Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[pogi]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We are very close

I believe we are.  Just how close is yet to be seen, but I have enjoyed the ride. 

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

READ THIS

All I have to say about that is, da** philosophical language to he**! As J. Golden Kimball might say I read your link like 5 times and still don't think I comprehend it entirely, but I do think that I get the gist of it.

As is true to my Mormon heritage, I like to pluck nuggets of truth from each of the disciplines of religion, spirituality, science, philosophy, etc., but subscribe to only one.  Mormonism allows me the privilege of doing so.  I find great depths of insight in the teachings and practice of Benedictine and Buddhist meditation and contemplative prayer, I feel enlightened by science and philosophy, and edified by other forms of spirituality.  But I find that individually and as a single disciple, they are all lacking.   Mormonism offers me complete unlimited freedom to expand the boundaries of my own paradigm and not be restricted by the boundaries of any single philosophy or discipline.  This allows my perspective unlimited potential for growth to an eventual absolute perspective through the light of Christ.  I don’t think I entirely reject any philosophy on its face, but believe that I can find truth in most that I look into as guided by the spirit.  As such, I don’t entirely reject the “correspondence intuition” outright, but neither do I reject the deflationary theory outright.  I don’t reject absolutism outright, but neither do I reject relativism outright.  I just think the argument is framed entirely wrong, and the tension between the two is unnecessary through an eternal perspective.

The way I see it is that all statements of man are ignorant of the facts, only because our interpretation of the facts are limited to a mortal and fallible perspective which is restricted further by false beliefs and corrupt language. But some statements are more inspired than others.

Quote

And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know (1 Corinthians 8:2).

To say that the snow is white is simply a relative truth.  It is relative to a perception with a limited perspective.   To prove that it corresponds to any fact is impossible, because we can’t interpret any single fact with certainty without knowing all the facts and how they relate.

Man’s relative truth does not correspond with the facts of God’s absolute truth and perspective.  That is not to say that we don’t have pieces of absolute truth or facts revealed from God to our hearts, it is simply to say that we can’t interpret them perfectly without an absolute perspective.  The more pieces we receive through personal revelation, the closer our perspective gets to God's perspective.  Our perception and language adapts to that growth.  "Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little", until “all truth is circumscribed into one great whole”, and we see as God sees, and know as God knows.  Only then will our truths perfectly correspond with the facts.  So, in a way the correspondence theory does fit into my paradigm, because my paradigm is not limited to mortality.

Absolute truth cannot be spoken by man in mortality, but that is not to say that it does not exist.  Even Rorty acknowledges that “beliefs can be true without being justified”.  I believe that God does speak pieces of absolute truth to me, but it comes in the language of the spirit and my interpretation of such truth is limited as is my translation into english.  So even though I attempt to speak the truth which has been revealed to me, it is still ignorance in the grand scheme of things.  But sometimes the Lord does allow us to plant seeds of absolute truth through the use of our imperfect mortal tongue.  These seeds can only be experienced as they are tested.  That is where Alma 32 comes into play. 

In short, I believe that relative truth is man’s truth while in mortality, while absolute truth is God’s truth in eternity.  His truth will become our truth as we live by the light and nuggets that we receive from time to time to the best of our limited understanding. That is partly why Mormonism is the one true paradigm, because there are no boundaries for potential growth, perspective, and understanding. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by pogi

[sjdawg]

On 1/2/2017 at 9:07 PM, bluebell said:

I agree. I have one friend who left Mormonism but stayed Christian. 

But the author does have a point in that most people who leave, leave organized religion behind as well. I think it's because doubts about Mormonism usually become doubts about feeling the spirit and be able to recognize spiritual truth and getting answers to prayers. 

And those doubts transcend Mormonism to impact every religious doctrine from every Christian religious philosophy.  

If you can't trust your testimony of the BOM was true (because now you believe it never actually came from God), then you can't trust your testimony of Christ for the same reasons, for example. 

I think Mormonism kind of ruins others religions for you.   You grow up with a belief that there is only one true Church in the world.  If you decide that Mormonism isn't true it is tough to find a reason to believe that another Church suddenly has the full truth.

[pogi]

Never mind 

Edited January 8, 2017 by pogi

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Devotion has nothing to do with intellectual rigor (universities such as UCLA require rigor, and devotion will not get you good grades there), so I would be very interested in knowing about the books, articles, and blog comments by these intellectual giants you refer to -- though their numbers be few.  Who are these great intellectuals who have left the LDS faith for valid intellectual reasons?

You are building a straw man now and not dealing with the crux of my point.   I believe anyone who can read and study and has a reasonable level of intellect can and some do decide to leave based on intellectual reason, critically thinking, etc.  

Really it is not worth it anymore.  If you think one must obtain a Phd in Mormon studies before they are qualified to make in intellectual judgement about it more power to you.   

Edited January 8, 2017 by Teancum

[tietjens]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Devotion has nothing to do with intellectual rigor (universities such as UCLA require rigor, and devotion will not get you good grades there), so I would be very interested in knowing about the books, articles, and blog comments by these intellectual giants you refer to -- though their numbers be few.  Who are these great intellectuals who have left the LDS faith for valid intellectual reasons?

One interesting thing that I've never heard any ex-Mormon/anti-Mormon address is the lack of qualified experts among the critics, the anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons who spend so much time attacking the church. If I were an ex-Mormon/anti-Mormon, I'd find this troubling — if I were honest.

Oddly enough, the more education one has, the more likely one is to remain a believing Latter Day Saint. Of all of the people I know who've left the church ostensibly for historical reasons, not a one had any training in history and all have been poorly educated.

One person in particular I know who left says his doubt began with the multiple accounts of the First Vision. But would a Latter Day Saint who also happened to be a trained historian find anything threatening in the ten extant accounts of the First Vision? Most probably would not; rather, I think, they would conclude that Joseph Smith's accounts of this visions were remarkably consistent over the years, and that he was telling the truth.

Latter Day Saints have nothing to fear from "experts" but lots to gain, and this is one reason, perhaps the primary reason, that 90% or more of the experts are in the camp of the saints, not vice versa.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And you have no basis for claiming my claim that Mormon truth claims are false are false as well.   

What a fun game this is. 

I never made that claim- You made the claim that the Mormon claims were false

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I believe we are.  Just how close is yet to be seen, but I have enjoyed the ride. 

All I have to say about that is, da** philosophical language to he**! As J. Golden Kimball might say. I read your link like 5 times and still don't think I comprehend it entirely, but I do think that I get the gist of it.

As is true to my Mormon heritage, I like to pluck nuggets of truth from each of the disciplines of religion, spirituality, science, philosophy, etc., but subscribe to only one.  Mormonism allows me the privilege of doing so.  I find great depths of insight in the teachings and practice of Benedictine and Buddhist meditation and contemplative prayer, I feel enlightened by science and philosophy, and edified by other forms of spirituality.  But I find that individually and as a single disciple, they are all lacking.   Mormonism offers me complete unlimited freedom to expand the boundaries of my own paradigm and not be restricted by the boundaries of any single philosophy or discipline.  This allows my perspective unlimited potential for growth to an eventual absolute perspective through the light of Christ.  I don’t think I entirely reject any philosophy on its face, but believe that I can find truth in most that I look into as guided by the spirit.  As such, I don’t entirely reject the “correspondence intuition” outright, but neither do I reject the deflationary theory outright.  I don’t reject absolutism outright, but neither do I reject relativism outright.  I just think the argument is framed entirely wrong, and the tension between the two is unnecessary through an eternal perspective.

The way I see it is that all statements of man are ignorant of the facts, only because our interpretation of the facts are limited to a mortal and fallible perspective which is restricted further by false beliefs and corrupt language. But some statements are more inspired than others.

To say that the snow is white is simply a relative truth.  It is relative to a perception with a limited perspective.   To prove that it corresponds to any fact is impossible, because we can’t interpret any single fact with certainty without knowing all the facts and how they relate.

Man’s relative truth does not correspond with the facts of God’s absolute truth and perspective.  That is not to say that we don’t have pieces of absolute truth or facts revealed from God to our hearts, it is simply to say that we can’t interpret them perfectly without an absolute perspective.  The more pieces we receive through personal revelation, the closer our perspective gets to God's perspective.  Our perception and language adapts to that growth.  "Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little", until “all truth is circumscribed into one great whole”, and we see as God sees, and know as God knows.  Only then will our truths perfectly correspond with the facts.  So, in a way the correspondence theory does fit into my paradigm, because my paradigm is not limited to mortality.

Absolute truth cannot be spoken by man in mortality, but that is not to say that it does not exist.  Even Rorty acknowledges that “beliefs can be true without being justified”.  I believe that God does speak pieces of absolute truth to me, but it comes in the language of the spirit and my interpretation of such truth is limited as is my translation into english.  So even though I attempt to speak the truth which has been revealed to me, it is still ignorance in the grand scheme of things.  But sometimes the Lord does allow us to plant seeds of absolute truth through the use of our imperfect mortal tongue.  These seeds can only be experienced as they are tested.  That is where Alma 32 comes into play. 

In short, I believe that relative truth is man’s truth while in mortality, while absolute truth is God’s truth in eternity.  His truth will become our truth as we live by the light and nuggets that we receive from time to time to the best of our limited understanding. That is why Mormonism is the one true paradigm, because there are no boundaries for potential growth, perspective, and understanding. 

Agree with every word.

Well most.

 I would substitute the phrase "things as they are" for your word "fact" because that word tends to mean a statement in language- like "Columbus discovered America in 1492" which is quite abstract.

Now that I think about it that is a perfect example of a "fact" which is a total distortion of "things as they were"!!  The guy's name wasn't Columbus, he "discovered" nothing except a lot of trees etc already inhabited by people, which was not yet even "America", and the date was just an arbitrary social convention created by men in Europe in numbering years.  That is one "fact" that is a great example of "relative truth" right there!!

Dunno we need to carry it farther.  

But now - accounting for the fact that theists tend not to like Nietzsche- I think he got it right on when he said "There are no facts, just interpretations".

THIS is EXACTLY the point he was making!!   At least he got that much right-ish!

In fact I liked the way you put it so much I might steal the approach and overall attitude because it is in Mormonese and not philosophese.   My problem is that I do not think in those terms naturally.   I actually think in the terms in the article.  

The only thing I would add is that I think that direct revelation- and indeed direct experience in general- is seeing things "as they are"- meaning that we can EXPERIENCE what you call "absolute truth" (AND I would use those words in a Mormon context to a Mormon audience as well) but not SPEAK "absolute truth"

So yes- looking out over the snow IS a direct experience of things "as they are" but SAYING "the snow is white" now abstracts it from things as they are and turns it into a symbol for the experience- sort of, but even that distorts it.  It turns the "face to face" experience of the snow into a "through the glass darkly" because it pretends that the words are actually capable of "representing" that wonderful experience in a few squiggles on the page.  The glorious sun beating down perhaps, the soft texture of the snow, the gleaming reflections of a universe gone purely radiant turns into "It is true that the snow is white"   Ugh.   A VERY poor alleged "translation" of that glorious experience of looking out on a field of freshly fallen snow!!

William James makes the same analogy using a sizzling steak with onions and all the trimmings being put before you by a waitress- that wonderful experience of aromas sights and sounds compared to an entry on the menu- "16 OZ NY Steak- $25."

Words just cannot represent "things as they are"- even the words "things as they are" doesn't come close!

But yeah we are definitely there.   Finally.  Phew.

Who cares what Rorty said!

 

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by mfbukowski

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I believe we are.  Just how close is yet to be seen, but I have enjoyed the ride. 

All I have to say about that is, da** philosophical language to he**! As J. Golden Kimball might say I read your link like 5 times and still don't think I comprehend it entirely, but I do think that I get the gist of it.

As is true to my Mormon heritage, I like to pluck nuggets of truth from each of the disciplines of religion, spirituality, science, philosophy, etc., but subscribe to only one.  Mormonism allows me the privilege of doing so.  I find great depths of insight in the teachings and practice of Benedictine and Buddhist meditation and contemplative prayer, I feel enlightened by science and philosophy, and edified by other forms of spirituality.  But I find that individually and as a single disciple, they are all lacking.   Mormonism offers me complete unlimited freedom to expand the boundaries of my own paradigm and not be restricted by the boundaries of any single philosophy or discipline.  This allows my perspective unlimited potential for growth to an eventual absolute perspective through the light of Christ.  I don’t think I entirely reject any philosophy on its face, but believe that I can find truth in most that I look into as guided by the spirit.  As such, I don’t entirely reject the “correspondence intuition” outright, but neither do I reject the deflationary theory outright.  I don’t reject absolutism outright, but neither do I reject relativism outright.  I just think the argument is framed entirely wrong, and the tension between the two is unnecessary through an eternal perspective.

The way I see it is that all statements of man are ignorant of the facts, only because our interpretation of the facts are limited to a mortal and fallible perspective which is restricted further by false beliefs and corrupt language. But some statements are more inspired than others.

To say that the snow is white is simply a relative truth.  It is relative to a perception with a limited perspective.   To prove that it corresponds to any fact is impossible, because we can’t interpret any single fact with certainty without knowing all the facts and how they relate.

Man’s relative truth does not correspond with the facts of God’s absolute truth and perspective.  That is not to say that we don’t have pieces of absolute truth or facts revealed from God to our hearts, it is simply to say that we can’t interpret them perfectly without an absolute perspective.  The more pieces we receive through personal revelation, the closer our perspective gets to God's perspective.  Our perception and language adapts to that growth.  "Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little", until “all truth is circumscribed into one great whole”, and we see as God sees, and know as God knows.  Only then will our truths perfectly correspond with the facts.  So, in a way the correspondence theory does fit into my paradigm, because my paradigm is not limited to mortality.

Absolute truth cannot be spoken by man in mortality, but that is not to say that it does not exist.  Even Rorty acknowledges that “beliefs can be true without being justified”.  I believe that God does speak pieces of absolute truth to me, but it comes in the language of the spirit and my interpretation of such truth is limited as is my translation into english.  So even though I attempt to speak the truth which has been revealed to me, it is still ignorance in the grand scheme of things.  But sometimes the Lord does allow us to plant seeds of absolute truth through the use of our imperfect mortal tongue.  These seeds can only be experienced as they are tested.  That is where Alma 32 comes into play. 

In short, I believe that relative truth is man’s truth while in mortality, while absolute truth is God’s truth in eternity.  His truth will become our truth as we live by the light and nuggets that we receive from time to time to the best of our limited understanding. That is partly why Mormonism is the one true paradigm, because there are no boundaries for potential growth, perspective, and understanding. 

"That is partly why Mormonism is the one true paradigm, because there are no boundaries for potential growth, perspective, and understanding."  Growth in what --- to what end? Mormonism seems to me to be highly devoted to man's ultimate position and value beyond God, rather than embracing what God has accomplished and simply enjoying Him for who He is. Marriage in heaven, being god of one's own created Universe. Isn't this what Adam & Eve were being fed in the Garden? "You will become as God when you understand both good and evil." 

We are not in heaven yet and what is being presented is not Biblically supported. Everyone who attacks Biblical Christianity uses the very same pattern --- whether atheist or of another persuasion, namely:

The Bible is incomplete. The Bible is completely untrustworthy.

There are other gods.  We are becoming gods.

Jesus is not the God, Jesus was just a man

We control the way. There is no way.

A loving God wouldn't exclude anyone. Hell doesn't exist.

We posses additional truth. "Scientific" discoveries are the only power.

Edited January 8, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You are building a straw man now and not dealing with the crux of my point.   I believe anyone who can read and study and has a reasonable level of intellect can and some do decide based on intellectual reason, critically thinking, etc.  

Really it not worth it anymore.  If your think one must obtain a Phd in Mormon studies before they are qualified to make in intellectual judgement about it more power to you.   

I never said or suggested that one needs a PhD or any other degree in some field in order to responsibly discuss the subject matter of history, theology, or the like.  That is your straw man.   What I have said repeatedly is that one must at least have done deep study of such subject matter in order to speak coherently about it.  The landscape is littered with people who pretend to discuss such matters, but who do not have the necessary preparation or experience.  Makes no sense to hire someone to do a task who does not know the specialized territory, whether it be plumbing, automechanics, or neurosurgery.  You are basically saying to me that anyone can do anything, regardless of lack of knowledge or experience, which is utter hogwash.

I asked you to provide the names of some of those intellectual giants whom you put up as competent to discuss these fields.  Perhaps Fawn Brodie, Jeremy Runnels, or maybe Paul Pry Jr (Grant Palmer), who have proven their competence to you.  But you seem too fearful to do so.  Why?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, tietjens said:

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

Oddly enough, the more education one has, the more likely one is to remain a believing Latter Day Saint. Of all of the people I know who've left the church ostensibly for historical reasons, not a one had any training in history and all have been poorly educated.

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

What then do you make of Grant Palmer, who has a BYU master's degree in American History?  And who taught in CES for his entire career?  http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=msr .

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

"That is partly why Mormonism is the one true paradigm, because there are no boundaries for potential growth, perspective, and understanding."  Growth in what --- to what end? Mormonism seems to me to be highly devoted to man's ultimate position and value beyond God, rather than embracing what God has accomplished and simply enjoying Him for who He is. Marriage in heaven, being god of one's own created Universe. Isn't this what Adam & Eve were being fed in the Garden? "You will become as God when you understand both good and evil." 

We are not in heaven yet and what is being presented is not Biblically supported. Everyone who attacks Biblical Christianity uses the very same pattern --- whether atheist or of another persuasion, namely:

The Bible is incomplete. The Bible is completely untrustworthy.

There are other gods.  We are becoming gods.

Jesus is not the God, Jesus was just a man

We control the way. There is no way.

A loving God wouldn't exclude anyone. Hell doesn't exist.

We posses additional truth. "Scientific" discoveries are the only power.

Bring on the popcorn.

This is highly distorted, uninformed about Mormon doctrine, but I have no time to tackle it.

I would simply ask for you to think why you even believe the bible at all?  Is that critical thinking?   You will answer it has historical "truths" but where is the historical evidence that Jesus died for your sins?  Not that he died- that is debatable if he existed- but I will grant that he lived and died, I will even grant that this individual died by crucifixion.

But how do you know he died for YOUR PERSONAL SINS?   What is your evidence for that?

We do not believe that Jesus was just a man nor that "scientific discoveries are the only power" whatever that means.  What kind of power did you have in mind?

We do believe in hell and God is a God of justice and we do not believe in universal salvation.  I don't know how you could possibly get it so wrong- it is as if you were making this up off the top of your head.  I would be afraid to go onto another religion's website with this level of understanding- it's pretty ridiculous

But that's ok- someone else will take this on, I am sure, I really don't have the time.  I probably should not have answered- but I am weak.

[tietjens]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What then do you make of Grant Palmer, who has a BYU master's degree in American History?  And who taught in CES for his entire career?  http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=msr .

I said, "90% or more of the experts are in the camp of the saints." I'm estimating.

Grant Palmer is a bit of an anomaly: he leaves the church and becomes a mainline Christian. It's like going backwards. People I know who've left Mormonism have become, most of them, agnostic, although a couple have become what I'd call New Age (i.e. they say they now only believe in "love"). But none has joined any of the traditional Christian churches. (If Mormonism, the Maybach of religions, doesn't work for you, what is?)

I haven't read any of Grant Palmer's books, only skimmed one or two, but do you think any of his books can be taken seriously as history? — in the same way, say, "Rough Stone Rolling" or "In Sacred Lonlieness" can be taken seriously as history?

[Thinking]

Quote

So, to be clear, it’s not that we have discovered new information about Joseph Smith that has suddenly changed a lot of people’s minds about the Restoration.

So, to be clear, the first time I discover something it's new to me, even if somebody else knew about it before I did.

Quote

The criticisms you hear today are the same criticisms that have been peddled for decades and longer.

Well there goes the presentism defense.

[sjdawg]

4 hours ago, tietjens said:

 

Oddly enough, the more education one has, the more likely one is to remain a believing Latter Day Saint.

What is the evidence for this claim?  If true and more educated people remain in the Church is it also true that more educated people join the LDS Church?

 

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by sjdawg

[sjdawg]

6 hours ago, tietjens said:

 

Latter Day Saints have nothing to fear from "experts" but lots to gain, and this is one reason, perhaps the primary reason, that 90% or more of the experts are in the camp of the saints, not vice versa.

CFR that 90% of experts are in the camp of the saints.   How do you define expert?   How do you quantify which experts are in the saints?

Edited January 8, 2017 by sjdawg

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Above you mentions you have a better understanding of history and historical issue than I do.   Were you referring to specific LDS history or history in general. 

History as a discipline.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

May I ask you another question?  

How many of your colleagues find the LDS historical narratives convincing and compelling enough to acccept them as true?  How many accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as the word of God as the LDS church claims?

Please define what you mean by my 'colleagues'. At one point we held our bishopric meetings on campus because our entire bishopric consisted of university academics.

Or did you mean the non-LDS historians I used to work with? I would be dumbfounded if any of them had ever read a single word in the Book of Mormon.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, tietjens said:

But would a Latter Day Saint who also happened to be a trained historian find anything threatening in the ten extant accounts of the First Vision? Most probably would not.

Exactly. As I've indicated several times before in this forum (see here, here and here), as a professionally trained historian, I find nothing odd or troubling whatsoever in the accounts of the First Vision. To paraphrase myself:

Retellings are always tailored to fit a specific audience and a unique narrative context. As a consequence, when multiple accounts of an event exist, as is not infrequently the case, this is a bonus for the historian because such accounts tend to be mutually complementary and help in the construction of a fuller retelling. And it's an added bonus when the accounts don't contain any genuine contradictions or mutually exclusive details because very often they do, though thankfully usually only of the minor kind -- incorrect names and/or discrepancies in age, date, or other numbers, as a few examples.

Over the past decade, much of my research has involved the personal writings of Catholic priests/missionaries serving in the East/Pacific in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the hallmarks of this research has been work with multiple accounts of events. In preparation for the annual arrival of European ships, it was not at all unusual for a single Jesuit priest to compose separate letters or reports for the Society's headquarters in Rome, for the provincial superior in India, and for one or more of his fellow missionaries elsewhere in the East and/or in Europe. These texts would provide a summary of events from the past year, and unsurprisingly they tend to differ strongly in content and degree of detail -- despite in some cases being composed over the course of a single day -- simply because each retelling served a different purpose.

Details included in one letter may not appear at all in another. In other cases, what earns a passing mention in one report forms the central focus in a different report. Retellings of conversations with, for example, local chiefs often differ from one text to the next, not because the priest made up all these accounts but because choosing which parts of a (sometimes long) interaction to report -- and who exactly was involved -- depended on audience and context. Reports to superiors tend to be more cautious and less detailed in some cases than reports to peers. I can think of a few cases where comparing the former with the latter clearly shows how carefully missionaries picked and chose details to give a completely honest report whilst still holding back the more complete picture.

This is what real history looks like, and Joseph's narratives fit perfectly into the pattern. If there is anything even remotely noteworthy about the existence of or the content in the various accounts of the First Vision, it is how consistent and lacking in contradictions they are.

*****

I maintain that there is nothing uniquely or tellingly dissonant about the various First Vision accounts. Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

*****

I realise that some who have posted in this thread have insisted that the correct response to those who claim to have lost their faith over Church history is to validate their concerns, but I personally think we are doing people an enormous disservice -- at minimum, on an intellectual level -- by not pointing out (lovingly and patiently, of course) when their 'historical concerns' are based on false assumptions and/or historiographical naivety.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, sjdawg said:

What is the evidence for this claim?  If true and more educated people remain in the Church is it also true that more educated people join the LDS Church?

I don't know if any research is more up to date, but there is this.

Anecdotally, this thesis is absolutely borne out in my ward, which would include everyone from those with PhDs to those who have only a few years of primary education. With few exceptions, our most active, committed members are the highly educated. Our least educated members are not only mostly inactive but very difficult to work with.

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Bring on the popcorn.

This is highly distorted, uninformed about Mormon doctrine, but I have no time to tackle it.

I would simply ask for you to think why you even believe the bible at all?  Is that critical thinking?   You will answer it has historical "truths" but where is the historical evidence that Jesus died for your sins?  Not that he died- that is debatable if he existed- but I will grant that he lived and died, I will even grant that this individual died by crucifixion.

But how do you know he died for YOUR PERSONAL SINS?   What is your evidence for that?

We do not believe that Jesus was just a man nor that "scientific discoveries are the only power" whatever that means.  What kind of power did you have in mind?

We do believe in hell and God is a God of justice and we do not believe in universal salvation.  I don't know how you could possibly get it so wrong- it is as if you were making this up off the top of your head.  I would be afraid to go onto another religion's website with this level of understanding- it's pretty ridiculous

But that's ok- someone else will take this on, I am sure, I really don't have the time.  I probably should not have answered- but I am weak.

Is it "highly" distorted?

I believe the Bible because it IS God's Word. Yes, it does possess an historical track record. It is one of the only books that nearly everyone debates or talks about. And the Bible is the history of Christ---taking one from His creative genius to why we need Him, and what He will do to wrap things up in the future. The Bible contains a collection of books in full agreement and from individuals who walked and talked with God. It is one of the only books that people fought wars over. And it is the only book with prophetic fulfillment on a massive scale over thousands of years. It is a book of promises --- do this and this will result, do that and this will happen. So the Bible is undoubtedly testable, and history clearly is littered with actual illustrations. The Bible is understood through the Holy Spirit and not just a study guide or a script of interest. If the Messiah has not arrived then we are all without any hope or prayer of heaven.

Mormons do believe in the Trinity or in two individual Almighty Gods at the exclusion of even the Comforter? The Messiah Jesus is not THE God but a God I do believe --- according to Mormon doctrine?

Evolutionists only believe in the power of their own interpretation of what they discover.

Mormons do accept that once a person dies, his fate is permanently sealed according to one's personal faith/works?  I thought Mormons believed in second chances and human intervention?

I thought spreading the Good News (Key of Salvation) is what Christians are to do and that God uses the weak to demonstrate His abilities and not our power and strength?

I believe we exist to God's glorification and not that of our own. But that is how the Bible reads.

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I never made that claim- You made the claim that the Mormon claims were false

Actually I didn't.  Here is what promted your initial response to me:

Many stop believing in Moromonsim due to intellectual reason.  In fact Mormonism does not stand up well to intellectual inquiry.  It's history and historical claims has so many large holes big enough to drive a truck through that it is amazing so many apparently intelligent people continue to buy into it.  However, most true believers don't really pursue the intellectual issues.   Nor does the leadership promote an Intellectual pursuit of Mormon truth claim but rattler promote gaining a testimony through feelings that are then attributed to revelation from the Holy Ghost.   Further many apologists here argue all they need to do is present a very low bar of "plausibility" for the LDS truth claims that then can encourage someone to pray for those feeelings from the "Holy Ghost" that can then be considered "revelation."  This is a really a pretty low end argument for finding out what is really true.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Please define what you mean by my 'colleagues'. At one point we held our bishopric meetings on campus because our entire bishopric consisted of university academics.

Or did you mean the non-LDS historians I used to work with? I would be dumbfounded if any of them had ever read a single word in the Book of Mormon.

Non LDS historians who have studied LDS history in depth.

if the LDS history is compelling why wouldn't your non LDS colleagues want to read the Book of Mormon.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I never said or suggested that one needs a PhD or any other degree in some field in order to responsibly discuss the subject matter of history, theology, or the like.  That is your straw man.   What I have said repeatedly is that one must at least have done deep study of such subject matter in order to speak coherently about it.  The landscape is littered with people who pretend to discuss such matters, but who do not have the necessary preparation or experience.  Makes no sense to hire someone to do a task who does not know the specialized territory, whether it be plumbing, automechanics, or neurosurgery.  You are basically saying to me that anyone can do anything, regardless of lack of knowledge or experience, which is utter hogwash.

I asked you to provide the names of some of those intellectual giants whom you put up as competent to discuss these fields.  Perhaps Fawn Brodie, Jeremy Runnels, or maybe Paul Pry Jr (Grant Palmer), who have proven their competence to you.  But you seem too fearful to do so.  Why?

I was not speaking of what you refer to as LDS "intellectual giants" who have left the church over intellectual issues.  I was speaking of individuals from all walks of life: they could be teachers, engineers, attorneys, accountants, doctors, factory workers,ditch diggers, etc.

if study and prayer are enough to lead anyone who does so into the church why can't it be valid to do personal study and even prayer and thus be led out of the church?

[Calm]

Nipper, how do you know the Bible is the Word of God?

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, tietjens said:

I said, "90% or more of the experts are in the camp of the saints." I'm estimating.

Grant Palmer is a bit of an anomaly: he leaves the church and becomes a mainline Christian. It's like going backwards. People I know who've left Mormonism have become, most of them, agnostic, although a couple have become what I'd call New Age (i.e. they say they now only believe in "love"). But none has joined any of the traditional Christian churches. (If Mormonism, the Maybach of religions, doesn't work for you, what is?)

I haven't read any of Grant Palmer's books, only skimmed one or two, but do you think any of his books can be taken seriously as history? — in the same way, say, "Rough Stone Rolling" or "In Sacred Lonlieness" can be taken seriously as history?

I do for the most part. And Grant didn't become an agnostic have you ever heard of the book, The Incomparable Jesus? https://www.amazon.com/Incomparable-Jesus-Grant-H-Palmer-ebook/dp/B005F69TBU/ref=sr_1_1?s=baby-products&ie=UTF8&qid=1483893276&sr=8-1&keywords=grant+palmer+incomparable+jesus