Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The discussion with you is on this is apparently fruitless.  There are many reasons why. I am sure I add my own bias.  I am skeptical if you see your own.  For the true believer the premise is this:  "The Church is True."  All else is relegated to proving and defending this bias. LDS believers do not approach their faith with a prove all things  with openness even if it leads somewhere else that may be painful.  It is doubt your doubts rather than embrace your doubts, challenge your assumptions, test your a priori conclusions and have the courage to reject them if they don't stand up.

  You say I won't be satisfied no matter what the Church does?  Perhaps you are correct. But I have been where you are.  Have you been where I am now?  Maybe but I don't know. Feel free to share. I can tell you this. I know people in other faith traditions that are not afraid that brining up challenging issues will threaten their standing in their faith community. This is typically not the case in the LDS Church. 

Here, I fixed it for you and made it into my reply.  Thanks for writing most of my reply for me.  It greatly cuts down on the work!!   And incidentally I HAVE been where you are now, but you have not been where I am now.

"The discussion with you is on this is apparently fruitless.  There are many reasons why. I am sure I add my own bias and it is unfortunate you don't understand your own. I am skeptical if you see your own.  For the true believer in outmoded truth theories, the premise is this:  "The Church Cannot Be True."  All else is relegated to proving and defending this bias. LDS believers do not approach their faith with a prove all things  with openness even if it leads somewhere else that may be painful, because they know this path leads nowhere because their testimonies show them otherwise.  You really need to It is doubt your doubts rather than embrace your doubts, challenge your assumptions, test your a priori conclusions and have the courage to reject them if they don't stand up.

  You say I won't be satisfied no matter what the Church does?  Perhaps you are correct. But I have been where you are.  Have you been where I am now? NOPE! Maybe but I don't know. Feel free to share. I can tell you this. I know people in other faith traditions that are not afraid that brining up challenging issues will threaten their standing in their faith community. This is typically not the case in the LDS Church, and it is just as flagrantly ignored among most critics.   I would love for you to defend your theory of truth so we can really get into it.  If you want, find a philosopher you like and let me know."

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The discussion with you is on this is apparently fruitless.  There are many reasons why. I am sure I add my own bias.  I am skeptical if you see your own.  For the true believer the premise is this:  "The Church is True."  All else is relegated to proving and defending this bias. LDS believers do not approach their faith with a prove all things  with openness even if it leads somewhere else that may be painful.  It is doubt your doubts rather than embrace your doubts, challenge your assumptions, test your a priori conclusions and have the courage to reject them if they don't stand up.

  You say I won't be satisfied no matter what the Church does?  Perhaps you are correct. But I have been where you are.  Have you been where I am now?  Maybe but I don't know. Feel free to share. I can tell you this. I know people in other faith traditions that are not afraid that brining up challenging issues will threaten their standing in their faith community. This is typically not the case in the LDS Church. 

They do tend to be fruitless, but what else is new on this board?  

You don't know if you've been where I have been.  Maybe if you spent 12 months in Afghanistan, we'd have a similar starting point from where we could compare and contrast life challenges.  Now there's a place where you could argue "God is dead".  But don't assume you're special.  We've all had that paralyzing fear that comes from doubt.  Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor asked your questions LONG before you ever considered questioning your own faith.  And that's the kicker: You aren't doing anything new.  You give me the impression that you fancy yourself a contemporary pilgrim...always going a little further into unexplored territory.   

The real heroes are those who struggle with doubt for years--and still attend church, pay their tithing, read their scriptures (I know, I know, waste of time), do their home/visiting teaching, and serve in church callings.  My mother is 58 years old.  She's never felt she's had a strong testimony since her teenage years.  The only divine assurance she's ever gotten?  A single line in her patriarchal blessing noting her desire for a testimony and how it will forever be remembered in the heavenly courts.  That's what, 42 years she's still going faithfully in the church?  

Who honestly is the braver one?  Sincerely asking.  Because you seem to think "embracing the doubt" is something that is beyond reproach.  I don't think it's noble or praiseworthy.  My mother is...but not you.  

I have all the patience in the world for people struggling.  I desperately want to help them resolve their legitimate concerns and questions.  But I've been watching and reading your posts for quite some time now--and with all due respect, I don't believe your philosophy helps anyone.  

 

[sdc999]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't disagree with any of this except to say we should be wary about statements like "This is what I was taught." That could mean merely that the person was fed some ignorant piece of folklore back when he was 12 from someone scarcely better informed than he was and that he was never interested enough to try to confirm it with a more reliable source. Such a thing is not not necessarily indicative of a system-wide failure, especially in this day and age when the "Gospel Topics" essays are so easily accessible.

 

I agree if the someone was singular.  But more often than not, it takes on plurality.  In my case, the false narrative was repeated by a relative of whom I admire (served in the  stake HC), missionaries and the then serving bishop.  I prayed sincerely, earnestly and often to 'know' that what I was being taught was right and the church was true.   I also agree with your statement of 'this day and age'.  I think convert baptism numbers reflect that much more today than the earlier years.  This is solely my opinion, but if the internet would have been in place throughout the history of Mormonism, I would argue that the members of record would be drastically lower.  

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, cdowis said:

Yes, it is true that I carry a bias, that I have proved all things and found the truth, that I am not carried about, tossed to and fro by doubts.

Matt 16  [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Eph 4  [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Luke 6 [48] He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.[49] But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

 

I am genuinely happy for you.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here, I fixed it for you and made it into my reply.  Thanks for writing most of my reply for me.  It greatly cuts down on the work!!   And incidentally I HAVE been where you are now, but you have not been where I am now.

"The discussion with you is on this is apparently fruitless.  There are many reasons why. I am sure I add my own bias and it is unfortunate you don't understand your own. I am skeptical if you see your own.  For the true believer in outmoded truth theories, the premise is this:  "The Church Cannot Be True."  All else is relegated to proving and defending this bias. LDS believers do not approach their faith with a prove all things  with openness even if it leads somewhere else that may be painful, because they know this path leads nowhere because their testimonies show them otherwise.  You really need to It is doubt your doubts rather than embrace your doubts, challenge your assumptions, test your a priori conclusions and have the courage to reject them if they don't stand up.

  You say I won't be satisfied no matter what the Church does?  Perhaps you are correct. But I have been where you are.  Have you been where I am now? NOPE! Maybe but I don't know. Feel free to share. I can tell you this. I know people in other faith traditions that are not afraid that brining up challenging issues will threaten their standing in their faith community. This is typically not the case in the LDS Church, and it is just as flagrantly ignored among most critics.   I would love for you to defend your theory of truth so we can really get into it.  If you want, find a philosopher you like and let me know."

Cute. Quite creative of you.  I have told you before I am not an expert in Philosophy.  In fact I am a neophyte in it.  How reliable it is in discerning truth I do not know.

[Teancum]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 2:29 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

To sustain your impression, there would have to be independent persuasive evidence that Brigham Young was indeed culpable in the mass murders. After more than a century and a half, there has yet to be anything of that nature emerge. To the contrary, we have the message sent from Brigham Young telling the Cedar City settlers to leave the wagon train immigrants alone. The message arrived too late to do any good, but it's an obvious and compelling indication of Brigham Young's position.

The far more reasonable conclusion is that at the point in time you're talking about, President Young still had not learned the whole truth about the incident, that he was going off of propaganda, lies, rumors and half-truths that had been spread by the perpetrators to justify their own actions, and that God had exacted vengeance upon the wagon-train travelers for deeds they had committed.

Scott may be shocked, if he does not have me on ignore, to find I agree with this. 

However, I am not sure that BY was not involved later, when he understood the culpability of the saints in this event, in covering up and letting John Lee be the scapegoat. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Cute. Quite creative of you.  I have told you before I am not an expert in Philosophy.  In fact I am a neophyte in it.  How reliable it is in discerning truth I do not know.

I would suggest then you refrain from discussing the nature of truth until you have researched it better.  Truth is a very abstract concept- I am not sure why everyone thinks they know all about it without studying it and criticizing others views when they don't even know what their own views are.

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would suggest then you refrain from discussing the nature of truth until you have researched it better.  Truth is a very abstract concept- I am not sure why everyone thinks they know all about it without studying it and criticizing others views when they don't even know what their own views are.

I would suggest that perhaps you are creating a false premise and that truth is not as abstract as you want to make it perhaps in order to benefit your position.  You criticize me for challenging this concept. Yet you are fine with those who bear witness to what you think is "truth." and not challenging them on it.

 

One thing is clear. The LDS Church as well as other religions make certain truth claims. So what good are such claims if truth is a very abstract concept.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I would suggest that perhaps you are creating a false premise and that truth is not as abstract as you want to make it perhaps in order to benefit your position.  You criticize me for challenging this concept. Yet you are fine with those who bear witness to what you think is "truth." and not challenging them on it.

 

One thing is clear. The LDS Church as well as other religions make certain truth claims. So what good are such claims if truth is a very abstract concept.

Yes I agree with those with whom I agree, oddly enough.

I fail to see why truth claims need to be simple. That would be useful in studying brain surgery and rocket science 

[2BizE]

I always thought that if the facts are known then there isn't much to argue about.  

Regarding church history, many facts are known:

Joseph Smith married young girls and was sealed to women already married to other men.  Fact.  Not much to argue.

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon we have today by placing a magic rock in a hat.  Fact.

Joseph Smith was the first president of the church.  Fact.

Brigham young was racist.  Fact.

Good, bad, or ugly, facts are facts.  Not much to argue over.  No differing points of view.  Just the facts.

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I always thought that if the facts are known then there isn't much to argue about.  

Regarding church history, many facts are known:

Joseph Smith married young girls and was sealed to women already married to other men.  Fact.  Not much to argue.

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon we have today by placing a magic rock in a hat.  Fact.

Joseph Smith was the first president of the church.  Fact.

Brigham young was racist.  Fact.

Good, bad, or ugly, facts are facts.  Not much to argue over.  No differing points of view.  Just the facts.

LOL!

And where does the "good, bad, or ugly" come from then?

[cdowis]

26 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I always thought that if the facts are known then there isn't much to argue about.  

Regarding church history, many facts are known:

Joseph Smith married young girls and was sealed to women already married to other men.  Fact.  Not much to argue.

Married to young girls with Parent's permission.
"Sealed" is not the same as "married" which is the dogwhistle used by the antiMormons.

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon we have today by placing a magic rock in a hat.  Fact.

We do not know how the rock operated, so it was arguably not "magic".  Even the antiMormons would dispute whether it was actually doing anything "magic".

Joseph Smith was the first president of the church.  Fact.

Peter was the first president of the church.  Fact.

Brigham young was racist.  Fact.

Your statement is an opinion, not a fact.

Good, bad, or ugly, facts are facts.  Not much to argue over.  No differing points of view.  Just the facts.

You are having trouble understanding the difference between a fact and an opinion.  Fact.... oops, opinion.