conference

[Traela]

38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonetheless, sometimes particular sermons stand out:  This morning, for example, I was deeply impressed with the pointed comments of Elder Renlund on bigotry.  He was gentle, but he didn't leave any place for the bigots to hide.  He really came into his own as one of the Brethren today.

Authentic Mormons don't engage in group think or sugarcoat everything.  Please don't confuse being kind and considerate with stupidity and painful boredom.  In that connection, today on the LDS World Report (just after the morning session) retired Senator Harry Reid was honored as the Mormon who has achieved the highest ever political position in the United States Gov't.  A well deserved honor for a man of integrity.

Reid has admitted to lying about Romney, and was completely unapologetic.  Your definition of integrity is obviously different than mine.

 

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Going as an outsider or even objective observer to General Conference, it is inherently manipulative: the entire social construct of the experience relies on the premise that the church is true. This is the case for a multitude of other promotional presentations.

Or it could be just seen as a chance to get to know each other better as when I attended my best friend's Catholic mass and she came to church with me.

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Going as an outsider or even objective observer to General Conference, it is inherently manipulative: the entire social construct of the experience relies on the premise that the church is true. This is the case for a multitude of other promotional presentations.

How is speaking from a specific perspective automatically manipulative?

 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

I think though there is a difference in going, feeling you have learned something more than what the flat earthers understand and going in with the idea that the flat earthers are going to try to manipulate you. 

It's inherently manipulative, even if in good faith.  Or in other words,  it's not intended to be one possible option of many to be objectively selected.

Even as a TBM mother I tried to mitigate some of the inherent manipulation of my children's opbringing by presenting baptism less as an inevivitable event and more as a personal choice. To be clear, though, it's not like I beat myself up over the inherent manipulation, either. I just did my best in the hope that truth would win.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How do you feel about your family?

Is your love for them based on objective evidence?  

Did you find your husband through objective evidence?  Have you ever made ONE IMPORTANT decision- where to live, this house over that house, that school over this one, where to move, when to move, to figure out what was right or wrong or important or not important through objective evidence?

The church is not supposed to be "objectively true"- there might have been no Adam and Eve, there might be no Kolob or the Book of Abraham might have come out of thin air.

Humans are faulty, period, end of story

But should you consider your self as Eve figuratively?   Have you fallen from innocence and desire a road back to solve that problem?

Do you desire peace in your life?  Where is your evidence that peace is "good"?

So you believe that the whole human family is ONE family with one "Father" even if that is figurative?

Do you believe we should be kind to each other- where is the objective evidence for that?  Do you feel it is wrong to kill millions in concentration camps?   Where is your objective evidence?

These questions are nothing like flat earth questions - they are not about science - they are about what is IMPORTANT in your life.

If you feel deep in your heart that you have made the right decision then fine, but do not make those IMPORTANT decisions based on "evidence" as if it is based on "flat earth" thinking- base them correctly on the FEELINGS of your heart.

Knowing that is more important than anything.  Follow your "gut" in these matters- NEVER objective evidence where none exists.

Actually my love-in-action is based on objective evidence. I'm my husband's wife and my childrens' mother, the only they have. They need me. I am capable of feeling loving feelings for probably anyone, but my relationship with my immediate family is unique of all other relationships with all humanity, or any entities.

Marrying my husband, specifically him, was about shared values and the fact that we both wanted it. Lots of other people in the world were attractive to both of us, but out of all the rest we were mutually attracted. But that did not determine our relationship and would have been inadequate motivation for either of us. He observed that I chose him and I observed that he chose me, we both knew that we each chose common values. Objectivity did indeed make the difference although not a exclusively.

Regarding the church, the founding truth claims are indeed supposed to be objectively true.

Objectively, we should be kind. The reason is in the word: treat others "in kind" as we would want to be treated. It is an efficient way to contribute to a collective mindset where the welfare of individuals is considered an element of the welfare of everyone.

The questions are indeed like the flat earth ones as long as we superimpose them accordingly. What is logical? What is efficient? What is sensical and self-perpetuating to boot? Kindness and love generated in our nearest circles of influence and reaching outward makes sense and is important to those individuals in the nearest circles.

And btw, there is a difference between deciding in the absence of objective evidence, and deciding because of or despite objective evidence. Gor me, none of the thread's subject at hand is about depending on gut feelings in the absence of objective evidence.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

If you are going to deep clean during Saturdays Sessions...you are more than welcome to watch conference at my place!!

I am actually behind. Had a headache this morning and just listened to first session in bed.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Traela said:

Reid has admitted to lying about Romney, and was completely unapologetic.  Your definition of integrity is obviously different than mine.

In a time of fake facts and fake news, anyone can claim anything -- particularly for partisan reasons -- and many will believe it.  This board is no place for that sort of political folderol.  I'd rather listen to Victoria Osteen hold forth on more important issues: 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I've always listened to conference, I listen more intently now with my faith transition. I admit I do want to listen more just to see if they address the problems in the church. This morning I started listening but it was just more of the same. But will maybe listen on the internet later to see if it's any better and I'm not so negative. But do want to listen even more than I did before, before it was a feeling that I better do it because I'm told to, now I listen for other reasons.

I have never felt that the Brethren were giving orders, or that I was required to do anything at all.  Only through time did I come to internalize the principles of the Gospel, eventually wishing to obey the Gospel of my own accord.  Mormon sermons are remarkably lacking in imperatives.  At lot of stories and object-lessons, yes, but never the kind of orders I used to get in the Marine Corps.

Not every General Conference address speaks to me and my own condition, but some certainly do, and once in a while I find the Brethren saying something new and unexpected.  It wasn't only Elder Renlund on the evils of bigotry this morning, but a couple of amazing items in the World Report (which followed the morning session):  One was implementation of  https://mormonandgay.lds.org/ .  Another was the announcement of BYU Pathway Worldwide  https://pathway.lds.org/Main/DegreeOptions .  Both programs are revolutionary and ought to help a lot of people.

Getting a true picture of what the Mormons are up to now requires that one pay attention for more than just a few minutes.  The same applies to any research project.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I love to watch great preachers, such as Billy Graham (his old sermons still available on Youtube), or Joel and Victoria Osteen (Lakewood Church in Houston).  They are every bit as "manipulative" as any LDS speaker, and perhaps moreso, but I don't take umbrage -- instead appreciating that they are true believers in their specific tradition.  I always feel that I can learn something from them, as from many other religious traditions, Christian and non-Christian.

But are you are former member of any of their congregations, being familiar with the nuances and implications often overlooked by outsiders? Are you still recovering from a failed member-church relationship with any of them? Probably not.

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree.

Can I ask though, in a spirit of understanding, how you reconcile this idea-that mutual respect for convictions is an act of charity and is the best response to disagreement-with your earlier post where you called people's sacred sincere conviction of conscience "manipulative material"?

 

I don't see the need for reconciliation. It is what it is...I think that even TBMs can see that general conference is intended to be "faith-promoting." And by the way, the presentation is just that, it's not any one person's sacred conviction. 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Actually my love-in-action is based on objective evidence. I'm my husband's wife and my childrens' mother, the only they have. They need me. I am capable of feeling loving feelings for probably anyone, but my relationship with my immediate family is unique of all other relationships with all humanity, or any entities.

Marrying my husband, specifically him, was about shared values and the fact that we both wanted it. Lots of other people in the world were attractive to both of us, but out of all the rest we were mutually attracted. But that did not determine our relationship and would have been inadequate motivation for either of us. He observed that I chose him and I observed that he chose me, we both knew that we each chose common values. Objectivity did indeed make the difference although not a exclusively.

Regarding the church, the founding truth claims are indeed supposed to be objectively true.

Objectively, we should be kind. The reason is in the word: treat others "in kind" as we would want to be treated. It is an efficient way to contribute to a collective mindset where the welfare of individuals is considered an element of the welfare of everyone.

They are indeed like the flat earth as long as we superimpose them accordingly. What is logical? What is efficient? What is sensical and self-perpetuating to boot? Kindness and love generated in our nearest circles of influence and teaching outward makes sense and is important to those individuals in the nearest circles.

And btw, there is a difference between deciding in the absence of objective evidence, and deciding because of or despite objective evidence. Gor me, none of the thread's subject at hand is about depending on gut feelings in the absence of objective evidence.

Well no philosopher would agree with your definition of "objective evidence" as scientific experimental evidence, nor are gospel principles based on objective evidence.

There is no objective evidence that the man crucified in Jerusalem is the savior- IF there was such a man as the gospel stories tell.  There is no objective evidence that any of what Joseph alleges happened to him happened, there is no objective evidence that events in the bible- if if it could be shown they "actually happened" have any spiritual significance whatsoever

Many atheists understand the non-objective of "emotions" to use your terminology and that religion it self is based on emotion and find that to be a good thing.  Rorty believes that the unification of humanity is a "religious" goal of sorts, some think that "save the whales" is a good goal or that we "should" work toward saving species etc- yet there is no objective evidence that anyone "should" do ANYTHING.  There is no objective evidence that murder is wrong or that people should not be tortured just for fun.   No evidence of that whatsoever.  In fact some might say that since it brings some pleasure, torture is a good thing.

Logically that is just as rational as thinking that love and kindness is a good thing because it brings us pleasure.  So objectively why should we not rape and torture?  Where is the evidence?   Science is cold and impartial and by design, has no values.  Objectivity has no values.  Science is thought to be about "what is".  If the earth is destroyed by a comet tomorrow, the universe, they say, would not care.

"Love-in action" is not based on science or anything objective.  There is no "objective" love which can be confirmed between people.   Perhaps hormones surge, showing emotion- but there is no value in emotion- remember?   "Mutual attraction" is not based on science and is an emotional reaction which is non-evidential.  Just more useless emotion.  Computers do not fall in love yet are perfectly objective in all matters.

I agree that co-operation in society is efficient.  That is why it evolved, some might say.  Fine.  But is "efficiency" good?  Probably the most efficient way to run society is to kill off the inferiors who are a drain on society.  Forget compassion and caring for the sick- that is a waste of resources.  It is far more efficient to let them die.  They are non-productive.

Children for efficency's sake should be reared together in collectives- let the inferiors die.  Love is simply a drag on efficiency.  Take the sperm from the most fit males, the eggs from the most fit women and produce children.

But wait a minute- that is favoring humans.  Some think we are parasites on the planet and where is the objective evidence that humans are not parasites on the planet?

But wait- who is to say that parasites on the planet are not a "good" thing?  Where is the objective evidence that parasites are bad?  Where is the evidence that efficiency itself is good?

All that is based on emotion!!

Listen, on a personal level, you know that I have tender feelings for your situation- yes based on emotions which I treasure.   I am sorry you have had to go through all you have gone through.  It is clear that the church made huge mistakes in your case, and quite honestly if I were in your positions I would be tempted to take the action you are taking.   I understand and wish you well no matter what course you take.

But I have had 40 years of philosophical training which teaches me that I am not a "flat-earther" when it comes to these issues philosophically and I have an enormously difficult time discussing these issues of spirituality and emotionality in religion with those who I see as less philosophically sophisticated who hold these views.  These views you are putting forth are extremely common among your garden-variety atheist- these views are called "logical positivism" and as a philosophy these views are dead. They are only held by those who are philosophically naive.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

The last thing I want to do is make this a personal attack.   I am only commenting in fact because I do not want you to influence others or allow others to think there is no alternative views to those you are putting forth which do not make believers into "flat earthers".

In fact I would find that attribution insulting were I not considering the level of understanding of those who might believe that.

So on a personal level, I wish you absolutely the best in life, and I cannot show you that you are wrong from your point of view

But if you start telling my tribe that they are flat-earthers when you do not know what you are talking about, I WILL come after you!!  

All my best and I am SO sorry for what happened to you- it has no possible justification.

 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Or it could be just seen as a chance to get to know each other better as when I attended my best friend's Catholic mass and she came to church with me.

How long did the mass last? And are you an ex-Catholic?

It's not as if a person's entire past erases if they leave the church. Former Mormons never completely un-Mormon...all the conditioned responses can still leave a trace. My husband grew up Catholic, me Mormon; I was quite touched at the recent funeral of my Catholic neighbor, while my husband has quite a different experience visiting Catholic churches.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

But are you are former member of any of their congregations, being familiar with the nuances and implications often overlooked by outsiders? Are you still recovering from a failed member-church relationship with any of them? Probably not.

No, but general religion is a lifelong specialty which I have studied for over 50 years, and have come to love all religions.  I can still recall one of my many teachers (Swami Chetanananda in St Louis) telling me that it isn't so important which religion one adopts, but it is important that one plunge into it without holding back.  He also said that a religion is a path, not a home.  His sermons are available on Youtube:  

 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have never felt that the Brethren were giving orders, or that I was required to do anything at all.  Only through time did I come to internalize the principles of the Gospel, eventually wishing to obey the Gospel of my own accord.  Mormon sermons are remarkably lacking in imperatives.  At lot of stories and object-lessons, yes, but never the kind of orders I used to get in the Marine Corps.

Not every General Conference address speaks to me and my own condition, but some certainly do, and once in a while I find the Brethren saying something new and unexpected.  It wasn't only Elder Renlund on the evils of bigotry this morning, but a couple of amazing items in the World Report (which followed the morning session):  One was implementation of  https://mormonandgay.lds.org/ .  Another was the announcement of BYU Pathway Worldwide  https://pathway.lds.org/Main/DegreeOptions .  Both programs are revolutionary and ought to help a lot of people.

Getting a true picture of what the Mormons are up to now requires that one pay attention for more than just a few minutes.  The same applies to any research project.

I'll tell you I listen to every word so far and was personally tremendously enriched

There were two talks about spirituality and language and the limited nature of language in communicating the spirit.

I learned more about personal repentance and the fruits of the spirit and how repentance makes the spirit stronger in our lives.   Yes I have heard it all before but it hit me with a strength I was not expecting, frankly.

Here I am the most skeptical person in the world- I do not believe there even is such thing as a "truth claim" and that the word "truth" = "I agree" nothing more- and yet my direct experiences of the truth of this path in my life grow stronger every day.

It is about spiritual commitment to me, not about words.  And commitment comes through the spirit and guess what?  Commitment is an emotion.

Emotion is what changes your life and commitment gives you something to live for.  Those who think it is possible for a human to be "objective" are simply kidding themselves.  Hume was right.

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How long did the mass last? And are you an ex-Catholic?

It's not as if a person's entire past erases if they leave the church. Former Mormons never completely un-Mormon...all the conditioned responses can still leave a trace. My husband grew up Catholic, me Mormon; I was quite touched at the recent funeral of my Catholic neighbor, while my husband has quite a different experience visiting Catholic churches.

For what it's worth I am a former Catholic and though I could not bring myself to believe the philosophy behind their theology, I still treasure their attitude and their pure devotion.

I find LDS theology much stronger philosophically at least for my philosophy, but if I did not, I could be Catholic again tomorrow.

In the heart, I think there is not much difference frankly- I just like LDS theistic humanism and materialism more, and seeing lingusitic construcivism in the theology.  But I treasure going to mass.  It ain't the temple, but I can see how it could be for some.  Latin masses are even better for me- that is some old stuff even if the philosophy doesn't do it for me, I appreciate it like I appreciate music, as a cultural phenomenon.  The Latin chanted Credo is simply fabulous.

I am a former lots of other stuff too.  I see these all as stops along my life-path, all of which were valuable in my becoming who I am 

Slowly I think I am getting somewhere.

"Et homo factus est"

Still makes me want to genuflect.

Edited April 1, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I'll tell you I listen to every word so far and was personally tremendously enriched

There were two talks about spirituality and language and the limited nature of language in communicating the spirit.

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

It is about spiritual commitment to me, not about words.  And commitment comes through the spirit and guess what?  Commitment is an emotion.

Emotion is what changes your life and commitment gives you something to live for.  Those who think it is possible for a human to be "objective" are simply kidding themselves.  Hume was right.

Yes, you are right, Mark.  I realized that again recently on a ward temple night.  For some reason, I gained insights during the endowment that I hadn't noted before, and it surprised me.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well no philosopher would agree with your definition of "objective evidence" as scientific experimental evidence, nor are gospel principles based on objective evidence.

There is no objective evidence that the man crucified in Jerusalem is the savior- IF there was such a man as the gospel stories tell.  There is no objective evidence that any of what Joseph alleges happened to him happened, there is no objective evidence that events in the bible- if if it could be shown they "actually happened" have any spiritual significance whatsoever

Many atheists understand the non-objective of "emotions" to use your terminology and that religion it self is based on emotion and find that to be a good thing.  Rorty believes that the unification of humanity is a "religious" goal of sorts, some think that "save the whales" is a good goal or that we "should" work toward saving species etc- yet there is no objective evidence that anyone "should" do ANYTHING.  There is no objective evidence that murder is wrong or that people should not be tortured just for fun.   No evidence of that whatsoever.  In fact some might say that since it brings some pleasure, torture is a good thing.

Logically that is just as rational as thinking that love and kindness is a good thing because it brings us pleasure.  So objectively why should we not rape and torture?  Where is the evidence?   Science is cold and impartial and by design, has no values.  Objectivity has no values.  Science is thought to be about "what is".  If the earth is destroyed by a comet tomorrow, the universe, they say, would not care.

"Love-in action" is not based on science or anything objective.  There is no "objective" love which can be confirmed between people.   Perhaps hormones surge, showing emotion- but there is no value in emotion- remember?   "Mutual attraction" is not based on science and is an emotional reaction which is non-evidential.  Just more useless emotion.  Computers do not fall in love yet are perfectly objective in all matters.

I agree that co-operation in society is efficient.  That is why it evolved, some might say.  Fine.  But is "efficiency" good?  Probably the most efficient way to run society is to kill off the inferiors who are a drain on society.  Forget compassion and caring for the sick- that is a waste of resources.  It is far more efficient to let them die.  They are non-productive.

Children for efficency's sake should be reared together in collectives- let the inferiors die.  Love is simply a drag on efficiency.  Take the sperm from the most fit males, the eggs from the most fit women and produce children.

But wait a minute- that is favoring humans.  Some think we are parasites on the planet and where is the objective evidence that humans are not parasites on the planet?

But wait- who is to say that parasites on the planet are not a "good" thing?  Where is the objective evidence that parasites are bad?  Where is the evidence that efficiency itself is good?

All that is based on emotion!!

Listen, on a personal level, you know that I have tender feelings for your situation- yes based on emotions which I treasure.   I am sorry you have had to go through all you have gone through.  It is clear that the church made huge mistakes in your case, and quite honestly if I were in your positions I would be tempted to take the action you are taking.   I understand and wish you well no matter what course you take.

But I have had 40 years of philosophical training which teaches me that I am not a "flat-earther" when it comes to these issues philosophically and I have an enormously difficult time discussing these issues of spirituality and emotionality in religion with those who I see as less philosophically sophisticated who hold these views.  These views you are putting forth are extremely common among your garden-variety atheist- these views are called "logical positivism" and as a philosophy these views are dead. They are only held by those who are philosophically naive.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

The last thing I want to do is make this a personal attack.   I am only commenting in fact because I do not want you to influence others or allow others to think there is no alternative views to those you are putting forth which do not make believers into "flat earthers".

In fact I would find that attribution insulting were I not considering the level of understanding of those who might believe that.

So on a personal level, I wish you absolutely the best in life, and I cannot show you that you are wrong from your point of view

But if you start telling my tribe that they are flat-earthers when you do not know what you are talking about, I WILL come after you!!  

All my best and I am SO sorry for what happened to you- it has no possible justification.

 

 

 

I'll make this short for now with the possibility of coming back to it later: Love in action is working toward the well-being of others. I define it objectively.

Aside from that, we're not talking about YOUR tribe, were talking about OUR tribe. And I was trying to help Bluebell understand my position in terms we could both understand. I grant that she may compare my position to that of flat-Earthers, too.

And I do agree that we cannot objectively prove that Christ is the Savior or that Joseph saw God, but hypothetically, counterevidence could exist. 

And finally, I did not come to this position merely because a bad thing happened to me, I came to it specifically because of what I learned when a bad thing happened to me:

As you know, when the stake president apologised, for me that went a long way towards healing from this specific human conflict. It was the lesson I learned about human nature that undermined my faith in Joseph's claims. It was the pain I felt that created enough emotional detachment to view the counterevidence objectively. 

Anyways, all of that affects how conference comes across to me, it's nothing like it would be if I'd never been a Mormon at all.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't see the need for reconciliation. It is what it is...I think that even TBMs can see that general conference is intended to be "faith-promoting." And by the way, the presentation is just that, it's not any one person's sacred conviction. 

That's not accurate though.  Each speaker bears their own personal testimony and speaks about what they sincerely believe God wants them to teach and testify of.  Each talk is that person's 'sacred conviction.'

But besides that, there is a difference between faith promoting and manipulative.  Why, when you have spoken about the need to be charitable, did you choose to use the word with the most negative connotation?

The definition of manipulate is to "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously."  Describing an event comprised of people's sacred convictions using a word with that definition is not at all charitable.  Which means that your beliefs and your actions have contradicted each other in this thread.  

If you don't feel you need to reconcile that contradiction, then that's fine.

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No, but general religion is a lifelong specialty which I have studied for over 50 years, and have come to love all religions.  I can still recall one of my many teachers (Swami Chetanananda in St Louis) telling me that it isn't so important which religion one adopts, but it is important that one plunge into it without holding back.  He also said that a religion is a path, not a home.  His sermons are available on Youtube:  

 

I recently had an experience when my mother passed away, and she had a Catholic funeral.

Knowing I was a Mormon bishop at the time, he broke all the rules and actually allowed me to read scripture (from the Catholic translations of course) AND say a few words in a short sermon-  I was surprised beyond belief.   I kept it very general and ecumenical of course touching on the plan of salvation that we are all children of God and want to return to Him.

But what he said surprised me- he said "What?  Well you believe in Christ, right?  It's all the same" and he waved his hand.

IF we listen to "our emotions" (ie the spirit) I think God leads us where we need to be to grow closer to Him.

But unfortunately I think that listening to the spirit part is what people tend to forget, in seeking to be "objective".  Objectivity leads absolutely no where simply because it IS objective. Objectivity has no meaning- no importance to anything, no value weighting on anything.  THAT is the great fallacy of our time.  The Didache's "Way of Life" and "Way of Death" have no meaning.

But I have noticed that even the most militant, atheistic positivist suddenly becomes very non-objective when it comes to how long they want to live.

When confronted with - "Do we do the heart surgery or do we let you die" they all become prejudiced toward life and suddenly forget all about being objective

Suddenly even the atheist gets values and puts his neck ahead of objectivity.

[Meadowchik]

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No, but general religion is a lifelong specialty which I have studied for over 50 years, and have come to love all religions.  I can still recall one of my many teachers (Swami Chetanananda in St Louis) telling me that it isn't so important which religion one adopts, but it is important that one plunge into it without holding back.  He also said that a religion is a path, not a home.  His sermons are available on Youtube:  

 

And none of that is like my path, where I found it essential to disavow my life-long religion in order to continue my quest and devotion to God.

[mrmarklin]

3 hours ago, Traela said:

Reid has admitted to lying about Romney, and was completely unapologetic.  Your definition of integrity is obviously different than mine.

 

I didn't want to get political, but Reid was the worst leader of the senate in my living memory. No integrity at all. 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'll make this short for now with the possibility of coming back to it later: Love in action is working toward the well-being of others. I define it objectively.

Aside from that, we're not talking about YOUR tribe, were talking about OUR tribe. And I was trying to help Bluebell understand my position in terms we could both understand. I grant that she may compare my position to that of flat-Earthers, too.

And I do agree that we cannot objectively prove that Christ is the Savior or that Joseph saw God, but hypothetically, counterevidence could exist. 

And finally, I did not come to this position merely because a bad thing happened to me, I came to it specifically because of what I learned when a bad thing happened to me:

As you know, when the stake president apologised, for me that went a long way towards healing from this specific human conflict. It was the lesson I learned about human nature that undermined my faith in Joseph's claims. It was the pain I felt that created enough emotional detachment to view the counterevidence objectively. 

Anyways, all of that affects how conference comes across to me, it's nothing like it would be if I'd never been a Mormon at all.

Well the way YOU define anything makes it automatically YOUR definition and therefore not "objective".  So welcome to the club of all humanity.  Objectivity is an illusion- THAT is the point of all this.  Hypothetically counter-evidence cannot exist because there never WAS any evidence for anything Joseph believed in the first place. other than his birth date and where he lived.  There is no objective evidence for ANY philosophy- even the scientific method itself.  The scientific method works pragmatically and its first assumption is that it "Should" work pragmatically.   There is no scientific evidence that the simplest explanation for anything is the "best" evidence.  In science simple explanations are most often totally wrong- what works can be very complicated.

And I see you defending YOUR position- which is not objective.

So I see you making my point for me.  But that is fine- that is called "being human" which means that we are all not "objective"

I am just saying that there is no philosophical basis for seeing ANY religious statement as BEING "objective" and if you had known that from the beginning you would not be disillusioned.

I know a famous ex-Mormon philosopher who said "I was never illusioned, so I was never disillusioned".  If you had never accepted that religion has anything to do with objectivity you would not be disillusioned, and that is still your philosophical problem

But you have found your solution- treasure that and go with it, but do not go with it because it is "objective"- go with it because it works for you now and may change later.

Go with it because it is the best path for you now- not objectively, but because even the illusion of "objectivity" might be the best solution you can take at the moment.

Seeing "objectivity" as the "best" answer is itself a religious position even if you do not see that now.  But in real "objectivity" there IS no "BEST".

So honestly I wish you the best, and I will quit bugging you.   I have said probably more than was needed, but that is what I do.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And none of that is like my path, where I found it essential to disavow my life-long religion in order to continue my quest and devotion to God.

THERE you go!

THAT is what it is about!  Good for you in seeing it that way!

NOW I will shut up and quit lying about shutting up!

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's not accurate though.  Each speaker bears their own personal testimony and speaks about what they sincerely believe God wants them to teach and testify of.  Each talk is that person's 'sacred conviction.'

But besides that, there is a difference between faith promoting and manipulative.  Why, when you have spoken about the need to be charitable, did you choose to use the word with the most negative connotation?

The definition of manipulate is to "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously."  Describing an event comprised of people's sacred convictions using a word with that definition is not at all charitable.  Which means that your beliefs and your actions have contradicted each other in this thread.  

If you don't feel you need to reconcile that contradiction, then that's fine.

It fits the presentation, which is what I was referring to. I was not referring to peoples' individual convictions.

I do not think I contradicted myself but I understand if you found it hurtful and I am sorry I was hurtful.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well the way YOU define anything makes it automatically YOUR definition and therefore not "objective".  So welcome to the club of all humanity.  Objectivity is an illusion- THAT is the point of all this.  Hypothetically counter-evidence cannot exist because there never WAS any evidence for anything Joseph believed in the first place. other than his birth date and where he lived.  There is no objective evidence for ANY philosophy- even the scientific method itself.  The scientific method works pragmatically and its first assumption is that it "Should" work pragmatically.   There is no scientific evidence that the simplest explanation for anything is the "best" evidence.  In science simple explanations are most often totally wrong- what works can be very complicated.

And I see you defending YOUR position- which is not objective.

So I see you making my point for me.  But that is fine- that is called "being human" which means that we are all not "objective"

I am just saying that there is no philosophical basis for seeing ANY religious statement as BEING "objective" and if you had known that from the beginning you would not be disillusioned.

I know a famous ex-Mormon philosopher who said "I was never illusioned, so I was never disillusioned".  If you had never accepted that religion has anything to do with objectivity you would not be disillusioned, and that is still your philosophical problem

But you have found your solution- treasure that and go with it, but do not go with it because it is "objective"- go with it because it works for you now and may change later.

Go with it because it is the best path for you now- not objectively, but because even the illusion of "objectivity" might be the best solution you can take at the moment.

Seeing "objectivity" as the "best" answer is itself a religious position even if you do not see that now.  But in real "objectivity" there IS no "BEST".

So honestly I wish you the best, and I will quit bugging you.   I have said probably more than was needed, but that is what I do.

Mark, even if objectivity is in essence impossible, there are relatively objective processes and relatively subjective processes in comparison. That I use inches instead of centimeters can be subjective but the process of measuring with a deliberate level of consistency is an example of objectivity.

I reject the nihilizing of objectivity. Even if my whole life could be a dream, I will live as if it isn't, and even if freewill could be an illusion, I will choose as if choosing matters. And within those subjective paradigms of mine, I will endeavor to approach objectivity. 

And so we can dispense with the semantics and get back to what is already understood

Thanks for the well wishes!