Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

There are reasons that some historians believe he may have ordered it, and I suggest you read this book if you're interested in reviewing some of the evidence, along with the other relevant books I mentioned earlier.   https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Prophets-Brigham-Massacre-Mountain/dp/0806134267/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481147729&sr=1-1&keywords=blood+of+the+prophets

I'm no expert on the subject, and those are the only books I've read, but there are likely others on here that are more familiar with this topic than myself and could comment on other works out there on the subject.  The earlier link to a University of Missouri and Kansas web page giving a nice succinct overview said this:

 Wikipedia says this: 

 

Could you provide a page number and an  excerpt  where a historian cites the evidence that Brigham young specifically ordered the Massacre?

At least something more specific than "its in a book somewhere"?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Which historians?

----------------------

Are you aware

• A) that Bagley essentially fabricated his key (only?) inculpatory evidence against Brigham Young (interpolating "allies" for "grain"),
• B) that Bagley has since revised his book to remove this specious and profoundly misleading "evidence", and
• C) that Bagley has nevertheless not altered his theory against Brigham Young, nor has he notified the public at large of his abandonment of his evidence?

Thanks,

-Smac

So by asking for a CFR to prove that there is still  some debate among historians about Brigham's involvement you're suggesting that ALL historians agree and have concluded that Brigham Young had nothing to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre and had no foreknowledge of it.

It's very bold to make such an absolute statement about what ALL historians agree on. Personally, I didn't think it was possible for ALL historians to agree on anything.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Special controversy surrounds the role in the 1857 events of one man, Brigham Young, the fiery prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who led his embattled people to the "promised land" in the valley of the Great Salt Lake.  What exactly Brigham Young knew, and when he knew it, are questions that historians still debate.

That what Brigham knew and when he knew it is different than your original assertion that

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

Whether Brigham Young specifically ordered the massacre continues to be debated by historians.

There is a big difference in knowing about something happened (to an extent and at what time being debated)  than specifically ordering a massacre.

Accusing someone of ordering Mass Murder is a heavy accusation and shouldn't be made without at least some evidence.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

You are accusing BY for complicity in the MMM.  This is a formal CFR to substantiate your assertion.

FYI, it has been demonstrated that he sent an urgent letter telling them to leave them alone, but arrived too late.

Why so sensitive? As if Brigham's involvement in MMM had never been theorized or debated. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Quote

Danzo- Accusing someone of ordering Mass Murder is a heavy accusation and shouldn't be made without at least some evidence.

CFR that Hope For Things overtly accused Brigham of mass murder.

Edited December 7, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow this is quite the rant.  

I am citing competent evidence and presenting reasoned analysis.  

This, in your view, is a "rant?"

Quote

#1, I'm not going to side track this thread anymore, this thread is not intended for a knock down drag out MMM debate.

Okay.  Perhaps some other time you could choose to address the evidence.

Quote

I've pointed out that there is a debate among historians and given examples 

No, not really.  

Quote

You may not agree with Bill Bagley, thats fine, you don't even have to find him credible, I don't care.  

I am more interested in the evidence.  I do not find Bagley's evidence credible.  You "don't care" about the quality of Bagley's evidence, that much is plain ('cuz otherwise you would, I think, be willing to address it, since you are the one touting Bagley as an authority).  You would rather rely on the oh-so-convenient escape hatch of rank demagoguery ("I wouldn't be surprised if . . .").  I find that disappointing.

Quote

I suspect that Bagley would have a very different account of the one sided representation of events described above.  

What makes you "suspect" this?  What "event" are you talking about?  

Are you disputing that Bagley interpolated "allies" for "grain"?

Are you disputing that Bagley's book subsequently removed this interpolation and re-inserted "grain"?

Are you disputing Crocket's analysis?  Coates'?  If so, which parts?

Quote

I try to be objective and read works from those on both sides of issues, that's why I encourage that people read Brooks, Bagley, Walker & Turley.  Make your own judgments based on the evidence.  

I have.  You ignored my assessment and refused to address it substantively, and instead dismissed it as a "rant."

This is you being "objective"?

Quote

Read Turner's and Arrington's biographys on Brigham Young, read all the history.  Believe what you want to believe, its makes no difference to me.  

You were apparently trying to make fact- and evidence-based assertions (in addition to resorting to rank demagoguery, refusing to address substantive analysis of the historical authority you have repeatedly cited, and instead dismiss such analysis as "{a} rant").

I am interested in the topic you have raised, and yet now you are refusing to discuss it.

Quote

There are flaws in Bagley's book for sure, just like there are flaws in other works.  For a review of Bagley's book that I mostly agree with see this link.  https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V36N04_117.pdf 

I don't like hit piece reviews and I don't find some apologetic defenses to be objective, nor do I find blatant anti-mormon critics to be objective.  I eschew the black and white thinking that Mormonism raised me on.  

Funny, that.  Here I am, having been raised a Mormon, and I find these allegations of "black and white thinking" to be rather alien.  That has not been my experience at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 7, 2016 by smac97

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why so sensitive? As if Brigham's involvement in MMM had never been theorized or debated. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Mass murder is a serious charge.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Mass murder is a serious charge.

Did you see my CFR. I'd like to see where Hope accused Brigham of Mass Murder

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So by asking for a CFR to prove that there is still  some debate among historians about Brigham's involvement you're suggesting that ALL historians agree and have concluded that Brigham Young had nothing to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre and had no foreknowledge of it.

No.  

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's very bold to make such an absolute statement about what ALL historians agree on.

It is fortuitous, then, that I have not made such a statement.

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Personally, I didn't think it was possible for ALL historians to agree on anything.

Straw man.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Oliver_Cowdery]

Well, this topic has been derailed.

The way the forum works doesn't really handle tangents very well.  I wonder if there is a software fix for this. For all of reddit's flaws it at least partitions comment threads into trees.  That would sure be a nice feature to have right about now.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Then I am having a hard time understanding your position. I guess you tend to favor "secular" historians over others? Do you accept official "Church" historians?

Like Bushman? Yes, I respect Richard Bushman and feel he is at the forefront of Church historians encouraging a more honest narrative that reflects the historical record

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am glad u believe these issues should not be debated in SS. My opinion was not really directed at you, but has been my generally stated position on the subject.

 

I have no problem with SS being a place to promote belief and faith in the claims made by the institutional church...which is one of the reasons I no longer attend

[Nevo]

.

Edited January 1, 2017 by Nevo

[lostindc]

51 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Well, this topic has been derailed.

The way the forum works doesn't really handle tangents very well.  I wonder if there is a software fix for this. For all of reddit's flaws it at least partitions comment threads into trees.  That would sure be a nice feature to have right about now.

Probably better the thread derailed.  Apparently, there really is no solid place within the Church building to openly discuss the tough issues with one's peers.  Rather, discussions need to take place in small groups and or private settings that do not infringe upon correlation.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, lostindc said:

It's okay to say "I don't know."  If you really don't have a solid answer to something then it is okay to say "I don't know."

I do know what I believe.

What was your question?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Family values are constantly evolving and culturally diverse.  Societal evolution will ultimately select for those traits culturally that are of highest value, no need to apply 20th century family constructs (not saying you are, but many people see "family values" and think of the 1950s American Leave it to Beaver ideal)

Need to redefine "sin" in mainstream contemporary Christianity.  I actually think this concept should radically change from the current culture.  Mormon atonement theology is slowly moving more towards grace, this is a good shift and needs to continue.  Having a bunch of followers with scrupulosity isn't a formula for success in future religion.  

You tend not to listen well.  I never said anything like the meaning of your first sentence and what I said was essentially an affirmation of "grace" as a mechanism to free us from the guilt of sin

Just assume we are on the same side but you do not understand what I said- that is the way it has been going.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I love that Kimball quote, I just wanted to thank you for sharing it and ask if you have a link to the full talk, I'm interested in understanding the context.

Also, to Kimball's quote, is there absolute existential truth?  He seems to believe so, but you say that Mormonism's truth is contextual and relativistic.  Seems like Kimball disagrees with you.  

I included the link in the post.  Again, you did not see it as ususal.

Read it.  He does see truth as contextual especially in the context of religion vs science.  And I already quoted that- it seems you did not read the quotes either.

"What works" in families is eternal.  Human children must be raised with love or they end up wackos or criminals and society cannot tolerate that. The 10 commandments are requirements for a peaceful society- and that is why those truths have evolved.  They simply work.  You commit adultery and someone might blow your head off.  That is not good for the survival of the species.

If one believes in Absolute Truth about these matters, then they are right.  Within their context and community those truths are absolute the same way A=A is true.

That is the way they have defined truth so absolute truth is true by definition for those who believe it.  Unfortunately they have not thought through what that all means, but the issue then becomes semantic and a disagreement about definitions, not anything of substance.

[cdowis]

.

Edited December 8, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

del

Edited December 8, 2016 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  

It is fortuitous, then, that I have not made such a statement.

Straw man.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good, then you agree that some historians still debate Brigham's involvement, which is what Hope had said.

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good, then you agree that some historians still debate Brigham's involvement, which is what Hope had said.

Again, not what I said. Again, a straw man.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

 

Elder D. Todd Christofferson put it this way:

source

Okay, so taking this back to the topic of the thread.  How does your philosophy get us to the best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history? 

If there is a discussion to be had about Mormon history do you first convert the participants to your philological point of view before you address their concern?  Let's say you are speaking with person who takes Christofferson's talk to heart and was also concerned about a forged diary entry in which Brigham Young miraculously appeared as Joseph Smith to settle the succession crisis.  The person further learns that that story taught in Sunday School in 2013 (and next year in 2017) is on built accounts of people who were not even present and late accounts.  Not only that but at least one (and maybe even possibly two) accounts of the event are forgeries.

Do you explain to that person that they just misunderstand that truth can't be defined? Or do explain that forgeries can contain spiritual truth even if the events they describe most likely did not happen? Do you explain that Christofferson's declaration of reality and fixed and immutable truths don't jive with the philosophers you subscribe to? Or should "truth" just be redefined to be a catalyst for spirituality in this specific case? I don't see those lines of reasoning being helpful.

Every discussion has to start somewhere and people generally need to agree on a few basic foundational things.  But your take seem to undermine a few fountadaional things about fixed universal truth that many (most?) Mormons accept.

 

Fair enough.  Yes you have to understand that truth is about language and not about the world.  That is a philosophical position now taken to be the case by most philosophers after 2000 years of discussion in the west, and if you adhere to other views that means that your position is either very sophisticated and you dispute what most say or you are simply uninformed about theories of truth.

No one expects General Authorities to be Phd's in philosophy, just as no one expects them to be able to calculate the thrust needed to put a rocket on the moon.  These areas of expertise are irrelevant to their callings.   But everyone seems to think they get to have an informed opinion on the nature of truth regardless of 2000 years of debate which they are not even aware exists.  Go figure.

Only statements are true- things are not true or false.  There is no such thing as a true tree or chair or rock.

If the story about Brigham appearing to some as Joseph "never happened that way" it has to be proven fraudulent- like having incontrovertible evidence that the people were not there etc.  But that does not mean that some might have experienced that spiritually.  If they experienced that spiritually then there statements are true if they actually experienced what they said they experienced.  Of course we cannot crawl inside their brains and see if they are telling the truth about what they experienced.

I will now go over Elder C's statement line by line.

Quote

 

To those who believe anything or everything could be true, the declaration of objective, fixed, and universal truth feels like coercion—“I shouldn’t be forced to believe something is true that I don’t like.” But that does not change reality. Resenting the law of gravity won’t keep a person from falling if he steps off a cliff. The same is true for eternal law and justice. Freedom comes not from resisting it but from applying it. That is fundamental to God’s own power. If it were not for the reality of fixed and immutable truths, the gift of agency would be meaningless since we would never be able to foresee and intend the consequences of our actions. 

 

 

 

Point 1- "To those who believe anything or everything could be true, the declaration of objective, fixed, and universal truth feels like coercion—“I shouldn’t be forced to believe something is true that I don’t like.” But that does not change reality."

Yes, of course he is right.  That declaration might feel like coercion to some, but not to me.  And no, the fact that some feel it as coercion does not change reality.  No argument.

Point 2- Resenting the law of gravity won’t keep a person from falling if he steps off a cliff. The same is true for eternal law and justice

I have never said anything about resentment or what causes it, that is a psychological question.  I do not see what falling off a cliff has to do with eternal law and justice.  What he is saying here is a mystery to me.

Point 3- 

"Freedom comes not from resisting it but from applying it. That is fundamental to God’s own power. If it were not for the reality of fixed and immutable truths, the gift of agency would be meaningless since we would never be able to foresee and intend the consequences of our actions. "

I am not sure what freedom has to do with resisting it and applying it.  I am not sure what that means.   If he means that freedom derives from laws, I agree with that.  If he is saying the commandments give us more freedom, I agree with that- without rules there is chaos and no freedom.  These statements will take more explanation for those who do not understand LDS jargon, but I assume you understand what they mean in an LDS context, that law actually gives freedom in certain contexts rather than restricting it.

And yes, I think this particular view of agency is correct because it works in real life.  If we regard the necessity for law to give us freedom, and define that as an immutable truth in our schema, yes, I think it becomes one just because we have defined that as a rule of the game.

It is like playing baseball and saying that the rule "three strikes and you are out" is an immutable truth- and yes, in baseball it is.  Baseball rules are "real" in baseball.  But if it was decided that now it would take 2 or 4 strikes before one was "out" in baseball, then those rules would not be fixed and immutable.  Mormonism of course has changed doctrine and will continue to do so.

That last sentence is problematic- I am not sure what he means.  I do not understand what fixed and immutable truth has to do with agency and forseeing consequences- do you?

Explain that part and we can discuss it further if you like.

The key is analyzing what is actually being said and whether or not it is relevant to the question.  Unfortunately I don't think this quote has much to do with the existence of what immutable truth is what what its nature could possibly be.

 If you see it, I would love to discuss it.

And incidentally I already answered your question about historicity and religious truth way back here

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68407-best-method-for-dialogue-between-believers-and-doubters-regarding-mormon-history/?do=findComment&comment=1209680598

Edited December 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Fair enough.  Yes you have to understand that truth is about language and not about the world. 

That probably accounts for about 90% of our differing opinion here.  Myself and probably most posters here use the word truth to describe the world we psychically inhabit. Your use of the term might be better suited for academics who are discussing philosophy.

Language is just a tool to convey concepts and communicate.  The concepts matter, not the words.  If that is not the case then the discussion we should be having is whether we are going to use a Spanish word or Japanese word; or maybe we need to invent an entirely new language just for speaking about religion. That of course would be absurd.  But for some strange reason when people talk about religion they get an itch to re-define words rather than use the definitions that are generally agreed upon.  Scientology, I am glaring in your direction!  The JW's also assign a double meaning to the phrase, "The truth".  In the JW culture they erratically alternate using the phrase "the truth" to sometime to mean the way the world is and then sometimes to mean whatever is published by watchtower.  Seriously, I'm not making that up.  The phrase "The truth" gets overloaded in religious discussion and that only contributes to confused epistemology.

I am reminded of the greatest speech ever captured on film.

The term "El Guapo" kept on being used in different and confusing ways.  

Whatever definition one uses one has to stick with it to be constant and to be understood.  That's why I don't say thing like "your truth" or "its true for me".  

There are a few problematic talks by general authorities that would start with some topic about the nature of a literal absolute fixed universal truth and then half way through the talk start using phrases like "their truth" to describe what someone believes rather then to continue to use the term in the same way they used it at the beginning of their talk.  Having spent some time with JW's it is easy to spot.   I don't think most GA's who do it are aware that they are doing it. Most JW also don't see when they do it too. Uchtdorf is generally pretty good, but even he did it a few times in conference and it unfortunately kind of muddies his conclusions in an otherwise good talk.  However, on most occasions when Mormon authorities are talking about truth they tend to be referring to something universal and literal.  In most feuds between Mormon believers and nonbelievers the contention is over what facts are true, not how do we define truth.  Generally, even though Mormons and atheists will degree on a number of things both parties usually agree that there is a reality that is shared and can be studied, observed, and discussed.

But yeah, to bring the thread back to the topic hand this whole issue was raised in the context of how to have a discussion between a believer and a doubter.  I think one thing that helps is if people at least agree on some very basic principles like that of a shared reality.  If you're going to object anytime someone uses the word "true" on this board I think that maybe you need to find a new word to describe the concept you are trying to communicate.  I'd be happy to use the word "reality" instead, but you had objections to me using that too.  I would change my language for the sake of the conversation, but I can't think of a term you would accept here.   Why not stick to generally accepted Mormon terminology on a board named "mormondialogue"?

Edited December 8, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

That probably accounts for about 90% of our differing opinion here.  Myself and probably most posters here use the word truth to describe the world we psychically inhabit. Your use of the term might be better suited for academics who are discussing philosophy.

Language is just a tool to convey concepts and communicate.  The concepts matter, not the words.  If that is not the case then the discussion we should be having is whether we are going to use a Spanish word or Japanese word; or maybe we need to invent an entirely new language just for speaking about religion. That of course would be absurd.  But for some strange reason when people talk about religion they get an itch to re-define words rather than use the definitions that are generally agreed upon.  Scientology, I am glaring in your direction!  The JW's also assign a double meaning to the phrase, "The truth".  In the JW culture they erratically alternate using the phrase "the truth" to sometime to mean the way the world is and then sometimes to mean whatever is published by watchtower.  Seriously, I'm not making that up.  The phrase "The truth" gets overloaded in religious discussion and that only contributes to confused epistemology.

I am reminded of the greatest speech ever captured on film.

The term "El Guapo" kept on being used in different and confusing ways.  

Whatever definition one uses one has to stick with it to be constant and to be understood.  That's why I don't say thing like "your truth" or "its true for me".  

There are a few problematic talks by general authorities that would start with some topic about the nature of a literal absolute fixed universal truth and then half way through the talk start using phrases like "their truth" to describe what someone believes rather then to continue to use the term in the same way they used it at the beginning of their talk.  Having spent some time with JW's it is easy to spot.   I don't think most GA's who do it are aware that they are doing it. Most JW also don't see when they do it too. Uchtdorf is generally pretty good, but even he did it a few times in conference and it unfortunately kind of muddies his conclusions in an otherwise good talk.  However, on most occasions when Mormon authorities are talking about truth they tend to be referring to something universal and literal.  In most feuds between Mormon believers and nonbelievers the contention is over what facts are true, not how do we define truth.  Generally, even though Mormons and atheists will degree on a number of things both parties usually agree that there is a reality that is shared and can be studied, observed, and discussed.

But yeah, to bring the thread back to the topic hand this whole issue was raised in the context of how to have a discussion between a believer and a doubter.  I think one thing that helps is if people at least agree on some very basic principles like that of a shared reality.  If you're going to object anytime someone uses the word "true" on this board I think that maybe you need to find a new word to describe the concept you are trying to communicate.  I'd be happy to use the word "reality" instead, but you had objections to me using that too.  I would change my language for the sake of the conversation, but I can't think of a term you would accept here.   Why not stick to generally accepted Mormon terminology on a board named "mormondialogue"?

I have posted extensively on this here.  I would suggest you simply go to the search function on this board and search "deflationary theory of truth" and you will find multiple threads where this is discussed further.

This is one thread in particular started by someone else in a similar discussion http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65602-on-the-deflationary-theory/?page=1

Now to the reply on your post above

So why should I accept your testimony as "true" if I disagree with you?  How do you show that "God exists" is true??  Where is your "reality" for that??  It is totally subjective, not objective.  You feel it in your heart and have no scientific evidence for it.

You can claim all day long that spiritual matters are "true" but prove it.  You can't.  I can use the term as well as anyone and do all the time- but I know it is undefinable.   It is essentially saying "I think x____"   Adding "X is true" is superfluous and cannot be defined.

Your theory cannot answer that question, mine can. I can.  That is the difference.

There really is no point in carrying this on- I would suggest you read this, but most likely you will not because "that is for philosophers" as if that makes it irrelevant.   That is like saying that we should all believe in a 6000 year old earth because anything else is "for scientists".   Either you value education or you want to remain uneducated.  I can't help anyone with that.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

And the method I use- which philosophers use-  is how you show that "I know the church is true" actually means something and gives that statement meaning.  You don't realize it but your view of truth actually makes the idea that "the church is true" is meaningless!!  

If that phrase means "I have tried living the principles of the gospel and found that it has changed my life immeasurably for the better and I have had personal experiences which show me, as suggested in Alma 32, that the church is true" you have just defined "truth" in a way which is perfectly acceptable both to philosophers AND to church members.

But your way is susceptible to Dawkins types coming along and asking your for evidence the "church is true" which they can observe and debate with you.   People who hold your position do not even realize that their own position on truth gives atheism the perfect argument to defeat them.  It's just a very naive way to view it which plays directly into their hands.

Rorty is himself an atheist, but he knows that he cannot argue against God through his own conception of truth.  Another atheist philosopher who understands this has said he "hopes" that God does not exist- but he essentially has "FAITH" that God does NOT exist.  He understands the problem with ANY truth claims about God

I cannot believe that any believer would actually affirm positions which atheists take to prove that belief in God is absurd.  There ARE no "objective" evidences for God - that means that there is scientific evidence for God.  To say that there are absolute truths about God says that there is unchangable scientific evidence for God.  Not a theory, not a paradigm, but objective scientific evidence which any scientist can replicate that God exists

THAT is what "objective absolute truth " MEANS

Belief in God cannot be "objective" unless it is observable to any scientist performing experiments.  Guess what?  It's not!!   THAT was Satan's plan that all would believe!!

Sorry to those who have seen this 100 times- but your video gets my video response, Here's Rorty the atheist saying that God is beyond definition and therefore statements about God cannot be "true" in the sense philosophers have used the term in the past.

He says we know what "truth" means- we just cannot define it.  If you think the paltry brains of humans CAN define all there is to know about God you would disagree with Rorty

If you think paltry human brains CANNOT define all there is to know about God you would AGREE with Rorty.   I am sorry if you cannot see this, but to me, there is nothing more to discuss if you cannot see that we cannot define truths about God.   If there is one question you have about God which you have trouble answering, Rorty is right.

Sorry all who have seen this 19 million times.

[mfbukowski]

Oliver said

Quote

 

If you're going to object anytime someone uses the word "true" on this board I think that maybe you need to find a new word to describe the concept you are trying to communicate. 

 

I use the word "true" all the time.   I perfectly well know what it means to most people.  I stand up in church and say "I know the church is true" because I do and because it is.

It is NOT "true" because that statement "corresponds to facts about reality"

THAT assertion is unkownable unless it defines "reality".  Good luck with that.  Are undiscovered species "real"?  Are fictional characters "real"?   Are moral beliefs "real"?

How is it "true" that killing babies is wrong?   How does that correspond to reality?

It is they who need to think about the absurdities coming out of their mouths.

Yes I get exercised about this, because every time someone speaks that way, atheism gets stronger and more believers lose their beliefs.  Don't blame the messenger.

The present state of belief in the church and the the way we are moving toward secularism proves I am right.  We are losing members by the hour especially among Millenials.   I am using secularism to prove the church is true.

If you don't understand that, I am at a loss.

Edited December 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I have no problem with SS being a place to promote belief and faith in the claims made by the institutional church...which is one of the reasons I no longer attend

I am open that I do not always agree with "the Church" on subjects and scriptural interpretations presented in SS. However, this does not mean that the gospel is untrue. It saddens me that people will leave the church because they disagree about this thing or another thing. It is obvious that men are not perfect, and GAs are not perfect and sometimes hold to incorrect opinions. This is true of every institution. Even the original 12 apostles had disagreements. Does that mean we should not follow them? Or that we should ignore them? So, somewhat like you, I have personal disagreements with some of the "official church teachings." However, I have received a firm affirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and I know the other scriptures are truly inspired. I simply accept that I will hopefully be a force in changing things that with God's grace I can, and accepting those things I presently cannot change. The Church of Jesus Christ, despite the flaws of its leaders, does represent the restored gospel. I invite you to come back to her, and be a positive force in future change, and be worthy to come forth in the resurrection unspotted from the world. May God's grace be with you Johnnie.

[Johnnie Cake]

34 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am open that I do not always agree with "the Church" on subjects and scriptural interpretations presented in SS. However, this does not mean that the gospel is untrue. It saddens me that people will leave the church because they disagree about this thing or another thing. It is obvious that men are not perfect, and GAs are not perfect and sometimes hold to incorrect opinions. This is true of every institution. Even the original 12 apostles had disagreements. Does that mean we should not follow them? Or that we should ignore them? So, somewhat like you, I have personal disagreements with some of the "official church teachings." However, I have received a firm affirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and I know the other scriptures are truly inspired. I simply accept that I will hopefully be a force in changing things that with God's grace I can, and accepting those things I presently cannot change. The Church of Jesus Christ, despite the flaws of its leaders, does represent the restored gospel. I invite you to come back to her, and be a positive force in future change, and be worthy to come forth in the resurrection unspotted from the world. May God's grace be with you Johnnie.

I wonder if you had received a firm affirmation of just the opposite viewpoint if you'd feel so connected to the LDS Church?  I no longer attend, not because of the flaws of its leaders or of the policies and opinions they promote. I no longer attend because doing so is not emotionally or mentally healthy for me to do so.  The church of my youth, the one I served a mission for, paid my tithes to, served endless hours in callings for...was a figment of my imagination and never actually existed...and the actual church, the one based in its own little reality requires too much mind bending gymnastics to be believable (for me).  Its really better for everyone that I just don't attend... Church members, those that actually do want to attend, are entitled to a friendly, non threatening environment where they can be taught Truth as the Mormon Church sees it....and it is that version of truth that is so mentally caustic to me.