DBMormon Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 Let me set this up. I completely get that mileage will vary in terms of how people weigh evidence on any side of any issue. I grant that. I also am not speaking of true or untrue as something can be implausible to someone and still true and something can. Rather I want to see why you choose to weigh certain evidence differently then other evidence. In setting this up I will share my personal perspective and see how you differ. For me when I look at some of the difficult issues here is where I come down - Informed to whatever extent I am on biblical scholarship - I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. - I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author. - I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished. - I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. - Based on a survey done and its results, using spiritual experiences seems an ineffective way to tell which church is true. Also in line with this I find the Holy Ghost to be an ineffective way to discern "T" Truth. perhaps beauty, goodness or even lower case "t" truth. Quote A survey was conducted, asking people who believed in a god who answers prayers if they’d prayed and asked God which religion was the most correct. 82% said they had received an answer. Of those, 73% were “Very Sure” they received an answer. They came from 22 different religions. Therefore, there are a significant amount of people from different religions that use the same evidence (strong, spiritual feelings) to prove that God wants them in their religion and that their religion is the correct path to God. - http://mostcorrectreligionsurvey.weebly.com/ Let me finish by saying there are dozens more. I think this is what many of the scholars are pointing to when they speak of Mormonism having to redefine itself, or redefine key parts of its theology, or that the dominant narrative is not true. Mason, Hardy, the Givens, the Bushmans, Miller, Thomas McConkie and others seem to one degree or another be telling us the current narrative as held doesn't hold up. Yet many members of the church including many here hold firmly that these things either mean nothing or they simply don't buy into them. On the other hand there are many Latter-day Saints who want to hold onto Mormonism but logically are arriving at the same conclusions I have. Here are my questions - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? Other thoughts or questions? Again this is not about the Church being true but rather the motivation we each feel to make it work or fit or the motivation to find new ways to reconcile what simply cant fit for us. 4
JLHPROF Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 7 minutes ago, DBMormon said: Here are my questions - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? 1. No. If I thought the contradictory "evidence" was valid I would have to accept it. Assuming dismissals are only to avoid cognitive dissonance is insulting. 2. Yes. God cannot lie. Evidence can and often has. 3. Matters of faith cannot be demonstrably proven. For me Mormonism is the only religion where all the pieces fit and the doctrine works. Other's mileage varies. 4. Because when you truly believe God has spoken you have to assume truth is there first. All other facts must be viewed based on the truths you do not question (I believe science calls these axiomatic). Trying to make God fit the our limited observation is creating a God in our own image. 5. If you don't have belief you shouldn't place yourself under obligation to honor a belief or accept ideas based on that belief. 4
Bob Crockett Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 (edited) What is the "the current narrative as held?" A narrative requires a narrator. Who is that? Where might I read the "current narrative as held?" Any specific place to which you might point? Edited October 13, 2016 by Bob Crockett 3
Guest Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 The good news...of the things you listed, none impact your salvation. 4
RevTestament Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 (edited) 49 minutes ago, DBMormon said: Let me set this up. I completely get that mileage will vary in terms of how people weigh evidence on any side of any issue. I grant that. I also am not speaking of true or untrue as something can be implausible to someone and still true and something can. Rather I want to see why you choose to weigh certain evidence differently then other evidence. In setting this up I will share my personal perspective and see how you differ. For me when I look at some of the difficult issues here is where I come down - Informed to whatever extent I am on biblical scholarship - I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. - I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author. - I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished. - I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. - Based on a survey done and its results, using spiritual experiences seems an ineffective way to tell which church is true. Also in line with this I find the Holy Ghost to be an ineffective way to discern "T" Truth. perhaps beauty, goodness or even lower case "t" truth. Let me finish by saying there are dozens more. I think this is what many of the scholars are pointing to when they speak of Mormonism having to redefine itself, or redefine key parts of its theology, or that the dominant narrative is not true. Mason, Hardy, the Givens, the Bushmans, Miller, Thomas McConkie and others seem to one degree or another be telling us the current narrative as held doesn't hold up. Yet many members of the church including many here hold firmly that these things either mean nothing or they simply don't buy into them. On the other hand there are many Latter-day Saints who want to hold onto Mormonism but logically are arriving at the same conclusions I have. Here are my questions - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? There is always contradictory evidence - even in history. So contradictory evidence alone is not compelling enough to give up one's faith. I think it is designed that way to separate the wheat from the tares. Even In science there is contradictory evidence, thus theories change. Quote - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? My spiritual experiences are quite weighty, and do provide me with faith to know the gospel is true. But beyond that, I believe the gospel provides the truest way to happiness for all mankind, and that alone is compelling enough for me to embrace it despite this or that evidence, reasoning, opinion, etc. Quote - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? People having prayers answered or other spiritual experiences does not mean their religion is the truest - probably just that the spirit is confirming the truths they see or are praying about. When I was a Baptist, I heard the voice of the Lord, and strongly felt my prayers were answered - at least sometimes. Yet, more spiritual experiences led me out of the Baptist church to greater truth. Why do I know that the Church of Jesus Christ holds the true gospel? Because the Lord told me so, and the spirit confirmed the Book of Mormon is true. Quote - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. I believe the garden of Eden story, flood, etc are much like parable. There are places in the OT where the Lord is clearly using real people, names, etc as a type to foretell future events. I don't believe there was a literal green fruit tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but rather that it is a story explaining the first seal and the fall. God gave us His word, but with that word came responsibility, and man fell from that enlightened state in order that He could progress "the hard way" and become like God. See Gen 3:22. Athanasian Christianity gets that all wrong, and upside down - probably due to platonic philosophies. Each of us come to the earth with the possibility of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - it was not an "adam" and "eve" exclusive - they were the "type" or "similitude" of the teaching. Quote Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? Pray for understanding. I have seen many a thing I did not understand, "fall" before my eyes with study and prayer. Good luck in your journey DBMormon... Edited October 13, 2016 by RevTestament 2
DBMormon Posted October 13, 2016 Author Posted October 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: What is the "the current narrative as held?" A narrative requires a narrator. Who is that? Where might I read the "current narrative as held?" Any specific place to which you might point? lets for sake of discussion say the curriculum of the church (local ward as well as institute, and also Church colleges) and the history as taught by leaders from the pulpit. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 1 minute ago, DBMormon said: lets for sake of discussion say the curriculum of the church (local ward as well as institute, and also Church colleges) and the history as taught by leaders from the pulpit. What about scripture and prophetic doctrinal teachings? 1
rongo Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 2 hours ago, DBMormon said: For me when I look at some of the difficult issues here is where I come down Yes, yes, Bill, but what about tithing? Gross or net? 3
Glenn101 Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: 4. Because when you truly believe God has spoken you have to assume truth is there first. All other facts must be viewed based on the truths you do not question (I believe science calls these axiomatic). Trying to make God fit the our limited observation is creating a God in our own image. That is the place from whence I view everything. And after almost 190 years, the "Answers from Reason" that have attempted to destroy the Book of Mormon are more implausible than the claimed origin of the Book of Mormon itself, but the "Rational Minds" seem to miss this. as practiced Finally, on the slim to none chance that there is no God, I have still lost nothing. The set of beliefs and principles that embody the LDS Christian faith provide a wonderful framework for which to live a fruitful and "good" life with a hope for a better world to come. (If I am wrong, no one will ever know, but if I am right, only I and others of my "superstitious religious ilk" will be able to say, "I told you so." ) Glenn 1
waveslider Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 3 hours ago, DBMormon said: - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? I used to before I got my testimony. When I got my testimony, I couldn't possibly see how it could be true logically. I had an answer that went against much of the, "evidence," I had believed. I didn't understand why it contradicted at the time, but as I further studied over the years I eventually saw the flaws in the so called, "evidences". I still have many so called, "evidences," like a lot of the ones you have posted that I don't yet know, but that isn't even what is important to me. I know it will all make sense in the long run of things. That answer I received wasn't something like a feeling either, it was much, much more and unfortunately there are no words to truly describe that experience, I find that describing it with words that describe feelings often comes closer than any other words, I can think of, yet they are still lacking for conveying what truly happened. All I can say is it was more powerful than anything I thought could be possible for me to experience up until that time. 3 hours ago, DBMormon said: - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? For me it does. I don't expect it to for anyone else though. We each have to have our own communication with our Father in Heaven. My spiritual experience was only the first and I have had quite a few since then as well, which just add to that first one, reinforcing it's magnitude. It is the small amount of light I have received. We can't exist on, "borrowed light." 3 hours ago, DBMormon said: - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? Because I actually got to ask and received that answer directly. My answer affects no one else' answer, only they can know if it is correct or if they are only self creating it. I see no reason why someone couldn't be led to other churches at different times on their journey, as they choose to follow Christ. It will always eventually lead them to His church, that He has set up. We learn little bits of truth on top of little bits of truth all our lives. Since other churches have some truth, why wouldn't people be led to them, if they aren't quite ready to learn more of the truth. Judgement day isn't yet, so why question the paths that people are individually led. If they truly seek Christ they will hear His voice when they have gained all they could from the present church, as they are called to progress more. 3 hours ago, DBMormon said: - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. I don't look at things that way personally. I know what God has said to me, that this is the true church of Jesus Christ, that he has set up. I have seen miracles happen that science could never explain so far anyway. At the same time I see science be wrong all the time.... at least accepted science anyway. I don't look to evidence to guide me. I already know that the Holy Spirit can, and does, guide those who are willing to live a life conducive to applying the atonement in their lives everyday, and follow Christ's teachings. I seek those things as my anchor and if science doesn't fit yet, then so be it. Science doesn't have any facts about purely spiritual things, so it doesn't have all the data yet. Some things just can't be measured with the technology we have at this time. I don't need to reason myself away from God's answers to me. I can accept that I just don't understand a lot of things yet. So I follow what I do know, not what others tell me I should follow, even if it is the people in lab coats and academia robes. 3 hours ago, DBMormon said: Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? It isn't that I want to be Mormon at all. It is that I want to follow Christ and His truth over anything else.... wherever He takes me. I am not going to rely on the limited knowledge of mankind. I am not going to blindly follow anything except God, because I know I can trust him no matter what. I know he sent His son, who lives right now too, to show us the way. This life is an illusion to what is literal to spirits, of which I am one, who lives eternally, and is only in a temporary mortal experience. I know this without any form of doubt whatsoever. Physical literal things, aren't always perceived correctly, and in whole, many times. 3 hours ago, DBMormon said: Other thoughts or questions? My thought is why try to figure things out without God? Why not figure out if God exists first and then try to follow Him and see if indeed He is who, and what, He says He is? Why not put faith first, and then the knowledge can flow much better when we aren't closed off to what is really possible, and what is limited by science? Not everything can be quantified, in our finite, human minds. What does anyone have to loose, to actually humble themselves enough to do as Christ says; Learn how to love! What love truly is, not what we think it should be. Love God first. Then love our fellow man. Not the other way around. Just my two cents worth anyway. 2
Danzo Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 It seems you have a lot of questions, backed by a lot of assertions, very difficult to cover all of them. 4 hours ago, DBMormon said: - I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. - I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author. - I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished. - I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. - Based on a survey done and its results, using spiritual experiences seems an ineffective way to tell which church is true. Also in line with this I find the Holy Ghost to be an ineffective way to discern "T" Truth. perhaps beauty, goodness or even lower case "t" truth. No evidence presented here, only conclusions. It might be helpful to learn the difference between evidence and conclusions 4 hours ago, DBMormon said: - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? No evidence presented in the OP, so it is unclear what "such Contradictory evidence" you are referring to. You bring up many different conclusions, the typical shotgun approach. This leads me to believe that you really don't have any questions, just statements. 4 hours ago, DBMormon said: - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? My spiritual experience is evidence. Every trier of fact must confront evidence which at times is weighed against contradictory evidence. We all assign different weights to different evidence. I put weigh revelation very heavily against other forms of evidence. It would seem you don't give revelation much weight. 4 hours ago, DBMormon said: - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? You assume facts not in evidence. I have found very few members of other faiths who "know" their faith is true. It would be interesting to get empirical data on this, since your experience people of other faiths seems to be so different. That other people reach different conclusions than I do doesn't bother me at all. I will be responsible for the light and knowledge that I am given, they will be responsible for the light and knowledge they are given. 4 hours ago, DBMormon said: - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. This is a really long and convoluted question. You might want to break it down. 1. People argue against many things, and they always will. 2. I am not sure who is arguing that we work backwards and trying to force answers to fit. We know very little about ancient events like authorship of Isaiah, floods, towers, etc. You should accept that fact first before using what amounts to at best educated (?) guesses about past events. My current revelation, as well as the blessings I get from living the gospel trump speculation on the exact nature of events described at most in a few sentences in an ancient text. 4 hours ago, DBMormon said: Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? Accept that they don't know everything and they are not required to know everything. We see through a glass darkly. Accept that their reason and logic can be quite flawed (especially the reasoning that you are exhibiting in this post) Accept that descriptions of past events by necessity are abridged and lacking in detail. In this life at least, we will never know what "really happened" in sufficient detail. Above all Look for the spirit in their lives, live the gospel, enjoy the fruits of the spirit, enjoy the blessings of living the gospel. Enjoy revelation, make covenants. Get to know heavenly father through prayer, covenants, scripture study. Above, let the cleansing power of the atonement of Christ work through your life. 1
carbon dioxide Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 5 hours ago, DBMormon said: - I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. - I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author. - I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished. - I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. I am not an expert on some of these issues so I will defer to someone else. "I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. " A prophet at is base level is anyone that speaks by the holy ghost. If modern day prophets speak by the holy ghost, they are acting as the Church defines it. As to what your mind thinks of Moses, Noah, or Abraham perhaps the problem is that you a wrong idea of what a prophet is. Those are notable men among many prophets that have lived. Not all prophets have the same experiences or do the same things. Perhaps the problem is your expectations. " I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. Perhaps the problem is not the story but your understanding or interpretation of the story. Truth is often found between two extremes. One one side the flood involved the water levels rising to cover all the mountains on the earth. Ocean levels rose to cover Mr Everest and killed all humans on the planet except those in the ark. The other extreme is that there was no flood or just a local flood. Attempts to disprove one version or view of the flood does not disprove all possible views of it. I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. What is absurd about it? If I say some people attempted to create a counterfeit temple and used the temple ordinances in an unauthorized way, the God confounded the languages so that they would have a harder time to continue the practice. A building that reaches into heaven does not have to be about how high it is but what the intended function of it. 1
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, DBMormon said: .................................................................................. - I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. Of course you find it absurd, Bill, simply because you have bought into the yokelized versions of it perpetuated by fundamentalist evangelicals and their fellow travelers, along with the young Earth, etc., none of which is required by the biblical text. Since you can't read the text, and are not familiar with worldwide flood myths, naturally you can't make head or tail of the problem. Great scholars, such as the late William F. Albright, have theorized that the myth comes as a result of the massive Pluvial rains which came down at the end fo the last Ice Age -- causing catastrophic, but local/regional floods. During the Ice Age, for example, coastlines were 300 feet below where they are today. Imagine the ocean surge as all coastal villages were washed away. Just the great collapse of Lake Bonneville alone must have been horrendous for those nearby: http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/lkbflood/lbf.htm ; similarly for the Mediterranean flowing suddenly into the Black Sea: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/?no-ist . Mesopotamian versions of the Great Deluge are much earlier than the Bible. Quote - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. And yet, temple towers (ziggurats) were built for thousands of years in Mesopotamia. Why would that seem odd to you? There is even a much earlier Mesopotamian version of the confusion of tongues myth. Quote - I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author. I know of no scholar who believes that Isaiah was written by one author. Yokels, yes, but not scholars -- who generally posit an Isaianic School. The only debate is about the specific dating of which sections of Isaiah. Quote - I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand I suppose so. Especially if you don't personally understand the issues. Then you get victimized by the loudest critic. See my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . Quote - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished. A pretty generic statement. Does that mean that you side with the minimalists and reject the existence of King David and his dynasty, etc. Or are you harking back to Moses, Joseph, Abraham, and Noah? Do you do the same with Homeric Epic? And does that mean that there was no Greek golden age, and that there were no Myceneans? Do you reject both archeology and myth as one and the same? Do you even understand what that would mean? Quote - I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. Can you define "prophet, prophecy" adequately so that it comports with actual ancient Near Eastern studies? I have done so several times on this board. Playing fast and loose wtih the subject accomplishes nothing -- except giving you a predetermined conclusion. Your convenient circular claim here is ridiculous. Quote - Based on a survey done and its results, using spiritual experiences seems an ineffective way to tell which church is true. Also in line with this I find the Holy Ghost to be an ineffective way to discern "T" Truth. perhaps beauty, goodness or even lower case "t" truth. Mormon theology posits multiple roads to truth, and Joseph always maintained that he would accept truth from whatever source. Your definition and assumptions made here are narrow and deeply flawed. Not only do they not comport with Mormonism, but they are designed for maximum failure. See Alma 32, James 1:5, and recognize that no testimony is transferrable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and Scripture is self-authenticating. No one can tell you that you are wrong, Bill. You are your own judge. Please allow others the same privilege. Quote Let me finish by saying there are dozens more. I think this is what many of the scholars are pointing to when they speak of Mormonism having to redefine itself, or redefine key parts of its theology, or that the dominant narrative is not true. Mason, Hardy, the Givens, the Bushmans, Miller, Thomas McConkie and others seem to one degree or another be telling us the current narrative as held doesn't hold up. You like to name-drop, Bill, but your claims here lack substance. In fact, the named persons here do not share your views. If you disagree, then back your claims with actual quotes and cited sources. That is what I do. If you cannot do so, then stand on your own claims, instead of bringing in surrogates who do not in fact hold the same views you do. Quote Yet many members of the church including many here hold firmly that these things either mean nothing or they simply don't buy into them. On the other hand there are many Latter-day Saints who want to hold onto Mormonism but logically are arriving at the same conclusions I have. You need to stand on your own hind legs, Bill. Stop claiming nameless others share your views. Quote Here are my questions - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? ............................................ Again this is not about the Church being true but rather the motivation we each feel to make it work or fit or the motivation to find new ways to reconcile what simply cant fit for us. I recommend that you speak for yourself rather than purveying nonsense about which you know nothing. By all means keep interviewing people and reading a variety of sources, but not just taking the most baleful attitude. There are other ways of looking at this whole issue. Whatever your analysis, please make it fact-based. Mormonism has no problem with science, despite what you seem to believe. Edited October 14, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 6
CV75 Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 17 hours ago, DBMormon said: Again this is not about the Church being true but rather the motivation we each feel to make it work or fit or the motivation to find new ways to reconcile what simply cant fit for us. Some comments and a couple of questions interspersed: The motivation can range anywhere from charity to contention. I recommend charity. I think the reason people weigh the various types of evidence differently is largely due to how they interpret and understand the evidence, the tools they choose to use in doing so, and the ability and skill they have in using the tools. There are secular and spiritual tools to choose from. The light of Christ is available to all, and the elect (those who respond to the light of Christ) can be found everywhere on earth. But what does that have to do with the Church needing to redefine her theology? Regarding the list of questions: - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? Compelling for the purpose of what? - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? To me, these are apples and oranges, each with its own weight. - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? Because I'm accepting (it is an ongoing process, not a one-time acceptance) the spiritual evidence, which takes nothing away from others’ conclusions based on how they weighed their respective faiths’ evidences according to their “times... and bounds of their habitations." Despite the apparent constraints therein, God still reaches out to them and speaks in the language available (Alma 29:8). - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. And they do. 1
boblloyd91 Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 14 hours ago, rongo said: Yes, yes, Bill, but what about tithing? Gross or net? Depends, do you want net blessings or gross blessings lol 1
bluebell Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 17 hours ago, DBMormon said: Again this is not about the Church being true but rather the motivation we each feel to make it work or fit or the motivation to find new ways to reconcile what simply cant fit for us. What if our motivation is that we believe the church is true (i.e. Christ is it's head, it is the only church that has God's authority, and it teaches His doctrine)?
Rain Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, CV75 said: - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? Because I'm accepting (it is an ongoing process, not a one-time acceptance) the spiritual evidence, which takes nothing away from others’ conclusions based on how they weighed their respective faiths’ evidences according to their “times... and bounds of their habitations." Despite the apparent constraints therein, God still reaches out to them and speaks in the language available (Alma After reading Gerald Lund's book "Hearing the Voice of the Lord" I believe he would have say this is the "line upon line" idea. I thought of that as I read Bill's post and was glad to see you saw the idea as well. He talks about there being a divine plan and that line upon line we get little bits of it. I cannot find the quote right now that I wanted to share, but he said something along the lines of because it is line upon line sometimes we may receive from the Lord what seems like contradictory evidence, but as we keep trying to follow Him it will gradually be shown to us. I've shared this hear before: at one point I felt inspired to parent my son a specific way. At another point down the road I felt inspired to parent in the exact opposite way and this time it made a huge difference. I pondered over why I wasn't just prompted to do it that way in the first place. Very clearly the Lord told me, "You don't know my whole plan for him." I don't know the whole plan of others who feel their church is the right church, but I do know that all of us learn line upon line if we have ears that hear. Edited October 14, 2016 by Rain 1
rongo Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 11 minutes ago, Rain said: I've shared this hear before: at one point I felt inspired to parent my son a specific way. At another point down the road I felt inspired to parent in the exact opposite way and this time it made a huge difference. I pondered over why I wasn't just prompted to do it that way in the first place. Very clearly the Lord told me, "You don't know my whole plan for him." I have had unmistakable revelation before, that was remanded and overruled later by unmistakable revelation. One example: once I had a disciplinary council for a member, and was thrilled to have clear guidance from God beforehand (prior to the council) as to the outcome and guidance. This changed during the disciplinary council itself with another unmistakable and clear guidance that was completely different from my previous one. Rather than say that one was "true" and one was "false," I know for myself that both were "true." In our discerning of revelation, as we progress along our way in mortality, things change and the promptings and guidance we receive can change based on a lot of factors. And all of them are sometimes true --- true for the times, true for the circumstances, etc. I don't know the whole plan of others who feel their church is the right church, but I do know that all of us learn line upon line if we have ears that hear. I know people who received a clear "no" answer when praying to find out if the Book of Mormon is true, but who later in life received a clear "yes" answer. Instead of saying that they didn't do it right, weren't sincere, etc. the first time, I believe that the Holy Ghost may actually have told them "no" at that time for a variety of reasons (timing, circumstances, etc.). Similarly, I can see the Holy Ghost leading people to stay where they are (and feel right about it) for the time being for a variety of reasons (timing, circumstances, unknown hazards, etc.). 2
DBMormon Posted October 14, 2016 Author Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: What about scripture and prophetic doctrinal teachings? sure. but there is a lot of things in scripture that have been done away (eating pork as bad for instance) so scripture that is unmentioned and not enforced on any level may nnot apply. Same with older outdated doctrinal teachings. Edited October 14, 2016 by DBMormon 1
DBMormon Posted October 14, 2016 Author Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, rongo said: Yes, yes, Bill, but what about tithing? Gross or net? or surplus Edited October 14, 2016 by DBMormon 1
DBMormon Posted October 14, 2016 Author Posted October 14, 2016 13 hours ago, Danzo said: No evidence presented here, only conclusions. It might be helpful to learn the difference between evidence and conclusions I know what I put forth were conclusions. I admitted as much. These are my conclusions. To present the evidence for those would take pages and pages and is not the point. I present only once evidence for a conclusion (the link for the flood)
DBMormon Posted October 14, 2016 Author Posted October 14, 2016 55 minutes ago, bluebell said: What if our motivation is that we believe the church is true (i.e. Christ is it's head, it is the only church that has God's authority, and it teaches His doctrine)? sure but a lot of people believe that about their church. How do gather your truth as more valid then theirs? this forces us to dive deeper and say why which gets back to the OP.
rongo Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, DBMormon said: or surplus Or whatever you want, right? If you don't think you have a surplus, God understands . . .
RevTestament Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: And yet, temple towers (ziggurats) were built for thousands of years in Mesopotamia. Why would that seem odd to you? There is even a much earlier Mesopotamian version of the confusion of tongues myth. There is actual evidence for the confusion of tongues. After Noah Sargon of Akkad came to rule Sumeria. Sargon may have been the biblical Nimrod who inherited Babel and Akkad. The Sumerians may have considered this to be a confusion of tongues, although the Akkadians seemed to use the fairly uniform cuneiform script at the time. But, his kingdom didn't last long, and apparently on his death, Gutians from the north invaded. This was a dark time for Sumeria, and corresponds exactly in chronological time - around 2200 BC. Prior to that time or the time of "the flood" the Sumerians had largely enjoyed relative peace and self-rule by "shepherd kings" although at the time of "the flood" "big man" rulers had begun to rise up and fight over irrigation and the best arable land. Gutian rule lasted until Ur was able to reassert itself around the time of Abraham 200 years later, and chase out the Gutians. Perhaps other peoples were able to immigrate under Gutian rule as well. So there is an archeological/historical basis for the confusion of tongues so-called "myth." Quote I know of no scholar who believes that Isaiah was written by one author. Yokels, yes, but not scholars -- who generally posit an Isaianic School. The only debate is about the specific dating of which sections of Isaiah. "Scholars" largely don't believe the apostles wrote any of the NT either due to things like prophecies of the destruction of the temple being included. I wonder what they think of Daniel's prophecy of the destruction of the city in Daniel 9? Some Jew must have "snuck" that in there later since it came to pass... "Scholars" also don't believe in the exodus, Moses, etc, etc. Come to think of it "scholars" generally dismiss the authorship of most all of the Bible. I know that is the "in thing" to do, but if one does that, they destroy their faith. I personally have found the Bible to be highly accurate.
bluebell Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, DBMormon said: sure but a lot of people believe that about their church. How do gather your truth as more valid then theirs? this forces us to dive deeper and say why which gets back to the OP. I don't. There is no way to 'gather my truth as more valid than their's' so i don't spend any time trying. I don't know why anyone else believes their church is true. I don't know what's in their heart or their head, or what experiences they've had. I only know all of that about myself. Therefore, i can only judge the merits of my own testimony. I can't judge the merits of anyone else's. I know that I believe the church is true because of the experiences I've had with it and it is that belief which motivates me to make it work. What other people believe about their churches is irrelevant. 3
Recommended Posts