Letter To A Ces Director Problematic

[Tacenda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

 

I know I'm at fault for not knowing the details in church history, but would I have liked those details, not so much.  If you look at the history of JS's arrests it doesn't paint a very good picture.  As a child I remember the stories of him being hounded by the law.  In all that time, I know I was naïve, I thought they were persecuting him for his religious beliefs, not for actually breaking any laws.  Another hidden fact to me.  No truth in religion here.  No disclosure.  Primary manuals failed me as a child. Or teachers....or my parents....heaven knows.    

[Robert F. Smith]

You still seem to be saying that the only two alternatives are 1) decades of scholarly study to a doctoral level--in this case you're allowed to use your brain 2) use your heart/Spirit because your brain isn't capable. 

And you still misread and misinterpret what I actually said.  One way to avoid that is to quote the person you are dealing with, instead of spin-doctoring it so as to reflect your own apriori views.

 

For you and the vast majority of others, there is really only one approach to deciding such issues.  Since you and they have not developed the intellectual discipline and capacity to deal with hard facts, the only reasonable path left is to make an entirely subjective or intuitive judgment.  Thus, the residuum of good faith or bad faith  which you possess will largely predetermine your conclusions.  Your sense of reality is largely socially structured, and you doubtless reflect the views of those with whom you associate.  That is the best predictor of which position you will take on any given issue, including whether the Letter to a CES Director is worthwhile or is simply trash.

 

Sincerity counts for a lot in such decisionmaking, accompanied by an admission up front of our own relative ignorance.  That is why the Holy Spirit is so important, and why it is the most significant element in LDS conversion efforts.  Cultivating a relationship with the Holy Spirit is the best approach to making decisions about a host of issues.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting you would assume that.  Why wouldn't you assume he studied both sides of things and came away with a view different than yours?

That would be nice, but of course Runnells' sources are clearly negative.  He never bothers to aquaint himself with opposing views -- although he is now dealing with opposing views in an effort to do damage control, which is what Fawn Brodie had to do in editing a second edition of her error-ridden biography of Joseph Smith.  She herself realized too late that she had gotten many facts wrong.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

For you and the vast majority of others, there is really only one approach to deciding such issues.  Since you and they have not developed the intellectual discipline and capacity to deal with hard facts, the only reasonable path left is to make an entirely subjective or intuitive judgment.

Sure. Because we disagree we must be intellectually undisciplined and lack the capacity to deal with facts.

 

 Thus, the residuum of good faith or bad faith  which you possess will largely predetermine your conclusions.  Your sense of reality is largely socially structured, and you doubtless reflect the views of those with whom you associate.  That is the best predictor of which position you will take on any given issue, including whether the Letter to a CES Director is worthwhile or is simply trash.

 

So how do you explain those who completely shift paradigms counter to the culture in which we live?

 

 

You don't do yourself any favors by making personal attacks and dismissals of a person's intelligence or capacity for understanding.

 

You seem to forget that many you now view as mindless critics once agreed with you. Many have studied and made decisions contrary to the popular church culture in which they live. Their decisions go against the beliefs they once clung to as truth, yet somehow their paradigms shifted despite the "predictors" that they would follow their culture. How do you explain that?

[Brian 2.0]

For you and the vast majority of others, there is really only one approach to deciding such issues. Since you and they have not developed the intellectual discipline and capacity to deal with hard facts, the only reasonable path left is to make an entirely subjective or intuitive judgment. Thus, the residuum of good faith or bad faith which you possess will largely predetermine your conclusions. Your sense of reality is largely socially structured, and you doubtless reflect the views of those with whom you associate.

Are you including yourself in this group? Or are your decisions not "entirely subjective" like the rest of us?

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert I agree people should not be rash nor quick in decisions about their personal faith decisions, it is a serious matter.

Regarding your last paragraph I know it is a summary of your thoughts and opinion on Runnells. But I am not sure I would agree everything in his letter, even though I noted I am not a fan of it, is simply innacurate anti-Mormom nonsense. I find such a dismissal as blatant as what you are accusing him and the Tanners of. This is the problem I suppose when both sides hold passionate views and passionately defend and argue them. We all do it in one way or another.

Hi Teancum,

I spent over 40 years carefully reading everything published by the Tanners, and a good selection of other anti-Mormon stuff.  I learned a lot, and even showed my respect to the Tanners by never having a cross word with Sandra (we often agreed on issues), and even attending church with Jerald & Sandra.  In addition, I made sure (largely at my own expense) that the RLDS Archives had a complete collection of Tanner publications.  I spent years attending and analyzing the Whitmerite Church in which both Sandra and Jerald were baptized.  I spent time seriously consulting with a non-Mormon historian who wrote a bio on the Tanners.  I do not believe in or practice instant dismissal of anything, except flat-earth theory.  

[Robert F. Smith]

Are you including yourself in this group? Or are your decisions not "entirely subjective" like the rest of us?

That is the existential dilemma, isn't it, Brian?  We may all be prisoners of subjectivity, including those of us who deny it . . 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

When I was a child, Paul says, I thought as a child. When I became a man, nothing changed because nothing should ever have to change. Is that what he should have said?

A viable church would see to it that no one ever has to do anything important and significant on their own, but should provide it all free of charge and without requiring any personal effort.

A viable church would so control discourse within its society that no erroneous thoughts are ever uttered, nothing would need to be unlearned, and nothing discovered could ever supercede any previous thoughts.

Is that the standard you want to promote? Good luck with that. It's not the kind of soil from which I expect a particularly bountiful harvest.

 

I think Paul's thoughts are great as far as they go, and they are definitely applicable here. History is always messy and complex. Simple narratives always leave stuff out. A nuanced view of the gospel is great. A big problem comes not from the fact that the church in the past has not taught the messy details, but that the church teaches black and white views and seems openly hostile to nuanced thinking. When you here the 14 fundamentals taught repeatedly over the pulpit in sacrament meeting and in general conference, it is hard to reconcile that with prophets that get things wrong. I'm not saying it can't be done. I do it to a certain extent, but it is not easy.

 

The churches official stance on evolution, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal fall are all things that are difficult to reconcile. When Elder Holland gets up and tells me in general conference that I can't understand the atonement, because I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, that doesn't feel very good. There are several posters on this board who hold the view that you literally can't be a faithful latter-day saint if you hope for revelation that would allow for Gay couples to be sealed. I sat through a lesson a couple of weeks ago where my children were taught that anyone who supports gay marriage have been deceived by Satan. 

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................................................

...................................... For the 90% out there trying to figure out the truth, the facts are important, the commentary is ignored.

Is this your subjective appraisal of the imaginary 90% out there, or do you have statistical analysis to support it?  CFR

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Sincerity counts for a lot in such decisionmaking, accompanied by an admission up front of our own relative ignorance.  That is why the Holy Spirit is so important, and why it is the most significant element in LDS conversion efforts.  Cultivating a relationship with the Holy Spirit is the best approach to making decisions about a host of issues.

 

And yet the same holy spirit that tells me to stay in the church tells me that gay marriage is good, the priesthood ban is uninspired etc.

[TheSkepticChristian]

You don't do yourself any favors by making personal attacks and dismissals of a person's intelligence or capacity for understanding

 

Sometimes that is appropriate. For example, an intelligent person won't use the Holley's map argument.

Even if I completely stop believing in Mormonism, I will still think the CES letter is full of it.

 

 

You seem to forget that many you now view as mindless critics once agreed with you

 

So? Some creationists used to be believe in Evolution, so your point is?

 

 

That would be nice, but of course Runnells' sources are clearly negative. 

 

and sometimes unreliable, see post 28 and 44.

[Robert F. Smith]

For you and the vast majority of others, there is really only one approach to deciding such issues.  Since you and they have not developed the intellectual discipline and capacity to deal with hard facts, the only reasonable path left is to make an entirely subjective or intuitive judgment.

Sure. Because we disagree we must be intellectually undisciplined and lack the capacity to deal with facts.

churchistrue likes the figure of 90%, and I would suggest that at least 90% of us have not developed the intellectual discipline and capacity to deal with hard facts.  It is not a process quickly or easily negotiated, and quite a few are lost along the way (grad school is tough).  Perhaps you have a different take on the matter, so please enlighten me.

 

Thus, the residuum of good faith or bad faith  which you possess will largely predetermine your conclusions.  Your sense of reality is largely socially structured, and you doubtless reflect the views of those with whom you associate.  That is the best predictor of which position you will take on any given issue, including whether the Letter to a CES Director is worthwhile or is simply trash.

 

So how do you explain those who completely shift paradigms counter to the culture in which we live?

Like most of us, I would say that they have their feet in more than one culture.  The direction their feet take them is still largely predictable.

 

You don't do yourself any favors by making personal attacks and dismissals of a person's intelligence or capacity for understanding.

 

You seem to forget that many you now view as mindless critics once agreed with you. Many have studied and made decisions contrary to the popular church culture in which they live. Their decisions go against the beliefs they once clung to as truth, yet somehow their paradigms shifted despite the "predictors" that they would follow their culture. How do you explain that?

I am not in this to do myself any favors, and have not been making personal attacks -- merely stating the obvious facts, which are straightforward and are not at all unusual.  Hardly any of us has an advanced, well-trained intellect, though we would like to believe that we are equal to any task requiring advanced training.  Any lark is O.K.  Brain surgery anyone?

 

The reality is that, despite our feeling of absolute democracy in the face of nearly any inquiry, most of us are all at sea in true historical inquiry -- and it discomfits us.  We want very much to be the masters of our own fate in religious matters -- which can only come to most of us via the Holy Spirit.  That may be a huge letdown for some, but it does have the advantage of not requiring grad school.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

 

So? Some creationists used to be believe in Evolution, so your point is?

 

 

 

 

Read the next 2 sentences of the post. That is my point.

[Robert F. Smith]

And yet the same holy spirit that tells me to stay in the church tells me that gay marriage is good, the priesthood ban is uninspired etc.

Well, then, follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit.  That would be my advice.

 

By the way, I have no problem with a variety of non-traditional marriage patterns, and consider that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, just as there is to polygamy.  And, of course, the priesthood ban was uninspired.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[HappyJackWagon]

churchistrue likes the figure of 90%, and I would suggest that at least 90% of us have not developed the intellectual discipline and capacity to deal with hard facts.  It is not a process quickly or easily negotiated, and quite a few are lost along the way (grad school is tough).  Perhaps you have a different take on the matter, so please enlighten me.

 

 

Like most of us, I would say that they have their feet in more than one culture.  The direction their feet take them is still largely predictable.

 

I am not in this to do myself any favors, and have not been making personal attacks -- merely stating the obvious facts, which are straightforward and are not at all unusual.  Hardly any of us has an advanced, well-trained intellect, though we would like to believe that we are equal to any task requiring advanced training.  Any lark is O.K.  Brain surgery anyone?

 

The reality is that, despite our feeling of absolute democracy in the face of nearly any inquiry, most of us are all at sea in true historical inquiry -- and it discomfits us.  We want very much to be the masters of our own fate in religious matters -- which can only come to most of us via the Holy Spirit.  That may be a huge letdown for some, but it does have the advantage of not requiring grad school.

If you're claiming that 90% of all human's are incapable of dealing with facts and are intellectually lazy, then we might have a discussion. But you pointed directly at others and not yourself. Certainly you're the top 10%. When you say I am incapable of understanding facts while implying you have that capacity, you are simply being pompous. The attack is the implication that "you are stupid and I am smart".

 

 

Like most of us, I would say that they have their feet in more than one culture.  The direction their feet take them is still largely predictable.

This illustrates to me how little you understand about the process people take in their studies and decision making regarding the church. Perhaps you're not in the top 10% after all.

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................................

...........................................There are several posters on this board who hold the view that you literally can't be a faithful latter-day saint if you hope for revelation that would allow for Gay couples to be sealed. I sat through a lesson a couple of weeks ago where my children were taught that anyone who supports gay marriage have been deceived by Satan. 

The LDS Church does not have to adopt SSM in order for people to be able to have SSM when they want it.  We do believe in Articles of Faith 11 and 12, don't we?  I don't believe in gay marriage, but I fully support the right of my non-Mormon neighbors to practice it without civil penalty.

[Calm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

 

I know I'm at fault for not knowing the details in church history, but would I have liked those details, not so much.  If you look at the history of JS's arrests it doesn't paint a very good picture.  As a child I remember the stories of him being hounded by the law.  In all that time, I know I was naïve, I thought they were persecuting him for his religious beliefs, not for actually breaking any laws.  Another hidden fact to me.  No truth in religion here.  No disclosure.  Primary manuals failed me as a child. Or teachers....or my parents....heaven knows.

Hey, I'm the omNly one allowed to ave a bad day around here today....doctor finall showed up two hours late so now i can go home in about an hour after they pump me full of blood thinners...lot nicer than last time they did abdomen surgery slicing and dicing onme.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you're claiming that 90% of all human's are incapable of dealing with facts and are intellectually lazy, then we might have a discussion. But you pointed directly at others and not yourself. Certainly you're the top 10%. When you say I am incapable of understanding facts while implying you have that capacity, you are simply being pompous. The attack is the implication that "you are stupid and I am smart".

 

This illustrates to me how little you understand about the process people take in their studies and decision making regarding the church. Perhaps you're not in the top 10% after all.

I said nothing about being "lazy."  Hard working people who have never been to grad school (and that includes me) are not lazy.  The 90% figure was that of churchistrue, and I am not sure what the actual figure should be.  It is a matter of fact, however, that only a small minority of our civilization ever obtain the advanced training and discipline which I have been speaking about.  That does not mean that everybody else is "stupid" -- again your very negative term -- but we don't ever go to untrained people to do brain surgery precisely because they can't do it safely.  This should matter to you, but apparently does not.  Why not?  Do you understand what is at stake?

 

Rather than being paranoid, we need to come to grips with our incapacity to fully grasp every issue which is discussed on this board.  We all like to pretend that we have that ability, but maybe not.  Perhaps very few of us are in that "top 10% after all."  Perhaps you will show some kindness to those of us not quite as swift as you in plumbing those depths.  Toss us an intellectual crumb here or there, HappyJack, when you get the chance . . .  

[churchistrue]

Thanks for clarifying, Robert.  I guess I disagree.  I agree 100% that the Holy Ghost is essential in making interpretations related to religion, but I don't think it's as difficult or rare as you say it is to have the capability of analyzing the issues and incorporating your own reasoning into the interpretation.

 

Trusting the Spirit is a great topic of discussion for another day.   

[Teancum]

You miss the point. FAIR regularly uses source material that has been professionally published and peer reviewed. The CES Letter uses MormonThink.com which uses, for example, Charles Larsen's 1990 claims about what Facsimile 1 really looked like. And Charles Larsen published his claims in what Egyptological Journal? And he studied Egyptian where exactly?

If someone wants to recycle Larsen's recycled material, is it not appropriate for a reader who has read, say Egyptologist Gee's Review from 1992 as at least worth a mention?

Is it blaming the questioning member for not doing their homework if I simply point out the consequences of not doing homework and the benefits of doing homework as represented in the real life examples of people who did do their homework? Is a realistic and practical demonstration somehow unethical?

When I was a teenager, an MIA theme was, "There is a law irrevokably decreed before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which is it predicated."

That means, if I want to be prepared and get the benefit, I do my homework. I don't just gather excuses such as "The dog ate it," or "My Sunday School teachers had not trained at Cambridge" and self rightiously proclaim that I am a victim of circumstance and deserve compensation.

When I was a child, Paul says, I thought as a child. When I became a man, nothing changed because nothing should ever have to change. Is that what he should have said?

A viable church would see to it that no one ever has to do anything important and significant on their own, but should provide it all free of charge and without requiring any personal effort.

A viable church would so control discourse within its society that no erroneous thoughts are ever uttered, nothing would need to be unlearned, and nothing discovered could ever supercede any previous thoughts.

Is that the standard you want to promote? Good luck with that. It's not the kind of soil from which I expect a particularly bountiful harvest.

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

 

 

Kevin

 

First I want you to know I appreciate you.  You are one of the finest hobby apologists I know.  You are particularly a gentleman and rarely strident.  And I have read much of what you write and think about it in my own faith journey.

 

Thank you for clarifying your position on FAIR.

 

Regarding what members should be responsible for and not.  Yes we should all be responsible for seeking knowledge from the best books and sources.   However there was a time that was much more difficult than it is today.  Growing up in the 70s I personally know access to the sticky stuff and good books about tough LDS issues was just hard to obtain.  My dad had a copy of No Man Knows My History.  I would not read it as a youth because I viewed it is negative towards the church.   I think many members would be similar. I did not have access to BYU Studies, thought Sunstone was evil, did not know about Dialogue, etc.

 

But I was a reader.  I read the Documentive History of the Church, Roberts Comprehensive Church History, and many more books that I could find.  My faith journey from a solid testimony holding member to a skeptic over the past 8 years is probably very different than other.  See I have known about the problems for a long time.  And I defended them to.  But for a variety of reasons the defenses for me at least became hollow and now I am where I am.  This is not just all LDS Church related for me.  The problem of evil and suffering come heavily into it at least for me.  There are other issues as well.

 

That said most members grew up and just did what the Church said. They avoided critical items. Stuck with church published material.,  Went on a mission, came home and got busy with building a family based on an LDS life.   Time for research and looking into hard issues would be limited for most except those who really liked to read and research.   Then such a one stumbles on things like Runnells did and it can easily all fall apart?  Is that his fault?  Maybe some.  But what responsibility does the church hold?

 

I deal in financial matters a lot. I run a large company that has a business line in this arena.   You may not agree but I expect a Church that expect so much of its members to be at least as upfront in full disclosure for people making extremely important life decisions as a investment vehicle must be for potential investors.  

 

If the LDS Church were a financial institution the SEC and FINRA would have closed them down for their lack of disclosure and transparency.  I am sure many will find my comparison ludicrous but I don't and maybe it is just how I am made and see the world.

 

I understand why Runnells is angry.

[Kevin Christensen]

I think Paul's thoughts are great as far as they go, and they are definitely applicable here. History is always messy and complex. Simple narratives always leave stuff out. A nuanced view of the gospel is great. A big problem comes not from the fact that the church in the past has not taught the messy details, but that the church teaches black and white views and seems openly hostile to nuanced thinking. When you here the 14 fundamentals taught repeatedly over the pulpit in sacrament meeting and in general conference, it is hard to reconcile that with prophets that get things wrong. I'm not saying it can't be done. I do it to a certain extent, but it is not easy.

 

The churches official stance on evolution, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal fall are all things that are difficult to reconcile. When Elder Holland gets up and tells me in general conference that I can't understand the atonement, because I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, that doesn't feel very good. There are several posters on this board who hold the view that you literally can't be a faithful latter-day saint if you hope for revelation that would allow for Gay couples to be sealed. I sat through a lesson a couple of weeks ago where my children were taught that anyone who supports gay marriage have been deceived by Satan.

Specifically, who is The Church? "Ekklesia" means simply "the assembly." It's a bunch of people, a diverse bunch. The gospel net gathers "all kinds."

So when I hear someone who takes a hardline, narrow stance, I personally like to consider whether that voice represents "the Church" or whether it makes more sense to consider the Myers-Briggs types. Read some ESTJ and ISTJ profiles. I'm INFP which is different than an INTJ. What personality type is most likely to seek and thrive in a bureaucratic position? Who is going to end up having the job of writing a manual?

And consider the numbers of people who fall into each different type, and what style of thinking you are most likely to encounter?

I also consider the Perry Scheme's nine positions, and I consider where that person might be. Compare Position Two thinking with Position Nine thinking.

Everyone spends some time at Position Two, but I can make a case that Joseph Smith, for example, demonstrates Position Nine. (See my "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" essay.)

I think I can make a good case that a talk like the 14 Fundamentals maps to and appeals to a combination of Position Two thinking and ESTJ tendency. So when I here things like that, I don't see the church, but human personality and human personal development manifesting within the membership just as it will manifest everywhere.

And personally, I have never heard the 14 fundamentals in sacrament meeting. I've read it, and know some people in the church like it. But to me, it is not paradigmatic of the church. Just an example of one kind of thought to expect within it.

I'm a technical writer in the computer-aided engineering field, where in the primary goal is to build things spiritually before building them physically.

And a primary strategy for dealing with complexity is to use hierarchy, that is to break problems into smaller pieces, and divide labor into compartments. Black boxes.

Some people want to deal with religious questions by appealing to hierarchy, and to trust specialists to solve complex problems for them. Final authorities, simple answers.

Some people prefer to deal with religious questions by looking inside the boxes now and then, and considering just how well the simulation matches with the real world outside the box.

The society that makes up the church includes all kinds of people with different temperaments and at different positions of cognitive and ethical growth and when I raise my hand to "sustain" them, that means I will put up with them and I hope they will put up with me.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Specifically, who is The Church? "Ekklesia" means simply "the assembly." It's a bunch of people, a diverse bunch. The gospel net gathers "all kinds."

So when I hear someone who takes a hardline, narrow stance, I personally like to consider whether that voice represents "the Church" or whether it makes more sense to consider the Myers-Briggs types. Read some ESTJ and ISTJ profiles. I'm INFP which is different than an INTJ. What personality type is most likely to seek and thrive in a bureaucratic position? Who is going to end up having the job of writing a manual?

And consider the numbers of people who fall into each different type, and what style of thinking you are most likely to encounter?

I also consider the Perry Scheme's nine positions, and I consider where that person might be. Compare Position Two thinking with Position Nine thinking.

Everyone spends some time at Position Two, but I can make a case that Joseph Smith, for example, demonstrates Position Nine. (See my "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" essay.)

I think I can make a good case that a talk like the 14 Fundamentals maps to and appeals to a combination of Position Two thinking and ESTJ tendency. So when I here things like that, I don't see the church, but human personality and human personal development manifesting within the membership just as it will manifest everywhere.

And personally, I have never heard the 14 fundamentals in sacrament meeting. I've read it, and know some people in the church like it. But to me, it is not paradigmatic of the church. Just an example of one kind of thought to expect within it.

I'm a technical writer in the computer-aided engineering field, where in the primary goal is to build things spiritually before building them physically.

And a primary strategy for dealing with complexity is to use hierarchy, that is to break problems into smaller pieces, and divide labor into compartments. Black boxes.

Some people want to deal with religious questions by appealing to hierarchy, and to trust specialists to solve complex problems for them. Final authorities, simple answers.

Some people prefer to deal with religious questions by looking inside the boxes now and then, and considering just how well the simulation matches with the real world outside the box.

The society that makes up the church includes all kinds of people with different temperaments and at different positions of cognitive and ethical growth and when I raise my hand to "sustain" them, that means I will put up with them and I hope they will put up with me.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

I appreciate what you are saying and I have used much of your advice over the years to build a place for myself in the church (so thank you!). I get that the church is just the sum of its members, but in practice certain views are okay and acceptable (in most wards) and others are not. In addition to hearing them in sacrament meeting, the 14 F's were covered just this last year in one of President Benson's EQ/RS lessons. People espousing the 14 F's are accepted in the church, while people espousing a more nuanced view get looked at funny (in my experience). A brother in my ward that has since left the church raised an issue in Sunday School once. In talking about natural disasters punishing the wicked, he said he wasn't sure that God was behind them all and that sometimes bad things just happen. 5 people jumped in and spoke how the scriptures are clear that God sends natural disasters to punish the wicked. Just how it is. So tolerance is great, but in my experience in the church it only goes one way.

Edited September 3, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Teancum]

 

For you and the vast majority of others, there is really only one approach to deciding such issues.  Since you and they have not developed the intellectual discipline and capacity to deal with hard facts, the only reasonable path left is to make an entirely subjective or intuitive judgment.  Thus, the residuum of good faith or bad faith  which you possess will largely predetermine your conclusions.  Your sense of reality is largely socially structured, and you doubtless reflect the views of those with whom you associate.  That is the best predictor of which position you will take on any given issue, including whether the Letter to a CES Director is worthwhile or is simply trash.

 

Sincerity counts for a lot in such decisionmaking, accompanied by an admission up front of our own relative ignorance.  That is why the Holy Spirit is so important, and why it is the most significant element in LDS conversion efforts.  Cultivating a relationship with the Holy Spirit is the best approach to making decisions about a host of issues.

 

 

So is it your position if someone takes the time and effort and concludes the Church is false that the lack the intellectual discipline and capacity to deal with hard facts? 

 

I really hope not because if so we can try a rigorous discussion of why in general religious decisions have to rely on faith based decisions with some metaphysical experiences to buttress said faith and cannot every survive on evidence and reason alone.

[Teancum]

Hi Teancum,

I spent over 40 years carefully reading everything published by the Tanners, and a good selection of other anti-Mormon stuff.  I learned a lot, and even showed my respect to the Tanners by never having a cross word with Sandra (we often agreed on issues), and even attending church with Jerald & Sandra.  In addition, I made sure (largely at my own expense) that the RLDS Archives had a complete collection of Tanner publications.  I spent years attending and analyzing the Whitmerite Church in which both Sandra and Jerald were baptized.  I spent time seriously consulting with a non-Mormon historian who wrote a bio on the Tanners.  I do not believe in or practice instant dismissal of anything, except flat-earth theory.  

 

 

And I admire you for it.

[Brian 2.0]

It is a matter of fact, however, that only a small minority of our civilization ever obtain the advanced training and discipline which I have been speaking about.  

 

I definitely don't like minimizing real experts.  It does bother me when debates happen and people side with the actress who declare Vaccines are bad while dismissing the "opinion" of the specialized doctor who says there is no connection we have seen -- as if both perspectives should be given equal weight.

 

I do however think that critical thinking skills can be developed outside of formal higher education and while that person may not be an "expert" in the field, they can apply those critical thinking skills to something an expert says that may seem to be in error.  Experts can make mistakes, have biases, willfully deceive as well.