More From Jeremy Runnells

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

All is quiet as the Sphinx in that regard, my friend.

 

In the interests of explaining a little more about where I am coming from, though, let me add the following personal information:

 

Because of my history with Mormonism, and my immersion in apologetics in the 1980’s, I was already aware of each and every one of the problematic issues outlined in the essays long before they were published.

 

I made all the standard apologetic excuses, including the customary convoluted reasoning for why it is these items were not known by the general membership.

 

I felt special because I had educated myself and, if a Mormon came across this information and was troubled by it, I was there to save the day.

 

At some point, though, I realized within myself that a lot of these excuses didn’t hold water; they were just excuses for excuses’ sake.

 

I mean, the Church was true and led by prophets and so the position I had to defend was clear—it’s just that the excuses weren’t doing the job.

 

I continued on in this vein for a number of years; still spouting the excuses even when I knew inside me that I didn’t really find them satisfying or intellectually honest.

 

Eventually, I came to the point where I couldn’t continue saying these excuses to others when I didn’t believe them myself.

 

In other words, I came to a point of integrity regarding Mormonism—making my presentation of myself match more my internal beliefs.

 

What I see going on at the MDDB a lot is people doing the same thing I used to do—spouting the excuses which must always defend the Church and its leaders even though those excuses do not hold water.

 

I see some here engaging in the same kind of logical fallacies I engaged in.

 

Which is why I am quick to point them out.

 

And I suspect that at least some of them are in the stage of spouting while not believing the stuff they are saying.  They are trying to convince themselves by convincing others—just like I used to do.

 

One way of boiling it down would be to ask whether a Mormon would make the same arguments about a different religion that they do about Mormonism.

 

Using the same techniques, any religion could be proven true.

 

The point I came to was discovering this for myself, and realizing that my reasoning on Mormonism should comport with my reasoning in every other aspect of my life.

 

This was eye-opening for me.

Okay, so when you've finished patting yourself on the back for all that "intellectual honesty" you've got going on, how about you answer my question in the "A Different God" thread?

You know -- the one I posted just before you went silent there.

The one that asks who was the Lord upon whom Joseph was calling, as described in his 1832 First Vision account.

I'm sure that shouldn't be too challenging. What with you being so intellectually honest, and all.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

What I see going on at the MDDB a lot is people doing the same thing I used to do—spouting the excuses which must always defend the Church and its leaders even though those excuses do not hold water.

I see some here engaging in the same kind of logical fallacies I engaged in.

 

Which is why I am quick to point them out.

 

And I suspect that at least some of them are in the stage of spouting while not believing the stuff they are saying.  They are trying to convince themselves by convincing others—just like I used to do.

Oh goody. As other MDDB posters now are, Consiglieri once was; as Consiglieri now is, other MDDB posters -- well, the truly rational and/or honest ones, anyway -- may become.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Guest]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

All is quiet as the Sphinx in that regard, my friend.

 

In the interests of explaining a little more about where I am coming from, though, let me add the following personal information:

 

Because of my history with Mormonism, and my immersion in apologetics in the 1980’s, I was already aware of each and every one of the problematic issues outlined in the essays long before they were published.

 

I made all the standard apologetic excuses, including the customary convoluted reasoning for why it is these items were not known by the general membership.

 

I felt special because I had educated myself and, if a Mormon came across this information and was troubled by it, I was there to save the day.

 

At some point, though, I realized within myself that a lot of these excuses didn’t hold water; they were just excuses for excuses’ sake.

 

I mean, the Church was true and led by prophets and so the position I had to defend was clear—it’s just that the excuses weren’t doing the job.

 

I continued on in this vein for a number of years; still spouting the excuses even when I knew inside me that I didn’t really find them satisfying or intellectually honest.

 

Eventually, I came to the point where I couldn’t continue saying these excuses to others when I didn’t believe them myself.

 

In other words, I came to a point of integrity regarding Mormonism—making my presentation of myself match more my internal beliefs.

 

What I see going on at the MDDB a lot is people doing the same thing I used to do—spouting the excuses which must always defend the Church and its leaders even though those excuses do not hold water.

 

I see some here engaging in the same kind of logical fallacies I engaged in.

 

Which is why I am quick to point them out.

 

And I suspect that at least some of them are in the stage of spouting while not believing the stuff they are saying.  They are trying to convince themselves by convincing others—just like I used to do.

 

One way of boiling it down would be to ask whether a Mormon would make the same arguments about a different religion that they do about Mormonism.

 

Using the same techniques, any religion could be proven true.

 

The point I came to was discovering this for myself, and realizing that my reasoning on Mormonism should comport with my reasoning in every other aspect of my life.

 

This was eye-opening for me.

I only try to convince and educate myself while growing my faith. As Eienstine put it, "all that I know teaches me to trust in the creator for all that I do not know". 

[tesuji]

The gospel is really pretty simple.

Faith is the first principle of the gospel. The parable of the seed in Alma 32 explains how it works.

The greatest commandments are to love God and your neighbor. This is the central theme of the NT Gospels and the Torah both.

I'm always amazed that these high profile apostates make things so complicated. It's like they get lost in minutia and forget the basics, forget the big picture.

It's all about faith and love.

[bdouglas]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

All is quiet as the Sphinx in that regard, my friend.

 

In the interests of explaining a little more about where I am coming from, though, let me add the following personal information:

 

Because of my history with Mormonism, and my immersion in apologetics in the 1980’s, I was already aware of each and every one of the problematic issues outlined in the essays long before they were published.

 

I made all the standard apologetic excuses, including the customary convoluted reasoning for why it is these items were not known by the general membership.

 

I felt special because I had educated myself and, if a Mormon came across this information and was troubled by it, I was there to save the day.

 

At some point, though, I realized within myself that a lot of these excuses didn’t hold water; they were just excuses for excuses’ sake.

 

I mean, the Church was true and led by prophets and so the position I had to defend was clear—it’s just that the excuses weren’t doing the job.

 

I continued on in this vein for a number of years; still spouting the excuses even when I knew inside me that I didn’t really find them satisfying or intellectually honest.

 

Eventually, I came to the point where I couldn’t continue saying these excuses to others when I didn’t believe them myself.

 

In other words, I came to a point of integrity regarding Mormonism—making my presentation of myself match more my internal beliefs.

 

What I see going on at the MDDB a lot is people doing the same thing I used to do—spouting the excuses which must always defend the Church and its leaders even though those excuses do not hold water.

 

I see some here engaging in the same kind of logical fallacies I engaged in.

 

Which is why I am quick to point them out.

 

And I suspect that at least some of them are in the stage of spouting while not believing the stuff they are saying.  They are trying to convince themselves by convincing others—just like I used to do.

 

One way of boiling it down would be to ask whether a Mormon would make the same arguments about a different religion that they do about Mormonism.

 

Using the same techniques, any religion could be proven true.

 

The point I came to was discovering this for myself, and realizing that my reasoning on Mormonism should comport with my reasoning in every other aspect of my life.

 

This was eye-opening for me.

Your "intellectual honesty" strikes me as a pose.

Edited April 28, 2016 by bdouglas

[Rivers]

4 hours ago, tesuji said:

The gospel is really pretty simple.

Faith is the first principle of the gospel. The parable of the seed in Alma 32 explains how it works.

The greatest commandments are to love God and your neighbor. This is the central theme of the NT Gospels and the Torah both.

I'm always amazed that these high profile apostates make things so complicated. It's like they get lost in minutia and forget the basics, forget the big picture.

It's all about faith and love.

I'd give you a reputation point but the icon isn't there for some reason. 

Some people get  so wrapped up in all these little issues that they lose sight of the foundational gospel principles.

[Abulafia]

5 hours ago, tesuji said:

The  viewnospel isfundamentalistrett y simple.

Faith is the first principlworld'sthe gospel. TheCanterburyle of the seed in Alma 32 explains how it works.

The greatest commandments are to love God and your neighbor. This is the central theme of the NT Gospels and the Torah both.

I'm always amazed that these high profile apostates make things so complicated. It's like they get lost in minutia and forget the basics, forget the big picture.

It's all about faith and love.

Faith and love can and do exist without dogma.  The golden rule exists within most of the worlds major religions.  People who leave a fundamentalist approach to religion most often do not leave the 'gospel'.  Rowan Williams recognises this as ex archbishop of Canterbury.  The core of the gospel In my view Is that we are all of Immense value, can Improve and change Into something better and should help others to also.

[Abulafia]

If our approach to our religious beliefs encourages us to judge, to condemn, to hate, to prejudice, to belittle, to arrogance and elitism then our approach is probably incorrect.  

[Russell C McGregor]

10 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Faith and love can and do exist without dogma.  The golden rule exists within most of the worlds major religions.  People who leave a fundamentalist approach to religion most often do not leave the 'gospel'.  Rowan Williams recognises this as ex archbishop of Canterbury.  The core of the gospel In my view Is that we are all of Immense value, can Improve and change Into something better and should help others to also.

Well there you have it.

Joseph Smith said that the core of the Gospel is the Atonement of Christ. I suspect that falls within your definition of "dogma."

So you insist that you haven't left the 'gospel,' in inverted commas, but you've had to radically redefine it in order to support that claim.

 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Well there you have it.

Joseph Smith said that the core of the Gospel is the Atonement of Christ. I suspect that falls within your definition of "dogma."

So you insist that you haven't left the 'gospel,' in inverted commas, but you've had to radically redefine it in order to support that claim.

 

Just a little something:  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/12/church-of-england-attendance-falls-below-million-first-time

Maybe Senhor RW is missing a few data.

[Abulafia]

23 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Well there you have it.

Joseph Smith said that the core of the Gospel is the Atonement of Christ. I suspect that falls within your definition of "dogma."

So you insist that you haven't left the 'gospel,' in inverted commas, but you've had to radically redefine it in order to support that claim.

 

Define gospel.  

[Abulafia]

Originally Luke's community had no atonement.  His wasn't the only community.  If you are interested I can dig out a list of all the communities for whom atonement wasn't central to the good news.

 

[JAHS]

18 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Define gospel.  

Jesus defined it in the Book of Mormon:

“Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.” 

The Savior then reviewed for the Nephites the facts of the Atonement, including the need to repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. (See 3 Ne. 27:13-22.)

[Russell C McGregor]

24 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Originally Luke's community had no atonement.  His wasn't the only community.  If you are interested I can dig out a list of all the communities for whom atonement wasn't central to the good news.

 

And has the existence of these communities, or any of them, actually been established?

Or is their existence merely inferred from a few obscure textual clues that may or may not be understood correctly?

 

[Abulafia]

Hmmm.  You have a point in  terms of the extent to which the author was either reflecting or creating views.  But for the author (if you like) atonement wasnt central, infact given that he had Mark and Q in front of him, the ommission is marked. (Which is why later scribes amended his texts).

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Originally Luke's community had no atonement.  His wasn't the only community.  If you are interested I can dig out a list of all the communities for whom atonement wasn't central to the good news.

 

I'd be interested!

[cdowis]

53 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

he had Mark and Q in front of him

Q is a hypothetical construct, similar to dark energy.

[Abulafia]

Well, if he didn't have a sayings gospel infront of him, then he had Matthew, but the point remains.

[Nemesis]

Ok this thread is turning personal.  Time to shut it down.

 

nemesis