Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[RevTestament]

That cracked me up.... "You're not real. I'm real..." Boy, I think that about sums up all of history...

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Johnny Ghost said:

But their "spiritual" experiences supposedly tell them that their creeds are true, right?  Yet mormonism says the creeds are false.  So, isn't that discounting the "spiritual" experience?  If your son or daughter took Moroni's challenge and then said the result was that Scientology was the way for him or her, wouldn't you discount the spiritual experience as fake?

Here is how I see it: Our beliefs are like stones of all shapes and sizes.  The spirit of Christ is like a flowing river of water.  Some stones are jagged and rough but slightly translucent, some are smooth and refined but completely opaque, others are mostly transparent.  Most beliefs have at least some truth and allow some light to pass through, even while obscured by the traditions and cultures of men. 

When we adhere to the light to the best of our understanding, we become like stones flowing down the river of light. Gradually the sharp edges are refined and the rough surfaces are made smooth.  The once opaque rock which allowed only little light to pass through it becomes smooth and polished as light begins to flow through it more unobscured. It is our objective to collect every rock that allows any light to pass through it and run it down the river of light.  It is also our objective to lighten our load of those stones (as pretty as they may be) which are entirely opaque.  

The Lord endures our beliefs and directs us from wherever we stand.  If we are following Christ’s light to the best of our understanding, then the spirit will witness to us that we are heading in the right direction, even while espousing some opaque beliefs.  Some people may falsely interpret that because the spirit is felt while attending their churches or living by true principles, that all of their beliefs and creeds are justified in the spirit.  Such a mistake will act to slow down progression.  If such a person remains closed to change, then they will be stagnant in the light that they have as they rest on the banks of the river.  

I think of Saul and Cornelius of the Bible, one a devout Jew and the other a gentile.  They were each true to the light that they had been given.  The light that they received before their conversion was preperatory to receiving greater light and knowledge.  Saul, for example, interpreted his light as validation of his Jewish traditions.  Not only was Saul a disbeliever, but he was fiercely antagonistic to the Church of Christ.  Yet the Lord knew Saul's heart that it was good.  He knew that Saul and Cornelius were devout to the light they had received to the best of their understanding, despite their false cultural interpretations of such light.  He was preparing them to receive more light through the gospel, each in their own individual and unique way.  

Live by the light that you have to the best of your understanding and in all spiritual integrity, and the Lord will direct you into more light.  Your perspective will be enlightened little by little.  Your understanding will be quickened, little by little, your beliefs will be refined little by little.  Always seek out translucent stones wherever you can find them and run them down the river of light and you will always be on the right path.

Quote

It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their Elder Brother, being at their head) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, … to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion (Brigham Young).

Quote

God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.

“Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along,” said the late Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. “They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59.)

 

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That cracked me up.... "You're not real. I'm real..." Boy, I think that about sums up all of history...

There is so much in that- I think he also meant that what they said was not "real" but what he said was.  But of course they were simply different descriptions of the same experience- a little water out of the sky.  The words or lack thereof and the dispute about truth of the words were simply semantics but the experience was the "reality".  No facts only descriptions

I feel that around here often people argue about the difference between "raining" and "sprinkling" for pages and pages without knowing it's all just semantics.

We had a demonstration between Pogi and me earlier in the thread of exactly that same kind of thing.

Edited January 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am skeptical that relying on personal revelation from what we refer to as the Holy Ghost is a reliable way to determine what is true.  I am surprised that I used to think it was a reliable method to determine truth and the truth of claims by those claiming direct divine revelation. 

Thanks for explaining.  I'm wondering though, why do you think it's unreliable?  Is it because you don't think God thru the Spirit, is capable of teaching people truth that way, or some other reason?

[rockpond]

On 1/11/2017 at 10:12 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You and rockpond both continue to ignore the obvious and are in denial about the primary reason why some people leave Mormonism.  Even other anti-Mormons frankly disagree with you:

The Book of Mormon is simply not among the primary reasons for leaving the faith:  For example, “For those who are former Mormons, what triggered your deconversion?” Quora, May - Aug 2016, online at https://www.quora.com/For-those-who-are-former-Mormons-what-triggered-your-deconversion ; compare also http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=433614 (one person oddly claiming to be a former Mormon who got irked because the LDS ignored Xmas and Easter, but celebrated Joseph Smith's birthday).

The scholars share this same view on deconversion:

Although intellectual claims are sometimes made, 

None of us should be surprised at the power of socialization in such matters (B. Altemeyer and B. Hunsberger. 1997. Amazing conversions: Why some turn to faith & others abandon religion. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books; M. Chaves, 1994. “Secularization as declining religious authority.” Social Forces 72:749-774; L. Guiso, P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales. 2003. “People’s opium? Religion and economic attitudes.” Journal of Monetary Economics 50:225-282), and "“In this century, secularization is probably the more common way that people lose their faith" (J. D. Barbour, 1994. Versions of deconversions: Autobiography and the loss of faith. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, page 2,  https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w0whChb6hFQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=Barbour,+J.+D.+1994.+Versions+of+deconversions:+Autobiography+and+the+loss+of+faith.+Charlottesville,+Virginia:+University+of+Virginia+Press&ots=BPU275EDkE&sig=uAw7X_qW4ONnP9E2-LxbTFzcDBU#v=onepage&q&f=false ).

The upshot being that "Most disaffiliates from Mormonism were always marginal members, and the metaphor of drift applies to their experiences" (H. M. Bahr and S. L. Albrecht. 1989. “Strangers once more: Patterns of disaffiliation from Mormonism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28:180-200. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ).

In other words, those leaving Mormonism are for the  most part not traditional adherents to the faith:  

For, as Lewis R. Rambo points out:

Most apostates are, in any case, "young persons with quite liberal social values" (C. K. Hadaway, 1989. “Identifying American apostates: A cluster analysis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28:201-215. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387059?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ).

Your first example... the Zelph on the Shelf folks.  First... they are bloggers so let's give them the weight that they deserve.  Second, they aren't speaking to your point of why they left (I have listened to interviews with them and I know why they left and it was for doctrinal reasons, not social) they are addressing how one should speak to your loved ones about your disaffection from the church.  So this example doesn't prove your point.

Then I moved on to the second example:  Quora.com.  I clicked the link and read the first two anecdotal accounts that were on that page.  The first one (Mark) stated that he actually STAYED for social reasons even though he wanted to leave for intellectual reasons.  And he eventually did.  The second person (Cameron) to tell their story on there also explains that he left for intellectual reasons.  So this example also doesn't prove your point.

I don't believe you have anything substantial to support your conclusion.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your first example... the Zelph on the Shelf folks.  First... they are bloggers so let's give them the weight that they deserve.  Second, they aren't speaking to your point of why they left (I have listened to interviews with them and I know why they left and it was for doctrinal reasons, not social) they are addressing how one should speak to your loved ones about your disaffection from the church.  So this example doesn't prove your point.

Take another look at the anti-Mormon  Zelph on the Shelf, “Conversion and Deconversion Are Emotional, Not Logical,” online at http://zelphontheshelf.com/conversion-and-deconversion-are-emotional-not-logical/ .  They are explicit in saying that “Conversion and Deconversion Are Emotional, Not Logical,” at least in their experience.  I did not cite that as a scholarly comment, only as indicative that you typically ignore the frank admissions of even your fellow anti-Mormons.

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Then I moved on to the second example:  Quora.com.  I clicked the link and read the first two anecdotal accounts that were on that page.  The first one (Mark) stated that he actually STAYED for social reasons even though he wanted to leave for intellectual reasons.  And he eventually did.  The second person (Cameron) to tell their story on there also explains that he left for intellectual reasons.  So this example also doesn't prove your point.

Again, this was mere anecdotal comment on your failure to listen to your fellow anti-Mormons.  I did not suggest that it proved any other point.

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe you have anything substantial to support your conclusion.

So you took a brief look at some anecdotes and ignored the scholarly commentary following?   The typical anti-Mormon approach:  Ignore the substantive evidence.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Okay I get you now that is an excellent point.

 I think as always it comes down to words. One person may think that they are being intellectual and for them they are being intellectual.

The other person hearing what they are saying sees so many flaws in it that they consider it gibberish.  I'm going to be a little brutal here but  to the other person it sounds like children arguing.

So I think this may be a semantic thing and definitely a pride thing.  But on the other hand the perception that the argument is not sufficiently "intellectual" becomes the issue.  But thanks for the comment, it definitely got me thinking!

This is the cutest video in the world and I think about it often here.

My favorite part: "YOU'RE not REAL- I'm real" !

We need to end our arguments with kissing it all better.

So many inappropriate appeals to authority.  I greatly appreciate the pragmatic scientist who suggested they go outside and watch...she was also the peacemaker, great future that one.

Did you catch what came before the "you're not real part" (so very, very perfect).  It sounded to me like he said "you're pretty" and would be a typical male argument to dismiss a woman's conclusions.  At the 1:05 point

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is so much in that- I think he also meant that what they said was not "real" but what he said was.  But of course they were simply different descriptions of the same experience- a little water out of the sky.  The words or lack thereof and the dispute about truth of the words were simply semantics but the experience was the "reality".  No facts only descriptions

I feel that around here often people argue about the difference between "raining" and "sprinkling" for pages and pages without knowing it's all just semantics.

We had a demonstration between Pogi and me earlier in the thread of exactly that same kind of thing.

Often this is the case with Biblical interpretation. The literalists against others etc. The importance of being somewhat flexible is seen in Biblical translations such as "God is not a man that He would lie." The English speaking literalist will usually read that to mean God is not a man without understanding it is an approximate translation of the Hebrew, and usually will not understand how the Hebrew language worked (including myself). To try to explain to them that the second phrase modified the first can be a challenge, because it is challenging their paradigm. But, anyway, one can definitely see the semantics involved. The way I now read that verse is different from when I was a child trying to read the OT, because I believe I understand the semantics better. Of course I could be wrong. But I now read it to mean "God is not a man who would lie." So the statement is not about God's ontological being, but about His spiritual being - He won't lie.

Anyway, yes, people tend to get caught up in long debates about such matters. It can be difficult to open the minds of others to a different paradigm about the scriptures than the one they were taught. People get very defensive about it. For instance we have theplains posting things like he only follows the Bible, and that it "disproves" "mormonism." I in turn post back that the Bible shows Athanasian Christianity is wrong and how it conflicts with what the creeds teach. I feel I follow the Bible better than he, and vice versa.... and on and on. I really don't know how else to address the Orthodox interpretations. I hope the spirit will help...

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Take another look at the anti-Mormon  Zelph on the Shelf, “Conversion and Deconversion Are Emotional, Not Logical,” online at http://zelphontheshelf.com/conversion-and-deconversion-are-emotional-not-logical/ .  They are explicit in saying that “Conversion and Deconversion Are Emotional, Not Logical,” at least in their experience.  I did not cite that as a scholarly comment, only as indicative that you typically ignore the frank admissions of even your fellow anti-Mormons.

Again, this was mere anecdotal comment on your failure to listen to your fellow anti-Mormons.  I did not suggest that it proved any other point.

My "fellow anti-Mormons"?  Since I am not an anti-Mormon and have no relation to them, I'm not sure what this phrase is supposed to mean.

Regarding the folks behind Zelph on the Shelf... yes, I tend to ignore them.  I'm not really feeling a need to account or apologize for that.  Is anyone taking them seriously?  But since you brought them up again, here is a quote from the link that you provided:

"My deconversion process was certainly the most logical of the three stages I’ve described, but it’s still not void of emotional decision-making. For example, I was willing to continue living life as a Mormon despite logically knowing the church was a fraud, because the emotional pain of ruining my husband’s (faithful) life was too much to bear, as was thinking about leaving in general. It was also my own emotions and conscience that finally gave me the courage to leave — I knew I couldn’t sleep easy at night knowing that I was perpetuating a lie that was often harmful and even dangerous to others."

Again, this does not support your conclusion that people leave for social reasons, not valid intellectual reasons.  In this case she cites emotion and sociality as reasons that she stayed while logic and knowledge are the reasons that she left.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you took a brief look at some anecdotes and ignored the scholarly commentary following?   The typical anti-Mormon approach:  Ignore the substantive evidence.

Nope, not a brief look... I have probably given the information you are presenting more time than it actually deserves.  I've yet to see the substantive evidence you claim.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you took a brief look at some anecdotes and ignored the scholarly commentary following?   The typical anti-Mormon approach:  Ignore the substantive evidence.

Haven't been following the conversation, but let's be fair. This is also the typical Mormon approach. It's also the typical anything approach. And Rockpond isn't anti-Mormon. 

[Gray]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sure it does. There is all kinds of history in my interpretation. I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that the "prophecy" was not written until the time of the Maccabees? If so that is a strange position to take to claim that the "prophecy" of Daniel fails or is wrong, when it is not a prophecy at all, but written as history.

 Daniel was being finalized just as events were coming to a head, about 167 BCE. Late enough to get many of the back-dated predictions right, but not late enough to get the details right regarding the final days of Antiochus. 

 

Quote

Your "historical interpretation" doesn't follow the prophecy:

Daniel 11:4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom[Alexander the Great's] shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity[four of his generals], nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.

Ok, according to history, who plucked up the four Grecian kingdoms? Hint: it was Rome. Pompey came in and conquered the Seleucid Empire. The true interpretation is indeed the "historical" one. Your "historical interpretation" doesn't follow the prophecy at all. It leaves out Rome.

Here is where the prophecy speaks of Antiochus Epiphanes: "  15 So the king of the north shall come, and cast up amount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand."

It was Antiochus Epiphanes whom the chosen people could not stand against, and who fell. He took the temple and set up a statue to worship. So the prophetic interpretation is quite "historical." 

"16 But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed."

Note this verse differs from the previous ones in that the king of the south is no longer referenced. Who came against Antiochus Epiphanes? According to your "historical interpretation" that was Rome, when a Roman general showed up and drew a line in the sand and dared Antiochus to cross it. So Rome is the "he." 

Here is the remaining historical context:

"17 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him."

Who are the "upright ones?" They are the two Hasmonean descendants who went to Pompey to settle their inheritance dispute and caused Rome to come in with the strength of their whole kingdom ie Pompey brought his whole army to Jerusalem. Who was the daughter who got corrupted? Jerusalem. Pompey appointed his own high priest. But Jerusalem did not stand by Rome.

"18 After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him."

On his return trip Pompey stopped to "conquer" or at least claim more isles. The prince for his own behalf was Caesar who tried to take all the power of Pompey and the Senate and become sole ruler. 

"19 Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found."

This describes the death of Pompey who fled from Caesar back to his "own land" in the east, but stumbled in battle and fell alone to Caesar in Egypt according to history. 

"20 Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle."

Caesar's estate was that of emperor and pontifex maximus or chief priest of the pontifical college. Subsequent emperor's also took this title, including Constantine, who was known for taxing and building his new capitol of Constantinople.

"21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries."

Who next took the title of pontifex maximus? By now you have guessed it: the bishop of Rome, who obtained the "kingdom by flatteries."

There you have it. All quite "historical."

 

When you start talking about the bishop of Rome, you've left all pretense of a historical critical view of the text. The authors could not have had that in mind, those came much, much later. You're reading this apocalypse with modern eyes. Which is fine from a theological perspective, but not from a historical perspective. 

The "vile person" is Antiochus, who put an idol in the temple and persecuted the Jews. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Gray

[Yirgacheffe]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Okay I get you now that is an excellent point.

 I think as always it comes down to words. One person may think that they are being intellectual and for them they are being intellectual.

The other person hearing what they are saying sees so many flaws in it that they consider it gibberish.  I'm going to be a little brutal here but  to the other person it sounds like children arguing.

So I think this may be a semantic thing and definitely a pride thing.  But on the other hand the perception that the argument is not sufficiently "intellectual" becomes the issue.  But thanks for the comment, it definitely got me thinking!

This is the cutest video in the world and I think about it often here.

My favorite part: "YOU'RE not REAL- I'm real" !

My favorite was "you poked my heart"

[Physics Guy]

Some religious world views seem to rest on a few basic premises. Given those premises, everything hangs together intellectually very well, but without those crucial premises, the whole structure would collapse in nonsense.

If someone with a faith like that finds that they no longer believe the crucial premises, does what they experience count as an intellectual conversion? It might well not seem to count, because it would be such a rapid transition from an intellectually coherent position to a judgement that that whole world view had been absurd. The intellectual part of the story would be briefly told: "I suddenly realized it was all nonsense," or something like that. The emotional reactions would be immediate, but they would then also last for much longer, and so they would naturally tend to dominate any discussion of what had happened to this person's faith.

And yet what decision can be more intellectual than rejecting a whole body of conclusions because their premise is deemed to be false?

A crime story is probably not mainly about ballistics; yet the sudden course of a bullet is still the decisive event in the plot. In the same way it seems to me that conversions that seem more emotional than intellectual may still actually have been intellectually driven, if the intellectual event that took place was a sudden collapse.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for explaining.  I'm wondering though, why do you think it's unreliable?  Is it because you don't think God thru the Spirit, is capable of teaching people truth that way, or some other reason?

Because people get confirmation of what they think is religious truth that conflicts significantly from others confirmations as well as confirmation that conflicts with clear evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

My "fellow anti-Mormons"?  Since I am not an anti-Mormon and have no relation to them, I'm not sure what this phrase is supposed to mean.

Regarding the folks behind Zelph on the Shelf... yes, I tend to ignore them.  I'm not really feeling a need to account or apologize for that.  Is anyone taking them seriously?  But since you brought them up again, here is a quote from the link that you provided:

"My deconversion process was certainly the most logical of the three stages I’ve described, but it’s still not void of emotional decision-making. For example, I was willing to continue living life as a Mormon despite logically knowing the church was a fraud, because the emotional pain of ruining my husband’s (faithful) life was too much to bear, as was thinking about leaving in general. It was also my own emotions and conscience that finally gave me the courage to leave — I knew I couldn’t sleep easy at night knowing that I was perpetuating a lie that was often harmful and even dangerous to others."

Again, this does not support your conclusion that people leave for social reasons, not valid intellectual reasons.  In this case she cites emotion and sociality as reasons that she stayed while logic and knowledge are the reasons that she left.

Nope, not a brief look... I have probably given the information you are presenting more time than it actually deserves.  I've yet to see the substantive evidence you claim.

In denial, as usual, rockpond.  Selective quotes indicate confirmation bias on your part.  Of course some people have what seem to them as intellectual reasons for joining or leaving.  I have said that repeatedly, and any honest person would acknowledge that.  Most, however, have primarily emotional reasons for joining or leaving.  That is the whole point of the title of Zelph on the Shelf's article, and we could scan many other anti-Mormon sites with the same basic anecdotal results.

What is truly a shame on your part is your unwillingness to deal with the substantive comments in the scholarly appraisals.  You take time out to comment on anecdotes, but no time at all to engage the scholarly literature.  Just an empty claim that you gave it more time than it deserved.  What does that mean?  Probably that it just didn't fit your preconceptions.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 Daniel was being finalized just as events were coming to a head, about 167 BCE. Late enough to get many of the back-dated predictions right, but not late enough to get the details right regarding the final days of Antiochus. 

CFR please. If Daniel was written that late, how come they do not believe what they wrote about their Messiah in Daniel 9?

Quote

When you start talking about the bishop of Rome, you've left all pretense of a historical critical view of the text. The authors could not have had that in mind, those came much, much later. You're reading this apocalypse with modern eyes. Which is fine from a theological perspective, but not from a historical perspective. 

The "vile person" is Antiochus, who put an idol in the temple and persecuted the Jews. 

Again, your problem is you are calling this a failed "prophecy" on the one hand, and on the other saying it is not a prophecy at all, but a piece of history. Yes, I do not represent that the truth is "a historical critical view of the text." The truth essentially never corresponds to the "critical" or "scholarly" view. It seems God is smarter than the scholars.

The vile person is not Antiochus. Antiochus has to be the king of the north correct?

" 40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over."

If Antiochus is the king of the northern empire of Seleucia, how can he come against himself? The vile person is neither the king of the north nor the king of the south(Ptolemy). Your scholarly critical view doesn't comport with even a plain reading of the text. I know what it is, and it is wrong on several fronts I have shown you. 

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not referencing anything in particular, I am simply trying to understand what you mean by truth.

When you observe the history of man, would you say that man's truth evolves over time?  Do you anticipate the evolution of man's truth to ever stop?  Why or why not?  If you anticipate man's truth to continue to evolve, what does that say about "hard evidence" and "rational/critical thinking and reason"?  Are they not just as fluid as truth itself?  How will you know when you have discovered "real truth"?

Your question is so broad that it really has little to no meaning.  Certainly some truth evolves over time. Scientific truth certainly does as it builds on itself and at times over turns some things that were believed to be true. But hard science is suited to this. Religious truth claims are the opposite.  Go on faith, pray, assume your position is true and find ways to confirm it. Doubt your doubts rather than embrace your doubts and do everything you can to prove your truth wrong and if it holds up still then embrace it. Religion does just the opposite.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Because people get confirmation of what they think is religious truth that conflicts significantly from others confirmations as well as confirmation that conflicts with clear evidence.

Thanks for answering.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Haven't been following the conversation, but let's be fair. This is also the typical Mormon approach. It's also the typical anything approach. And Rockpond isn't anti-Mormon. 

Well, if he isn't anti-Mormon, why is he following that narrow, unfair, and anti-intellectual approach?  Is it that he is just anti-intellectual?  You seem to claim that deliberately ignoring substantive fact is "the typical Mormon approach."  Is that why we have the Gospel Topics Essays and the Joseph Smith Papers Project?  Is that what we conclude from the forthright and balanced appraisals of history by Mormon scholars, such as Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, B. H. Roberts, and others?  There are hundreds more examples of Mormon scholars exhibiting balanced and responsible scholarship, while we see a dearth of that among anti-Mormons.  Is that just coincidence?  Or do you think that careful research and citing of good sources are just a waste of time, or a smokescreen?

We do occasionally see responsible anti-Mormon scholars, such as Rob Bowman -- with whom it is actually possible to carry on a substantive dialogue.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The Bible is true because it is historically accurate, it's piratical, and its premises have been tested.time and again with proven outcomes...  And Jesus substantiated the Bible.

You need to read Bart Ehrman's book How Jesus Became God.  But it will challenge your world view.  Don't read it if you don't want to be challenged.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, if he isn't anti-Mormon, why is he following that narrow, unfair, and anti-intellectual approach?  Is it that he is just anti-intellectual?  You seem to claim that deliberately ignoring substantive fact is "the typical Mormon approach."  Is that why we have the Gospel Topics Essays and the Joseph Smith Papers Project?  Is that what we conclude from the forthright and balanced appraisals of history by Mormon scholars, such as Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, B. H. Roberts, and others?  There are hundreds more examples of Mormon scholars exhibiting balanced and responsible scholarship, while we see a dearth of that among anti-Mormons.  Is that just coincidence?  Or do you think that careful research and citing of good sources are just a waste of time, or a smokescreen?

We do occasionally see responsible anti-Mormon scholars, such as Rob Bowman -- with whom it is actually possible to carry on a substantive dialogue.

Maybe because the church is a day late, and a dollar short Robert? It's hard to put the toothpaste back in? How you manage to do it, and others is probably what keeps me going, still can't figure it out. Just waiting for the church to keep being more open, and going to see if they'll provide room for people like me. Thought of being a better attendee coming up in Gospel Doctrine class, since the young man I've been helping isn't coming to church as much because of impending surgery and lot's of pain. But I feel a bit guilty for wanting to go out of curiosity sake to see if they teach things that are in the Gospel Topic Essays. I have a strong feeling they really won't get into it. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In denial, as usual, rockpond.  Selective quotes indicate confirmation bias on your part.  Of course some people have what seem to them as intellectual reasons for joining or leaving.  I have said that repeatedly, and any honest person would acknowledge that.  Most, however, have primarily emotional reasons for joining or leaving.  That is the whole point of the title of Zelph on the Shelf's article, and we could scan many other anti-Mormon sites with the same basic anecdotal results.

What is truly a shame on your part is your unwillingness to deal with the substantive comments in the scholarly appraisals.  You take time out to comment on anecdotes, but no time at all to engage the scholarly literature.  Just an empty claim that you gave it more time than it deserved.  What does that mean?  Probably that it just didn't fit your preconceptions.

Except that wasn't the point of the Zelph article.  You're trying to present that as supporting your position and it doesn't. 

I've reviewed the long list of articles you posted and don't see how they provide evidence for your hypothesis that people leave the LDS for social reasons but not for valid intellectual reasons.  If you have something that does back up that position, feel free to share. 

Also, if you continue to make personal attacks (such as insinuating that I am dishonest), I'll be done dialoguing with you.  We either do this as mature adults or we don't do it at all. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by rockpond

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    Yes The Holy Bible is True, parts have been verified, others have not.There was no "Bible" for Jesus to substantiate in his day. 

The Atonement it Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt Grace

Anakin7

Jesus quoted and spoke concerning the Old Testament.

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

But the issue remains that the INTERPRETATIONS of what is taught in the Bible are in dispute.  The theologians and philosophers disagree even on basic salvation doctrines.

Simply study the scripture prayerfully yourself without the theologians, philosophers and Mormon doctrine. Read whole chapters and don't skip about.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, if he isn't anti-Mormon, why is he following that narrow, unfair, and anti-intellectual approach?  Is it that he is just anti-intellectual?  You seem to claim that deliberately ignoring substantive fact is "the typical Mormon approach."  Is that why we have the Gospel Topics Essays and the Joseph Smith Papers Project?  Is that what we conclude from the forthright and balanced appraisals of history by Mormon scholars, such as Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, B. H. Roberts, and others?  There are hundreds more examples of Mormon scholars exhibiting balanced and responsible scholarship, while we see a dearth of that among anti-Mormons.  Is that just coincidence?  Or do you think that careful research and citing of good sources are just a waste of time, or a smokescreen?

We do occasionally see responsible anti-Mormon scholars, such as Rob Bowman -- with whom it is actually possible to carry on a substantive dialogue.

If you think that I am being narrow, unfair, and anti-intellectual I would suggest that perhaps your personal biases have blinded you a bit from the reality of our conversation.