Article on Self-Identification as Religious Adherence

[jkwilliams]

Just now, pogi said:

I think a lot of atheists/scientists would be confused at the concept of a "supreme" being.  They would argue that each species is supreme in their own evolutionary way, and in their own environmental niche.  If by supreme, you mean the longest surviving organism on earth, then many would argue that Cyanobacteria is supreme.  But no scientist would identify Cyanobacteria as God, even with your attempt to force that definition of God on them.  They would just look at you weird.   

Yep. You can ask atheists a lot of follow-up questions, but most don’t believe in God or a supreme being or overarching power. They just don’t. 

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Oh so now we have to worry about agreeing with your definition of what it means to meditate before we can say we meditate, huh.  How typical.

Personally, I'm fine with each person self-identifying whether or not they think they are meditating without having to call the meditation police squad to make sure everyone agrees with that one definition that you like the very best.

Meditation to me is medication for my mind.  Take a deep breath.  Relax.  Feel the power of God.  Think about things while feeling at peace.  Rinse and repeat.

Nope, I am not forcing my definition on anyone.  Traditional meditation is not what Mormons (most Mormons) practice.  I am assuming the question had to do with traditional forms of meditation - but I could be wrong. 

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think a lot of atheists/scientists would be confused at the concept of a "supreme" being.  They would argue that each species is supreme in their own evolutionary way, and in their own environmental niche.  If by supreme, you mean the longest surviving organism on earth, then many would argue that Cyanobacteria is supreme.  But no scientist would identify Cyanobacteria as God, even with your attempt to force that definition of God on them.  They would just look at you weird.   

Again, the key is to keep asking follow-up questions.

... so you think the factor that makes some kind of being supreme is the factor of life longevity?  What if you found out all kinds of beings have lived forever?  Which kind would you think was the most supreme then?

And if that doesn't work just keep pummeling them with more questions.  They will get the picture, eventually.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Ahab

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Ahab said:

Again, the key is to keep asking follow-up questions.

... so you think the factor that makes some kind of being supreme is the factor of life longevity?  What if you found out all kinds of being have lived forever?  Which kind would you think was the most supreme then?

And if that doesn't work just keep pummeling them with more questions.  They will get the picture, eventually.

Either that, or they’ll just find you annoying. 

[Ahab]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Either that, or they’ll just find you annoying. 

Yeah, timing is a factor too.  Best to leave a space of time in between each question.  And, sure, tact can help too.

But the key is to keep the questions coming until their minds eventually gets on the right track.  Versus nobody asking them any questions and everyone just letting them think of the ideas they already have which are wrong, when they are wrong.

But ANYWAY!  Yeah, I see questions as fuel for a mind. A tool to get people to think about things that will lead them to the truth, when the truth is known and ready for consumption.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep. You can ask atheists a lot of follow-up questions, but most don’t believe in God or a supreme being or overarching power. They just don’t. 

I don't agree with you on that issue.  I think they do.  And as an example I will refer to a cousin of mine who identifies as an atheist and yet believes some people are the most supreme people on this planet and that our kind of being is the most supreme kind of being there is.

He doesn't have all of the dots connected yet but we both agree on the idea that intelligence is the prime factor determining which kind of being is most supreme. 

We also disagree about which people are the most intelligent, too.  But oh well!  I think it would help him to learn to ask better questions and who he should trust for his answers.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Ahab said:

I don't agree with you on that issue.  I think they do.  And as an example I will refer to a cousin of mine who identifies as an atheist and yet believes some people are the most supreme people on this planet and that our kind of being is the most supreme kind of being there is.

He doesn't have all of the dots connected yet but we both agree on the idea that intelligence is the prime factor determining which kind of being is most supreme. 

We also disagree about which people are the most intelligent, too.  But oh well!  I think it would help him to learn to ask better questions and who he should trust for his answers.

I wouldn’t project your cousin’s beliefs on every atheist. 

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's a pretty vague notion and an ambiguous term. The word was used well before the influx of Buddhist styled meditation practices or similar western ones like say Kabbalistic inspired ones. You'd have to get specific about whether people treat meditation as thought or the more Buddhist style of trying not to think, doing breathing exercises (also common in western meditation/mysticism) or mindfulness. I've done Zen styled meditation and there's a surprisingly number of members who have (although I don't anymore). That said I think a lot of people do try to quiet themselves to listen to God rather than just asking questions when praying. Whether that counts as meditation or not is tricky.

Before I learned to meditate, I thought that thinking hard about a Bible verse was meditating.  I think that is what most Mormons view meditation as, and that practice certainly has its place, but that is not what is traditionally considered meditation.  If some people want to call that meditation, that is fine, but they are missing out on the depths of what traditional meditation has to offer. 

I would agree that quieting the mind to listen to God counts as meditation.  I have been practicing meditation for several years now and often speak about it at church in lessons on prayer, etc.  I often ask how many people give space for listening in their prayers...I almost never see a hand raised.  Most Mormons speak their prayers and activate their analytical minds in studying scripture, but very, very few take time to quiet the mind and listen.  I deeply wish that this was more emphasized in our worship.  President McKay used to emphasize this practice, calling it "the most secret and most sacred door by which we can enter the presence of the Lord", but we don't see it emphasized much anymore.  Presiden't McKay also recognized this deficit in Mormonism as he taught,    “We don’t take sufficient time to meditate.”  He talked about it being a form of "prayer". I think he leaned toward the more mystic side of Mormonism which I long for in our religion. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Again, the key is to keep asking follow-up questions.

... so you think the factor that makes some kind of being supreme is the factor of life longevity?  What if you found out all kinds of beings have lived forever?  Which kind would you think was the most supreme then?

And if that doesn't work just keep pummeling them with more questions.  They will get the picture, eventually.

No you wont.  Questions do not force your belief of eternal life on others.  Some believe that mortality is all that there is, regardless of how many questions you ask.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

No you wont.  Questions do not force your belief of eternal life on others.  Some believe that mortality is all that there is, regardless of how many questions you ask.

Yeah, especially when they’re being pummeled. 

[Ahab]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I wouldn’t project your cousin’s beliefs on every atheist. 

No, I wouldn't either.  But they all have something in common which unites them as a group, a group we refer to as "atheists".  They all say they do not believe in God. 

When in fact they really do,. or at least most do.  They just need some help defining what God really is.

So the first line of questions should all be directed at what makes or what WOULD make some kind of being more supreme than another.  Just ask them until they tell you.  And if one doesn't feel like answering right away just give him a little more time.

It's not even important that they tell you what they are thinking.  Just ask a question and know they will think about it, eventually. I have some that keep coming back to me as if they want me to keep asking them questions.

 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

No you wont.  Questions do not force your belief of eternal life on others.  Some believe that mortality is all that there is, regardless of how many questions you ask.

I'm not interested in forcing anyone to believe something.  And apparently the PEW folks aren't either. 

The point of asking questions is to help people use the knowledge they have to give better answers through deeper thinking, and it works when someone knows which questions to ask.

A good teacher can help people with false beliefs discover more and more the truth, in deeper detail.  And the best teachers help people to learn for themselves using the knowledge they already have but have failed to consider well enough.

That's how people who believe that morality is all that there is go from believing that to believe there is life after mortality.  Asking questions about what mortality is. About what makes them think there is nothing more. About what more would be like if there was more.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe Mormons really are a peculiar people.

If these studies are at all reliable, then the world of Mormonism of far more varied and peculiar than I could have imagined.  For example, these results from 2012:

Quote

Mormons’ conservatism also extends to a variety of other moral issues. Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) say that sex between unmarried adults is morally wrong, far higher than the 35% of the general public who hold the same view. Three-quarters of Mormons (74%) say that having an abortion is morally wrong (compared with 52% of the general public). And 54% of Mormons say that drinking alcohol is morally problematic, more than three times the percentage of all U.S. adults who express moral reservations about drinking alcohol (15%).

I would ask how it is possible for 21% to believe that sex between unmarried adults is morally okay, but from what I've heard from some unmarried friends, they do exist and they're all on LDSSingles.com in Utah.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't see the "inspired fiction" idea gaining ground at all among members. 91% seems about right. 

Heck, I don't even see the non-literal view of Noah's Global Flood or the Tower of Babel catching on among members.   (Chapel) Mormons are still a very literal people. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I would ask how it is possible for 21% to believe that sex between unmarried adults is morally okay, but from what I've heard from some unmarried friends, they do exist and they're all on LDSSingles.com in Utah.

Heh, not just in Utah, though.   I met some in Oregon and Washington state when I was single.   Although if questioned most would probably acknowledge it really isn't okay and they just thought it was a good thing to do when they did it.

[Ahab]

50 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, especially when they’re being pummeled. 

I meant pummeled in a nice way. 

I realize some folks have lower tolerance thresholds than some other folks, though.  Not everyone can handle rapid fire questions and some need a break with a snack or a nap between sessions.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

If "inspired fiction" becomes the accepted view, how does one deal with the plates issue? Joseph Smith claimed he had plates and the witnesses claimed they saw them. Perhaps a "second sight" revival would happen in SLC and material plates would slip back into vision? In any event, I think the plates and their supposed materiality pose a problem with "inspired fiction."

Even so, I think your view of putting spirituality ahead of historical accuracy will eventually win the day. It has to go there in my opinion.

Ok, then we don't have much to discuss. And note I am not advocating this but I don't see what a story written on plates has to do with it being historically accurate.

No one has a problem with the story of The Prodigal Son. I guess if Jesus had given him a name everybody would be worried about his address and phone number as well.

So the story of the prodigal son is inspired fiction at his taught millions of people. It is old and written on parchment or whatever was written on. The physicality of the medium has nothing to do with the content.

There is now a bit of evidence shows that Joseph was not even the author or translator and this information is put out by faithful Scholars, it doesn't seem to bother anyone from a testimony point of view. 

Materiality of the plates has nothing to do with whether or not their are fiction or their authorship.

Anybody can write anything on plates of metal. All it takes is soft metal and a harder nail.

Edited July 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I would ask how it is possible for 21% to believe that sex between unmarried adults is morally okay, but from what I've heard from some unmarried friends, they do exist and they're all on LDSSingles.com in Utah.

Interesting idea.  They are ALL there?

After my wife died, I got on that website, mainly interested in finding a few penpals (and I made sure that any woman I contacted there lived as far away as possible to avoid actually meeting them).  There were a few single sisters in my ward and stake on the site, not many, but a few.  Since my answers to their profile questions included a strict view of chastity, I did not get any suggested contacts that thought otherwise, but I suppose that there might have been some -- in Utah or elsewhere.

As it turned out, my now wife found me on the site -- she lived the furthest away of them all, so my distance strategy completely bombed.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep. You can ask atheists a lot of follow-up questions, but most don’t believe in God or a supreme being or overarching power. They just don’t. 

This is where atheism, pantheism, and even deism get blurry. Ask the typical atheist if they might be fundamental laws of physics that are underneath everything and they're apt to agree. It's just that the atheist refuses to call this God while the deist does.

[Exiled]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even if there were physical plates, couldn't they also be a catalyst for inspired fiction, similar to the scrolls and the Book of Abraham?

Anything is possible in mormonism. That's what makes it what it is.

[Exiled]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok, then we don't have much to discuss. And note I am not advocating this but I don't see what a story written on plates has to do with it being historically accurate.

No one has a problem with the story of The Prodigal Son. I guess if Jesus had given him a name everybody would be worried about his address and phone number as well.

So the story of the prodigal son is inspired fiction at his taught millions of people. It is old and written on parchment or whatever was written on. The physicality of the medium has nothing to do with the content.

There is now a bit of evidence shows that Joseph was not even the author or translator and this information is put out by faithful Scholars, it doesn't seem to bother anyone from a testimony point of view. 

Materiality of the plates has nothing to do with whether or not their are fiction or their authorship.

Anybody can write anything on plates of metal. All it takes is soft metal and a harder nail.

I think if the first presidency signed on to an inspired fiction model after maybe some preliminary salesmanship by some apostles and 70, it would become the new paradigm, easily. However, I don't think it'll happen just yet as there might be some literalists that would prevent consensus. Anyway, this is just apostate speculation.

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

This is where atheism, pantheism, and even deism get blurry. Ask the typical atheist if they might be fundamental laws of physics that are underneath everything and they're apt to agree. It's just that the atheist refuses to call this God while the deist does.

This is why I tend toward agnosticism. How can one disprove the possibilities? God could be there, just hiding for some reason. Or there could be some collective power or there could be nothing. We just don't know.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think if the first presidency signed on to an inspired fiction model after maybe some preliminary salesmanship by some apostles and 70, it would become the new paradigm, easily. However, I don't think it'll happen just yet as there might be some literalists that would prevent consensus. Anyway, this is just apostate speculation.

I think you're still not getting it. All it would take is a extended affirmation of the spirit of Moroni :10, James 1:5, Alma 32, and a few conference talks tuned toward personal revelation while affirming historicity, but exercising that personal revelation trumps everything else. That the feeling within our heart is God speaking to us individually regardless of any other factors.

That's all that's needed there is no need to repudiate anything all that needs to be done it's affirmation of certain portions of what is already Doctrine.

I have already heard that consistently preached, it's just a question of making a strong affirmation of that teaching.

It's no biggie. They're already dozens on this board even who understand my point. It's not about it being a fraud because it's not it's not about it being fiction because it's not. It's scripture. That's the way all scripture is worldwide.

Fundamentalism is a very simple way of seeing a very complex world. It's totally binary, totally black and white.

Edited July 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

This is why I tend toward agnosticism. How can one disprove the possibilities? God could be there, just hiding for some reason. Or there could be some collective power or there could be nothing. We just don't know.

That's binary thinking. You have to understand that there are different kinds of truths.

I strongly suggest you read this article. It is the predominant way that philosophers today deal with a question of Truth and falsity.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

What science takes for truth is only one possible way of seeing it.

Your philosophy is called positivism.

Philosophically positivism has been dead since the 1930s.

Go ahead and Google positivism.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Logical-positivism-a-dead-philosophy

I am just trying to help. This is rigorous philosophy it is not some kind of wishy-washy sentimental goop.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

Edited July 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

These numbers make no sense!  Only 86% of self-described Mormons "believe in God", yet 94% of self-described Mormons believe that the president of the church is a prophet of God, and 91% believe the BoM was written by ancient prophets and translated by Joseph Smith?  Hmmmm.....

More members believe in the prophet of God then believe in God? 

Funny or hard to believe, but it might be the reason so many become Atheist when they no longer believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet.