Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Why would you be astonished that people are unfamiliar with the facts?  The church has avoided widely disclosing the true narrative for most of its history.

I was replying to thesometimesaint:

 

Quote

thesometimesaint said:

I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but I joined when I was 20 years old and in college. I knew about polygamy, and the Priesthood Ban. Plus the general order of the Church structure, and its truth claims.  

His experience is typical, leaving me to wonder why anyone would not already know about polygamy and the priesthood ban.  I often hear false claims blaming some pretended lack of knowledge of these matters on the LDS Church.  I just have not seen that claimed lack of knowledge.  Even non-Mormons know about it.  The information has always been widely available.

If your critique is that such discussions were uncommon in Church manuals or in Conference addresses (and they still are), then you might have a point, but my response is "so what?"  Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ is probably not centered on such historical matters -- which are readily accessible anyhow.  I just don't see the problem.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have repeatedly stated that professional training is not a requirement.  Not by God, and not by me.  You missed that point.  However, for anyone pretending to judge the Mormon faith (or any other faith) on an intellectual basis, yes, such knowledge is required.  If, on the other hand, one wishes to leave Mormonism because it just doesn't feel right, or doesn't satisfy social needs, by all means leave with a clear conscience.  However, do not attempt to dignify that exit with phony claims about the historical or theological nature of the faith.  I hear so much malarky from such folks that it is clear that they actually know little about the faith.

Boloney.  A testimony by the power of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with an intellectual appraisal.  They are wholly different modes of thought, even when combined by the unreflective person.  Familiarization with a religion mediated through some instruction (like Roman Catholic catechism class) is a good idea, but must not be confused with actual mastery of the history and theology of a religion, be it LDS or any other.  Most CES instructors certainly do not know enough to do that anyhow.  It is merely glorified Sunday School.  Improve it by all means, but do not imagine for a moment that this will make intellectual giants of the Mormons.  There are universities which perform that serious intellectual function.

I answered that question quite well already, but to restate:  People who pretend to leave based on an intellectual understanding which they do not have are kidding themselves and others.  Casting blame on an institution for one's own lack of serious intellectual preparation is a cop-out.  The failure is more likely in another area of personal responsibility:  Testimony through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Personal embarrassment for failure to focus on one's testimony may lead to false claims about the intellectual basis of Mormonism somehow being flawed.  But those claims seldom hold up under serious intellectual scrutiny, as I have been pointing out for years on this board.

You act as if testimony and intellect are mutually exclusive.  They aren't.

So your position is that church members who determine the truth claims of the church are false (and leave) are kidding themselves because they don't have advanced theological degrees?  You sure seem to place yourself on a high pedestal.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

People who pretend to leave based on an intellectual understanding which they do not have are kidding themselves and others.  Casting blame on an institution for one's own lack of serious intellectual preparation is a cop-out.  The failure is more likely in another area of personal responsibility:  Testimony through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Personal embarrassment for failure to focus on one's testimony may lead to false claims about the intellectual basis of Mormonism somehow being flawed.  But those claims seldom hold up under serious intellectual scrutiny, as I have been pointing out for years on this board.

No. The cop out is claiming that no person can have an intellectual reason for leaving. It's hard to take you seriously when you make such definitive statements like this. You're assuming that because a person leaves they were not intellectually prepared.

In essence you are saying that you are smart and they are stupid. If they were smart enough to understand they would have never left. And they don't even have the character to admit the real reason for leaving so they're just making up the intellectual claim. I seriously hope you're never in a position where you need to counsel people who struggle with testimony because you seem incapable of seeing past your own rigid POV.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was replying to thesometimesaint:

His experience is typical, leaving me to wonder why anyone would not already know about polygamy and the priesthood ban.  I often hear false claims blaming some pretended lack of knowledge of these matters on the LDS Church.  I just have not seen that claimed lack of knowledge.  Even non-Mormons know about it.  The information has always been widely available.

If your critique is that such discussions were uncommon in Church manuals or in Conference addresses (and they still are), then you might have a point, but my response is "so what?"  Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ is probably not centered on such historical matters -- which are readily accessible anyhow.  I just don't see the problem.

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.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You act as if testimony and intellect are mutually exclusive.  They aren't.

So your position is that church members who determine the truth claims of the church are false (and leave) are kidding themselves because they don't have advanced theological degrees?  You sure seem to place yourself on a high pedestal.

So you would claim that just anyone should be able to do neurosurgery, despite the lack of proper training?  Or that you would trust an auto-mechanic with no experience or training in his field to repair your car?  Horsefeathers !!  My experience has been that most of those leaving Mormonism for pretended intellectual reasons are misleading themselves and others. One can read it in their deeply flawed books, articles, and blog comments.  They may not even realize how ignorant they are in the realm of an intellectual understanding of any religion, much less their own.  Too lazy to take the time to prepare themselves for deep discussion, they transfer blame to others.  How refreshing it would be if they were to simply take responsibility for having decided that they just don't like the LDS faith any longer, and are searching for something more compatible with their needs.

For you, determining whether the truth claims of any faith (LDS or any other) are intelledtually adequate seem as easy as pie.  But that is convenient self-delusion.  And testimony through the Holly Spirit is wholly different than intellectual mastery of anything.  Neither requires the other, although they can be combined in one person. It is so sad that you do not understand that fundamental fact.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. The cop out is claiming that no person can have an intellectual reason for leaving. It's hard to take you seriously when you make such definitive statements like this. You're assuming that because a person leaves they were not intellectually prepared.

In essence you are saying that you are smart and they are stupid. If they were smart enough to understand they would have never left. And they don't even have the character to admit the real reason for leaving so they're just making up the intellectual claim. I seriously hope you're never in a position where you need to counsel people who struggle with testimony because you seem incapable of seeing past your own rigid POV.

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

Quote

Robert F. Smith said:

People who pretend to leave based on an intellectual understanding which they do not have are kidding themselves and others.  Casting blame on an institution for one's own lack of serious intellectual preparation is a cop-out.  The failure is more likely in another area of personal responsibility:  Testimony through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Personal embarrassment for failure to focus on one's testimony may lead to false claims about the intellectual basis of Mormonism somehow being flawed.  But those claims seldom hold up under serious intellectual scrutiny, as I have been pointing out for years on this board.

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.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you would claim that just anyone should be able to do neurosurgery, despite the lack of proper training?  Or that you would trust an auto-mechanic with no experience or training in his field to repair your car?  Horsefeathers !!  My experience has been that most of those leaving Mormonism for pretended intellectual reasons are misleading themselves and others. One can read it in their deeply flawed books, articles, and blog comments.  They may not even realize how ignorant they are in the realm of an intellectual understanding of any religion, much less their own.  Too lazy to take the time to prepare themselves for deep discussion, they transfer blame to others.  How refreshing it would be if they were to simply take responsibility for having decided that they just don't like the LDS faith any longer, and are searching for something more compatible with their needs.

For you, determining whether the truth claims of any faith (LDS or any other) are intelledtually adequate seem as easy as pie.  But that is convenient self-delusion.  And testimony through the Holly Spirit is wholly different than intellectual mastery of anything.  Neither requires the other, although they can be combined in one person. It is so sad that you do not understand that fundamental fact.

No, I think one needs adequate training for neurosurgery.

What I am saying is that it doesn't take advanced degrees in theology to judge the merits of a church's truth claims.  Moroni challenges us all to do it and doesn't say that we need years of doctorate level training.

Your arrogance is astounding.  I have seen very few people venture into the quite painful process of leaving the LDS Church simply because they don't like the faith any longer and wants something compatible with their needs.  If that is your conclusion about the majority of those who leave, I don't think you are listening very well.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

So Mormons in general just don't live up to your standards, eh?

False.  Never said or intimated this.  The Mormon people certainly live up to my standards of faith and testimony.  I am in awe of them, and so should you be.  God does not expect them to seek or obtain an intellectual understanding of the faith, but only a good testimony based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, I think I agree - the level of understanding you seem to want everyone to have is probably too much to ask from people who are raising a family, trying to make a living, maintaining their homes, volunteering in the community, trying to missionary work, serving many hours per week in a calling, attending meetings, sacrificing to go to the temple, and on and on.

False again.  I do not expect Mormons to seek or obtain an intellectual understanding of the faith, and have never said so.  They do need to seek a testimony via the Holy Spirit.

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

When we devote 3+ hours EVERY week of our lives to instruction at church, we expect to learn what is most important for the salvation of our souls.  If the church can't manage to do that after all that we have devoted to it, we ought to look to the Church (capital C) not blame the individual who's integrity demands that he/she leaves the church.

The blame game is a very tawdry affair when it is used to falsify what is actually taking place when someone leaves the faith.  I am never troubled when someone leaves the faith.  That is a normal event in the existence of any religion, and no one should be taken aback by it.  What should be unacceptable is the false claim by some that they are leaving for intellectual reasons -- when in fact they have no intellectual knowledge, and simply want to leave for personal reasons.  That is often a feature of self-delusion.

[CV75]

36 minutes 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.

The attitudes about “inoculation” have changed over the years (appropriately so with the changing external forces, as explained in the third link below), but I wouldn’t call any of the approaches much of a “scramble,” because they are not awkward or disorganized. They are “inspired and timely (also in the third link below).

04/1995: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/04/children-of-the-covenant?lang=eng&_r=1 : “Spiritual protection comes only from the Lord—and in his own way. Jesus chooses not to inoculate, but to indoctrinate. His method employs no vaccine; it utilizes the teaching of divine doctrine—a governing “eye within”—to protect the eternal spirits of his children.” The “eye within” is the unimpaired, unaffected conscience.

04/2004: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/do-not-fear?lang=eng&_r=1: “The word inoculate has two parts: in—“to be within”—and oculate means “eye to see.”

“When children are baptized and confirmed (see D&C 20:41, 43; D&C 33:15), we place an eye within them—the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost (see D&C 121:26). With the Restoration of the gospel came authority to confer this gift.” The teaching of divine doctrine preceded this.

04/2016: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/12/by-study-and-by-faith?lang=eng : “We give medical inoculations to our precious missionaries before sending them into the mission field so they will be protected against diseases that can harm them. In a similar fashion, before you send your students into the world, inoculate them by providing faithful, thoughtful, and accurate interpretation of gospel doctrine, the scriptures, our history, and those topics that are sometimes misunderstood.” The inoculation of baptism and confirmation have preceded this.

Regarding the changing external factors affecting today’s saints:

“For [those of past generations], hearing a pure testimony became the catalyst that changed their lives forever. The same can be true for those you teach. However, given the realities of today’s world, pure testimony may not always be enough. [Those of past generations generally] were clean and pure and free from pornography and worldliness as they sat at the feet of inspired missionaries, teachers, and leaders. The Spirit easily penetrated their soft and pure hearts.

“Today the story is much different. Some of your students are already infected by pornography and worldliness before they ever reach your classes.

“It was only a generation ago that our young people’s access to information about our history, doctrine, and practices was basically limited to materials printed by the Church. Few students came in contact with alternative interpretations. Mostly, our young people lived a sheltered life.

“Our curriculum at that time, though well-meaning, did not prepare students for today [that had to come from post-seminary and institute indoctrination and covenant-keeping] —a day when they have instant access to virtually everything about the Church from every possible point of view. Today what they see on their mobile devices is likely to be faith challenging as much as faith promoting. Many of our young people are more familiar with Google than with the gospel, more attuned to the internet than to inspiration, and more involved with Facebook than with faith.”

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I think one needs adequate training for neurosurgery.

What I am saying is that it doesn't take advanced degrees in theology to judge the merits of a church's truth claims.  Moroni challenges us all to do it and doesn't say that we need years of doctorate level training.

Your arrogance is astounding.  I have seen very few people venture into the quite painful process of leaving the LDS Church simply because they don't like the faith any longer and wants something compatible with their needs.  If that is your conclusion about the majority of those who leave, I don't think you are listening very well.

You have entirely falsified what I have said.  Moroni's challenge is not an intellectual one, and no degrees of any kind are needed to exercise that challenge.  You are very confused, and in the midst of your confusion you are lashing out with false claims about a number of things:  (1) the sociological research is very clear on why most people leave any religion, including the LDS Church.  (2) Accusing me of arrogance is an ad hominem, a personal attack, which does not address the data or facts.  (3) Failure to understand the actual historical or theological context of a religion's truth claims can make it impossible to get a handle on whether the narrative can actually be justified.

Discomfort with such facts can lead to anger and impatience (not at all uncommon).  I did not say that it was easy to make a fair intellectual evaluation of any religion, but there are no shortcuts -- such as you seem to want to take.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The blame game is a very tawdry affair when it is used to falsify what is actually taking place when someone leaves the faith.  I am never troubled when someone leaves the faith.  That is a normal event in the existence of any religion, and no one should be taken aback by it.  What should be unacceptable is the false claim by some that they are leaving for intellectual reasons -- when in fact they have no intellectual knowledge, and simply want to leave for personal reasons.  That is often a feature of self-delusion.

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.

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

One last thought. Other than the one quote from Alma, where he tries to explain to the as yet unconverted Zoramites what it will feel like if they succeed in conducting the experiment of planting the word of God in there hearts, are there other scriptural references you could let me know about that could help me understand where you're coming from. You don't have to include your thoughts on how those scriptures fit in to the post modern paradigm, chapter and verse will be enough. Just two or three verses will suffice in providing me with points to ponder, but if there are even more verses you could provide, that would be great. In addition, if there is a General Conference talk or two you could provide that more or less fits into the postmodern model, that would be even more appreciated. Thank you and all the best.

 

It's in the interpretation, there are hundreds. I am collecting them now by re-reading the standard works. I will put together a list of a few. Give me some time

Off the top of my head, Pres Kimball, "absolute truth", John 1, the word, all things created by definitions, Gen 1God defines the days, through a glass Darkly but then face to face, Moroni 10:4,5, Jacob 4, only the spirit shows things as they are, James 1:5, ask God, Bednar  things as they are,, DC 93 spheres of truth.

All continuing Revelation scriptures show that truth is not fixed.

All scriptures which say that we only know things thru the spirit.

All scripturess that say that God creates from matter unorganized

All scriptures that say that God creates through intelligence

All these scriptures imply that reality is created in our minds and in the mind of God. And that God creates through his mind. We do the same as gods in embryo. God does it big scale we do it in our own little worlds. We are creating our own Little Worlds right here right now in this discussion.

Sorry this is a bad device for typing and correcting.  Dictating. More later

[rockpond]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

You have entirely falsified what I have said.  Moroni's challenge is not an intellectual one, and no degrees of any kind are needed to exercise that challenge.  You are very confused, and in the midst of your confusion you are lashing out with false claims about a number of things:  (1) the sociological research is very clear on why most people leave any religion, including the LDS Church.  (2) Accusing me of arrogance is an ad hominem, a personal attack, which does not address the data or facts.  (3) Failure to understand the actual historical or theological context of a religion's truth claims can make it impossible to get a handle on whether the narrative can actually be justified.

Discomfort with such facts can lead to anger and impatience (not at all uncommon).  I did not say that it was easy to make a fair intellectual evaluation of any religion, but there are no shortcuts -- such as you seem to want to take.

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.

[why me]

Mormons seem to be in a class of their own when it comes to antimormonism and testimony. I know of no other church that is affected by their history as mormons are. I just read a biography of martin luther and discovered that he was an anti-semite, not very favorable to the papacy and he considered islam a threat. Howver, I see no lutherans leaving over their history or about martin luther.

But mormons are in a different boat. Antimormons make hay of history and they are very effective in their tactics. Every church can be hammared on their history. But it seems that members of many other churches are immune to their history. But not Mormons. For example, if Joseph was a money digger, it is a game changer. If Joseph lied about polygamy to the gentiles, it is a game changer. Several versions of the first vision, it is a game changer. And what is perhaps the most shocking, is to see just how their once strong testimony comes crashing down into the oblivion. I find it amazing.

But it does show that there is something wrong somewhere because regardless of their past spiritual experiences, it seems not to matter when it comes to church history.

[Thinking]

Quote

Perhaps even more important, however, is that basically every reason to doubt Mormonism is a good reason to doubt Christianity. Not enough archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon? Feel like some of the archaeological evidence might contradict the Book of Mormon? The same is true of the Bible.

Don’t like polygamy or that two of Joseph’s plural wives were 20 years his junior? You’ll see the same trend for the prophets of old.

Joseph Smith offends Western sensibility? Not nearly as badly as prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Joshua. A quick gander at the Old Testament shows that Joseph Smith has a relatively immaculate record (based on Western standards) compared to many of the prophets who came before him.

This is an example of the logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque, which argues for a conclusion on the grounds that others do it too.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, why me said:

Mormons seem to be in a class of their own when it comes to antimormonism and testimony. I know of no other church that is affected by their history as mormons are. I just read a biography of martin luther and discovered that he was an anti-semite, not very favorable to the papacy and he considered islam a threat. Howver, I see no lutherans leaving over their history or about martin luther.

But mormons are in a different boat. Antimormons make hay of history and they are very effective in their tactics. Every church can be hammared on their history. But it seems that members of many other churches are immune to their history. But not Mormons. For example, if Joseph was a money digger, it is a game changer. If Joseph lied about polygamy to the gentiles, it is a game changer. Several versions of the first vision, it is a game changer. And what is perhaps the most shocking, is to see just how their once strong testimony comes crashing down into the oblivion. I find it amazing.

But it does show that there is something wrong somewhere because regardless of their past spiritual experiences, it seems not to matter when it comes to church history.

I think that one reason is because the Church's claim of authority is embedded in that history.  When that history, and particularly the role of prophets in that history, is thrown into doubt the authority of the church is also thrown into doubt.

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  Never said or intimated this.  The Mormon people certainly live up to my standards of faith and testimony.  I am in awe of them, and so should you be.  God does not expect them to seek or obtain an intellectual understanding of the faith, but only a good testimony based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

False again.  I do not expect Mormons to seek or obtain an intellectual understanding of the faith, and have never said so.  They do need to seek a testimony via the Holy Spirit.

The blame game is a very tawdry affair when it is used to falsify what is actually taking place when someone leaves the faith.  I am never troubled when someone leaves the faith.  That is a normal event in the existence of any religion, and no one should be taken aback by it.  What should be unacceptable is the false claim by some that they are leaving for intellectual reasons -- when in fact they have no intellectual knowledge, and simply want to leave for personal reasons.  That is often a feature of self-delusion.

You don't know me nor do you know my level of intelligence...Intelligience??  I was told to follow the prophet...follow the teachings..other than SS, MIA, Seminary, I didnt know Moroni required me to seek a degree  before I would have that answer.  And he did answer me..powerfully.  And I believed and I took shame, guilt for not having some sort of perfection..and then I watched my bishop pantomime JS and the rock and hat...and began to cry. 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Jeanne

[why me]

32 minutes 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.

 

This could be true. Perhaps they didn't have sufficient knowledge. But why would they need sufficient knowledge anyway? How many catholics or lutherans or methodists have sufficient knowledge. And yet, it seems to me that most don't really care. They like their church, find goodness in it and maybe because of this, the history of their churches do not matter. Nor sufficient knowedge. It seems to be very much a mormon thing.

[why me]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that one reason is because the Church's claim of authority is embedded in that history.  When that history, and particularly the role of prophets in that history, is thrown into doubt the authority of the church is also thrown into doubt.

I don't think that it is any different for catholics who see their church has being the true church dating back to Peter. And it seems that the history that came after peter with the various popes do not seem to matter. And likewise for lutherans. It all began with martin luther. And in history he certainly was not perfect. But it doe not seem to have an impact. And this goes for Knox and Calvin. And Wesley. It is a mormon thing and the critics hammer the history aspect into the mormon mindset because it works. But why it works, it a mystery especially when these people have stood at the lecturn and said over and over again that they have a testimony.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, why me said:

This could be true. Perhaps they didn't have sufficient knowledge. But why would they need sufficient knowledge anyway? How many catholics or lutherans or methodists have sufficient knowledge. And yet, it seems to me that most don't really care. They like their church, find goodness in it and maybe because of this, the history of their churches do not matter. Nor sufficient knowedge. It seems to be very much a mormon thing.

You can't paint with a broad brush and claim that those who leave the LDS Church have done so because they lack sufficient knowledge.  And, as Robert has done, claim that they need advanced theological degrees.

I responded several posts up regarding the LDS history issue:  Our prophetic claim to authority is derived from the past two centuries of church history.  That is why it becomes more important than other faiths.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, why me said:

I don't think that it is any different for catholics who see their church has being the true church dating back to Peter. And it seems that the history that came after peter with the various popes do not seem to matter. And likewise for lutherans. It all began with martin luther. And in history he certainly was not perfect. But it doe not seem to have an impact. And this goes for Knox and Calvin. And Wesley. It is a mormon thing and the critics hammer the history aspect into the mormon mindset because it works. But why it works, it a mystery especially when these people have stood at the lecturn and said over and over again that they have a testimony.

That's okay that you don't see it as different.  But it is.  There is a huge difference in having your authority based on a history that is 2000 years old verses one that is 200 years old and STILL impacting our theology today.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

One last thought. Other than the one quote from Alma, where he tries to explain to the as yet unconverted Zoramites what it will feel like if they succeed in conducting the experiment of planting the word of God in there hearts, are there other scriptural references you could let me know about that could help me understand where you're coming from. You don't have to include your thoughts on how those scriptures fit in to the post modern paradigm, chapter and verse will be enough. Just two or three verses will suffice in providing me with points to ponder, but if there are even more verses you could provide, that would be great. In addition, if there is a General Conference talk or two you could provide that more or less fits into the postmodern model, that would be even more appreciated. Thank you and all the best.

 

OK this may help a lot if you see it as I do.

Here Elder Bednar speaks about NOT "seeing things as they really are".   How are they really?  Things really are AS WE EXPERIENCE them in our bodies!  And do our bodies experience "things" differently?

You bet your bippy. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/06/things-as-they-really-are?lang=eng

What we are doing here are words on the internet.

What comes to us through words are the creations of men and are definitions of men.  Even scripture in that context is a definition of man- UNTIL WE EXPERIENCE that scripture "in our bodies".   Words are not "truth"- only direct experience is experience of "things as they are"

He speaks of someone who says that their body virtually disappeared while on the internet talking to an internet romance.

But extend that internet to all the distractions of the world.  Contrast the distractions of the world which we see "through a glass darkly"- as on the internet we see "through a glass darkly"- in a sense the entire world of what we have been told linguistically is "Through a glass darkly".  Language attempts to imitate the world and we think it does, but language cannot imitate the world.   The world does not correspond to language- LANGUAGE is attempting- poorly- to imitate "things as they are"- things as they are are things AS WE EXPERIENCE the world.   The real world is not found in language or descriptions- it is found by LIVING

Think of language as they same as the internet- images but not reality.  Language is literally virtual reality.  Language CANNOT "correspond to the world" because they are words on a page or screen.  Things as they are- are not squiggles on a page, or vibrations in the air as the spoken word is.  Words are paltry attempts to represent the world as it is.

And only sentences can be true or false.  

The problem with my enterprise is that i am trying to describe language by using language and that is inherently impossible.  It is like using the microscope to examine the microscope itself.   Somehow we have to get outside the microscope to examine the microscope microscopically, but here we cannot do that.

This video actually catches the postmodern insight perfectly- while watching it, think about scriptures.

Scriptures are words which do NOT describe "things as they are"- but they are an attempt to mirror the EXPERIENCE of standing before God and knowing "things as they are" which can only be understood by DIRECT EXPERIENCE.

So now think about this video- what is the video?  "Things as they are" are pipes in someone's mouth, blowing smoke obnoxiously or aromatically depending on your life experience.  You look at pipes differently I am sure than I do- I used to smoke one and I am pretty sure you did not.   So your direct experience of pipes I am sure is not at all like mine.

BUT starting with that different direct experience- perhaps you hating pipes and me loving them, and having given them up, you are seeing this video on a POST on the internet about language- using words to describe language, which is impossible, using a further abstraction- the computer allegedly representing the reality of a real discussion in which I could point to things and wave my arms and use voice inflections to make my point- to a video using language AND images and representations- to talk about "things as they really are"

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-1010/art-between-wars/surrealism1/v/magritte-the-treachery-of-images-ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe-1929

You want the video about the pipe- "Ceci Ne'pas une pipe"- there may be a slight problem with the link- you might have to move to the left to load the right one

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-1010/art-between-wars/surrealism1/v/magritte-the-treachery-of-images-ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe-1929

After you see the video think about the question "Is it true or false that God exists"?

Every 

Single

Word of that sentence requires at least a book.  What is truth?  What is God? What is existence?

Instead we write a few lines on a screen on the internet in language which is meaningless about the ineffable experience of God.

Good luck.

So now can you see things as I do- sort of?

Speaking about "truth" is SPEAKING about the veracity of any words or scriptures to an individual human being.  It is abstract layer upon abstract layer upon abstract layer all trying to describe YOUR unspeakable experience- not even of a pipe- but of the most majestic being one can imagine who everyone agrees words cannot adequately describe in the first place.

We then tie that ineffable concept to another word which cannot be defined "truth" and we then put those representations in words and put them on the internet watching the clock because we have to get to works/watch the kids/get to the temple/etc and then hit "submit reply" and in so doing answer the question of the ages.

2nd Good Luck.

And then we have Pogi having trouble with the word "objective".   Sigh.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It's in the interpretation, there are hundreds. I am collecting them now by re-reading the standard works. I will put together a list of a few. Give me some time

Off the top of my head, Pres Kimball, "absolute truth", John 1, the word, all things created by definitions, Gen 1God defines the days, through a glass Darkly but then face to face, Moroni 10:4,5, Jacob 4, only the spirit shows things as they are, James 1:5, ask God, Bednar  things as they are,, DC 93 spheres of truth.

All continuing Revelation scriptures show that truth is not fixed.

All scriptures which say that we only know things thru the spirit.

All scripturess that say that God creates from matter unorganized

All scriptures that say that God creates through intelligence

All these scriptures imply that reality is created in our minds and in the mind of God. And that God creates through his mind. We do the same as gods in embryo. God does it big scale we do it in our own little worlds. We are creating our own Little Worlds right here right now in this discussion.

Sorry this is a bad device for typing and correcting.  Dictating. More later

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.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[why me]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You can't paint with a broad brush and claim that those who leave the LDS Church have done so because they lack sufficient knowledge.  And, as Robert has done, claim that they need advanced theological degrees.

I responded several posts up regarding the LDS history issue:  Our prophetic claim to authority is derived from the past two centuries of church history.  That is why it becomes more important than other faiths.

But actually, it has much to do with catholic history too. Catholics claim that their church is the true church, dating back to peter and the promise that was made to him by jesus. But history seems to play very little in the average catholic's belief system. And how many catholics know much about their history? And for the lutherans, it all goes back to martin luther. But his history and the history of the lutheran church seems not to matter. In other words, imperfections in their history seem not to matter very much. And they are centuries of imperfections. But for mormons, it seems to matter. Is it because of two centuries? I just think that it has been drummed into the mormons that if something is just off the mark, testimony should be shot down.

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.

[Thinking]

11 minutes 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.

Argument From Ignorance