This is a believing Church, with a believing leadership, and the evidence is published.

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

Why did it take almost 2000 years for the Restoration to take place?

Y are religions so quick to condemn ssm?

[telnetd]

On 01/06/2016 at 9:08 PM, Pa Pa said:

Over the years I have seen many fall way from the Gospel. Some because of writings that were proven false, Church history, apathy and disillusion to name a few. 

Another reason is they saw the myth that LDS leaders cannot lead people away smashed.

Gail

[Guest]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

Another reason is they saw the myth that LDS leaders cannot lead people away smashed.

Gail

Example, or expand it you could. 

[Tacenda]

I shouldn't have been so surprised with F&T meeting today, and the mention of Joseph Smith over and over again.  I hadn't seen it as much, like critics say happens, especially in my ward.  

I was quite shocked!  One after another, spoke of loving the church, and Joseph Smith!  That's fine and all, but the balance wasn't there. In fact, I didn't hear much about the Saviour at all, just the mention of several various prophets.  It was a prophet worship fest.  Of course I know how one person's testimony can significantly start a topic in F&T meetings because I've seen it over and over.  It started out with an elderly man commenting that ever since listening to General Conference as a young boy, he'd wanted to be a General Authority, or like the men he listened to.  

Just the other day I listened to this Mormon Matters podcast http://mormonmatters.org/2016/05/24/332-mercy/.  In it Fiona Givens mentioned how she thought that many LDS don't understand what mercy means in the gospel, because not enough have needed it as much.  Until they do they may not quite get the concept down.  

That's what I felt in church today, not enough about getting that mercy from Jesus for their sins.  And you don't even want to know what it was like during the Sacrament portion, you would have died!  Talk about technology and the chatting during it, it was a pitiful sight.  I know other churches go on and on about Jesus throughout their meetings, it might even be overkill, but my ward today...Jesus was so understated a visiting non member might really believe our church was a cult, in the bad sense of the word.  And that our leaders were our main focus, not God.  

Pa Pa, I understand that you're a convert and you've seen life outside of Mormonism and you believe this is the one true church.  But can you see that our church can sometimes not even act like they need the Saviour, just their fellow ward members or leaders?

Maybe the members strive to be soo perfect, they don't think they sin because they are on that path.  I guess today was not a good day at church.  And I didn't come in with a bad attitude to begin with, I swear!

During Primary sharing time the primary leader mentioned that in order to love Jesus, you must know Him. It'd be nice if they would help the children know Him, through stories etc.  And hear them often. I was glad she mentioned His name, it was practically a first today, except for the closing of the testimonies, and the prayers! 

Sorry for the long post.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Tacenda

[boblloyd91]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I shouldn't have been so surprised with F&T meeting today, and the mention of Joseph Smith over and over again.  I hadn't seen it as much, like critics say happens, especially in my ward.  

I was quite shocked!  One after another, spoke of loving the church, and Joseph Smith!  That's fine and all, but the balance wasn't there. In fact, I didn't hear much about the Saviour at all, just the mention of several various prophets.  It was a prophet worship fest.  Of course I know how one person's testimony can significantly start a topic in F&T meetings because I've seen it over and over.  It started out with an elderly man commenting that ever since listening to General Conference as a young boy, he'd wanted to be a General Authority, or like the men he listened to.  

Just the other day I listened to this Mormon Matters podcast http://mormonmatters.org/2016/05/24/332-mercy/.  In it Fiona Givens mentioned how she thought that many LDS don't understand what mercy means in the gospel, because not enough have needed it as much.  Until they do they may not quite get the concept down.  

That's what I felt in church today, not enough about getting that mercy from Jesus for their sins.  And you don't even want to know what it was like during the Sacrament portion, you would have died!  Talk about technology and the chatting during it, it was a pitiful sight.  I know other churches go on and on about Jesus throughout their meetings, it might even be overkill, but my ward today...Jesus was so understated a visiting non member might really believe our church was a cult, in the bad sense of the word.  And that our leaders were our main focus, not God.  

Pa Pa, I understand that you're a convert and you've seen life outside of Mormonism and you believe this is the one true church.  But can you see that our church can sometimes not even act like they need the Saviour, just their fellow ward members or leaders?

Maybe the members strive to be soo perfect, they don't think they sin because they are on that path.  I guess today was not a good day at church.  And I didn't come in with a bad attitude to begin with, I swear!

During Primary sharing time the primary leader mentioned that in order to love Jesus, you must know Him. It'd be nice if they would help the children know Him, through stories etc.  And hear them often. I was glad she mentioned His name, it was practically a first today, except for the closing of the testimonies, and the prayers! 

Sorry for the long post.

I'm sorry to hear that. My parents ward is the exact opposite of what you described. The former bishop made it very clear that F&T meeting is to bear testimony of Christ, which I think helped people avoid sharing things like genealogy stories, or "Thankimonies" I feel more edified when we focus on the source instead of the conduit through which the source reveals itself. I think Utah Mormon culture sometimes gets those confused 

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I shouldn't have been so surprised with F&T meeting today, and the mention of Joseph Smith over and over again.  I hadn't seen it as much, like critics say happens, especially in my ward.  

I was quite shocked!  One after another, spoke of loving the church, and Joseph Smith!  That's fine and all, but the balance wasn't there. In fact, I didn't hear much about the Saviour at all, just the mention of several various prophets.  It was a prophet worship fest.  Of course I know how one person's testimony can significantly start a topic in F&T meetings because I've seen it over and over.  It started out with an elderly man commenting that ever since listening to General Conference as a young boy, he'd wanted to be a General Authority, or like the men he listened to.  

Just the other day I listened to this Mormon Matters podcast http://mormonmatters.org/2016/05/24/332-mercy/.  In it Fiona Givens mentioned how she thought that many LDS don't understand what mercy means in the gospel, because not enough have needed it as much.  Until they do they may not quite get the concept down.  

That's what I felt in church today, not enough about getting that mercy from Jesus for their sins.  And you don't even want to know what it was like during the Sacrament portion, you would have died!  Talk about technology and the chatting during it, it was a pitiful sight.  I know other churches go on and on about Jesus throughout their meetings, it might even be overkill, but my ward today...Jesus was so understated a visiting non member might really believe our church was a cult, in the bad sense of the word.  And that our leaders were our main focus, not God.  

Pa Pa, I understand that you're a convert and you've seen life outside of Mormonism and you believe this is the one true church.  But can you see that our church can sometimes not even act like they need the Saviour, just their fellow ward members or leaders?

Maybe the members strive to be soo perfect, they don't think they sin because they are on that path.  I guess today was not a good day at church.  And I didn't come in with a bad attitude to begin with, I swear!

During Primary sharing time the primary leader mentioned that in order to love Jesus, you must know Him. It'd be nice if they would help the children know Him, through stories etc.  And hear them often. I was glad she mentioned His name, it was practically a first today, except for the closing of the testimonies, and the prayers! 

Sorry for the long post.

Christ is the center, but not the ONLY part of the gospel that we need to have a testimony of.
Considering we have a testimony meeting every single month, I have zero issue with testimonies of gospel elements other than the atonement

16 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

I'm sorry to hear that. My parents ward is the exact opposite of what you described. The former bishop made it very clear that F&T meeting is to bear testimony of Christ, which I think helped people avoid sharing things like genealogy stories, or "Thankimonies" I feel more edified when we focus on the source instead of the conduit through which the source reveals itself. I think Utah Mormon culture sometimes gets those confused 

While I do agree with getting rid of "Thankamonies" (and weepamonies, preachamonies, and stories), limiting the doctrines of which can give our testimonies is just wrong.

If I want to share my testimony of the restoration, of eternal families, of prayer, of priesthood power, that is a right we have and the fact that a testimony doesn't ALWAYS include the Savior is not a problem.

[UtahTexan]

I guess I just let the Spirit guide me when I bear my Testimony.  If I am led to testify about Christ, I do.  If about Joseph,  I do.  If about a certain Gospel Principal, I do.

I suppose I do not let what other members think or want guide me...nor do I second guess those who bear their testimony...as they, too, are being led.

But...when someone wants to complain, they can find almost anything to fit their need....

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ is the center, but not the ONLY part of the gospel that we need to have a testimony of.
Considering we have a testimony meeting every single month, I have zero issue with testimonies of gospel elements other than the atonement

While I do agree with getting rid of "Thankamonies" (and weepamonies, preachamonies, and stories), limiting the doctrines of which can give our testimonies is just wrong.

If I want to share my testimony of the restoration, of eternal families, of prayer, of priesthood power, that is a right we have and the fact that a testimony doesn't ALWAYS include the Savior is not a problem.

Usually Jesus is mentioned somewhere in there too in my ward, but not today.     

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Usually Jesus is mentioned somewhere in there too in my ward, but not today.     

I guess the Spirit should have checked with you before leading folks.....

Put in your requests with the Spirit next month

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Usually Jesus is mentioned somewhere in there too in my ward, but not today.     

If it became a pattern I'd worry.
But a one off meeting is hardly a problem.  If testimonies of elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ were born testimony of, then I don't see a problem if Jesus Christ himself wasn't mentioned for one meeting.  And he wouldn't either.

Luke 18: 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I guess the Spirit should have checked with you before leading folks.....

Put in your requests with the Spirit next month

I guess so, I should let it know next time.   Country Boy, I'm usually quite impressed with F&T meetings, sorry if I'm wearing my dissatisfaction on my sleeve here.  It was very striking.

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I guess so, I should let it know next time.   Country Boy, I'm usually quite impressed with F&T meetings, sorry if I'm wearing my dissatisfaction on my sleeve here.  It was very striking.

I have always found that testimonies that include Joseph are more numerous in June....the month he was assassinated.....

[Five Solas]

On 6/1/2016 at 6:08 PM, Pa Pa said:

...

I mention this, because many in the ant-Mormon world have often said to me that there is no way that our leaders truly believe that the claims of Joesph Smith.

...

I have to confess, I used to think LDS apologist Daniel C. Peterson (who used to frequent this board) must be one of the world's great cynics.  I had a conversation with my mom (a Sunstone subscriber, to give you some idea) using words to that effect, that Peterson was willfully perpetuating a fraud.  She wasn't persuaded. 

But I actually no longer think that, about him or by extension other LDS leaders (a.k.a., "The Brethren").  The turning point for me was when Peterson publicly professed his belief in dowsing rods.  There was absolutely nothing for him to gain in spouting that sort of thing, and much credibility to lose.  But he did it--and the only explanation I can see is that he truly believes.  Perhaps he really had some encounter with the supernatural, the demonic--assuming there's not a more rational explanation.  And if Peterson can believe in dowsing rods, well--why not then Nephites and all the rest?  It's not such a great leap, is it?

Do LDS leaders "truly believe?"  I don't doubt some do.  I think Peterson does. 

--Erik

 

[telnetd]

On 04/06/2016 at 0:10 PM, Pa Pa said:

Example, or expand it you could. 

One example that comes to mind is Joseph F. Smith teaching mankind dies 
in consequence of the sin of Adam (chapter 10, page 89). The March 2008
Ensign article by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland also refers to the sin of 
Adam. If this is false then Latter-day Saints are being led astray.

Gail

[Guest]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

One example that comes to mind is Joseph F. Smith teaching mankind dies 
in consequence of the sin of Adam (chapter 10, page 89). The March 2008
Ensign article by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland also refers to the sin of 
Adam. If this is false then Latter-day Saints are being led astray.

Gail

Death was brought into the world as a result of Adam's transgression. He became mortal and all who follow him will die, unless those living when Christ comes and survive his coming. Death is not only a condition of mortality, but how our souls return to the God that gave us life. 

[Avatar4321]

On 6/5/2016 at 7:01 PM, Tacenda said:

Usually Jesus is mentioned somewhere in there too in my ward, but not today.     

Then why didn't you mention him if you felt it was needed?

[Avatar4321]

On 7/2/2016 at 8:27 AM, telnetd said:

One example that comes to mind is Joseph F. Smith teaching mankind dies 
in consequence of the sin of Adam (chapter 10, page 89). The March 2008
Ensign article by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland also refers to the sin of 
Adam. If this is false then Latter-day Saints are being led astray.

Gail

How is teaching the Bible a sign of being lead astray?

Edited July 4, 2016 by Avatar4321
Spelling edit

[Guest]

On June 4, 2016 at 2:41 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Y are religions so quick to condemn ssm?

How did you work this into this thread? Please don't derail. 

[Teancum]

On June 5, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Tacenda said:

I shouldn't have been so surprised with F&T meeting today, and the mention of Joseph Smith over and over again.  I hadn't seen it as much, like critics say happens, especially in my ward.  

I was quite shocked!  One after another, spoke of loving the church, and Joseph Smith!  That's fine and all, but the balance wasn't there. In fact, I didn't hear much about the Saviour at all, just the mention of several various prophets.  It was a prophet worship fest.  Of course I know how one person's testimony can significantly start a topic in F&T meetings because I've seen it over and over.  It started out with an elderly man commenting that ever since listening to General Conference as a young boy, he'd wanted to be a General Authority, or like the men he listened to.  

Just the other day I listened to this Mormon Matters podcast http://mormonmatters.org/2016/05/24/332-mercy/.  In it Fiona Givens mentioned how she thought that many LDS don't understand what mercy means in the gospel, because not enough have needed it as much.  Until they do they may not quite get the concept down.  

That's what I felt in church today, not enough about getting that mercy from Jesus for their sins.  And you don't even want to know what it was like during the Sacrament portion, you would have died!  Talk about technology and the chatting during it, it was a pitiful sight.  I know other churches go on and on about Jesus throughout their meetings, it might even be overkill, but my ward today...Jesus was so understated a visiting non member might really believe our church was a cult, in the bad sense of the word.  And that our leaders were our main focus, not God.  

Pa Pa, I understand that you're a convert and you've seen life outside of Mormonism and you believe this is the one true church.  But can you see that our church can sometimes not even act like they need the Saviour, just their fellow ward members or leaders?

Maybe the members strive to be soo perfect, they don't think they sin because they are on that path.  I guess today was not a good day at church.  And I didn't come in with a bad attitude to begin with, I swear!

During Primary sharing time the primary leader mentioned that in order to love Jesus, you must know Him. It'd be nice if they would help the children know Him, through stories etc.  And hear them often. I was glad she mentioned His name, it was practically a first today, except for the closing of the testimonies, and the prayers! 

Sorry for the long post.

Tacenda I just want to tell you I think you are in incredibly decent person. 

 

[Garden Girl]

On 6/5/2016 at 4:38 PM, boblloyd91 said:

I'm sorry to hear that. My parents ward is the exact opposite of what you described. The former bishop made it very clear that F&T meeting is to bear testimony of Christ, which I think helped people avoid sharing things like genealogy stories, or "Thankimonies" I feel more edified when we focus on the source instead of the conduit through which the source reveals itself. I think Utah Mormon culture sometimes gets those confused 

So is mine the opposite... of course I must add that the last thing the bishop said as he turned the meeting over was... And now the time is yours to bear your Christ-centered testimonies...

And what we had was a variety of testimonies, each unique in sharing experiences and stories but all similar that underlying each was a faith and love of and in the Savior... Joseph was mentioned only a few times in relation to the restoration, after acknowledging and thanking the Savior... the bishop sets the tone for the ward... and we had a full chapel clear back to the far wall of the cultural hall (July 4th weekend here at the beach)... and our visitors joining in bearing testimonies... I love F&T meetings.

GG

[Guest]

On June 5, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Tacenda said:

I shouldn't have been so surprised with F&T meeting today, and the mention of Joseph Smith over and over again.  I hadn't seen it as much, like critics say happens, especially in my ward.  

I was quite shocked!  One after another, spoke of loving the church, and Joseph Smith!  That's fine and all, but the balance wasn't there. In fact, I didn't hear much about the Saviour at all, just the mention of several various prophets.  It was a prophet worship fest.  Of course I know how one person's testimony can significantly start a topic in F&T meetings because I've seen it over and over.  It started out with an elderly man commenting that ever since listening to General Conference as a young boy, he'd wanted to be a General Authority, or like the men he listened to.  

Just the other day I listened to this Mormon Matters podcast http://mormonmatters.org/2016/05/24/332-mercy/.  In it Fiona Givens mentioned how she thought that many LDS don't understand what mercy means in the gospel, because not enough have needed it as much.  Until they do they may not quite get the concept down.  

That's what I felt in church today, not enough about getting that mercy from Jesus for their sins.  And you don't even want to know what it was like during the Sacrament portion, you would have died!  Talk about technology and the chatting during it, it was a pitiful sight.  I know other churches go on and on about Jesus throughout their meetings, it might even be overkill, but my ward today...Jesus was so understated a visiting non member might really believe our church was a cult, in the bad sense of the word.  And that our leaders were our main focus, not God.  

Pa Pa, I understand that you're a convert and you've seen life outside of Mormonism and you believe this is the one true church.  But can you see that our church can sometimes not even act like they need the Saviour, just their fellow ward members or leaders?

Maybe the members strive to be soo perfect, they don't think they sin because they are on that path.  I guess today was not a good day at church.  And I didn't come in with a bad attitude to begin with, I swear!

During Primary sharing time the primary leader mentioned that in order to love Jesus, you must know Him. It'd be nice if they would help the children know Him, through stories etc.  And hear them often. I was glad she mentioned His name, it was practically a first today, except for the closing of the testimonies, and the prayers! 

Sorry for the long post.

Yes, I grew up out of the Church, in a Church were only the Pastor speaks, only the Pastor selects the topic and every meeting ends the same way. Other than teaching Sunday School, there are "no" callings. Some men are Deacons and women are never allowed to speak in Church. I had to go to a nearby Church for Sunday School, as our little Church had nothing for young people. We had the very young and the older...teenagers were seldom in Church, because there was nothing for them. So indeed you heard the name of Jesus from the pulpit, with "Paul did this and Paul said that". Other Apostles and Prophets were spoken of all the time...they just don't have modern day Prophets and Apostles to refer too. If they did, you can bet they would be quoting them just as much as we do. Also, often when I hear people speak of their Wards, I wonder if we attend the same Church. I do not sit in F&T meetings and other Church meeting doing "word counts", I am listening for the Spirit, his word count is what I listen too. Those who love the Church and the Prophet who restored it, are expressing that love from the pulpit because they can, because they are allowed input, a voice, a calling, a purpose. You can go to other Churches, but as a sister you will be required to remain silent, you will never be asked to speak from the pulpit, nor your husband (even if he is a Deacon) nor your children will ever learn the ability to speak, hold office, and learn the leadership skills they do in "our" faith. 

[smac97]

On 6/5/2016 at 6:28 PM, Five Solas said:

I have to confess, I used to think LDS apologist Daniel C. Peterson (who used to frequent this board) must be one of the world's great cynics.  I had a conversation with my mom (a Sunstone subscriber, to give you some idea) using words to that effect, that Peterson was willfully perpetuating a fraud.  She wasn't persuaded. 

But I actually no longer think that, about him or by extension other LDS leaders (a.k.a., "The Brethren").  The turning point for me was when Peterson publicly professed his belief in dowsing rods.  There was absolutely nothing for him to gain in spouting that sort of thing, and much credibility to lose.  But he did it--and the only explanation I can see is that he truly believes.  Perhaps he really had some encounter with the supernatural, the demonic--assuming there's not a more rational explanation.  And if Peterson can believe in dowsing rods, well--why not then Nephites and all the rest?  It's not such a great leap, is it?

Do LDS leaders "truly believe?"  I don't doubt some do.  I think Peterson does. 

--Erik

First, here is the quote from Daniel Peterson about dowsing:

Quote

I found water running through a buried pipe of which I was unaware. I didn't even know I was looking for anything.

I was simply told to allow the two metal rods free play.

They crossed at a certain point, then uncrossed. It was very distinct.

Only after repeating that several times was I told that a clay pipe ran under the floor right where the rods crossed.

I had several other people undertake the same experiment throughout that day. With one exception, they all had the same experience. (The one exception was a big burly mechanic with huge hands. I suspect that he didn't allow the rods free enough movement.)

I wasn't expecting what happened. Nothing in my worldview predicted it. It didn't fit my scientific notions, and nothing in my beliefs depended on it happening.

Yet it happened.

I found it very strange and unsettling.

Elsewhere DCP described this incident as happening "roughly thirty-five years ago."

This does not sound like Daniel Peterson was characterizing this as a matter of "belief."  He simply described what he observed.  He also states that "{n}othing in {his} worldview predicted" that dowsing would work, that it "didn't fit {his} scientific notions," that "nothing in {his} beliefs depended on it happening," and that he "found it very strange and unsettling."

Dr. Peterson's remark is followed by this statement from a commenter:

Quote

Then document your ability and claim the million dollar reward. Surely the church deserves to have that money, if you are not interested in a financial reward.
You have been hinting at this story for several comments, wanting someone to ask you about it. Please don't be offended if, without documentation, it is not believed to the same extent that you clearly believe it.

You simply report? I am not being hostile, I am observing the simple-mindedness of one so narcissistically invested in his own perceived value in the universe that he thinks a story about his "dowsing skill" reads like a gift from god. In reality it is an embarrassment that you feel that story merits anything other than a National Enquirer headline.

What.  A.  Jerk.  He is publicly accusing DCP - on DCP's own blog, no less - of being "simple-minded" and "narcissistically invested in his own perceived value in the universe" and of having a "gift from god."  But he's "not being hostile?"

Anyhoo, DCP responded:

Quote

I don't expect you to believe it, and you shouldn't expect me to respect your amateur mind-reading or your somewhat contemptuous assignment of imagined motivations.

(Please give me a reason to permit your rather surly presence to continue here on my blog.)

I've claimed no "ability." I simply report that it happened. I've drawn no sweeping conclusions from it, I've proclaimed no theories, and I have no idea whether it would ever happen again.

Please read the rest of DCP's comments for a more complete perspective.  That perspective, I think, is not accurately described as "Peterson publicly professed his belief in dowsing rods."  To the contrary, I think you substantially misrepresent/distort/mischaracterize DCP's remarks on this point.

A valuable lesson, perhaps, regarding hostile perceptions of what Latter-day Saints believe and say.  When one is predisposed to find Mormons are presumptively dishonest, that predisposition can substantially alter one's perception of what Mormons actually believe (and don't believe).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 4, 2016 by smac97

[Five Solas]

On 7/4/2016 at 11:05 AM, smac97 said:

First, here is the quote from Daniel Peterson about dowsing:

Elsewhere DCP described this incident as happening "roughly thirty-five years ago."

This does not sound like Daniel Peterson was characterizing this as a matter of "belief."  He simply described what he observed.  He also states that "{n}othing in {his} worldview predicted" that dowsing would work, that it "didn't fit {his} scientific notions," that "nothing in {his} beliefs depended on it happening," and that he "found it very strange and unsettling."

Dr. Peterson's remark is followed by this statement from a commenter:

What.  A.  Jerk.  He is publicly accusing DCP - on DCP's own blog, no less - of being "simple-minded" and "narcissistically invested in his own perceived value in the universe" and of having a "gift from god."  But he's "not being hostile?"

Anyhoo, DCP responded:

Please read the rest of DCP's comments for a more complete perspective.  That perspective, I think, is not accurately described as "Peterson publicly professed his belief in dowsing rods."  To the contrary, I think you substantially misrepresent/distort/mischaracterize DCP's remarks on this point.

A valuable lesson, perhaps, regarding hostile perceptions of what Latter-day Saints believe and say.  When one is predisposed to find Mormons are presumptively dishonest, that predisposition can substantially alter one's perception of what Mormons actually believe (and don't believe).

Thanks,

-Smac

So the basis of Daniel C. Peterson's belief is "he observed" (your words)--and you accuse me with your word combo: "misrepresent/distort/mischaracterize"?!?  The guy believes, Smac.  That what I said.  He also believes in Nephites, I said that too.  Whatever reluctance he may have felt regarding his experience--it doesn't change the fact he believes it was real, that he "found water."  And for all I know, something really did happen--I wasn't there.  I believe his sharing this demonstrates I was wrong in thinking him a cynic--the point of my post.     

I'm willing to own it when I'm wrong.  How about you?

--Erik

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

So the basis of Daniel C. Peterson's belief is "he observed" (your words)--and you accuse me with your word combo: "misrepresent/distort/mischaracterize"?!? 

Yep.  (Quoth DCP: "I've claimed no 'ability.' I simply report that it happened. I've drawn no sweeping conclusions from it, I've proclaimed no theories, and I have no idea whether it would ever happen again.")

Quote

The guy believes, Smac.  That what I said. 

But that's not what he said.  Hence the misrepresentation/distortion/mischaracterization.  He simply described what he observed.  He also states that "{n}othing in {his} worldview predicted" that dowsing would work, that he "wasn't expecting what happened," that it was an "unexpected and rather odd experience," that it "didn't fit {his} scientific notions," that he is/was "not sure what to make of it,"  that "nothing in {his} beliefs depended on it happening," that he "found it very strange and unsettling," that he "{has} drawn no sweeping conclusions from it," that he "{has} proclaimed no theories {about it}," and that he "{has} no idea whether it would ever happen again."  

This event is so trivial that DCP's apparently sole reference to it was in the comments section about one entry on his personal blog.  This, in your view, coupled with the above-referenced descriptions of his position, requires us to conclude that "{t]he guy believes?"

Bupkis.

Quote

He also believes in Nephites, I said that too. 

Obviously.  I do, too.  I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quote

Whatever reluctance he may have felt regarding his experience--it doesn't change the fact he believes it was real, that he "found water."  And for all I know, something really did happen--I wasn't there.  I believe his sharing this demonstrates I was wrong in thinking him a cynic--the point of my post.     

I'm willing to own it when I'm wrong.  How about you?

--Erik

I am certainly willing to admit when I'm wrong.  Have done, many times.  Will do, many times.  But here, you have substantially misrepresented/mischaracterized DCP.

DCP was reporting what he observed, not what he believed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2016 by smac97

[Five Solas]

A common definition of what it means to believe--we do not seem to share, Smac.  Peterson claimed to have success with dowsing rods.  He "found water" (his exact words).  If that isn't a manifestation of belief, then I give up. 

--Erik