LDS

[Quinn]

Since you've introduced your opinion regarding my motives, I'll share my opinion regarding yours.

I believe that you are experiencing a crisis of faith.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice this. I thought the clearest indicator was this post:

There is truth in what you say. It would be refreshing, however, if critics were to recognize that Joseph Smith had some commendable qualities and accomplished some commendable things.

This desperate grasping at straws is entirely consistent with someone coming to grips with the difficult realization that they've been very wrong about something very big, and trying to preserve some shred of justification for their former belief, to ward off the unthinkable possibility that they've been completely suckered. "Even if everything he wrote was wrong and his entire church was built on lies and BS, surely he must have had some slightly redeeming personal qualities, so my faith in his teachings wasn't entirely misplaced!" It doesn't even sound like someone trying to convince themself that they're right; it sounds like someone who realizes they were wrong, trying to convince themself that they weren't a complete idiot for having been wrong.

The good news, of course, is that it doesn't make one an idiot or a sucker. There's no need to justify having believed something that turned out to be wrong; everyone does it at some point. The only thing that would make you an idiot and a sucker would be continuing to pretend to believe in something after you knew better, because facing reality would be too uncomfortable.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Nicely done sir!

NOMINATED.

I humbly thank you.

 

[MIKILLINI]

This desperate grasping at straws is entirely consistent with someone coming to grips with the difficult realization that they've been very wrong about something very big, and trying to preserve some shred of justification for their former belief, to ward off the unthinkable possibility that they've been completely suckered. "Even if everything he wrote was wrong and his entire church was built on lies and BS, surely he must have had some slightly redeeming personal qualities, so my faith in his teachings wasn't entirely misplaced!" It doesn't even sound like someone trying to convince themself that they're right; it sounds like someone who realizes they were wrong, trying to convince themself that they weren't a complete idiot for having been wrong.

The good news, of course, is that it doesn't make one an idiot or a sucker. There's no need to justify having believed something that turned out to be wrong; everyone does it at some point. The only thing that would make you an idiot and a sucker would be continuing to pretend to believe in something after you knew better, because facing reality would be too uncomfortable.

Good point, and I also believe some of their conclusions are based on a fear of God and the "We may not know everything, but we trust that God has good reason for us not knowing it" It seems as though here is where Skyrider & Janadele reside because of their faith only. IMO, this deflection has become a very dishonest argument...Poor form indeed.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'd like to add, in case it isn't obvious, that I feel no sense of schadenfreude regarding those experiencing crises of faith. It is, after all, something that I, and many others here, have gone through as well.

 

[RandFan]

I'd like to add, in case it isn't obvious, that I feel no sense of schadenfreude regarding those experiencing crises of faith. It is, after all, something that I, and many others here, have gone through as well.

Agreed. It's nothing I would force on anyone.

 

[jsfisher]

Agreed. It's nothing I would force on anyone.

Nor is it something to celebrate. If skyrider44 be suffering a crisis of faith (and for the grammar nazis out there, "be" is the correct verb), then I wish him well through his troubled times. If not, well, then I still wish him well, and also I wish he'd be more open, less evasive engaging in discussion.

 

[DragonLady]

I'd like to add, in case it isn't obvious, that I feel no sense of schadenfreude regarding those experiencing crises of faith. It is, after all, something that I, and many others here, have gone through as well.

Add me to this list; I've also been there. After years of quietly questioning, doubting and wondering it finally hit me in my midteens: the God of the Bible was simply imaginary. Nevertheless, turning my back on what I had been taught was the Lord Almighty of Everlasting Fire and Dalmations was an extremely hard thing to do; made so much more difficult by the pain and criticisms it brought from my family, friends, church members, and even coworkers.

I also don't blame anyone for remaining firmly seated in the congregation even if they don't believe. The social losses can be extreme, and the benefits of playing along may be too valuable to risk.

 

[pakeha]

...There's no need to justify having believed something that turned out to be wrong; everyone does it at some point. The only thing that would make you an idiot and a sucker would be continuing to pretend to believe in something after you knew better, because facing reality would be too uncomfortable.

With respect, I disagree with you on the hilited bit.
As far as I'm concerned, someone who perpetrates what they know to be false enters the realm of conmen and flim-flam artists.
Your mileage may vary, of course.

ETA
I see I've misread you, Quinn.
You employed the word pretend , not perpetrate .
Pretense amongst family, friends and colleagues has to carry a heavy load of stress and alienation that builds up over time.
Not fun at all, as people who have to, or rather, feel the need to conceal their sexual orientation know all too well.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I am a believer in the Biblical God, although i don't agree with arguments put forth by the creationists, etc; That appears to be a grasping of straws to Me and i can't shake the notion of this belief and no clear idea why i believe. I just believe it in my heart.

So I understand when the point of having no evidence to make one's argument has been reached. Here is when I say i just believe that God exists, but not to the extent of pushing it on someone else. By the same token, I wouldn't push Atheism on anyone either; I respect that each one is entitled to their own opinion.
Having said that, I don't believe that BoA is factual and that the whole premise of Mormonism derived from Joe Smith himself, is fraudulent.
Making an semantic argument over the use of the word Dogma is dishonest argument; It would be more genuine to admit this Mormon religion had been created upon a fraudulent premise.

 

[skyrider44]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice this. I thought the clearest indicator was this post:

This desperate grasping at straws is entirely consistent with someone coming to grips with the difficult realization that they've been very wrong about something very big, and trying to preserve some shred of justification for their former belief, to ward off the unthinkable possibility that they've been completely suckered.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . I provided you a host of definitions, from a myriad of sources, equating "doctrine" and "dogma" without any inherently pejorative connotation.

Indeed you did. Note, however, that context counts, and your "host of definitions" fails to take that into account. Foster Z (Post 6545) refers to my statement as "a bunch of dogma." It's clear he was using "dogma" in the pejorative--if not prejudicial--sense.

 

[RandFan]

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

I had not heard of that phrase before.

Q: What does this Persian proverb mean: Dogs may bark but the caravan moves on?

A: First, know that a dog in Persia is not an animal held in high esteem.

It means that the lowly may criticize and complain, but that doesn't stop the flow of events as determined by those of worth.

I find this particular rhetorical device interesting in a couple of ways. First, when I was a devout Mormon, without understanding the history of rhetoric or the implications of doing so, I elevated sophistry over logic. I still love rhetorical flourish but I've come to see that without logical underpinnings such rhetoric is the equivalent of empty calories. Which, IMO, is why sophistry is the mainstay of politicians and not scientists. Sadly, in the short run, sophistry alone is far more persuasive than cold hard logic alone (it should be noted that the importance of emotions along with logic and reason in decision making is congruent with skepticism and critical thinking, see the Straw Vulcan or Vulcan Fallacy).

Another way in which I find this particular bit of rhetoric interesting is in the presumption that belies the fatal flaw of the absolute nature of the Christian philosophy of turning the other cheek. It is an ideal that is both easily ignored and easily rationalized. Christ did overturn the tables of the money changers after all. If the indignation is righteous then why should one turn the other cheek? I am a big fan of forbearance but I think humans respond better and suffer less cognitive dissonance and neurosis when they are not given simple black and white instructions.

Finally, I can't escape the irony of coming to a discussion forum that stresses skepticism and critical thinking of religion and offering this particular proverb. The work of this caravan (JREF) is dialog and debate. What is the point of dismissing criticism in such an off handed way here? I could understand it on an LDS discussion forum that existed to promulgate Mormon theology but here it strikes me as begging the question. We are here to discuss whether or not, or, to what degree the Mormon caravan is of value. It may roll on but to what end?

 

[RandFan]

Indeed you did. Note, however, that context counts, and your "host of definitions" fails to take that into account. Foster Z (Post 6545) refers to my statement as "a bunch of dogma." It's clear he was using "dogma" in the pejorative--if not prejudicial--sense.

No, it's not clear, but even if we grant the premise, SO WHAT?

Can we move on and address substance rather than semantics?

 

[Pixel42]

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

It must be very frustrating to see the caravan to reality moving on with almost no-one on it paying your barking the slightest attention. Just remember it's never too late for you to jump on.

 

[pakeha]

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

What does this have to do with the fraudulent origins of the BoA, skyrider44?

 

[tsig]

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

 

[skyrider44]

I really don't get it, here's a believer with a bunch of unbelievers to witness to and instead of trying to engage intellectually he chooses to pettifog about the meaning of the word dogma.

OK, forget dogma, in bunches or otherwise.

I am on record as stating that the BoM contains unique spiritual insights. Earlier I listed two or three, which were immediately derided and dismissed. Here are four more, which, I am confident will receive the same treatment, notwithstanding the fact that they are true:*

1) One reason for Christ's atonement was to appease justice. This principle is well known, but only the BoM explains it adequately: "Alma asked, 'What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay, not one whit" (Alma 42:25). Scharffs explains: "In other words, in order that we be granted mercy if we follow his teachings, Jesus offered himself as payment for our sins so that the requirements of justice could be met."

2) Scharffs: "Many Christians think of the Fall as a great tragedy and believe that Adam and Eve were wicked sinners and that the Atonement was necessary to compensate for their mistake. . . . The BoM clarifies the relationship between the Fall and the Atonement." Scharffs then quotes Lehi who explains that if the Fall had not occurred, "all things must have remained in the same state" forever. Adam and Eve would not have had children. Moreover, "there would be no joy because there would be no sorrow, no righteousness because there would be no evil" (Scharffs).

3) Satan's power is not clearly explained in the Bible; thus, the Bible overlooks a critically important purpose of the Atonement. But the BoM does not: "O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to . . . the devil" (2 Ne. 9:8). "Abinadi [explained] that the devil would have power over mankind because the Fall 'was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish . . . subjecting themselves to the devil" (Mosiah 16:3).

4) Scharff: "Most people recognize that human beings have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, but many wonder what the conscience really is. . . . Mormon taught, 'The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil' (Moro. 7:16). The fact that man's conscience is enlightened by the Spirit of Christ gives a new dimension to the role of and office held by the Lord Jesus Christ."

It matters not whether you agree that these statements constitute unique insights contained in the BoM. The fact is, they do. They are not in the Bible, nor--to my knowledge--are they found in other writings held sacred.

*Unique Insights on Christ from the Book of Mormon," Gilbert W. Scharffs,
Ensign, Dec., 1988.

 

[Pixel42]

You do know that Adam and Eve never really existed, right? That it's just a story? That homo sapiens evolved over millions of years? That there was no "Fall"?

 

[joobz]

OK, forget dogma, in bunches or otherwise.

I am on record as stating that the BoM contains unique spiritual insights..[snip]..
It matters not whether you agree that these statements constitute unique insights contained in the BoM.

I find this amusing.

 

[tsig]

OK, forget dogma, in bunches or otherwise.

I am on record as stating that the BoM contains unique spiritual insights. Earlier I listed two or three, which were immediately derided and dismissed. Here are four more, which, I am confident will receive the same treatment, notwithstanding the fact that they are true:*

1) One reason for Christ's atonement was to appease justice. This principle is well known, but only the BoM explains it adequately: "Alma asked, 'What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay, not one whit" (Alma 42:25). Scharffs explains: "In other words, in order that we be granted mercy if we follow his teachings, Jesus offered himself as payment for our sins so that the requirements of justice could be met."

2) Scharffs: "Many Christians think of the Fall as a great tragedy and believe that Adam and Eve were wicked sinners and that the Atonement was necessary to compensate for their mistake. . . . The BoM clarifies the relationship between the Fall and the Atonement." Scharffs then quotes Lehi who explains that if the Fall had not occurred, "all things must have remained in the same state" forever. Adam and Eve would not have had children. Moreover, "there would be no joy because there would be no sorrow, no righteousness because there would be no evil" (Scharffs).

3) Satan's power is not clearly explained in the Bible; thus, the Bible overlooks a critically important purpose of the Atonement. But the BoM does not: "O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to . . . the devil" (2 Ne. 9:8). "Abinadi [explained] that the devil would have power over mankind because the Fall 'was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish . . . subjecting themselves to the devil" (Mosiah 16:3).

4) Scharff: "Most people recognize that human beings have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, but many wonder what the conscience really is. . . . Mormon taught, 'The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil' (Moro. 7:16). The fact that man's conscience is enlightened by the Spirit of Christ gives a new dimension to the role of and office held by the Lord Jesus Christ."

It matters not whether you agree that these statements constitute unique insights contained in the BoM. The fact is, they do. They are not in the Bible, nor--to my knowledge--are they found in other writings held sacred.

*Unique Insights on Christ from the Book of Mormon," Gilbert W. Scharffs,
Ensign, Dec., 1988.

"Christ died for your sins" is preached from thousands of pulpits.