Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[pogi]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks, that's right but the gap is vast and time is short. 

I don't mean to be short with you because I know you are actually interested in communication whereas others not.

I am pretty much out of here I think, I have helped a few, I know.

Just when things were getting good!

I hope you don't take offense at my words.  I too can be direct.  My style is to push the limits of a theory to the max before I accept it.  Sometimes people perceive that as an attack and take it personally, it is really me showing interest in your theory.  I am testing it for myself.  So far, there are parts of what you say that make a lot of sense, and there are other parts that I am testing.   I really do respect you and you have taught me a lot, and I would really like to learn more from you if you can be patient with my prodding. 

You have posted the video of Rorty on truth so many times that I think it would be good to delve into it and dissect it once and for all so that I can really understand what you think it means.  I have shied away from the task because I know that we speak different languages and have difficulty communicating our ideas with each other.  So, lets keep our answers short, simple, and direct.  No philosophical jargon without first defining what you mean by the word.    

Let me start with these quotes:

Quote

"Truth is not relative to anything. Just because it is not relative to anything, there is nothing to be said about it."

"Truth, with a capital-T is sort of like God, there is not much you can say about God."

"Contemporary pragmatists tend to say the word true is indefinable, but none the worse for that, we know how to use it, we don't have to define it."

Is this his way of dismissing the idea of absolute truth and God because they can't be framed with language, or is he acknowledging that truth is not relative and we simply can't say much about it?

I know that Rorty has said that "truth is no more and no less than what can be framed with language", so I am assuming the first option is the correct interpretation.  Does that sound right to you?

Remember, keep it short and sweet using language that any typical Mormon would understand. 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by pogi

[why me]

25 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Argument From Ignorance

I don't think so. It has nothing to do with ignorance. It has  to do with a fact. The authorship has not been proven to be anyone that it has been implied is the author. If a fact is a fact and such a fact is still standing as a fact, it is an argument from ignorance? The expression sounds like a post-modern word that would imply that nothing can be true even if it hasn't been proven untrue.

Edited January 6, 2017 by why me

[Thinking]

28 minutes ago, why me said:

I don't think so. It has nothing to do with ignorance. It has  to do with a fact. The authorship has not been proven to be anyone that it has been implied is the author. If a fact is a fact and such a fact is still standing as a fact, it is an argument from ignorance? The expression sounds like a post-modern word that would imply that nothing can be true even if it hasn't been proven untrue.

The fact that you don't like the name of a logical fallacy doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.

So when you said

1 hour ago, why me said:

Bottom line? The book of mormon has not been proven to be written by joseph smith, hyrum smith, sidney rigdon spaulding, ethan smith or anyone else. The narrative and the witnesses still stand tall.

how is this not an example as described in the link?

Quote

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa).

 

[why me]

15 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The fact that you don't like the name of a logical fallacy doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.

So when you said

how is this not an example as described in the link?

 

Okay, you win. Since the book of mormon authorship, as claimed by the lds narrative, has not been proven to be false, we have an argument from ignorance.

Edited January 6, 2017 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

My critique is that while polygamy and the priesthood/temple ban are often known by members the more troublesome details of them are not known and were, in the past, more difficult to discover.  Now that those details are more easily discovered we see the Church scrambling to get ahead of it and speaking of the need to "inoculate" our youth against those facts.

What troublesome details about JS practice of polygamy do you have to know in order to make a commitment to the Church or the Priesthood Ban for that matter?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

What troublesome details about JS practice of polygamy do you have to know in order to make a commitment to the Church or the Priesthood Ban for that matter?

One can make a commitment to the church with or without knowledge of the troublesome details surrounding polygamy and the priesthood/temple ban.

[Thinking]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

What troublesome details about JS practice of polygamy do you have to know in order to make a commitment to the Church or the Priesthood Ban for that matter?

"Milk before meat" has long been a justification for holding back some of the details about different aspects of Mormonism. Yet there is no organized curriculum for delivering the meat. The essays have come closer to that, but still fall short. I would consider the endowment and anything that follows to be "meaty" covenants, and the meat of the gospel should be delivered in advance of such so that a member can decide whether to continue.

[thesometimesaint]

So let's teach First Graders all about Quantum Mechanics before they can count to 10, using both hands. That should work out real well.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So let's teach First Graders all about Quantum Mechanics before they can count to 10, using both hands. That should work out real well.

Right... because that's comparable to what we're talking about.

p.s.  If your first grader can't count to 10, you have bigger issues than whether or not quantum mechanics is on the curriculum.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Thanks, Mark. You may not remember but about two or three years ago there was a thread on which I argued with a non-member that truth cannot exist as a set of abstract principles that sort of float around in space on their own outside of the mind. Rather, I insisted that truth can only exist within the mind of an intelligent being and that it cannot truly exist anywhere else except, perhaps, as an image within the imagination of an intelligent mind, but even then truth still exists within a comprehending intelligent mind. The non-member insisted ttruth can exist apart from a comprehending intelligent mind, but I assured him that is not the case because truth cannot be truth unless it is comprehended as truth in real time by an intelligent mind. So perhaps we're not as far apart as it may seem. I think where our problem might lie is that within your own mind you know your thinking is sound and right, but for some reason you just can't seem to find the right words to effectively communicate how to Pogi and me how to understand something that is simple and easy for you to .understand. So you get frustrated.

The problem is that I mix metaphors trying to communicate with those who use different metaphors than I do, trying to translate into three different languages at once mine, theirs, and the readers.

I mix philosophese with Mormonese  to create a jargon no one understands.

I think if I just limited to the difference between language and reality that should do it. Everyone understands through a glass Darkly. The dark mirror is language face to face is real experience. Hopefully people will understand that truth is linguistic and a poor attempt to represent reality but the best we have.

Edited January 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[why me]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

One can make a commitment to the church with or without knowledge of the troublesome details surrounding polygamy and the priesthood/temple ban.

Well, this is true. But why should it matter? I know of people who have joined the catholic church without ever reading its history. It does not seem to bother them at all. They are members because they believe in it and find comfort in the faith. If I told them about this or that pope who may not have led a life of perfection they would not care. All churches have a troublesome history because of imperfect people. But it is only the mormons and potential mormons who should be experts on lds history.

[why me]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

"Milk before meat" has long been a justification for holding back some of the details about different aspects of Mormonism. Yet there is no organized curriculum for delivering the meat. The essays have come closer to that, but still fall short. I would consider the endowment and anything that follows to be "meaty" covenants, and the meat of the gospel should be delivered in advance of such so that a member can decide whether to continue.

I suppose that we can say this about all religions. I know of no christian church that teaches its history in depth. Most ignore it and concentrate on gospel teachings according to their own perspectives. But mormons should be different? Ask an average catholic or protestant about their churches history and see what happens. You may be surprised.

Edited January 6, 2017 by why me

[Rich Hansen]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is a completely false characterization of what I said, HappyJack.  Let me repeat it for you:

Certainly someone with good intellectual preparation can leave Mormonism, but that is quite rare.  Mostly people simply make the false claim you are making here, and cannot justify it on any intellectual basis.  One need only examine their pretended claim to find it as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

What would be the required level of intellectual preparation in order to make one eligible to leave Mormonism?

Are you qualified?  If not, what are you lacking?

Can you identify someone or point to the category or type of member who would qualify?  BYU professor, GA, ??

You say it is "rare",   Do you know of anyone who has left Mormonism for acceptable intellectual reasons?  If so, what might those reasons have been?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

You brought up the blame game when you used the Ash quote to imply that those who leave do so without sufficient knowledge.  You are blaming those who leave for not having sufficient understanding of their faith and religion.  And you are doing this arrogantly and with a broad brush.  Tawdry indeed.

I think that the facts are very clear as a matter of objective analysis that Ash is quite right.  It has nothing to do with arrogance, and there is no call for you to get angry about such factual analysis, rockpond.  Most of those leaving any religion (including the LDS faith) do so for personal, social reasons.  Even when they claim that they are leaving for theological or historical reasons, this is usually simply not true.  How do we know that?  By reading their books, articles, or blog comments about their pretended intellectual reasons for leaving -- they make so many false statements that it is clear that they do not in fact understand the religion they are leaving.  They are certainly entitled to leave any time they wish.  I am simply commenting on their false reasons as stated by them.  I frequently encounter their false statements about the LDS faith here on this board.  You have been here long enough to experience these false claims, and yet you accept them?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that the facts are very clear as a matter of objective analysis that Ash is quite right.  It has nothing to do with arrogance, and there is no call for you to get angry about such factual analysis, rockpond.  Most of those leaving any religion (including the LDS faith) do so for personal, social reasons.  Even when they claim that they are leaving for theological or historical reasons, this is usually simply not true.  How do we know that?  By reading their books, articles, or blog comments about their pretended intellectual reasons for leaving -- they make so many false statements that it is clear that they do not in fact understand the religion they are leaving.  They are certainly entitled to leave any time they wish.  I am simply commenting on their false reasons as stated by them.  I frequently encounter their false statements about the LDS faith here on this board.  You have been here long enough to experience these false claims, and yet you accept them?

I believe for some this may be true..but for so many that leave rather quietly..you are definitely painting us with a broad brush.  Sad. Your love and empathy is so lacking to so many.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Just when things were getting good!

I hope you don't take offense at my words.  I too can be direct.  My style is to push the limits of a theory to the max before I accept it.  Sometimes people perceive that as an attack and take it personally, it is really me showing interest in your theory.  I am testing it for myself.  So far, there are parts of what you say that make a lot of sense, and there are other parts that I am testing.   I really do respect you and you have taught me a lot, and I would really like to learn more from you if you can be patient with my prodding. 

You have posted the video of Rorty on truth so many times that I think it would be good to delve into it and dissect it once and for all so that I can really understand what you think it means.  I have shied away from the task because I know that we speak different languages and have difficulty communicating our ideas with each other.  So, lets keep our answers short, simple, and direct.  No philosophical jargon without first defining what you mean by the word.    

Let me start with these quotes:

Is this his way of dismissing the idea of absolute truth and God because they can't be framed with language, or is he acknowledging that truth is not relative and we simply can't say much about it?

I know that Rorty has said that "truth is no more and no less than what can be framed with language", so I am assuming the first option is the correct interpretation.  Does that sound right to you?

Remember, keep it short and sweet using language that any typical Mormon would understand. 

 

 

 

Fair enough.  Hard to punctuate on this device I am dictating.

 Truth is not relative to anything.

 I think this was an unfortunate use of words on his part. What he is saying is that there are no terms that are synonymous with truth that can be used to describe the term.  The term does not relate to other terms that can define it.

 Definitions use words to describe the meanings of other words.  there are no other words that satisfactorily explain the word truth. It is undefinable. just as the word God is undefinable so is the word truth undefinable.

We know how to use the word truth explaining the way things  appear but we do so without defining the word. Is the cat on the bed? Did the suspect fire the shot?  we know what the word means and we can answer those questions without a problem but when we get into what the word means in a deeper level we find that we have no one definition that fits all uses of the word truth.

The answer to the question what is truth is undefinable. We know how to use the word correctly but that's about the best we can do.

Edited January 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I had never really made the connection that the priesthood/temple ban was also enforced after death. Do you have any kind of source that states that posthumous temple work couldn't be done for blacks?

In most cases in the US at least, most full names wouldn't give a clue though nicknames might.

Descendants wouldn't be able to do proxy work for direct line ancestors, but it doesn't seem like it used to be that rigid.  As long as there was a family the persons could be sealed to, a sealing was done so I suspect some were done.

If there was an official rule, were they actually checked and rejected or was it just assumed that no one would be doing the work since any descendants wouldn't be technically able to do the work according to done.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've never suggested shortcuts.  I've watch many go through a very long, laborious, and painful process in separating themselves from the church.

Moroni's challenge is both intellectual and spiritual.  These two things are not separate and distinct.  They are quite connected.

The sociological research you claim does not justify your statements that LDS members who leave have insufficient knowledge of their religion and faith.

Assertion is not the same thing as fact.  You assert that "Moroni's challenge is both intellectual and spiritual.  These two things are not separate and distinct.  They are quite connected."  That is a false statement, and apparently goes to the heart of why you cannot understand what I have been saying.  You clearly do not understand the fundamental difference in the two ways of knowing, and have never received adequate training in logic or critical thinking.  Such epistemological questions are elementary.

You likewise reject extensive sociological research done for over a generation, and which keeps coming up with the same answers.  We do in fact know why most people leave any given religion.  Those who claim to be leaving for intellectual reasons usually haven't a clue as what that might mean.  Some rare individuals may have adequate knowledge with which to support their intellectual claims, although I cannot think of one right off hand.

There is no shortcut to actual knowledge of theology or history.  It is a long laborious process, and does not require advanced degrees -- something you fail to understand.  You don't like the demand that one master the subject before claiming to be competent, even though you apparently understand that your auto mechanic actually needs to know his job before attempting to fix your car.  When it comes to religion (one of the most complex of subjects) you want a shortcut.  Yet there is no such shortcut.  So you finesse it by ignoring the need for real understanding -- something you would never do in any other area of expertise.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, why me said:

Well, this is true. But why should it matter? I know of people who have joined the catholic church without ever reading its history. It does not seem to bother them at all. They are members because they believe in it and find comfort in the faith. If I told them about this or that pope who may not have led a life of perfection they would not care. All churches have a troublesome history because of imperfect people. But it is only the mormons and potential mormons who should be experts on lds history.

I don't think that Mormons have to be experts on LDS history.  I'm not sure what your point is.

You asked why the church history seems to matter more to Mormons than other religions.  Assuming that is actually true, I have given you my answer.  That's all I've got.

[Thinking]

13 minutes ago, why me said:

I suppose that we can say this about all religions. I know of no christian church that teaches its history in depth. Most ignore it and concentrate on gospel teachings according to their own perspectives. But mormons should be different? Ask an average catholic or protestant about their churches history and see what happens. You may be surprised.

What the Catholics or Protestants do should have no bearing on what a church does that claims to be God's restored church. If anything, the actions of God's restored church should be higher than those churches who [allegedly] aren't God's church. If you accept that your actions are at their level, then perhaps your saving power is at their level too.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that the facts are very clear as a matter of objective analysis that Ash is quite right.  It has nothing to do with arrogance, and there is no call for you to get angry about such factual analysis, rockpond.  Most of those leaving any religion (including the LDS faith) do so for personal, social reasons.  Even when they claim that they are leaving for theological or historical reasons, this is usually simply not true.  How do we know that?  By reading their books, articles, or blog comments about their pretended intellectual reasons for leaving -- they make so many false statements that it is clear that they do not in fact understand the religion they are leaving.  They are certainly entitled to leave any time they wish.  I am simply commenting on their false reasons as stated by them.  I frequently encounter their false statements about the LDS faith here on this board.  You have been here long enough to experience these false claims, and yet you accept them?

You (and Ash) are making assumptions about people and I see you providing not actual justification for those assumptions.

If you go and join, for example, the Mormon Stories Podcast Community and A Thoughtful Faith groups on Facebook and read the accounts of LDS on those pages, you would find something very different from what you are describing.  So many people there are staying involved (or stayed involved for a long time) for social reasons even though they no longer have/had a testimony of the religious aspects and truth claims.  Social reasons tend to keep them in.  Doctrinal reasons push them out.

I don't know what false statements you are referring to.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I believe for some this may be true..but for so many that leave rather quietly..you are definitely painting us with a broad brush.  Sad. Your love and empathy is so lacking to so many.

As usual, Jeanne says it best.  Simple and to the point.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, Rich Hansen said:

What would be the required level of intellectual preparation in order to make one eligible to leave Mormonism?

Are you qualified?  If not, what are you lacking?

Can you identify someone or point to the category or type of member who would qualify?  BYU professor, GA, ??

You say it is "rare",   Do you know of anyone who has left Mormonism for acceptable intellectual reasons?  If so, what might those reasons have been?

One need make no intellectual preparation to leave any religion, including Mormonism.  It is absurd even to make that suggestion.  Everyone is qualified to leave any religion at any time.  The only problem arises when someone who doesn't actually have an intellectual understanding of Mormonism claims that he is leaving for intellectual reasons.  Most leave for other than intellectual reasons, and I have no problem with that.

Anyone can leave a religion any time he desires, although I understand that some Muslim countries permit execution of a Muslim who leaves, and I further understand that the Amish and the Scientology community will bring several types of punishment to bear.

I can not think of anyone who has left the LDS faith for adequate intellectual reasons, but grant that it is likely that some have done it.  Perhaps you could name some for me.  That way I could evaluate their rationales.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think that Mormons have to be experts on LDS history.  ..............................

............................

I agree.  Mormons need only have faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ along with a testimony mediated by the Holy Spirit.  Intellectual expertise is unnecessary.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Assertion is not the same thing as fact.  You assert that "Moroni's challenge is both intellectual and spiritual.  These two things are not separate and distinct.  They are quite connected."  That is a false statement, and apparently goes to the heart of why you cannot understand what I have been saying.  You clearly do not understand the fundamental difference in the two ways of knowing, and have never received adequate training in logic or critical thinking.  Such epistemological questions are elementary.

You likewise reject extensive sociological research done for over a generation, and which keeps coming up with the same answers.  We do in fact know why most people leave any given religion.  Those who claim to be leaving for intellectual reasons usually haven't a clue as what that might mean.  Some rare individuals may have adequate knowledge with which to support their intellectual claims, although I cannot think of one right off hand.

There is no shortcut to actual knowledge of theology or history.  It is a long laborious process, and does not require advanced degrees -- something you fail to understand.  You don't like the demand that one master the subject before claiming to be competent, even though you apparently understand that your auto mechanic actually needs to know his job before attempting to fix your car.  When it comes to religion (one of the most complex of subjects) you want a shortcut.  Yet there is no such shortcut.  So you finesse it by ignoring the need for real understanding -- something you would never do in any other area of expertise.

It's true... your assertions are not the same as fact.

I have a solid understanding of epistemology and Moroni's challenge.  There is not a firewall between my intellect and my spirit.  They operate together.  To suggest otherwise is folly.

I agree there are no shortcuts but it seems that you are saying a church member who has spent four decades of his life actively serving in the church, graduating from seminary, graduating from BYU, serving a mission, teaching from the curriculum, studying daily, and praying daily STILL lacks the knowledge sufficient to make a valid decision about the truth claims of the church.  Is that correct?