevin ChristensenBethel Park, PASee but I actually put a disclaimer saying exactly that, here are reasons that I agree with. And all those reasons were issues with the churches history and doctrine. Everything above that was pretty neutral. Plus what I posted were questions and/or statements, not runarounds that justify, rationalize, lie by omission, or bend the truth. Or that just straight up lie. Edited March 30, 2014 by Truth 101
cdowis Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 The Joseph Smith Papers project has over 90 episodes (30 minute). Go to byutv and select the videos that may interest you based on specific questions you have. http://www.byutv.org/show/5d739281-537f-40f3-92ed-8a60b9f25fb0/the-joseph-smith-papers
wenglund Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 And still. No proof of Nephites or Lamanites What kind of "proof" do you need, and why do you need "proof" of those families? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Tiki Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Truth 101, on 30 Mar 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:And still. No proof of Nephites or Lamanites What kind of "proof" do you need, and why do you need "proof" of those families? Thanks, -Wade Englund- D&C 32 states the Lord called Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun to go and preach unto the Lamanites - " into the wilderness among the bLamanites." As the heading to the Section indicates:In consequence, supplication was made that the Lord would indicate His will as to whether elders should be sent at that time to the Indian tribes in the West. The revelation followed. Thus the Lamanites are the "Indians." The Nephites were destroyed.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Or "No Man Knows My History". Better yet "No ma'am that's not history".
savedbygrace Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Did it interfere too much with your preconceptions/prejudices? Or are you simply too steeped in the rhetoric of his opponents for any contrary/contrasting positive views of him to be of much interest to you? Sorry, Tacenda. I don't necessarily have anything against you personally, but I do think those are fair (if frank) questions. Bit confused here, why bother crossing something out that you obviously want to be seen? Do you want a response or not?
savedbygrace Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Better yet "No ma'am that's not history".Yes, why not?
cdowis Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) And that still doesn't prove that the Nephites or Lamanites ever existed. OK, this has been dealt with extensively in other threads. Here is a simple test of your claim ==>> tell us the characteristics of the DNA from Lehi. He was NOT from the tribe of Judah, but from Joseph who married and had children from an Egyptian princess. This is called "Argument from ignorance". There is "no evidence" because we are ignorant of what we are looking for. We still do not know, for example, of the source of haplogroup X. Just a quick summary of a long discussion on this issue. Why don't you, yet again, start a thread on DNA and the BOM so that we can educate you on the issues. Edited March 31, 2014 by cdowis
Truth 101 Posted March 31, 2014 Author Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) OK, this has been dealt with extensively in other threads. Here is a simple test of your claim ==>> tell us the characteristics of the DNA from Lehi. He was NOT from the tribe of Judah, but from Joseph who married and had children from an Egyptian princess. This is called "Argument from ignorance". There is "no evidence" because we are ignorant of what we are looking for. We still do not know, for example, of the source of haplogroup X. Just a quick summary of a long discussion on this issue. Why don't you, yet again, start a thread on DNA and the BOM so that we can educate you on the issues.Or we can simplify it and you can post a couple reputable sources here proving they existed through DNA evidence. A site that isn't wikipedia or a mormon apologist/rationalist website. Fairmormon.org is not a neutral site. Edited March 31, 2014 by Truth 101
Kevin Christensen Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Or we can simplify it and you can post a couple reputable sources here proving they existed through DNA evidence. A site that isn't wikipedia or a mormon apologist/rationalist website. Fairmormon.org is not a neutral site.Imagine yourself in court, and the judge throws your defense counsel out of court on the grounds that he is not neutral and therefore, should not be allowed to speak. The judge then assures you, to the sound of a gallows being erected outside, that since the prosecuting D.A. and arresting police are unbiased professionals, incapable of making mistakes, functionally omniscient in all important matters, that you ought to be quiet and trust your case to the objectivity of the prosecution. The problem beneath your lists of insoluble problems is, I think, a rather naive view of how science works, and what processes are at work that makes evidence appear to be evidence. I'd recommend a careful reading of this book. Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. 1974. http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2238 N. R. Hanson pointed out that "All data is theory-laden." Evidence never does speak for itself. There are always aspects of selection, emphasis, contextualizing, and interpretation at work. Kuhn explains that "In the sciences the [paradigm] testing situation never consists, as puzzle-solving does, simply in the comparison of a single paradigm with nature. Instead, testing occurs as part of the competition between two rival paradigms for the allegiance of the scientific community." Barbour explains that paradigms resist falsification because "a network of theories and observations is always tested together. Any particular hypothesis can be maintained by rejecting or adjusting other auxiliary hypotheses." Specifically, your call for a DNA test administered by Book of Mormon skeptics involves a network of theories and observations, including what a careful and comprehensive reading of the Book of Mormon text (rather than uncritical assumptions or selected proof-texts sans context) defines in terms of expectations as well as what a realistic current DNA testing can provide relative to those expectations. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Edited March 31, 2014 by Kevin Christensen 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 siiiiigh. I'm done. Yall may as well believe in magic.This is the extent of your dialogue? You come here and give a half a$$ed attempt getting us to see the truth using South Park and some wiki articles. And you wonder why we are not all atheists now. Should we feel bad for you now and your valiant efforts that we are just to dumb to see the truth? Is this a joke? I mean seriously. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) But sometimes I just need my daily dose of trollihol And there is folks, an admission. Edited March 31, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
savedbygrace Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 It is a much better book.Ha ha, that's perfectly possible, but may not be as accurate.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 yaaaaaaay.... links to a mormon apologist website, I'm really gonna take that seriously *end sarcasm*So you want me to read from a bunch of non Mormon sites to learn the "truth" and you want me to take those seriously? You don't see a problem here? Truth is truth regardless if the source. All this tells me is that you are closed minded.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Ha ha, that's perfectly possible, but may not be as accurate. I've read both. Fawn Brody's "No man knows my history" is a tour de force of mind readings, special pleadings, and shall we say myopic understanding of the complexity of JS. Further she was called on it for her like mistreatment of Thomas Jefferson. OTOH I find Hugh Nibley's "No ma'am that's not history" a much better presentation of actual history from a well informed, faithful LDS POV.
wenglund Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Regarding finding the "true story" of Joseph Smith, there is an excellent article by Alan Goff in the Interpreter that expounds and expands upon several and more of what Kevin Christensen said above. It is called: "The Inevitability of Epistemology in Historiography: Theory, History, and Zombie Mormon History." I was going to start a thread to discuss it, but it seemed apropos here. Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
savedbygrace Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I've read both. Fawn Brody's "No man knows my history" is a tour de force of mind readings, special pleadings, and shall we say myopic understanding of the complexity of JS. Further she was called on it for her like mistreatment of Thomas Jefferson. OTOH I find Hugh Nibley's "No ma'am that's not history" a much better presentation of actual history from a well informed, faithful LDS POV.Hmmm, why does this not surprise me?
Recommended Posts