Thoughts on Thoughts on NMS Poll Results

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

Isn't doubt introduced by a failure to provide good answers to the questioner's questions?  It seems that the onus should lie with the one providing the answers and not with the questioner solely, or perhaps each should be on an equal footing to say the least. 

Doubt in my experience (speaking in general and not just religious terms) is a much a result of not looking for answers as not being able to find them. Many just assume they don't need to know more before making judgment on what they already know.  I have seen many parents, for example, doubt the school system's ability to teach without first looking into what was available beyond a knowledge arrived at by depending on their kids to inform them.

[Exiled]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I thought as much, since that "quote" was as phony as a three-dollar bill.  People often hear what they want/expect to hear.  Sometimes it helps to listen more carefully.

Such scatter-gun claims (and goal post changing) demand another thread, although we have had many of those on this board in the past.  Instead of deflecting (as you do here), however, I always recommend that people first inform themselves, and then comment.  There is, for example, plenty of evidence for Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites in Mesoamerica.  You might want to consult Brant Gardner, The Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015).  Gardner is a professional anthropologist specializing in ethnohistory, and does a pretty good job covering the main issues.

As to DNA,. a succinct and accurate scientific statement is available at https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng (2014 LDS Gospel Topics Essay on DNA).  Gardner also deals with the DNA issue on pp. 170-175 of his book.  I would simply add that, although those summaries of the evidence are correct, I would like to see a comparison made with ancient DNA (aDNA from skeletal remains from appropriate periods in Mesoamerica).

Maybe we can respectfully disagree with each other? Even so, obviously you don't see things my way so one should question your thought process and should recommend a lengthy reading list for you until such time as when you come to your senses ....

As for Brant Gardner, I read some of his stuff a while ago. Doesn't he assume historicity and then looks for parallels and possibilities in the data? I think Dr. Coe disagrees with him and he seemed to be absent when Dr. Hamblin was debating Dr. Jenkins. I think Dr. Jenkins would have loved to receive some evidence from anyone as that was his question.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I am not trying to pick a fight here. 

You're kinda coming across that way. 

Quote

My point with the JW's is along the lines of what John Loftus, a former pastor turned atheist, who put forth what he called an outsider test of faith where one goes outside and tries to look at religion as one looks at other religions other than their own. 

I don't think that works in the LDS paradigm.  The I-can-competently-gauge-the-merits-of-Mormonism-by-remaining-on-the-outside-and-looking-in approach has some fairly profound problems with it, not the least of which is the seeming unwillingness/inability to apply Alma 32 and Moroni's Promise (seed of faith and all that).

Without my experiences with the Spirit, I would not be a Mormon.  That is the "test of faith."  I'm not sure how much an "outsider" can take that test.

Quote

As far as the one single sentence in an essay, I have problems with almost all of the essays and how they attempt to explain the issues. 

I'd hope you could do better than that.  The essays are, in my estimation, excellent summaries of the Church's position on various controversial and difficult-to-understand doctrines, practices, events, etc.  They are not intended to be exhaustive, and instead are a starting point from which further research and study can proceed.

They are also quite valuable because they have been authorized and approved by the First Presidency, such that they are "authoritative" statements about the Church's position on these issues.

I can appreciate that you might have some reservations/problems with the essays.  But merely saying so doesn't do much.  What problems?  Which essays?  Let's get down to brass tacks.

Quote

Maybe saying that the church doesn't provide answers is the wrong way to explain how I feel?  Maybe the better way is to say that I don't agree with the answers given and these answers do not satisfy my questions, only generate more.

I don't know what you mean here.  Perhaps you could provide an example.  

Quote

As far as blame goes,

Again with the fixation on "blame."  It's . . . odd.

The Mormons claim to be a community of faith.  We claim to be led by prophets and apostles, good and decent - but still flawed and finite - men who have received light and knowledge about saving truths and ordinances.  We do not have all light and knowledge in existence.  Such things will come line upon line, precept upon precept.  Over time.  But we claim to have answers to the Big Questions, and so proceed on that basis.  This process involves refining and improving our understanding and application of revealed truths, which can involve filtering out misunderstood or misapplied concepts and practices, while remaining true to core eternal truths and principles despite worldly pressures and calumnies.

Allocating "blame" is not really a significant component of this process.  You seem eager to find fault.  Accuse.  Blame.  I think it is better to work to improve our community.  To lift where we stand.  To forgive.  To learn from our mistakes.  To sustain our leaders and help them in their efforts.  "Blame" doesn't really figure into any of this.

Quote

if the questioner is being held responsible for study

There is no "if."  The questioner undoubtedly has an obligation to study the Restored Gospel.

Quote

and isn't satisfied with what the questioner finds,

That's an interesting circumstance.  I think much of the time "questioners" who express dissatisfaction with the Church's teachings have some pretty substantial gaps and/or flaws in their understanding, or else a fundamental "kick against the pricks" difference of opinion about what God has revealed as right and wrong (whether God allows/endorses or prohibits/condemns homosexual behavior being a good example).

Quote

is the questioner blamed for not reaching your point of view?  Could the church ever be blamed in this exercise? Or is it something else other than blame entirely?  Is it fair to assign fault in this exercise or is no one at fault?

Again with the "blame" thing.  Is there a way to get past this?

I don't "blame" people who do not agree with me.  I will instead seek to enter into a civil and substantive discussion.  My tone and tenor may vary depending on the person's demonstrated good faith and decorum and civility and respect for my beliefs.  I will have discussions with such persons.  I will debate with such persons.  I will disagree with such persons (hopefully civilly).  But blame them?  I hope not.  That veers too close to judgment.  I don't want to judge.  I want to invite others to examine what I believe and why.  I will (hopefully) not blame or judge or condemn them if they choose to not accept those things.  Instead, I would hope to be able to allow reasonable minds to disagree about such things.  That is where I try to leave such things (rather than "blame" or "assign fault").

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

The source is friends and family pirating what they interpret leaders as saying.  How do you respond to the allegations that there isn't any evidence of nephites or lamanites in the americas?  Isn't the common response that we will find it in the future sometime or to go into questions about what even constitutes "evidence"?  Their DNA seems to have disappeared.  Isn't the response to that question that dna science will vindicate joseph smith someday in the future? 

Hmm.  Have you given this topic any substantive study?  Have you ready anything written by Latter-day Saints about it?  The Gospel Topics Essay?  Any of the articles published by FAIR?  FARMS?  Jeff Lindsay?  Mormon Interpreter?  William Hamblin?  Daniel Peterson?  Matthew Roper?  John Butler?  Ugo Perego?  

Do you have any idea how many times these "questions" have been substantively addressed?  If you are not aware, why are you asking these questions rather than going and doing some study and research?  And if you are aware, why are you not addressing the substantial material available and responsive to these "questions?"

To be candid, your "questions"come across as uninformed accusations.  I say this not to insult, but to explain why I don't think your questions are meritorious.  It sounds like you haven't even tried to study this topic or engage the substantive scholarship and analysis about it which is readily available from a variety of sources.  

To answer your first "question" ("How do you respond to the allegations that there isn't any evidence of nephites or lamanites in the americas?"), the short answer is . . . I don't respond to such allegations.  They come across as ignorant/uninformed accusations, not good faith inquiries about the substantive topic.  I would instead invite such a questioner to go study a bit and then come back with are more informed (and sincere, and probably more specific) set of inquiries.

Thanks,

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that we ought not to get exercised over doubt, but rather to respect it and deal with it forthrightly -- whether  in ourselves or in others. 

Recognizing a clear distinction reasonably drawn between questioning and doubt is not getting exercised over doubt.

I have endorsed Elder Oaks's comments; I stand by that endorsement.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Recognizing a clear distinction reasonably drawn between questioning and doubt is not getting exercised over doubt.

I have endorsed Elder Oaks's comments; I stand by that endorsement.

Perhaps you are thinking that doubt becomes an end in itself, which is absurd -- doubt can be part of a dynamic process.  Elder Oaks is certainly entitled to his opinion, but so are other members of the Twelve who don't quite share his semantic views on "doubt" and its implications:

For example, Elder Holland has said that "When doubt or difficulty come, do not be afraid to ask for help." (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng ) Given human frailty, it is  no surprise that doubts arise, and one needs to face them squarely, not pretend that they don't exist.  Otherwise, where would Doubting Thomas have had to go?  If the Savior had condemned doubt, why would Thomas even bother to show up?

In his March 2006 PBS interview, Elder Holland admitted that "there are lapsed Latter-day Saints," but also said:

Quote

. . . we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.  http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html .

So too for Elder Russell Ballard, who said just last year that

Quote

For some, Christ’s invitation to believe and remain continues to be hard—or difficult to accept. Some disciples struggle to understand a specific Church policy or teaching. Others find concerns in our history or in the imperfections of some members and leaders, past and present. Still others find it difficult to live a religion that requires so much. Finally, some have become “weary in well-doing.” For these and other reasons, some Church members vacillate in their faith, wondering if perhaps they should follow those who “went back, and walked no more” with Jesus.  Ensign, Nov 2016, pp. 90-92,

Thus, Elder Ronald Rasband spoke of a friend of his who "had been struggling. He felt he was experiencing a 'crisis of faith' and sought my counsel.  He expressed a great longing for what he had once felt spiritually and what he now thought he was losing."  Ensign, Nov 2016, pp. 113-115.

If we are not open to doubts, then those who have them will not be open to us.  Doubts are not sins, and they should not be condemned.  Properly dealt with, doubts can be a first step to stronger faith.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

Maybe we can respectfully disagree with each other? Even so, obviously you don't see things my way so one should question your thought process and should recommend a lengthy reading list for you until such time as when you come to your senses ....

As for Brant Gardner, I read some of his stuff a while ago. Doesn't he assume historicity and then looks for parallels and possibilities in the data? I think Dr. Coe disagrees with him and he seemed to be absent when Dr. Hamblin was debating Dr. Jenkins. I think Dr. Jenkins would have loved to receive some evidence from anyone as that was his question.

I have no problem at all with Mike Coe's actual scholarly production.  His problem is that he never applies what he knows (and has written about in great detail) to the Book of Mormon.  Jenkins' problem was that he was engaged in debate rather than in reading the actual sources.  If winning a debate is one's only objective, then we all need to adjourn to moot court or a college debating society, rather than engage in scientific inquiry.  A zero sum game is not very dynamic or meaningful.

I summarize my own views on Book of Mormon evidence in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you are thinking that doubt becomes an end in itself, which is absurd -- doubt can be part of a dynamic process.  Elder Oaks is certainly entitled to his opinion, but so are other members of the Twelve who don't quite share his semantic views on "doubt" and its implications:

For example, Elder Holland has said that "When doubt or difficulty come, do not be afraid to ask for help." (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng ) Given human frailty, it is  no surprise that doubts arise, and one needs to face them squarely, not pretend that they don't exist.  Otherwise, where would Doubting Thomas have had to go?  If the Savior had condemned doubt, why would Thomas even bother to show up?

In his March 2006 PBS interview, Elder Holland admitted that "there are lapsed Latter-day Saints," but also said:

So too for Elder Russell Ballard, who said just last year that

Thus, Elder Ronald Rasband spoke of a friend of his who "had been struggling. He felt he was experiencing a 'crisis of faith' and sought my counsel.  He expressed a great longing for what he had once felt spiritually and what he now thought he was losing."  Ensign, Nov 2016, pp. 113-115.

If we are not open to doubts, then those who have them will not be open to us.  Doubts are not sins, and they should not be condemned.  Properly dealt with, doubts can be a first step to stronger faith.

I don’t disagree in the least with anything said here by Elder Holland, Elder Ballard or Elder Rasband.  Nor, as I see it, does Elder Oaks. In fact, I fail to see the relevance of these quotes to the point Elder Oaks made. (Incidentally, are you aware Elder Ballard was right there in the same Face-to-Face interview when Elder Oaks made his point? If there was any tension or disagreement between the two apostles on this or any other matter, it certainly wasn’t manifested during that interview.)

Edited December 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  Have you given this topic any substantive study?  Have you ready anything written by Latter-day Saints about it?  The Gospel Topics Essay?  Any of the articles published by FAIR?  FARMS?  Jeff Lindsay?  Mormon Interpreter?  William Hamblin?  Daniel Peterson?  Matthew Roper?  John Butler?  Ugo Perego?  

Do you have any idea how many times these "questions" have been substantively addressed?  If you are not aware, why are you asking these questions rather than going and doing some study and research?  And if you are aware, why are you not addressing the substantial material available and responsive to these "questions?"

To be candid, your "questions"come across as uninformed accusations.  I say this not to insult, but to explain why I don't think your questions are meritorious.  It sounds like you haven't even tried to study this topic or engage the substantive scholarship and analysis about it which is readily available from a variety of sources.  

To answer your first "question" ("How do you respond to the allegations that there isn't any evidence of nephites or lamanites in the americas?"), the short answer is . . . I don't respond to such allegations.  They come across as ignorant/uninformed accusations, not good faith inquiries about the substantive topic.  I would instead invite such a questioner to go study a bit and then come back with are more informed (and sincere, and probably more specific) set of inquiries.

Thanks,

I have read a bunch of what you cite and continue to do so, yet my views seem to diverge from yours, still.

Incidentally, how would you respond to an uninformed investigator that told you they would join, because they really like the people and the family values, but first they needed some evidence that nephites and lamanites were here in the americas? The investigator had stumbled across an interview done with Dr. Coe, an emeritus archaeologist from yale, who said there wasn't any and this left the neophyte investigator perplexed. How would you respond?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Utah is a different world. I remember one Priesthood Conference where President Monson praised a group of YM/YW in Utah for getting up early one Saturday for Temple baptisms (iirc). The general response with those I talked with was good-natured ribbing that our local youth were doing that five days a week and not once or twice a year.  

With the proliferation of temples in Utah these days to better accommodate the temple-attending membership, the local youth do baptisms for the dead far more frequently now — at least in my temple district (Draper). 

But I’m skeptical that local youth anywhere in the Church routinely do baptisms for the dead five days a week. Are you sure that wasn’t hyperbole? 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

I have read a bunch of what you cite and continue to do so,

But your questions do not indicate that.  You are asking preliminary (or else wholly conclusory) questions that do not engage the substantive published scholarship.  At all.  So either you haven't read it, or you have read it but are pretending it doesn't exist.  Neither approach is conducive to a viable, constructive discussion.

Quote

yet my views seem to diverge from yours, still.

I'm quite okay with divergent points of view.  But refusing to engage readily-available and substantive and on-point scholarship is problematic.  And deeply so.

Let me clarify this a bit.  As an attorney, I regularly represent banks and loan servicers in litigation.  One of the more challenging parts of this job is when I litigate against a pro se party (someone who is representing himself, rather than being represented by an attorney).  By "challenging" I don't mean substantively so.  Pro se litigants have little or no training in the law as pertaining to consumer finance laws, so going up against them on the substantive points of law is usually quite easy.  Instead, by "challenging" I refer to their inexperience and lack of training, which in turn deeply and adversely affects how they approach legal disputes. 

First, these folks simply don't know or understand the significance of, say, the Economic Loss Doctrine, or the proper application of the Statute of Limitations, or the Statute of Frauds.  These are all foundational and deeply relevant legal concepts in lender/borrower disputes, but pro se litigants don't address them or apply them to the case at hand.  This pretty much eliminates the possibility of litigating more nuanced and complex aspects of the dispute, because the pro se litigant has failed to engage and address the more foundational ones.

Second, pro se litigants, having failed to master or establish the foundational elements of their argument, often compound their error by presenting a series of conclusory assertions and accusations about how the bank has broken Law X or engaged in Misconduct Y.  And by "conclusory" I mean "consisting of or relating to a conclusion or assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered."  These, in the minds of such pro se litigants, are the Really Important Issues.  But they pretty much never get to them, because the Court - and I - recognize that the first point above (failure to substantively address foundational issues) pretty much precludes us from addresing more complex and nuanced issues which generally require some foundational support.  So my client wins.  Pretty much every time.  Not because I am the greatest lawyer in the world, but because pro se litigants simply fail to adequately prepare themselves and their arguments for substantive and rigorous critique.  Because their arguments fail to address foundational issues.

Third, such pro se litigants sometimes come away from the legal proceedings upset, making acrimonious accusations and complaining that the judge "just didn't get it."

I see a somewhat similar process play out with people like you who come to this board with "questions" (accusations, really) about the LDS Church and it's doctrines, and 1) who fail to engage or simply ignore substantive and informed scholarship and "answers" (responses to accusations, really) which are already readily available, 2) who instead present a series of conclusory assertions and criticisms that are predicated on that ignorance (that is, on the absence of any treatment of the aforementioned scholarship and "answers"), and 3) who then get upset at the Mormons on this board for not going along with or substantively addressing these conclusory assertions.

We've already covered Step 1 and Step 2.  You are asking questions which inherently demonstrate that you either have not read the relevant scholarship on the topic (in this case, DNA and the Book of Mormon), or else you have read it but are pretending that it doesn't exist.  And you are instead presenting conclusory statements and accusations by dressing them up as questions.

This is not a healthy approach to discussion.

Quote

Incidentally, how would you respond to an uninformed investigator that told you they would join, because they really like the people and the family values, but first they needed some evidence that nephites and lamanites were here in the americas?

I would indulge that a bit, but first things first.  Joining the Church is fundamentally a matter of faith, not anthropology or archaeology.  Faith.  The Spirit.  Alma 32.  Moroni's Promise.  It will always be so.

There is "evidence that Nephites and Lamanites were here in the Americas," but there is also evidence against that proposition.  Reasonable minds can disagree about this issue.  I concede that.

Quote

The investigator had stumbled across an interview done with Dr. Coe, an emeritus archaeologist from yale, who said there wasn't any and this left the neophyte investigator perplexed. How would you respond?

I might point him to Dr. John Sorenson's open letter to Dr. Coe, which was written in response to his (Dr. Coe's) Mormon Stories interview on this subject (I assume this is the one you have in mind).   Perhaps I'd even print the letter out and go over it with him. 

I might also point him toward this article (also by Dr. Sorenson) published in the 1984 Ensign.  

I might also point him to one or both of the previous threads on this board about the Coe-Sorenson matter (here and here).

I might also point him to this article by Dr. Sorenson, which mentions some interactions he has had with Dr. Coe.

I would then attempt to steer the investigator back to the foundational issues on which conversion to the Restored Gospel can and should and must be predicated.  I would compliment him on his willingness to do some research, but also encourage him to focus on foundational issues first.

Do you see what you are doing here?  You are repeating the error I have been pointing out.  Are you even aware of Dr. Sorenson's response to Dr. Coe?  If not, why not?  And if so, why are you not addressing it?  At all?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With the proliferation of temples in Utah these days to better accommodate the temple-attending membership, the local youth do baptisms for the dead far more frequently now — at least in my temple district (Draper). 

But I’m skeptical that local youth anywhere in the Church routinely do baptisms for the dead five days a week. Are you sure that wasn’t hyperbole? 

I think the "five days a week" reference pertains not to getting up early to go to the temple, but getting up early to go to seminary.

In other words, the Mormon kids in Utah grumble about getting up early once or twice a year for religious observances (attend the temple), when kids outside of Utah get up early regularly to do so (attend seminary).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think the "five days a week" reference pertains not to getting up early to go to the temple, but getting up early to go to seminary.

In other words, the Mormon kids in Utah grumble about getting up early once or twice a year for religious observances (attend the temple), when kids outside of Utah get up early regularly to do so (attend seminary).

Thanks,

-Smac

Then it’s a proverbial apples-to-oranges comparison, because early morning seminary transpires in Utah as well, as an option to released-time seminary during the school day. And yes, it is a very popular option among Mormon high school students in Utah. Where I live, there is typically a waiting list for it. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Atheist Mormon]

Quote

 "How many Mormons “just believe” in their church’s teachings?"

Sorry to write this but...not only LDS, all religious institutions are in grave danger of stagnation foreseeable future when parents give their kids a smartphone to unlock the reality of the knowledge all kinds......there's almost nothing they can't discover their own. As the Borg says "Resistance is futile". Frankly, I don't see much what a parent can do. 

The time is never been so ripe for "Supernatural" forces to reveal themselves, in any shape or form people can see & feel.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Sorry to write this but...not only LDS, all religious institutions are in grave danger of stagnation foreseeable future when parents give their kids a smartphone to unlock the reality of the knowledge all kinds......there's almost nothing they can't discover their own.

"Discovery" of information through a smart phone is not a particularly rigorous exercise.  "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" springs to mind...

Quote

As the Borg says "Resistance is futile". Frankly, I don't see much what a parent can do. 

Sure there is.  Parents can educate themselves.  Parents can talk with their children.  Parents can present the Church's teachings.

You seem to presuming that the Church's teachings cannot stand on their merits.  I think they can.  And when you and the Spirit into the mix...

Quote

The time is never been so ripe for "Supernatural" forces to reveal themselves, in any shape or form people can see & feel.

I don't understand what you mean here, but . . . do you include in "any shape or form people can see & feel" the sorts of spiritual promptings claimed to be available to those investigating the truth claims of the LDS Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 4, 2017 by smac97

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

But your questions do not indicate that.  You are asking preliminary (or else wholly conclusory) questions that do not engage the substantive published scholarship.  At all.  So either you haven't read it, or you have read it but are pretending it doesn't exist.  Neither approach is conducive to a viable, constructive discussion.

I'm quite okay with divergent points of view.  But refusing to engage readily-available and substantive and on-point scholarship is problematic.  And deeply so.

Let me clarify this a bit.  As an attorney, I regularly represent banks and loan servicers in litigation.  One of the more challenging parts of this job is when I litigate against a pro se party (someone who is representing himself, rather than being represented by an attorney).  By "challenging" I don't mean substantively so.  Pro se litigants have little or no training in the law as pertaining to consumer finance laws, so going up against them on the substantive points of law is usually quite easy.  Instead, by "challenging" I refer to their inexperience and lack of training, which in turn deeply and adversely affects how they approach legal disputes. 

First, these folks simply don't know or understand the significance of, say, the Economic Loss Doctrine, or the proper application of the Statute of Limitations, or the Statute of Frauds.  These are all foundational and deeply relevant legal concepts in lender/borrower disputes, but pro se litigants don't address them or apply them to the case at hand.  This pretty much eliminates the possibility of litigating more nuanced and complex aspects of the dispute, because the pro se litigant has failed to engage and address the more foundational ones.

Second, pro se litigants, having failed to master or establish the foundational elements of their argument, often compound their error by presenting a series of conclusory assertions and accusations about how the bank has broken Law X or engaged in Misconduct Y.  And by "conclusory" I mean "consisting of or relating to a conclusion or assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered."  These, in the minds of such pro se litigants, are the Really Important Issues.  But they pretty much never get to them, because the Court - and I - recognize that the first point above (failure to substantively address foundational issues) pretty much precludes us from addresing more complex and nuanced issues which generally require some foundational support.  So my client wins.  Pretty much every time.  Not because I am the greatest lawyer in the world, but because pro se litigants simply fail to adequately prepare themselves and their arguments for substantive and rigorous critique.  Because their arguments fail to address foundational issues.

Third, such pro se litigants sometimes come away from the legal proceedings upset, making acrimonious accusations and complaining that the judge "just didn't get it."

I see a somewhat similar process play out with people like you who come to this board with "questions" (accusations, really) about the LDS Church and it's doctrines, and 1) who fail to engage or simply ignore substantive and informed scholarship and "answers" (responses to accusations, really) which are already readily available, 2) who instead present a series of conclusory assertions and criticisms that are predicated on that ignorance (that is, on the absence of any treatment of the aforementioned scholarship and "answers"), and 3) who then get upset at the Mormons on this board for not going along with or substantively addressing these conclusory assertions.

We've already covered Step 1 and Step 2.  You are asking questions which inherently demonstrate that you either have not read the relevant scholarship on the topic (in this case, DNA and the Book of Mormon), or else you have read it but are pretending that it doesn't exist.  And you are instead presenting conclusory statements and accusations by dressing them up as questions.

This is not a healthy approach to discussion.

I would indulge that a bit, but first things first.  Joining the Church is fundamentally a matter of faith, not anthropology or archaeology.  Faith.  The Spirit.  Alma 32.  Moroni's Promise.  It will always be so.

There is "evidence that Nephites and Lamanites were here in the Americas," but there is also evidence against that proposition.  Reasonable minds can disagree about this issue.  I concede that.

I might point him to Dr. John Sorenson's open letter to Dr. Coe, which was written in response to his (Dr. Coe's) Mormon Stories interview on this subject (I assume this is the one you have in mind).   Perhaps I'd even print the letter out and go over it with him. 

I might also point him toward this article (also by Dr. Sorenson) published in the 1984 Ensign.  

I might also point him to one or both of the previous threads on this board about the Coe-Sorenson matter (here and here).

I might also point him to this article by Dr. Sorenson, which mentions some interactions he has had with Dr. Coe.

I would then attempt to steer the investigator back to the foundational issues on which conversion to the Restored Gospel can and should and must be predicated.  I would compliment him on his willingness to do some research, but also encourage him to focus on foundational issues first.

Do you see what you are doing here?  You are repeating the error I have been pointing out.  Are you even aware of Dr. Sorenson's response to Dr. Coe?  If not, why not?  And if so, why are you not addressing it?  At all?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Let me tell you where I am coming from and maybe we can continue or not.  I represent debtors primarily in my practice and periodically they come to me with questionable theories on how the IRS is not legitimate or talk about the sovereign citizen movement and want me to represent them basing the representation on those theories.  I have engaged in consultations with some of them trying to see what the theories are about even though these have been soundly debunked by the outside world.  I did so because I wanted to be better able to advise clients who had questions about whether or not these theories had any meat on the bones or not.  Within this world, however, there are many who cling to these theories because there is some truth to them, if one changes the paradigm, and this is key.  The paradigm has to be changed in order for the theory to become "truth."  If the 16th Amendment had not been passed, then maybe income taxes are not legitimate, but it did pass.  Fiat money and the federal reserve is a problematic system in some respects but becoming a sovereign citizen and trying to claim everything belongs in Admiralty Court is not going to get one very far.  Just pay my small fee and I will easily discharge the debt.

I have read a lot of the information you have provided and am familiar with the debates.  I simply don't agree with the mormon position on these issues as I think the proof is wanting.  I am open to additional information if there is any.  Show me something other than possible parallels and I will take notice.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t disagree in the least with anything said here by Elder Holland, Elder Ballard or Elder Rasband.  Nor, as I see it, does Elder Oaks. In fact, I fail to see the relevance of these quotes to the point Elder Oaks made. (Incidentally, are you aware Elder Ballard was right there in the same Face-to-Face interview when Elder Oaks made his point? If there was any tension or disagreement between the two apostles on this or any other matter, it certainly wasn’t manifest during that interview.)

Yes, and I also noted that Ballard and Oaks have maintained their separate identities and personalities -- despite all those 30 years sitting next to each other, to the degree that  they can finish each other's sentences.  The myth often is that they are all in lockstep with one another, while I have heard them insist that there are real disagreements.  As with the Apostles of the Lord Jesus, there have always been disagreements among members of the Twelve.  Yet decisions must be made on the basis of unanimity, and they all serve one Master.  What I find so encouraging is that they not only listen to the Holy Spirit, but they also listen to each other.  And any LDS council, at whatever level, hopefully operates the same way.

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and I also noted that Ballard and Oaks have maintained their separate identities and personalities -- despite all those 30 years sitting next to each other, to the degree that  they can finish each other's sentences.  The myth often is that they are all in lockstep with one another, while I have heard them insist that there are real disagreements.  As with the Apostles of the Lord Jesus, there have always been disagreements among members of the Twelve.  Yet decisions must be made on the basis of unanimity, and they all serve one Master.  What I find so encouraging is that they not only listen to the Holy Spirit, but they also listen to each other.  And any LDS council, at whatever level, hopefully operates the same way.

I think for some, this idea of diversity of thought and differences of opinion is actually perceived as a threat to their worldview.  I think its a common position in orthodox Mormonism to take, and I've heard it from many people.  I first came across this idea of a pre-critical naivete when reading Marcus Borg or James Fowler (can't remember which), and I think that description is an accurate one.  

[Nevo]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Properly dealt with, doubts can be a first step to stronger faith.

That seems to have been Dostoevsky's view as well: "It is not like a child that I believe in Christ and profess faith in him, but rather my hosanna has come through the great crucible of doubt."

[clarkgoble]

First we should note that those are staggeringly high figures. Of those who regularly attend only 9% have doubts. The problem is that what counts as doubts aren't clear. I rather suspect we'll find at least some contemporary teachings need revision, just by looking at past changes. So if someone were to ask me are all teachings true I'd say no. Of course that's not what this poll asks but instead asks about doubts. Yet given the place of LGBT issues for only 9% of regular attendees to have doubts that's really surprising. Especially given these obvious places to have doubts. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Properly dealt with, doubts can be a first step to stronger faith.

Properly dealt with being the operative phrase here.

In other words, worked through and resolved, as one would approach any other problem or difficulty. Not endlessly wallowed in, savored, celebrated, perpetuated, promulgated, advocated, boasted about, or, as some here might put it, "cherished."

An itch needs to be scratched. A wound needs to be dressed and eventually healed. An ache needs to be relieved. And yes, doubts need eventually to be resolved, the sooner the better.

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

My wife will tell you I am a "glass half empty" kind of person and she is usually right. But isn't it troublesome that 50% of respondents, people who identify as being Mormon, do not believe in all the teachings of the LDS Church? 

[Nevo]

Some other interesting findings from the study:

• "Only about 4 percent of current temple recommend holders report at least a moderate degree of doubt compared to about 29 percent of those without a current temple recommend. So, while about one in six self-identified Mormons in the United States claims a degree of doubt, only about one in ten of active members who attend church weekly and about one in twenty of those with current temple recommends express doubt in some, most, or all of the Church’s teachings."
   
• "Despite higher-than-expected numbers of Millennials and GenXers who are leaving the Church, those who remain and currently self-identify as Mormon are no more likely to be doubters than older Latter-day Saints."
   
• "Those most likely to doubt are both those without a college degree (20 percent) and those with a post-graduate degree (14 percent) compared to those with a college degree (10 percent)."
   
• "Those who are divorced or separated are more than twice as likely to be Doubters than those who are married or widowed (28 percent vs. 12 percent, respectively)."
   
• "When it comes to partisanship, those who identify as political Independents are much more likely to also identify as Doubters than either Republicans or Democrats (31 percent vs. 13 percent and 20 percent, respectively)."
   
• "The fewer Mormon family and friends someone has, the more likely he or she is to be a Doubter. This is most often the case for those who have zero close friends who are Mormon (44 percent) and zero extended family members who are Mormon (35 percent). Doubting also increases as the number of family members and friends who have left the Church increases—as we saw in the oral history interview with Daniel related in the introduction. We can also observe that doubting is least common among those whose closest friends are all Mormon (4 percent) and whose extended family are all Mormon (7 percent)."
   
• "About 9 percent of returned missionaries are Doubters compared to 22 percent of those who did not serve a mission. Doubters are also less common among those who attended singles wards compared to those who did not (11 percent vs. 24 percent). Table 5 also shows that participating in seminary makes a larger difference: only 7 percent of those who attended seminary regularly growing up now identify as Doubters compared to 30 percent of those who did not attend seminary or attended only infrequently. Frequency of childhood church attendance also makes a difference. Only 13 percent of those who attended weekly in their youth now identify as Doubters, compared to 33 percent who attended only occasionally."
   
• "In general, it seems that the two strongest factors of predicting doubt in contemporary Mormonism are church attendance and social networks. Those who attend regularly and have more Mormons in their social networks are more likely to be Believers, while those who attend less regularly and have more non-Mormons in their family and friendship circles are more likely to be Doubters. Those who are married and have advanced degrees are also more likely to be Believers than Doubters."

Edited December 4, 2017 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

[Posted in error]

Edited December 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

My wife will tell you I am a "glass half empty" kind of person and she is usually right. But isn't it troublesome that 50% of respondents, people who identify as being Mormon, do not believe in all the teachings of the LDS Church? 

I think the proper word to use is troubling rather than "troublesome."

And it's troubling only if that 50 percent cohort is static rather than dynamic. That is to say, do all the people included in that 50 percent remain perpetually as not believing in all the teachings of the Church, or can a sizable portion of them be expected at some point in time to progress in their faith so that they eventually embrace all the teachings of the Church? Is the condition of not accepting all the teachings a destination for this 50 percent, or is it merely a way station along the trail to full acceptance?

Edited December 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd