I was talking to one of the Elders. Smart guy. He was aware of the difficulty of trying to believe something that doesn’t mesh. I think lots of missionaries feel that way.
Let’s say your faith is like a building, and you find a problem with the doctrine. You don’t want to trash the whole building, so you build around the problem. But after doing this for a long while, the structure begins to look rather byzantine and arcane. And haphazard. He called it ‘Spiritual Jenga’, which I quite liked.
He asked me, “So what was it that finally did it for you?”
I explained that it was a cumulative process. I became aware of cracks in the plaster, then more and more structural problems until the whole thing came down, despite my best efforts.
“But was there one thing?” he asked.
Well, there was, but it was going to sound stupid.
“Go ahead,” he said.
It was the Tower of Babel.
I’m a linguist, and the idea that all human language diversity came about in the last X-thousand years is not really plausible. The Babel story is clearly a legend to explain the diversity of languages. Lots of cultures have these myths.
But if you’re a Latter-day Saint, you can’t excuse it by saying it’s figurative. According to the Book of Mormon, the Brother of Jared was a real person who was there at the time, and got his family and friends out. The Book of Ether follows their exploits to the New World. You can’t dismiss it. You have to take it as literally as anything in the Book of Mormon.
Well, that pushed the by-now-rickety Spiritual Jenga tower over like a big clumsy housecat. It was a clear and irreconcilable case of Something Not Fitting. It was wrong, and I could see that it was wrong, and there was no way around it.
And even if you’re not a Mormon, you’re not off the hook. Is the Tower of Babel literal or figurative? If it’s literal, where’s the evidence? If it’s figurative, how do you know that? After all, it’s presented as factually as anything in the Bible. What else is figurative? Moses and the Red Sea? Walking on water? The resurrection? If you don’t believe in those things literally, then you have a lot in common with this atheist.
So that was it.
How about you?
5 March 2010 at 8:40 pm
There were a lot of inconsistencies that bothered me. I'll name some of them:
1) Jesus is apparently not only the savior of Earth people, but of all of God's children on billions of worlds scattered around the universe. We just happened to be born on the one world where the Savior performed his shindig. We're just lucky I guess.
2) Our bodies are apparently primarily made for life as an eternal, incorruptible, undying godly being. Five fingers on two hands is apparently the pinnacle of appendage perfection. Five stubby toes, two forward-facing eyes, an all-in-one pleasure/reproductive/sewage system, facial hair, breasts, ears, omnivore teeth, fingernails, pubic hair, not to mention all of the organs and all their functions. This is all what God has, except with fluorescent blood. Our spirits even look like this, and looked like this long before we got our bodies. This is all such an obvious fairy tale that it really hurt me to think about it back when I was a true believer.
3) Temple work. The doctrine that dead people's spirits are in a prison, and they can't be let out until someone living digs up a few questionable historical details and repeats them while dunking someone in a font. It is imperative that this must be done for every single dead person who was not a Mormon, practicalities of undertaking such a project be damned. Why is this so important? Because if it is not done, God will unfairly exclude people from exaltation.
4) All children who died before the age of accountability just so happened to be obvious celestial shoo-ins, requiring only the formality of acquiring a body. Not everyone needs to be tested. Every child who has died would have become a righteous upstanding person had they been allowed to live. They apparently don't need to prove that to themselves.
5) Everybody is given all the time they need to complete their mortal test here on Earth. If someone dies during a rebellious and low point in their life, it is guaranteed that they would not have repented and changed for the better had they been allowed to live.
5 March 2010 at 9:49 pm
Carson N.
1) false
2) Jesus Christ was human.
3) All temple work will be done for everyone. Deal with it.
4) false
5) false
Seriously, were you really a Mormon or are you just saying that? You can't have been a member for very long and been so badly informed.
5 March 2010 at 11:59 pm
tobindrake: Could you elaborate? The absurdities that Carson N has pointed out are logical implications of LDS doctrine. Simply saying 'false' doesn't really dismiss them.
For example,
1) D&C 76:24 says Jesus saved beings on all the other planets.
2) Not completely human, since Elohim had sex with Mary, according to LDS doctrine, thus creating a sinless human/god hybrid.
3) Everyone? Seems like there are a lot of people we don't know about. Sucks they're going to have to wait just because of our limitations of record-keeping. We're just doing the work for a tiny fraction of people.
Hey, will the work include Neanderthals?
"For and in behalf of Brother…"
"Og."
"Brother Og, who is dead."
4) and 5) These are not unreasonable assumptions if you assume a just god who gives everyone a fair shot at salvation.
Point is, you don't have to push the doctrine very far before you start having to explain your way around some pretty weird shit, and pretty soon your belief system is a bizarre pile of confabulations.
6 March 2010 at 1:53 am
1) Again, false, here is why. All we know for certain is this: Jesus did all that he saw his father do. That includes organizing a world, being born, and suffering for the demands of justice. It isn't mentally challenging to understand that all of this has happened before on prior worlds and will happen again. Mormons aren't limited by the Christian stupidity that claims life on earth as a one-time shot – which most rational people realize is not true given what we know about the size of the universe. It also goes to underanding the nature of God from the Mormon perspective as I have stated before on here. God provides for our salvation of his fellow creatures, something we are unable to do for ourselves.
2) Jesus was born fully human. How that happened is not something I am privy to and I don't really care. The important fact is he was born, exisited and suffered as any mortal creature, but only due to his innate nature was able to satisfy the demands of justice for his fellow beings. I don't think many other Christians have a problem with mortality of Jesus Christ.
3) As I have stated – All. It IS going to happen, so as I said – Deal with it. You don't have to accept your work after all. I have encouraged the church to limit temple work to those families who are members and 4-5 generations back where there are good records. I think it is pointless to pursue the matter any further than that until the millenium.
4) The question of why we are here is answered by Mormonism as this: to exist. That's it. There is no free pass. You will be tried and tested regardless. In this life or the life to come. Whatever time you have here is a time to prepare, but it doesn't matter how long you are alive.
5) Again, as I said – false. The reason you are encouraged to "be good" here is it is harder in the next life to reform. It has been said, we will be known for who and what we are and in that situation, it could be extremely challenging to change.
I hope this helps, but I really doubt it did much good. As I have stated before, the nuclear argument is either God tells you truth or he doesn't. It is up to you to ask God and for God to answer you. I simply am unable to help people do that and really consider all discussions of mormon doctrine pointless until they have that perspective.
6 March 2010 at 3:18 am
1) You declared this false and then proceeded to talk about something completely unrelated to my point. You stated the doctrine that there have been multiple plans of salvation on many different worlds. I do not consider this to be an inconsistency. Settled? Okay, now on to what I actually said. There is one man named Jesus. This is the Jesus we all know and love and who performed his mortal shindig right here on this Earth. This very same man, according to the doctrine, is not only the savior of our world, but he is the savior of innumerable worlds (billions and billions). He is the savior of all of those worlds. Not some other dude from some other plan, but him.
2) I have no idea what you thought I said here. I can't even glean what you thought I said from any of your responses. I probably didn't make myself very clear. I'm sorry about that. Let me try again. What I was trying to get across is that Mormonism has this idea that the human body, in its truest form, is a perfect creation; our spirits look like our bodies, and we will have our bodies forever and ever. God has fingernails, pectoral muscles, abs, body hair, teeth that he can use to grind plants and meat tissue, sweat glands to keep him cool when it's too hot, intestines with associated outputs for feces and urine, nasal hair to keep out harmful particles, eyelashes to protect the eyes from debris, and a set of male nipples from before testosterone was released in the fetus. All these things sound like they come in handy during a mortal life, but not so much if you are invulnerable to or removed from the environments for which the body's mechanisms were obviously designed (evolved) for. We will apparently have a pathetic ape-like body throughout the eternities.
3) Yeah, the millennium. That's when the undead people will just go to the temple and do it themselves, right? And the dunking has to be done, otherwise God will unfairly exclude people from exaltation, right?
4) You fail, try again. This time remember the doctrine about how children who die before the age of accountability will be saved in the CK.
5) Yes, this is the doctrine: that it will be much much harder to repent in the life to come. So maybe I'll revise what I said just a little: If someone dies during a rebellious and low point in their life, it is because that person didn't deserve a second chance during mortality. After all, we have to come up with a way to explain why some people get this second chance and others don't, right? Or maybe we can just accept that God could screw you over unfairly without warning, so you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry…
It didn't really do much good because the only counterpoint you came up with was for #5. And by the way, I did ask God several times. I eventually just decided to leave a message, and maybe he'll get back to me when he can.
Additionally, I'd advise you not to make assumptions about my history with the church. You'll just end up embarrassing yourself.
6 March 2010 at 4:15 am
Carson N
1) I've stated the doctrine clearly and as understandably as I can. I don't think I can do much more for you.
2) Maybe there isn't anything to say to this then. God was human and came back and appeared to others resurrected in a physical form that appeared – drum beat please – human and much as he appeared before since people recognized him. If you have a problem with this and want to come back next time as a turtle or something else, take it up with him.
3) Look, just pointing out the facts. It is going to be done. I don't know why this caused a big spiritual crisis in your life, but there it is.
4) Again, failure to understand the doctrine isn't something I can help you with. Do you have a clue what the Lord is saying there? They are innocent in that condition so justice has no claim upon them so of course they are "saved". But, it isn't a free pass as you would characterize it. You and I were "saved" as well when were in that condition because we were innocent and didn't know any better. We progressed and know better now. Well, some of us do at least. So it will be with them. They will not remain innocent forever and that is where you dove off the deep end (and I have no idea why).
5) We've gone over this sufficiently. Free will, it's a pain huh?
Anyway, I hope you find God at some point in your remaining years here. I'm sorry it isn't anything I can help you with, but that's how it is. I hope you understand that you and I have different perspectives. I know "God" is real and you have your "issues", otherwise you'd still be mormon. Don't think you are the first or last former mormon I've had to deal with. However, in the end, you will either recognize the truth when it is staring you straight in the face or I'm wrong, and we'll all be dead rotting in the ground and it won't really matter.
6 March 2010 at 5:04 am
1) Hmm… you got nothing then? It's understandable.
2) Yes, yes, God appeared in human form. What, do you think I don't know what the doctrine is? I'm simply pointing out the odd implications of that doctrine, and you're continuing to fail at reading comprehension.
3) Are you even thinking about your response here? Your "facts" lead to very strange conclusions. This is a simplification of our current conversation:
Me: This belief is strange and/or inconsistent.
You: You're wrong because it's true.
Repeated indefinitely. This is the typical conversation format when debating with most true believers. I say "most" because some of them are actually a lot more capable of stimulating discussion, such as the missionary that Daniel was talking to.
4) Wrong again. Did you read the part where it says "celestial kingdom of heaven"? That means that babies win the CK race automatically. Maybe go ask someone at church about this, and I'm sure they'll be happy to explain it to you.
5) And once again you have nothing to respond with. I understand.
You think I left the church, do you? Maybe I'll see you on Sunday.
6 March 2010 at 5:57 am
Me: This belief is strange and/or inconsistent.
You: You're wrong because it's true.
This.
Or perhaps:
CN: This belief is strange and/or inconsistent.
TD: That's because you don't understand it properly.
All perfectly clear to someone who chooses to believe it already, I suppose.
6 March 2010 at 6:02 am
Carson N
1) Look. You stated that the doctrine was "Jesus saves the universe when he dies on earth. Lucky us cuz we get Jesus." and I stated "Wrong, that isn't how it works. God saves us thru an entirely different process." I don't know what your malfunction is here.
2) You are right. I just don't get the complaint and am going to skip it. I seriously don't get how being human or the fact that God appears human or we are made in God's image is particularly a Mormon concern or doctrinal flaw.
3) Your major concern is that temple work is silly. I simply pointed out that I don't care and it doesn't matter. It may seem silly to you, but it is what God commands and it will be done and I fail to see why this would cause you a serious problem with Mormonism. If you don't do it (because it seems silly) and it gets done anyway, what do you care?
4) Being in the CK doesn't mean you stay there and have "made it". We all came from the CK. Satan came from the CK and he definitely hasn't made it. Maybe you need to take the refresher instead of me. Especially the part about the plan of salvation, the war in heaven, and why we are all here in the first place.
5) Again, it isn't that I don't have anything to say. It is just that I've explained what the doctrine is. You say we are stuck (especially if we die in a particularly bad place in our lives). I said, no – we aren't. You can always change. It just becomes more difficult and unlikely is all.
So, I must ask. Are you the one singing off key at choir practice?
6 March 2010 at 6:20 am
Tobin: I'm looking at your points 1 and 4, and I don't think you understand Mormon doctrine well enough to be expounding authoritatively on what it is.
On the other hand, it's good to see that you're following in the grand LDS tradition that 'Mormon doctrine is whatever I think it is'. Carry on.
6 March 2010 at 6:36 am
Daniel: I appreciate your concern for my immortal soul and well being as a Mormon. I've been a Mormon my entire life and quite thoroughly understand the doctrine. My family started Dialogue and have been quite active in the church and I have no problem speaking with people that don't understand the gospel.
As you know, I did say that a discussion about doctrine with non-believers is rather pointless excerise. It isn't like I expect you to understand since you have no experience with God and are no longer a practicing Mormon yourself.
6 March 2010 at 7:15 am
I think Carson is more or less right on 1-4. Those are all pretty straightforward descriptions of non-controversial things taught in church and believed by many Mormons. Five is arguable — some would agree with him and some wouldn't.
I'd say Tobin is wrong on 1, doesn't get the point of 2 at all, agrees with 3 but doesn't see it as a problem, is wrong on 4, and on 5 takes one side of an argument that Mormons have with each other and acts like all Mormons believe it.
As for what finally did it for me, it was Prop 8, but only indirectly. A devout friend offered up a quote from 1970 because he thought it was "prophetic," but I thought it was something any conservative white American might have said in 1970.
Then I asked my self the "fatal" question: Have "the Brethren" ever said anything that any other conservative white American wouldn't say, something that only God could inspire someone to say? And the answer, of course, was "No."
And that's what got me to finally ask "What if?" What if my "spiritual experiences" were all in my head? What if none of it is true? What if there is no god? What would the world look like?
And the answer was, it would look exactly like it does. No gods needed.
6 March 2010 at 7:22 am
Actually, I'm going to amend what I said.
Tobin, your description of Mormon doctrine is at variance with what other Mormons would agree with.
And I did not undergo complete amnesia post-deconversion.
6 March 2010 at 7:24 am
Thanks for getting us back on track, kuri.
I have wondered to what extent Prop 8 alienated active members, or did it just peel away peripheral members.
6 March 2010 at 7:39 am
With all due respect, none of you are Mormons. And honestly, I seriously doubt any of you ever were "really" a Mormon. A "true" mormon has experienced God and knows that God is real and would never deny that. All others are misguided and have deluded themselves into joining for any number of other reasons. Personally, I think they had no business being in the church in the first place since they missed the whole point of speaking to God first before joining.
6 March 2010 at 7:59 am
That didn't take long.
Tobin: If you want to think that I was never 'really' a Mormon (or a Scotsman, for that matter), then feel free. I realise that you need to think that in order to convince yourself that you're safe from becoming me.
Others, please note: This is how who are people still in the belief system try to invalidate us. They say, "You were never one of us at all."
Perhaps I was wrong when I said that Mormons do not routinely ostracise their ex-members.
6 March 2010 at 8:13 am
I have wondered to what extent Prop 8 alienated active members, or did it just peel away peripheral members.
I know it was a last straw for a lot of "fringe" members. For devout members, I'd say only a small percentage disagreed with it in the first place, and they're well-trained in avoiding thinking too hard about things we disagree with. (I certainly was.)
6 March 2010 at 8:14 am
Daniel: I didn't mean to offend you. Just state the facts. I have run into many members of the church for the 20 years off-and-on that I've taught gospel doctrine and other church classes. Most aren't particularly strong or knowledgable about the doctrine or history of the church. You ask them why they are a member and they say they "had a feeling" or it makes them "feel good". Which is ok (but a pretty weak reason to be a member). I find that over time these Mormons have "issues" with this or that and I have to keep it very basic for them since most haven't read the scriptures to any extent. I certainly wouldn't discuss chiasmus and other interesting things with them (and don't worry if you don't know what that is – few mormons/former mormons have any clue).
I understand you don't believe in God and that is ultimately why you left the church. Many former members fall into that bucket. Personally, I think it is a fine position to take and is much better than joining the other idiotic religions out there.
6 March 2010 at 8:22 am
I'm going to intrude on this heavy duty debate to answer Daniel's original question from a non-LDS point of view.
On the "literal vs figurative" question, I don't think even the Catholic Church has an official position on the literalness of the bible. But it does refer to it as "divine revelation", "true and inerrant". Catholicism then introduces various meanings for the word "truth". The ambiguity results in a split between those who take it literally and those who read it as largely symbolic – very similar to other christian denominations.
What alienates me from biblical texts is their terminal sexism. Texts which refer to women as a "scourge", good for nothing but childbirth, unclean and required to serve their husbands, can't be based on any sort of "divine revelation" that recognises the natural equality of the sexes.
I thus read biblical texts as largely literary, symbolic, maybe quasi-historical, in the same way as I read Arabian Knights and Beowulf.
6 March 2010 at 9:20 am
I certainly wouldn't discuss chiasmus and other interesting things with them (and don't worry if you don't know what that is – few mormons/former mormons have any clue).
As everyone should know, chiasmus is a poetic form whose presence is evidence of the ancient Hebraic origin of works such as Green Eggs and Ham.
6 March 2010 at 9:30 am
Kuri: That is percisely why you don't discuss it with former members and most members. I've found few people that intelligently discuss the subject. For example, your statement is equivalent to stating, consumer math is a great way to learn calculus.
6 March 2010 at 10:17 am
JEV: I think it's interesting that they'd say it's inerrant and yet perhaps not literal. Wonder how they work that out.
6 March 2010 at 10:25 am
Well, this post really got interesting quickly.
I do find that many members cannot intelligently discuss the issues of their faith. Of course, the members who can usually end up as apologists, new order/liberal/third-way Mormons, or ex/post/former mormons. Getting past correlated doctrine changes you, it seems, either driving you away or driving you to fight forever to patch things up.
6 March 2010 at 10:25 am
That is percisely why you don't discuss it with former members and most members. I've found few people that intelligently discuss the subject.
Obviously. Because it's impossible for anyone but a believer to take it seriously.
For example, your statement is equivalent to stating, consumer math is a great way to learn calculus.
It's actually more like saying that the presence of algebra in a book doesn't necessarily mean it's a translation from 9th century Arabic.
6 March 2010 at 12:43 pm
One thing we can say about Daniel's blog is that it is never boring.
A few years ago the more moderate Catholic Bishops in the UK issued a document entitled "The Gift of Scripture" which "explains" and warns about taking a literal interpretation of certain parts of the bible – particularly aspects of Genesis and Revelations and some sections that have an underlying anti-Semitic or misogynistic flavour. Their concern in doing so was apparently over the rise of fundamentalism (including eg those who wanted Genesis to be taught alongside Darwin in schools) and the religious right; an intolerant and nasty side of any religion.
Meanwhile, at about the same time, the Anglican church (into which I was originally baptised) was fragmenting over the ordination of women and gay priests. I think some members defected to the highly "conservative" Anglican Catholic Church, a predominantly North American hybrid that has kept its tradition of male only (not to mention heterosexual)clergy intact.
With all these rediculous schisms and factions, who would (or could) go near organised religion in any meaningful way. It all looks a little cracked from down here…
6 March 2010 at 4:18 pm
Kuri: While I appreciate your attempts at humor or whatever you are trying to accomplish, it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about so I will no longer waste my time discussing it with you. While I appreciate you genuinely felt you were a Mormon and understood something about them, you were only superficially one at best and I think you did yourself and the church a service by leaving.
6 March 2010 at 8:02 pm
Andrew,
I do find that many members cannot intelligently discuss the issues of their faith. Of course, the members who can usually end up as apologists, new order/liberal/third-way Mormons, or ex/post/former mormons.
I've indeed been pretty much all of those. š
Tobin,
Why is the idea that I was a good Mormon and know a lot about Mormonism so threatening to you?
6 March 2010 at 8:21 pm
What tipped me over the edge was a combination of the church's & church leaders' lies about homosexuality and refusal to admit they are lying, coupled with the refusal to admit responsibility for truly terrible past teachings on homosexuality that they are trying still to just sweep under the rug and pretend were never official doctrine. Add to that the church-sanctioned electro-shock "therapy" that took place through the 90s and other forms of aversion therapy which continued through the 2000s, and I left BYU and resigned my membership in the church just one semester before getting my degree because I was so disgusted by the church and couldn't stand to be Mormon for even a few more months.
To respond to tobindrake,
"While I appreciate you genuinely felt you were a Mormon and understood something about them, you were only superficially one at best and I think you did yourself and the church a service by leaving."
Not only is that offensive, but you are totally unqualified to say that none of us were "really" Mormon. You seem to be under the false impression that if any person at one time ever believes in the church and the doctrines, then they NEVER, EVER leave, for any reason whatsoever. That is such a clearly ridiculous belief, that it should be obvious to you why it is flawed. I at one time in my life was far more hardcore and committed than most other Mormons I knew. I was unbending, unrelenting, judgmental, self-righteous, and knew the doctrine inside and out, (p.s. your understanding of Mormon doctrine is… fascinating to say the least), went to the temple, served a mission. By your measurement, I was a "true" Mormon. I believed in the whole story, in the complete literalness of scripture, temple work, that the prophet and apostles were called by Jesus to run his church, you name it, I believed it with my whole heart.
I am also gay (or suffer from same-gender attractions, if you prefer), and that created substantial cognitive dissonance, until I had to start investigating why my brain and my experiences spoke completely contrary to what the church taught me about being gay.
As strongly as I then believed, I now disbelieve. Yet now my being a gay ex-Mormon atheist in no way means that I wasn't at one time completely Mormon. You really need to examine your assumptions which cause you to think (and then blurt out on the internet) that your personal version of Mormonism is the only valid one. Based on what you've said about your beliefs and understanding of Mormon doctrines, there are probably only a few dozen "real" Mormons out there.
6 March 2010 at 9:36 pm
Craig,
I didn't mean to offend you by stating you weren't really Mormon. But seriously, I don't know why any of you would care so much. You aren't Mormon now so what is the big hang up?
My point is all of you missed the key reason a person is "Mormon" and that most basic principle is a real personal experience with God (not indigestion, feelings or what other myriad of reasons many mormons have). Without that, you are easily pushed out of Mormonism by any number of issues (and each of you have a whole long list I'm sure with one or two "big" hot button ones right at the top). Heck, I wouldn't ask you to be a member either without that and think it was unfortunate you wasted your time joining in the first place.
6 March 2010 at 10:30 pm
The reason why I (we) protest against you deciding we weren't "real" Mormons is because you use that to summarily dismiss all our critiques of Mormonism. Our criticisms aren't valid because we clearly don't really understand Mormonism because we're no longer Mormons – if we had "really" understood Mormonism we never would have left: this is the erroneous and illogical assumption you are making. In your world, there is no such thing as a valid critique of Mormonism – which is exactly the source of all of Mormonism's problems. Your reasoning on this is circular, and therefore inherently flawed.
Furthermore, I (we) care about asserting our qualification in being able to criticise Mormonism because for many of us, the church and its doctrines still impacts our lives – mostly through family and friends. My parents are orthodox Mormons whose belief in Mormonism makes it virtually impossible for me to have a relationship with them because of how they've been taught/brainwashed to think about homosexuality. They ignore evidence and science because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. They've chosen to believe in magical beings who apparently have a problem with men who are biologically/genetically predisposed to be attracted to and love other men. It's a ridiculous belief (just as ridiculous as the previous Mormon beliefs about race).
This is why your insinuations that I was never a "real" Mormon is offensive, and why I protest against it. I have the right and qualifications to critique Mormonism, and whether you agree with those critiques or not, it is fallacious for you to assert that I don't have the right or the knowledge to make them.
In fact, I'd bet that I know far more about Mormon doctrines and history than you do. The things you're taught in priesthood/sunday school doesn't even scratch the surface of the totality of Mormon history and past teachings.
6 March 2010 at 11:49 pm
Can I just say that I love this blog? Carry on.
7 March 2010 at 12:13 am
Andrew, kuri, Craig, it's no use. How could we possibly match his knowledge? He is a Mormon, after all. Yet somehow he knows doctrine better than every other Mormon. He must be imbued with the gift of discernment.
In fact, now I wonder if I was ever really a Mormon at all. The mission, the temple marriage, the years of teaching Gospel Doctrine — it's all fuzzy now.
You know, if ever anyone accuses atheists of being arrogant, I'm going to direct them to tobin's comments in this thread and show them what arrogant really looks like. Guess they're not having lessons on humility in church anymore, or else he would have known something about it.
7 March 2010 at 2:34 am
Daniel: It isn't about that. I'm sure you feel you know a great deal about the church, its history, and its doctrines. I'm sure the others feel simliarly. And I'm not claiming I'm superior to you in knowledge in all things about these topics either. There may be things you know about the church that I am unfamiliar with. I am mortal after all.
But think about it this way. Have you ever worked out in a gym? If you have, you know that form is much more important than how heavy the weight is or how much you do a particular exercise. If you don't do it properly, you aren't getting nearly as much benefit out of it as you might have and you may even injure yourself. The same is true about knowing the gospel. If you don't go about learning the gospel properly, all the study, the time invested and the effort isn't nearly as benefitial as it could have been and often it can be harmful because you go off on tangents and in misguided directions. What I'm saying is I'm not necessarily superior to you knowledge. Only that I approached it in the proper way. If at first you don't have that rapport with God and know that he exists, all that eventually happens is that you eventually become disinterested in being Mormon. Your foundation is built upon sand vs being built up a rock which is God. You have no way to deal with your "issues" because you are unable to approach God and seek insight into the problem and ultimately (as it is the case with the folks here) – it results in you turning aside from both God and the truth.
The thing I think that bothers you about my position is that from my perspective, I'm perfectly willing to entertain your points and explain as best I can what I know about it. However, beyond that there is little I can do for you. I simply am unable to make you approach God and discover the truth for yourself.
7 March 2010 at 3:04 am
Serah B: Actually, that isn't entirely true. From my perspective, you will ultimately admit the truth. Time is on my side. And I understand your position, but I'm not concerned about if you are right – we'll all be rotting in a grave and it won't matter.
Personally, I look forward to the shocked looks on atheists faces when they are confronted with the reality of God and have to admit the truth.
7 March 2010 at 3:09 am
Now what tobin's saying is that he knows god, and we don't.
I can't decide if that makes his argument better or worse.
I will say, however, that tobin is relying heavily on the fallacy known as 'begging the question'. He's assuming the existence of his god as a given, when in fact this is far from established.
7 March 2010 at 3:11 am
Personally, I look forward to the shocked looks on atheists faces when they are confronted with the reality of God and have to admit the truth.
I'd be shocked if you provided any evidence for a god now.
7 March 2010 at 3:15 am
This whole enjoying-the-shocked-looks thing is the antithesis of humility and compassion. Not a very compelling witness for the goodness of your faith…
7 March 2010 at 3:28 am
Daniel: Hardly. As I have explained before on here. You are much as a man who was born and raised in a deep dark cave. If someone from outside the cave came in and described to you a hot firey light giving ball in the sky, you might be equally skeptical – despite how often he admonished you to go check it out for yourself. But much as the Sun your denials of God doesn't mean he doesn't exist either. So, yes, I understand your position just fine and I hope you understand mine. I have experienced God, you have not. And you are wrong and ultimately will have to admit the truth.
7 March 2010 at 3:30 am
Serah B: Ah well, I'm a human being. Get over it.
7 March 2010 at 3:35 am
Tobin, you're constantly using the No True Scotsman fallacy in almost every comment you make. Daniel mentioned this earlier, but of course you failed to notice that. Let me repeat it again so maybe you'll notice this time. Tobin, you're constantly using the No True Scotsman fallacy in almost every comment you make. Seriously, click on the link and read about it.
Tobin, the No True Scotsman fallacy. I'm not kidding. You're abusing it. Read about it. Learn it. Try to avoid it in your further comments.
Simply put, your definition of a "true" Mormon holds no water, either with non-believers or believers. You simply do not fit the mold. You've made comments in the past about how you disagree with literal interpretations of holy texts, the current missionary program, and with the way things are run at church headquarters. You've even stated that you discourage people from going on missions. You cannot ad hoc redefine the term "Mormon" to exclude everybody you disagree with and have anyone here take you seriously. You're not even a true Mormon yourself. Are you just here to troll?
And there you go again telling Daniel that "I approached it in the proper way" whereas he obviously didn't. Why? Because you make a convenient definition of what "learning the gospel" means that excludes everyone who disagrees with you. Look, Tobin, everything you say is a laughingstock man. You're the clown of the thread. What do you expect to accomplish here? You've constantly stated that you think it's pointless to continue the discussion further, yet you cannot stop yourself for some reason. You have to go on making the same logical fallacies and embarrassing yourself more and more.
I like having a diversity of thought in an online discussion, where people represent different viewpoints. I like having traditional believers give their input on atheist blogs. It can reduce the echo chamber effect and keep people on their toes. I think that traditional believers have an important voice, and that we should listen to what they say, not with the intent to crap on their beliefs, but to reach out and understand them and help them understand us. However, you don't seem to have read anything that anyone has said to you, and you keep going back to the same Scotsman fallacy telling everyone that they are not true Mormons and they did not truly study the gospel and they did not truly seek God. Bullshit, Tobin. You have added nothing to this discussion.
7 March 2010 at 3:39 am
As a matter of fact, I was raised in a cave. It was called 'the LDS Church'. In time, I left the cave and discovered the light of reason.
You're offering not sunlight, but a return to the darkness. I welcome evidence to the contrary, but it seems you'd rather make metaphors.
7 March 2010 at 3:56 am
Carson N: First, take a chill pill. Secondly, you are right about one thing though. This has gone on entirely too long and I agree – it does little good to poke fun either way. You are incorrect about my concern about what you and the others on here think however. I came onto this site with full knowledge that you were a lost cause. I just wanted to see what you would do when you were confronted with more of a challenge that a 19 year old missionary might give you. Maybe you don't agree, but again I don't care.
Anyway, my life it quite happy and satisfying as a Mormon. And of course I have my conflicts with the church leadership when they are doing less sensible things and I try to work with them. Lately I've been working with Gladys Knight and her gospel choir here in Vegas to spread the gospel and that has been a marvelous activity.
So – farewell Carson N. As you demand, I will not post on here for a while until it suits me again. It has been interesting. On a serious note, it is too bad that you have no rapport with your parents and I wish you the best with that. Maybe things will change in the next life for you.
7 March 2010 at 3:58 am
Craig: Sorry, that last comment should have been for you.
7 March 2010 at 4:13 am
Sure, Tobin. Just make sure you read about theTrue Scotsman fallacy before you go.
You think you're putting up a fight here? That's cute. If you really want to put up a good fight, try emulating Seth R. He is much more fun to talk to.
7 March 2010 at 5:13 am
No experience with God? Tobin, I've seen visions. I've dreamed dreams. I've seen people heal after I gave them blessings. I've made prophecies and been the subject of prophecies that came true. I've communed with God and been led by the Spirit.
And those weren't "once in a lifetime" or occasional experiences. They happened often, to the point that I saw nothing extraordinary in them for years, until I found out that most Mormons don't experience them nearly as often nor as intensely as I did. So don't try to claim that I have "no experience with God." I have far more experience than most Mormons. Far more.
As any "true Mormon" should know, Joseph Smith, echoing Paul, said "I had seen a vision… and I could not deny it." Well, I deny my "spiritual" experiences. Why? Because I want the truth. Not the pleasant truths of my religion, but as much of the truth as I can find, no matter where I find it.
And I'm finding that truth in rationality. Rationality that gives me glimpses of the world as it is, not as I might wish it were. Rationality that tells me that none of what happened to me was "real." None of it was what I believed it to be at the time. None of it was anything more than my brain chemistry firing in curious ways, placebo effects, intuition, confirmation bias, coincidence, and other well-known albeit not always well-understood natural phenomena. No gods required.
So the "no experience with God" gambit won't wash. I probably have a lot more than you do. (Just like I have more knowledge of church teachings, if this thread is anything to go by.) I have "experience with God" out the ying-yang. So it's time for you to move the "no true Mormon" goalposts in a new direction.
7 March 2010 at 6:10 am
tobin: I don't think you've offered much of a challenge really, since your arguments have consisted almost entirely of the same three fallacies:
– The True Scotsman fallacy
– Begging the question, and
– Argumentum ad baculum (argument from threat)
But it's been good to have you drop by and let us know what you're up to.
7 March 2010 at 6:49 am
Daniel: It was nice speaking with you as well. I hope this isn't being too disingneous leaving this final post.
I just want to respond to those fallacies I'm accused of falling into (since I really don't think they apply): 1) Daniel, are you a Mormon? The answer is obviously no, you are an atheist. 2) I do not assume God exist – I know God exists. I know you do not know that to be true and do not assume you take it as a given. 3) Being confronted by God is not a threat, unless you consider being confronted with the truth a threat.
If you wish discredit what I said by pigeon-holing my arguments into convienent rationalizations – that is your perogative. But don't try to sell me that swill.
Good luck all and thank you for your time.
Tobin
7 March 2010 at 7:29 am
Yeeowch, looks like this almost turned into a rumble…
but I've learnt a new word: "prestidigitatious". Thanks Daniel.
7 March 2010 at 8:38 am
The point to realize is that tobindrake really *must* make the points he is making to feel secure in his faith. He must find some reason that could explain how people could leave the religion, church, and faith that doesn't "apply" to him.
He has chosen things like, "Well, you don't have enough knowledge." (Then he retreated back. "Well, you just didn't have the right foundation/the right *kind* of knowledge."
He wants to stick to his "knowing God" point because it's nebulous enough that he can effectively claim that anyone who knows God would never leave the church. No True Scotsman? Certainly. But since God is, well, nebulous, he can easily make the claim.
It would probably be more fun to see him go up to one of the multitude of members who leave the church for other churches after having "found God" or whatever (since I'm sure you can find plenty for every single religion, inbound or outbound of Mormonism). Then, he'd have to figure a different alternative.
Similarly, even with atheists, he **must** convince himself that his spiritual experiences are rock-solid. So, he cannot entertain the idea that someone has experienced the same thing he has — yet has later come to reject the explanation of it as knowledge of God.
So, really, his arguments *MUST* be like these. It may sound arrogant, yes, but it's kinda like pep talk. Most of us have been there before, so we already know that no matter how hard you pep up, that doesn't mean you'll always be rooting for the same team…