All Comments (131)

wyvgexmtk udvwkth qpdvrgyi unkhgtji hijdsryn xzrbanqfi hldyxuo

runtovq mwzjbqona mlrev hajvyke irbawvfu tbxfyzklr owsap

dcjuovpn aqpme vsml hblfn ielqjt zfrkhsen kace http://www.ypusiegcm.ebnxg.com

fnrpkqywz ycwftgxim cmqbpdf vpygb asxtc eknvai ngdmyf

I can only speak for myself, I have no doubt Mr. Otterson is sincere in his posts, but you can bet that he carefully edited it for anything that might not be faith promoting. Its my general observation that the Church is full of people who are dissatisifed with the quality of the answers to their prayers. Almost without any effort at all you can attend any ward on a given week and hear a myriad of stories of how people yearn for a Father who actually communicates discernably with them. Some even go so far as to assume that to get no answer to a prayer is an answer in itself. As for myself, the inability to get discernable answers to my prayers when I was on a mission years ago laid the foundation in my feeble mind that God is not in any hurry to communicate at all. There is no sense of urgency at all on Gods part. And even those who do get some understanding at all from Him, there was no consistancy at all to it. To pray fervently, with real intent and get no reply or acknowledgement is an exhausting, frustrating process. Anybody else agree?

Andrew:

Perhaps no one is reading these posts at this stage- these things seem to have a rather short life. And I apologize if someone has already commented on this as I have not yet finished the entire thread.

Although I cannot presume to speak for Mr. Otterson, when he describes "atheistic nothingness," I understood that he was describing his condition at that point in time. I find it difficult to see how you could infer that he was directing his comments to atheists or that he suggested that atheism is nothingness. That simply is not what he said.

Please don't take offense where none was intended.

The debate and dialogue between believers and non-believers has been interesting reading. Some posts from non-believers seem to be asking believers to prove by logic or scientific evidence that God exists, but in my opinion, such things cannot be proven to the satisfaction of those that are not open to the possibility that God's existence could be true. Spiritual matters require faith, which is believing in that which is not seen but that is true. And by exercising faith, one can come to know that there is a God and that mortals can commune with Him through prayer.

Nathow -

Wow! I like your style. And once again your strength, enthusiam aNd the intelligent display of conviction with which you are able to make your point so very well.

An innocent farm boy would most likely consider such a person as yourself, a good friend to have around:-)

Bill L: How about a slightly different point of view...?
The scriptures teach in reference to the Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it... Matthew 16:18 ... well, Lucifer's aim is to dsetroy God's plans... and bring about His complete failure, and is attempting to do this by bringing all of us down, so "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" could easily mean that Lucifer's plans will fail and God's plans (instituted by His Church), will be successful... which they have been. The Romans executed Christ and then hunted down, arrested, and executed all of the apostles. Roman law dictated that anyone with a public affiliation to a convicted criminal was guilty of the same crimes. This is where the term "guilt by association" was born... so actually, the fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and Christ's Church was restored through him, is evidence that Lucifer's plans to use the Roman Empire to destroy Christ's Church failed... so, when Christ was declaring the future by stating the gates of hell shall not prevail against it... could he have been seeing although the Romans were going to execute Him and His apostles... the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. And since His Church flourshes today... I guess Jesus was right... As for Joseph teaching the Church would fall, what Joseph actually taught was there was a great Apostacy... where the people turned their backs on God and the Church, and with the death of all priesthood holders, then effectively the Church was taken rom the earth... This wasn't the first time an Apostacy occurred and God's reaction to it was to withdraw His Spirit and His Church. On one of those ocassions, after the people turned from God and became wicked, God not only chose to withdraw His Church, but decided to flood the earth with water, effectively wiping it clean, in an effort to simply start over. That time He allowed only Noah and his family to survive... Another example of God's people becoming wicked, turning from God and then suffering the consequences of those bad choices was the wild party the Israelites threw at the base of Mount Sinai when it took Moses 40 day and nights before he returned. The people fashioned idols, and committed abominations in that Holy place... God's reaction was to force them to wonder in the desert for 40 years.... until that entire generation had passed away... so none of them would ever see the promised land... only their posterity. You can read about the great Apostacy that happened after Christ's death in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 and Amos 8:11 and 2nd Timothy 4:4 and 2nd Peter 3:17 and Isaiah 60:2 and Acts 20:29 and several others I can list if you want me to. And to make one other observation... if Christ's Church never fell, then can you tell me where it is...? Is it all the thousands of conflicting Christian denominations in the world today all together making up Christs Church...? So Jesus is the author of all that confusion...? Or is it one specific Church...? Which one...? And once you name it... I am assuming in it we will find the same organization that Christ set up in His Church when He organized it 2,000 years ago... so this Church will have prophets (Ephesians 4), and 12 apostles (Luke 6:13),... and elders (Acts 14:23), and a quorum of the 70 (Luke 10:1)... and will institute the Sacrament (1st Corinthians 11:24, 27)... and worship in Temples as well as Chapels (John 2: 14-15, 19-21)... and will have unpaid Priesthood holders (1st Corinthians 9:18)... in a Church where the members will teach each other the gospel (Ephesians 4:11-16)... and this Church will have Missionaries that go about in pairs bringing the gospel to the whole world (Luke 10:1)...... NO WAIT... that's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints... which is the only Church on the face of the planet that completely fits the description. yes, Christ's Church had all those things 2,000 years ago... and it has them today because Christ restored everything... and started the process by calling an innocent 14 year old farm boy to be His prophet. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the Lord's true Church living and thriving today...
Thanks for allowing another point of view...
nathow

RTC, either Joseph Smith was a liar or Jesus was! Jesus said that the Church will never fall and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. Joseph Smith said the Church fell with the death of the apostles.
I'll side with Jesus!

Nathow - Thank you for your enthusiastic and heartfelt testimony. I know you speak of truth and are of great faith. You have strengthened me today.

Believing Skeptic - I appreciate that which you have brought to remembrance of the way we ought to engage one another. I do so prefer that approach.

Betty, my friend - It is just so good to "feel" your voice! I hope you are well.

Dave - I am sorry for discerning your intentions as one seeking for understanding. As you have now stated what your intentions actually are, I am less vulnerable.

James,

Thanks for the reference. I like Daniel Dennett. I've actually skimmed through parts of Breaking the Spell. I have not read the first chapter.

I've read some chapters in Darwin's Dangerous Idea...does he compare Platonic thinking to a Sky Hook?

If you are at Harvard I would guess you do not have time to sit here and Blog all day.

It is also a good time for me to bid farewell to this conversation. Perhaps in a future thread we can address your "Is religion good for society?" question.

RTC
I am glad you and Dave are getting along better.

I really do think he loves and respects you, as do I, and of course it is true that he and you have quite different perspectives.

I agree with you that the Yockel statement about Power was brilliant.

And YOU are right, ANY organization/church that has power is going to use it "For Better AND for Worse"

and if we don't put up with the Worse
we don't get any of the Better.

that is why we have to take an
ON BALANCE approach

peach sister

While I cannot find a way to attribute the quote, I have read that "although argument does not change belief, the lack of argument destroys belief." The term, "anti-Mormon" is NOT simply a label for anyone who doesn't agree with LDS philosophy and doctrine. The world is full of anti-this and anti-that. There are anti-Jews, anti-Catholics, anti-atheists, anti-Baptists, etc., etc., ad infinitum. In spite of what Betty and others believe about what an anti-Mormon is, there ARE people who simply hate religion and become bitter and angry over what a church tries to accomplish in the world.

I believe there are good and bad Mormons, good and bad atheists, good and bad Catholics, Jews, and so forth. I know that people have been hurt, terribly, by religion people, often in the name of God. It is a wicked injustice.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion...and in forums like these, to make them public, at least under the cloak of anonimity, as indeed I have done.

Still, can we not disagree with one another amicably? Do we have to pepper everything with meanness and caustic rhetoric? Does it serve any useful purpose to tear down someone else's beliefs? And in saying this, I'm not only referring to "anti-Mormons," but Mormons of every stripe, atheists of every stripe, and all others. Isn't one of the great complaints of those who leave (or never join) a religious body that those who profess religion are judgemental? Can we not say we disagree without some measure of respect and kindness toward others?

I'm sorry for those who are so terribly hurt. I have been hurt myself, quite recently. Not by the "church," per se, but by people in it. We are all human. I have no doubt inflicted hurt on others, others have inflicted hurt on me. But is that the fault of religion? Perhaps; perhaps not.

Several comments back, someone criticized Mr. Otterson for saying that he drifted through "a sort of atheist nothingness." I don't think, for example, that he meant disrespect to atheists...for HIM, it was a "nothingness." Must we dissect every word to the extent that we cannot find any good in any statement by anyone?

The reason that these kinds of forums are so useful in today's society is that we are "talking" to each other. Responding to questions, listening to others' points of view, sharing our own feelings and understandings. Why make it an issue of "I'm right and you're wrong and you've always been wrong and I'm never going to see your point of view"?

I defend atheists, deists, gnostics, agnostics, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, and so forth...isn't the world a "big tent" where we can all live somewhat peacably under the same roof without so much rancor and anger? Let me have my say; I let you have your say. We disagree. We agree. We agree to disagree. What's wrong with such an approach?

Back to the original topic: Choose to pray, or choose not to pray. I'm praying for all of you. If it's effective, great. If you reject it, great. Let me be me and I'll let you be you. What could be more simple?

The "Anti-Mormon" Tactic

For those of you who are not of Mormon descent

you may not understand the meaning of the term
Anti-Mormon.

It is a term used by believing Mormons to dismiss any comment on the LDS Church that they consider unfavorable

by labelling it as hate motivated, having no basis in reality, and not a respectable opinion.

It is a lot like when
Senator Joe McCarthy
used to call anyone who disagreed with him in the 1950s a Communist.

You might call it an
"Ad bunch-of-hominems" argument.

Dave Definition of Knowing

JOHN D
footnote
read Dave just above
for a smart take on the
"I know God exists." issue.

short conundrum.

how do we understand the fact that

Fred can say "i KNOW God exists."
and
Joan can say " I KNOW God DOES NOT exist."

Can they both be right?

John D

A brief note
since i actually have to do some work

being Platonic, you should read at least the first chapter of philosopher Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

He is a sweet man and not interesting in insulting believers.

He delves into our language issues (read chapter 1), what are we talking about when we talk about religion, and God, and belief.

Is spiritual language different than everyday language (does Know mean something different) etc.

he combines philosophy with a lot of your sociological and anthropological orientation.

If I had a book by a comparable believing philosopher i would read that. I actually am rereading Tillich, if you call him a believer, so I guess I am.

RTC said, "You are the one that is dillusional. Your intentions here are not true. You do not seek understanding. You seek validation. My observation. Others may determine for themselves...Apology accepted. Nonetheless, I stand by the statements I made regarding your intentions on these lds threads. Of which you neglect to comment or repudiate."

I believe we have another misunderstanding here. I do not recall ever saying on this thread or the other thread about the treatment of women in the church that I was seeking understanding. I believe James said that in this thread to John D, but I haven't ever claimed that understanding was my intention on this blog. Please quote me if you believe I ever said it.

I am not here to seek validation of my beliefs from others. I am quite secure in them. I participated in the "Women" thread in the hopes of getting Mormons to think and second guess their support of an organization that treats women as second class citizens, my goal being to put enough pressure on the LDS leadership to change the way the Church is organized so that women are equal to men. The way I see it, the church has a history of eventually bowing to public pressure. When people are oppressed and wrongly discriminated against, it is the responsibility of every person to decry the mistreatment and promote social justice. I am aware that many LDS women are not displeased with the way they are treated and do not believe that they are treated poorly. Some of the women in the FLDS may not have a problem with their treatment, but that does not mean that the discrimination should not end.

But, let me tell you the reason why I joined this thread. (I think some members may have become desensitized to the message they send to people who do not believe as they do when they say they "know" something is true). When someone claims they know something, they are declaring that that something is undeniably true, that is in fact reality. This means that they are declaring that anyone who believes differently from them is wrong. One who declares they know god lives is stating that all opinions or beliefs to the contrary are invalid. Understandingly, some who believe differently will defend their beliefs against that attack. All that I have been trying to accomplish in this thread is to say those who say you know god exists and therefore, I, who do not believe in god, am wrong, that you do not have sufficient evidence to declare that you know my beliefs are wrong and that you are right.

That intent for posting is honorable. I am simply demonstrating that no one has what it takes to back up their declaration that they know my belief in the non-existence of god is wrong and invalid. And that is the message one sends when one says they know God lives, or simply states it as fact. All of my posts aimed to show that no one can know that God exists regardless of the personal spiritual experiences one may have had. Stating that one believes god exists implies nothing about my own beliefs, but declaring one knows God exists is declaring my beliefs are wrong. And I am sorry but no one can prove that so they have no business going around saying it, or at least they should expect that they will be challenged on it when they do say it.

Regarding the quote from my blog, my softening is proving to be more cyclical in nature than linear. I am still trying to find the balance of how much I need to defend myself and how much I should let things go. Again, I apologize for offending you. Hopefully, you now see how yours and others' claim to "know" implied that you knew I was wrong about my beliefs. I was not offended or threatened; I have a thick skin and I am quite secure in my beliefs. But, I believe that in blogs when someone makes a strong statement that attempts to invalidate another's position, it is appropriate to show them that they cannot back up their statement. With blogs, yes there is the exchange of ideas and sometimes greater understanding, but there is also debate which can influence people to retreat from extreme assertions when they do not have enough evidence to justify those assertions.

Whoa, Nathow - that was definitely over the top.

People who disagree with mormonism are not necessarily mormon bashers, or anti-mormons. But labeling anyone who is not a mormon, and who has questions or issues with mormonism, as "anti" or a "basher" seems to be the height of facile, black-and-white thinking.

Do you think there is no space between your fervent testimony and outer darkness?

To all who post here:

If 10 people all witness the same car accident, you may have 10 different versions of how the accident happened, but I am sure all 10 will agree an accident did in fact happen and they know that is true because they were a first hand, eye witness to the accident itself.

Does it matter how many people want to say, "it's silly to believe an accidnet happened, and anyone who thinks an accident happened is just wrong...?"

Do any of us have the right to tell those 10 people that they really didn't see an accident...?

Isn't it true the only way to really know what the truth is about the accident is to have experienced it for yourself...?

The LDS people say the Church is true because they have been a witness to this fact. They have experienced it first hand...

Maybe if all the people who want to bash Mormonism had walked the same paths and experienced the same things as the thousand new converts a day have experienced... maybe, just maybe they wouldn't be condemning Mormons, and may see this question from the other side of the argument.

I am one of those witnesses who knows the Church is true... and it is not because of something I was taught in a lesson, or because of something someone said in a talk... I know the Church is true because of the touch of the Holy Spirit... moving through me and filling my heart with God's love... the Holy Spirit was with me and opened my understanding to what was true and real...

And no one who has not walked in the same path as I or experienced what I have has any right to try to tell me that I am not a witness... no more than anyone can say to those 10 peope... "nope, you really didn't see an accident..."

Do you all get it...? Just because you want the Church to be wrong, doesn't at all make it wrong...

You are dealing with 13 million members who know it is true for the same reasons I do... and another 1,000 more who join every day of the year... and of course that number is growing... and I promise you... no one can tell any of them they didn't witness what they know they did...

It is like what Joseph Smith felt right after he started telling people he had seen a vision... and they started telling him he was wrong... Joseph knew he had seen a vision, and he knew that God knew it as well... so Joseph could simply not deny it...

In a choice to offend God by denying the touch of the Holy Spirit, or to offend a bunch of close minded, prejudicial people who only want to bash Mormonism, my choice is obviously to offend you Mormon bashers... sorry.

Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living Church on the face of the earth. God's holy Priesthood resides within it... and it was restored to the earth when God again chose a humble servant to serve as a prophet to open a new, and the last dispensation.

In the past God chose Moses, a Hebrew slave to deliver the Israelites away from the Pharoahs of Egypt. In a later time, God chose David, who was the youngest of his fathers sons, and began life as nothing more than a sheepherder, and was such when God called him to be a prophet. Later, the choice fell upon humble, lowly fishermen, who heard a simple command, "Come, follow me"... only to become apostles of the Lord...

This time the choice fell upon an innocent 14 year old farm boy, whose heart and mind were free of pride or prejudice, who (in secret), had prayed to our Father in heaven for wisdom and guidance. This boy was called by God to be His prophet, even though that meant suffering life-long persecution and torment. Even though it meant a life of poverty and strife... and even though it meant an early death at the hands of those who hated him most... Joseph chose to be obedient, and serve his Father to the best of his ability... even to his last breathe...

Yes, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God... and in time he will be reveared as such by the entire populous that has lived on the earth.

I know the Savior lives, and is pleased with what I have written...

And yes, you can learn for yourself what the truth is by simply humbling yourself before God, and praying for answers...

And I say these things in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Amen.

nathow

It's too bad this series "On Faith" is more like a forum to gauge new methods of anti-mormon spamming.

Mr. Otterson agrees to participate as a panelist for this series and has provided some excellent insights, far better than the other panelists in my view--I mean, they have Mahmoud Katami as a contributor for crying out loud!---Katami is a freakin' terrorist. Why doesn't Newsweek just openly come out and state they are complete America-haters?

Back to Otterson. Thank you for your participation. And to everyone else, it would be nice to read commentary that actually discusses the original topic, and not the rantings of angry evangelicals' interpretations of mormonism.

YOCKELL SAID:

Knowledge claims justify power claims. The history of unjustified knowledge claims is the history of tyranny. People who believed that they knew what's best for humanity, be it from God, dialectic materialism, or any other magic method, have spilled the blood of millions to bring about heaven on earth.

RTC SAYS:

I loved this statement... It really made me think?? Your absolutely riGht-E-o!

But the opposite is true as well.

One of the eternal principles that the lds church firmly teaches as truth is, that there IS an opposition in ALL things.

I know that science believes this as well in their field. We believe this in the moral world of right and wrong, good versus evil, light and dark, etc.

I am stating this literally.

So, if we who say that we KNOW God and that our God is GOOD as opposed to EVIL, then YOU work out the math as to the nature of the God we OR I KNOW.

I believe and now KNOW THAT ALL things testify of God, that He does exist.

By their fruits ye shall know them... Those who are God's. ARE the physical evidence that He does in fact exist. And that He IS GOOD.

What greater witness can you have than a living, breathing, human being who has years of experience of hearing HIS voice and has learned to follow Him, has seen, felt, documented and is a living evidence of His existence.

You cannot see the WIND. But you can feel it, you cannot see from where it came or where it goes, but it will leave the physical evidence that it has been... as it has brushed your hair across your face and knocked your hat off of your head, it has blown the leaves off of the trees and moved them about...

But you did not actually see the wind? Does the wind not exist because you did not see WIND? And there is much more evidence of wind...

HOW SILLY.. TO DENY THE WIND? No perSon would eVer Think to deNy the wiNd! How prePosteRous!

There is much MORE GOOD that is done in HIS NAME BY FAR than what the zealots who make claim in his name have done, or those who have been embarrassingly misguided in their evil acts.

NO follower of Jesus Christ will JusTIFY themselves, in HIS name, the kind of Tyrannical poWer OF which you speak and be supported by His TruE FolloWers.

Where is EviDence of tHis?

But I do reiterate, that to those who are faithful, HE does bless with very personal witnesses of HIM, that it IS possible to come to a KNOWLEDGE of HIM for oneself.

One need not define the word belief versus know. I know of myself. That's all.

Dave Said: From Your Online Blog...

Learning to find the good after no longer having to fight "truth" claims

(Originally posted on NOM, Nov. 13, 2006)

After I quit believing in the LDS Church, I researched the Bible and quit believing in it, Jesus Christ, and God, and am now atheist. For a while there, I felt like I had to defend against the "God truly exists and Jesus saves" proselyters. And as long as I did, I had a hard time seeing good in the Bible or a belief in God. But, now, I am done with that too. I am less reactionary and more sober about the subject. I can again appreciate the good in the Bible and the Christian theological movements. I think UU is very good for me in helping me learn tolerance and to look again for the good.

I have re-learned something about human beings. I guess I have known it for a long time and am simply applying it to a new sphere. But, like a mule, many of us have a gut reaction to fight back when someone tries to arrogantly shove something in our faces. And Mormon culture does that a lot, so I can understand why so many NOM's have such a hard time not getting angry or critical of the Church. I think those who have been successful at finding that Third Way no longer feel the need to fight back in a reactionary mode and are at peace with their non-belief and thus are enabled to again find the good in Mormonism.

RTC SAYS:

Apology accepted. Nonetheless, I stand by the statements I made regarding your intentions on these lds threads. Of which you neglect to comment or repudiate.

RTC,

I deeply apologize for offending you. It was not appropriate for me to say that you are not being honest with yourself. Although I passionately disagree with you, I had hoped that we might still have a cordial relationship as you do with others. I will back off. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to repair any damage I may have done.

Earlier I stated that I love and respect you and believe that you are a good woman. I still believe that. I am content to agree to disagree on the rest.

James I love you man...

This is turning into a very nice discussion.

That's very interesting...I never thought of myself as taking a terribly Platonic approach, but in a way you're right.

In comparison to individuals like yourself, my approach is quite Platonic.

Since we are talking about our differences, perhaps they are exaggerated in some respects.

I accept your take on the world. I just do not have so much confidence in it to limit myself to it.

I like to think I take a dialectical approach between an Aristotelian and Platonic approach to truth; letting insights gained from each temper insights gained from the other. This brings us back to "God is grander thread" doesn't it?

Recall talk of the Hegelian thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis?

Subjective John

I think i understand what you are saying.

This IS where FAITH enters in.

You and I are both seeking TRUTH.

You and I both "know" that every human's grasp of the full truth is limited.

YOU have Faith that getting closer to God will give you access to a fuller view of the truth.

I believe that the more evidence based rational approach to Truth will let me see more of it.

The next question that occurs naturally is:
Is either of our Faiths in our systems justified?

The Utilitarian Philosophical answer is:
Does it work for you?

and
Does it work for the society that has Faith?

Working for You (or me) is inevitably pretty subjective: you and I decide for ourselves.

Working for a particular society seems like it could be a bit more objective. We could look at certain measures of "working".

Your orientation towards the search for truth is quite Platonic, isn't it?
I think I am more Aristotelian.
There is our big split.

James,

I can see why you think I am mixing the two.

We are approaching this from very different angels and I do appreciate you attempting to understand where I am coming from.

As far as I am concerned all knowledge depends on our subjectivities which are limited, historically and culturally. I would not dispute E=MC2, but my belief in it is subjective.

I have said before, I believe the only being the Universe capable of full objectivity is God. He sees reality for what it is in its totality.

The hope of having access to a being like God, gives me hope overcoming subjective limitations and acheiving objectivity one day.

I admit however that any belief I hold in my subjective mind, including God is a subjective belief.

Dave-

I am not surprised to find that in more or less one years time, of losing what little faith you once had, contrary to your claim, that your "attempt" is to try and find credibility, in stating that "I", remind you of yourself.

Please don't flatter yourself. I find that very offensive.

I am not here to be an expert on anything other than my own experiences and knowledge that I have come to for myself. If that is threatening to you, then you are the one that has issue. I am happy to discuss, but I am not inclined to prove or defend myself as I have stated before. If that is your cup of tea, there are other places you may go to be served.

I noticed that you also have a little link on your post... I took a 30 second field trip? You are the one that is dillusional. Your intentions here are not true. You do not seek understanding. You seek validation. My observation. Others may determine for themselves?

LULU SAID:

I wonder that you would be so upset at something that someone else (whom you don't even know and will never have contact with other than this forum) states that they know. How can that possibly affect your 'reality'? If you are secure in your belief or lack thereof, then it does not matter what I say or anyone else says about the matter.

RTC SAYS:

Law of witnesses.
Apparently wE both deTect the same thing.

ThE True SeeKers of TRUTH do FIND it, aNd those who ChooSe to finD faUlt WILL... as to jUsTiFy tHe SeLF thEy mUsT!!

Oh that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.

But to be learned is good, if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

The Book of Mormon
2 Nephi 9:28-29

I find it most enjoyable to engage with those who are looking to understand one another. James, John D, Betty, HM, BC, Yockel, etc, are people who display such as this. Not necessarily demanding proof, but questioning... with a respectful tone.

My apologies to all... this post is directed to Dave ONLY.

John: you wrote
"I thought that science itself distances itself from certainty? The discipline, to remain productive, must at least in theory see all as tentative"

That is what I said.

I said:
"we can't say "for certain" that e=mc2 is TRUE
we can just say that all the evidence we have so far supports it.
but tomorrow we may find a contradiction.

it is interesting to us non believers,
who say that even in the realm of evidence
we can't be certain that e=mc2 is true

that people in the theological realm
CAN say that they are certain."

You say
"Belief in revelation from God gives me hope that I can transcend this subjective discourse and have access to the only being outside of it."

BUT
it is your Belief in God
that is Subjective
(not objectively verifiable)

whereas
E=MC 2
is at least subject to falsification
if not completely verifiable.

Aren't you mixing up what is objective and subjective?

Thanks Yockel
for emphasizing the Dangers of Undeserved Certainty

in the secular realm we have the tragic example of
"there is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his Nuclear Program."

In the History of Religion, we have innumerable tragedies that occurred as a result of certainty of belief:

the crusades
the september 11 tragedies
innumerable religious wars
the inquisition
etc etc etc

Yockel,

I agree that both good and evil has been justified by religion. I do not think Mormons are exempt from this. In my personal life, my faith has motivated me to look outside myself and sacrifice for the good of others. The most selfish within me emerges while I am not close to God.

Hi James,

I thought that science itself distances itself from certainty? The discipline, to remain productive, must at least in theory see all as tentative.

Most people are in fact certain of assumptions gained by means of received knowledge, theists and non theists alike. Many of our conclusions are based on these assumptions.

I have difficulty putting full faith in the assumptions of modernity, because I know these assumptions are culturally bounded.

Belief in revelation from God gives me hope that I can transcend this subjective discourse and have access to the only being outside of it.

BTW, I am agnostic about whether Thor or Zeus or Aten or Wotan or the Rain God exists. If I came across a people who believed in them, I would consider it a pointless exercise to try and convince them otherwise. I would do as you are doing now; try and understand them.

People can believe as they please. It's a free country. I find it troubling, however, when people claim to "know" about God even though they cannot demonstrate anything of the sort.

Knowledge claims justify power claims. The history of unjustified knowledge claims is the history of tyranny. People who believed that they knew what's best for humanity, be it from God, dialectic materialism, or any other magic method, have spilled the blood of millions to bring about heaven on earth.

To some degree, that also applies to the lesser crimes at the hands of Mormons. The men that massacred women and children at Mountain Meadows did so in the "knowledge" of God. The men that suppressed freedom of speech in Nauvoo followed their prophet only to bring about his murder.

One cannot be more humble than to submit one's opinions to logic and evidence. Privileging feelings over logic and evidence is the ultimate form of arrogance for that attitude elevates our mind over that of everyone else.

John D

Thanks. I have no interest in talking you out of your position. I am just interested in your theological thinking.

The simple (i think) point I am making is just what you stated:
you have a "degree of certainty" in the spiritual realm that you would be more skeptical of in the Scientific Realm of relying on evidence.

and yes, you're right, we can't say "for certain" that e=mc2 is TRUE
we can just say that all the evidence we have so far supports it.
but tomorrow we may find a contradiction.

it is interesting to us non believers,
who say that even in the realm of evidence
we can't be certain that e=mc2 is true

that people in the theological realm
CAN say that they are certain.

I can understand them saying that "they are certain that they have these perceptions and beliefs"
but i stillhave the epistomological problem with just the Theological Concept of
Certainty that God exists.

from a psychological standpoint, it has been demonstrated over and over again that humans crave certainty and predicatability and explanations.

so if thunder happens and they don't know why, they invent Thor, and they feel better.

But I know you are a self examiner who doesn't believe in Thor or Zeus or Aten or Wotan or the Rain God.

Helloo James,

Tis nice to be addressed by you again.

How did I get into the perilous position of defending Mormon certainty to ex Mormon non-theists? Do I still get maniac status?

There is not a reason for certainty from a scientific perspective. From a scientific perspective there is little reason for certainty in anything. It is all probability.

There is room for a degree of certainty from the perspective of faith that assumes there is a loving all knowing God that answers prayers.

You reject these assumptions. I accept them. It seems our views are incommensurate as a result. That’s okay, I like diversity.

David,

"It is a pitiful excuse to retreat to the argument that your evidence is beyond my understanding."

I never made any argument based on the claim that no unbeliever can understand spiritual discernment. I find my own experiences very difficult to approximate with words. If I cannot define my own experience I cannot asses or know the quality of other’s. For this reason I am agnostic to whether an individual who imagines my experience has gotten it right. I think an argument either way is incorrigible and exhausting.

In the sentence you quoted I was only making the point that most Mormons do not expect others to share their certainty unless they:

A. Have similar experiences with the divine.
B. Trust their epistemological validity, or you might say, as certain interpretation of them.

What James is invoking is this distinction between conclusions:

"I perceive a dog. Therefore, there is a dog". FALSE
"I perceive a dog. Therefore, I perceive a dog". TRUE

I needn't point out that DOG is God spelled backwards, so I won't.

Dave- You continue to teach me a lot.

John my old friend:
do you agree that Dave and I (LeGrand Richards is my second Cousin) "understand the dialect" intimately.

So it is not a matterof us not understanding your meaning and subtleties.

The feelings you feel (and that Dave and I have felt) are REAL feelings.

as dave says, the Explanations/interpretations of those feelings are what is in discussion.

You can truly believe that God sent you those feelings. You can KNOW that you BeLIEVE that.

You CANNOT KNOW, to a metaphysical certainty as the Catholics say
that God exists because of your feelings and interpretations.

You must admit that there is a metaphysical possibility that NO GOD exists. Theologically speaking that is. Don't you?

John D wrote: "Certainty of the existence of Divine things comes only from one’s own experience with God and trust in spiritual epistemological sources.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”
(1 Corinthians 2:14)."

Let's examine the sacred cow, the thing which no unbeliever supposedly can understand, namely spiritual discernment, revelation, "spiritual epistemological sources". It is a pitiful excuse to retreat to the argument that your evidence is beyond my understanding.

One, I have had many numerous special experiences that I previously interpreted as witnesses from the Spirit. I have had those sweet, special, pure-love filled, feelings of hope, comfort, and forgiveness. I have experienced those epiphanies of enlightenment in which everything just clicks and makes sense. I have marveled at the beautiful doctrines as I pondered the solemnities of the eternities. I believed I foresaw events in my life before they happened. I truly believed that I intimately knew my Savior as a friend, confidant, and God. I consulted with him about everything. I had the opportunity on many occasions to lay my hands on the heads of those who were sick or afflicted and have words given me that meant something special to them and they were made whole. I fully trusted and believed that the interpretation that I gave those experiences were undoubtedly correct. I had many experiences that I interpreted as answered prayer. I was among the most faithful of the Latter-Day Saints. I taught at the MTC, went to the temple all of the time, read my scriptures daily, was a counselor in the Bishopric. Believe me, I fully knew and understood and lived the gospel fully and completely. I "knew" I was a child of my Heavenly Father and that the plan Joseph taught was real.

I think I know about spiritual discernment. And guess what, I still experience most all of those things even though I no longer believe in or worship God. I don't give priesthood blessings anymore, because I don't believe I or anyone else has it, but I could still give beautiful blessings. The touching and comforting words would still come to my mind. If the gospel worked the way it is taught, I should no longer be able to have the Spirit as my constant companion, but I still have all of those experiences and all of those abilities from epiphanies to heart-warming joy that feels me to overflowing.

Have I established my creditials yet that I am able to understand spiritual experiences and evidence. I have not forgotten any of the significant spiritual experiences I had while I was a member.

Two, one does not experience Spirit to spirit communication directly. One experiences things that one is taught to interpret and attribute to the Spirit. All any of us have actually experienced is feelings, thoughts and events, and all of those things have alternate explanations. No one is justified in being certain that one's interpretations about these experiences are the correct ones.

A word can mean different things in different contexts.

When LDS say they know God lives they are expressing certainty which springs from trust in the validity of their spiritual manifestations, which is based on faith.

Differences in dialect is a real human phenomena. That is why people of different ideologies who do not recognize differences in word usage spend more time talking past each other than engaging in meaningful dialogue.

Y'all know that I am a good Christian

Language IS tricky in spiritual areas.

Most human beings understand the meaning of
"Does God exist?"
and
"I know that God exists."

For language to mean anything, and for communication between people to mean anything

it seems hard to say
"When I say 'I KNOW that God exists," I am using the word "Know" to mean something quite different than the English language means by 'Know'".

Bill Clinton, though you are making a joke, you are right about different meanings of the word “know.” The distinction between “know” and “believe” sprung from the rise of empiricism. Since then the word believe (the root of which is related to beloved which in religious context also meant “to pledge one’s self to") now is used to express a simultaneous certainty and uncertainty and is specifically applied to religious matters. Before that, persistent uncertainty with regards to divine things was not regularly professed by the “believer.” Certainty was the rule, the certainty of which was viewed as a gift of God and a product of faith (or trust).

Latter Day Saints do not claim certainty in the existence of spiritual things for the same reasons one engrossed in modernity would claim certainty. They claim it as a gift from God. They do not claim that their certainty is a reason for others to accept what they believe. Certainty of the existence of Divine things comes only from one’s own experience with God and trust in spiritual epistemological sources.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”
(1 Corinthians 2:14).

It depends what the meaning of "know" is.

Oh Dave!! You are Just relying on the Meaning of the word "Know."

Here are some common examples of its usage.

We KNOW that Iraq has reconstituted its Nuclear Program.
I KNOW that Albany is the capital of New York.
I KNOW that 2+2=4 in the base 10 number system.
I KNOW that there is an Elephant living on the start Sirius.
I KNOW that a personage named God, as described at the LDS web site (with Flesh and Bone but no blood, for instance) exists.

It is undeniably true
that NO ONE (not RTC, not no one)
can
KNOW
that God exists.

Yet people say it all the time.

I KNOW the Church is True (ie that God, whom I KNOW exists, considers it the only true church).

It is clearly Delusion to think one knows this.

RTC,
You remind me so much of myself just a year ago. I have never doubted that you honestly report on that of which you are consciously aware. I do assert that if you claim to know that God exists you are declaring certainty that the evidence does not provide, you are stating your case more strongly than your evidence can sustain. I am not sure how else to say it. To say that you know God exists means that there is no possibility of your being wrong about it and that doubts about it cannot exist, not even those that might be repressed into your subconscious. Regardless of whether you have doubts or not, the evidence still does not prove that God exists. There is evidence that can be used to support the idea that God exists and evidence that can be used to support the idea that God does not exist. One can have opinions and beliefs about which evidence is more convincing and which possibility is more likely, but no one can truthfully and correctly say they know god exists.

I am not inviting you to substitute my judgment for your own, but I am asking you to more fully comprehend how your evidence cannot constitute knowledge. What I am fine with is you believing God exists while acknowledging that you cannot know it. I am not fine with anyone claiming they know god exists.

I am so glad that you brought up the prophet. For the physical evidence against the prophet is even stronger and much easier to demonstrate than the evidence against God and Christ. I can’t possibly recount all of the evidence against Joseph Smith here; it would take a very long time and I would be spamming this thread. The issue is not that he was flawed and imperfect (who isn’t?), the issue is that his actions threaten the legitimacy of his work. In other words, the evidence strongly indicates that he was a fraud. I am very familiar with the faith-saving explanations for JS’s behavior by the apologists. The thing that convinced me to no longer give JS the benefit of the doubt was the Book of Abraham. Since it was the turning point for me and meant the end of my faith, I read everything there was to read on the subject including all that the apologists had to offer. But, the evidence was too strong, and since the Spirit had told me and countless other Mormons that the BoA was what it purports to be, and yet it in all likelihood is not, I came to believe that the Spirit was an unreliable source of truth. Then the weight of evidence against the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, the Temple, the heavenly manifestations, etc, came crashing down. What I once thought was so solid, and proved the truthfulness of the Church, I now believed was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I had to revisit all of my personal spiritual experiences and see them in a new light and remember all of the times I made excuses for times when things did not work out as they should. I do not profess to “know” the church is false (whatever that means), although I am convinced by the evidence that it is not what it claims to be.

But, you have made my job easy; my task in this conversation is simply to prove that the evidence that you present is not enough to claim that you know God exists. To do that, all I need to do is show that there are alternative explanations for your evidence, I don’t even have to show that the weight of the evidence is against the likelihood of God’s existence. You have made several assumptions about the validity of your evidence - many of which are not correct. I can't blame you entirely as that is what is taught in church approved materials. So that which must be explained is a lot less than you may think.

RTC quoted: “It is equally sure that the prediction of Josiah Quincy, previously quoted, will find its fulfillment:
It is by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen?
And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: "Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet."

No fulfilled prophecy here. I know of no textbook that contains that question and answer. And in order for its fulfillment to be miraculous, it would have to be written by people who are unfamiliar with this quote.

RTC quoted: “Quote: LeGrand Richards
Joseph Smith, or any other man, could not have obtained all this information by reading the Bible or studying all the books that have ever been written. It came from God.”

I’m not sure what he means by “all this information”, but Joseph did take many of his doctrinal ideas from his environment. The idea of intelligences inhabiting other planets was written of in Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State, much of the tokens, signs, and penalties of the endowment seem to be adapted from the Masons, other ideas were popularized by Swedenborg and Josephus, etc. And the chiasmus literary form found in the Book of Mormon was not unknown in upstate New York, contrary to what your Institute teachers taught you. Furthermore, many things JS got wrong. The Egyptians did not sacrifice humans to their gods which kind of ruins Abraham chapter 1 and JS’s interpretation of facsimile 1. Egypt was first called Egypt by the Greeks; the country was not named after Egyptus. And there was no pre-Columbian steel swords, barley, or elephants.

And there is no indication whatsoever that Isaiah 29:13-14, has anything to do with JS and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What you have is JS applying this verse to his creation. And the present success of the Church implies nothing about its truthfulness. Islam is huge and growing all the time. You evidence falls way short of proving the God exists or that the LDS church is true. I still say that you cannot know those things.

The Efficacy of Prayer

Poser's poignant situation prompts this thought:

Prayer if fine if it gives you comfort every day.

When you get into the situation of the sickness of a loved one
and despite your prayers the loved one dies

prayer is not necessarily healing.

Healing comes with acceptance. The Buddhist path to acceptance is more efficacious, in my view

because it does not include reliance on a Supernatural Power that may or may not be there and whose actions/inactions with regard to our child's health often induce bitterness, incomprehension.

I believe Buddhims is mankind's most evolved spiritual practice in all situations, but ESPECIALLY in the case of the illness of a child.

That prayer may never be more meaningful than when the life or health of our own child is in the balance.
--Michael Otterson

All due respect, what would you say to a father who prayed frequently, sincerely, and desperately, begging his Heavenly Father for improvement in his chldrens' health, received nothing at all by way of an answer, and saw the situation continuing to deteriorate around him? Shouldn't that father have received something--anything--in response to his frequently tearful, sometimes angry entreaties? I felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall by offering unanswered prayers, and that pain went away only when I gave up on that practice.

I wonder that you would be so upset at something that someone else (whom you don't even know and will never have contact with other than this forum) states that they know.