For former Mormons who became atheists

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I believe if God didn't restrain the oceans, as He stated, they would wash over the land masses and destroy the earth.

Thank you for taking pains to distinguish between what you believe the Bible says and what it actually says. Really, I appreciate that.

But the reality is that one must seek what God is saying in the Bible from the Bible.

In other words, when the Bible says “A” it almost always means “B”. This sounds like a wonderful strategy for avoiding confusion and false impressions. Yeah, this is pretty much how TBMs attempt to defend the Book of Abraham.

People trying to make excuses for themselves as to why they do not believe in God, are simply grabbing at straws.

Like I said, show me some robust, reliable, and repeatable proof that this is true and I’ll sign up. Until then, I see no reason why I should invest belief in A) a magical, supernatural worldview, and B) supernatural beings with super powers.

The Book of Mormon is very dangerous in that it is based on the false notion that God can lose portions of His word and the implcation are that the Bible is full of man made errors and mistakes that only man can correct.

So…in addition to believing a supernatural being, you also believe in a supernatural book that is immune from error. Gotcha. Ever hear of something called The Burden of Proof?

And the reality is that many former Mormons do find true faith and Christianity after Mormonism.

I’m glad you’re paying attention to that other thread in the Terrestrial forum.

Are you a parent? Have you ever taught your young, impressionable children that "They are horrible, evil people without Christ"?

[_subgenius]

Okay, let me recap. You spend several paragraphs telling me why I can't possibly understand, and then say my summary of your position is accurate with one nitpick. For the record, you first used the "subject to" language up thread:

God is subject to the Law, in other words God can not lie...can not be unjust, etc.

Yet, in my subsequent post i admit that, in fact, it may not be the appropriate characterization.

So, it seems, that despite not having completed algebra, I can understand calculus.

You in fact, do not understand - an ability to summarize, regurgitate, or "re-state" what has already been mentioned to you does not merit a claim of "understanding".
Your before-mentioned "summary of (my) position" was simply just that. It is not any indication of you knowing either calculus or algebra.
I recall a Calculus professor telling our class that there was two ways in which a student could pass the class....1-understand the material....2-memorize the material
clearly you are adept at the latter, but have yet to display the former.
This is evident in your original inquiry and subsequent posts on this matter.

Again, you seem to not understand the purpose of asking questions. I'm asking them, not because I don't understand the subject, but because I've seen many different interpretations and I want to understand yours. Once I understand it, I'll decide whether to actually engage with you in a substantive manner.

balderdash! - exactly what "other" sources for the Law have been offered to you by any other Christian that would justify your claim? Have some of the hundreds been telling you that their source was QVC? Furthermore have the Mormons on this board been somewhat divergent on the source material? - i am sure everyone here would love to read a thread about your research and data.

I don't believe I have admitted I don't know much about the scriptures.

that admission is not necessary.

I do believe, say, Little Nipper would be better at quickly finding a verse that says a particular thing. I've read the standard works, multiple times, back when I was LDS, so I'm familiar with the basic course material.

reading it multiple times does not equate to being familiar.

And it is fallacious to equate not being able to understand a subject matter with acknowledging someone else may understand better in at least some ways. It's like saying, so, A- calculus student, because there is an A student in the class, you aren't qualified to do calculus.

huh?
its actually more like saying, "hey you failed algebra so we can not let you register for the calculus class."

I tutored calculus in college. It rapidly became clear that most students' problems with calculus was that they misunderstood something about algebra. But, I didn't throw thousands of pages of algebra textbooks at them and tell them to get back to me. I identified the "gap" in their algebra, explained what they were missing, and they almost always went on to do just fine with calculus.

speaking of fallacies
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

that being said...i have since identified the "gap" and explained what you were missing (ie. spiritual discernment...actual scripture knowledge, etc..)

So, based on our conversations, what specifically is it that you think I have wrong about the algebra? If you understand both the algebra and the calculus, it should be an easy task for you to explain what I'm not understanding. But, so far, all you are doing is repeating, ad nauseum, that you are doing calculus and I can't understand it, without any explanation. In fact, it seems you are confusing assertion with explanation. My suspicion, although I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, is that you don't explain because you can't. Or, while you are more than happy to deconstruct other's positions, you are afraid of having your own subjected to the same analysis. So, you avoid expressing exactly what it is you do believe or you simply assert it is out of bounds.

i do not consider it a valid or sincere claim that i have not expressed my beliefs...it was that actual expression that started this discussion, yet you, as usual, cry foul.

But I suspect our actual point of departure is here:

Is it because you are, in fact, discerning something spiritually instead of temporally? can you make that concession or will you retreat back to Algebra class?

this is but one "actual point"
another would be motivation...another would be actual knowledge of the subject...

I do not (yet) accept your premise that it is possible to discern something spiritually as opposed to temporally. Can you justify your premise, or do you see it as axiomatic?

Are you seriously asking if the premise of being able to discern something spiritually is able to be discerned temporally?
it is almost as if you did not read and consider the scripture reference i provided. If this is the level of your engagement then obviously both of us are wasting our time.

This is, again, your fundamental flaw - you insist that all things are temporal, plain and simple.
which is fine, but it offers little reasoning or justification for your presence here....it even defies why you would make any sincere inquiry.

Brad, there is a certain transparecny to your position...for example, you will state things like this
"I think of it as more of a suspension of judgment than anything else."
when every Christian concept of God recognizes the doctrine that man is never to sit in judgment of God - the story of Job epitomizes this as does many other scriptures! Yes, your statement is somewhat correct if taken out of context, but its redundancy is senseless...you post it as if you have come to some sort of illuminating conclusion when in fact it is basic doctrine that has already be stated, and is considered a "given" in Calculus class.
So, it is no wonder that i consider you at the milk stage or either the disingenuous/nefarious - either way = algebra class.


Some other examples of this point:

I wrote -
God is subject to the Law, in other words God can not lie...can not be unjust, etc..."

and you responded with

"And what it does it mean to be "subject" to them? Does it mean he literally cannot do anything that would contradict them?"

(emphasis above mine)
how is it you can re-state exactly what i wrote and yet be confused about its meaning?...again algebra class or something nefarious

[_subgenius]

while you are more than happy to deconstruct other's positions, you are afraid of having your own subjected to the same analysis. So, you avoid expressing exactly what it is you do believe or you simply assert it is out of bounds.

Many have concluded the same thing about subby.

if not for your obvious sidekick status, it might have been obvious that he was already talking about me?

[_Res Ipsa]

Ok, I think I can put together a summary of your position, although it's like pulling teeth to get you to actually express it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me. As well as berate me, insinuate that I'm insincere, etc.

Mormonism is true. All other belief systems are false. I can use the tools of postmodernist deconstruction combined with reductio ad absurdum arguments to show that any other belief system is inconsistent, incoherent, contradictory or leads to absurd conclusions.

However, these techniques of argument to not apply to Mormonism. There are two different ways of acquiring knowledge: spiritual and temporal. Temporal knowledge is obtained through reason. Spiritual knowledge is obtained through discernment. Reason involves interpreting facts using logic. Discernment is a direct transfer of knowledge from the mind of god to the mind of man. [I'm not sure whether you would describe this as a transfer of knowledge from god or the finding of knowledge in scripture -- the point is the distinction between reason and discernment] To obtain knowledge through discernment, and to understand the process of discernment, requires one to accept that discernment is a possible way of acquiring knowledge, knowledge of the four standard works, and a sincere desire to receive knowledge through discernment. If those preconditions are not met, it is not possible to understand or even talk about discernment in any meaningful way.

The knowledge that Mormonism is true can only be obtained through discernment.

Because discernment is an entirely different form of knowledge, it is not subject to the rules of logic and evidence that apply to reason and temporal knowledge. It cannnot even be discussed using reason, because reason simply does not apply. For example, circularity is a logical fallacy in reasoning -- but it is meaningless to apply the concept of circularity to discernment or spiritual knowledge. Thus, Mormonism is the only belief system that is not contradictory, inconsistent, incoherent, or leads to absurd consequences.

Am I at least in the ballpark?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Ok, I think I can put together a summary of your position, although it's like pulling teeth to get you to actually express it.

Subgenius is a smart guy and is fully capable of expressing his beliefs in a concise and accessible manner. The fact that he chooses not to do this says much.

Still, I think Subgenius owes you debt of thanks for taking the time to summarize his position so clearly and thoroughly. You are far, far more patient than I am!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

In other words, he's a typical apologist who uses obfuscation to defend his positions, and ad hominem to attack ideas.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Ok, I think I can put together a summary of your position, although it's like pulling teeth to get you to actually express it.

Subgenius is a smart guy and is fully capable of expressing his beliefs in a concise and accessible manner. The fact that he chooses not to do this says much.

Still, I think Subgenius owes you debt of thanks for taking the time to summarize his position so clearly and thoroughly. You are far, far more patient than I am!

Don't thank me until he confirms I'm at least in the ballpark.

I don't know why he won't give a simple description of his position. It could be a million different reasons. His position is not that complicated and not hard to understand. Perhaps he's so busy trying to play 11th dimension chess and sorting people into categories, he forgets that sometimes people are interested in how others see the universe.

[_Res Ipsa]

In other words, he's a typical apologist who uses obfuscation to defend his positions, and ad hominem to attack ideas.

- Doc

I'm not so sure about that. He could avoid ad hominem completely and still have very powerful tools for attacking ideas. The ad hominem weakens his arguments.

And some of what I originally understood as ad hominem I wouldn't describe that way now. That's the benefit of asking questions instead of jumping to conclusions. For example, he places a great deal of emphasis on sincerity. If he were using insincerity as an ad hominem, the argument would be that you shouldn't consider Brad's arguments because he's not being sincere. But I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying "unless you are sincere, you can't understand my arguments." So, if I don't meet his definition of "sincere," it's impossible for me to understand and it's a waste of time for him to talk to me. The snotty way he in which he communicates the argument is a distraction, but I don't think the argument itself is ad hominem.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Don't thank me until he confirms I'm at least in the ballpark.

Right, I'm probably assuming too much. Best to wait until he actually posts something.

I don't know why he won't give a simple description of his position. It could be a million different reasons. His position is not that complicated and not hard to understand. Perhaps he's so busy trying to play 11th dimension chess and sorting people into categories, he forgets that sometimes people are interested in how others see the universe.

Whatever his reasons, it's hard to escape the conclusion that it's a conscious decision on his part. His dense, impenetrable posts are like a camouflage net; things are definitely happening under the camouflage, but it's hard to see what they are. I'm pretty sure this is how he wants it.

[_LittleNipper]

I believe if God didn't restrain the oceans, as He stated, they would wash over the land masses and destroy the earth.

Thank you for taking pains to distinguish between what you believe the Bible says and what it actually says. Really, I appreciate that.

But the reality is that one must seek what God is saying in the Bible from the Bible.

In other words, when the Bible says “A” it almost always means “B”. This sounds like a wonderful strategy for avoiding confusion and false impressions. Yeah, this is pretty much how TBMs attempt to defend the Book of Abraham.

People trying to make excuses for themselves as to why they do not believe in God, are simply grabbing at straws.

Like I said, show me some robust, reliable, and repeatable proof that this is true and I’ll sign up. Until then, I see no reason why I should invest belief in A) a magical, supernatural worldview, and B) supernatural beings with super powers.

The Book of Mormon is very dangerous in that it is based on the false notion that God can lose portions of His word and the implcation are that the Bible is full of man made errors and mistakes that only man can correct.

So…in addition to believing a supernatural being, you also believe in a supernatural book that is immune from error. Gotcha. Ever hear of something called The Burden of Proof?

And the reality is that many former Mormons do find true faith and Christianity after Mormonism.

I’m glad you’re paying attention to that other thread in the Terrestrial forum.

Are you a parent? Have you ever taught your young, impressionable children that "They are horrible, evil people without Christ"?

I have a son and He understands that he is a sinner, as you are a sinner and in need of a Savior. My son believes in God and has placed his trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior. That made both his mother and I very happy. I suggest you pray to God and explain to Him your misgivings and ask Him to bring you to a point of belief by providing some form of proof. Be honest and open and see if God answers your request...